THE ANALYZING OF AMBIGUITY ON STUDENTS’ WRITING MADE BY STUDENTS IN SMK DHARMA BAKTI MEDAN

Authors

  • Elya Batu Baren FKIP, Universitas Katolik Santo Thomas Medan
  • Fiber Yun A. Ginting FKIP, Universitas Katolik Santo Thomas Medan
  • Karisma E. Tarigan FKIP, Universitas Katolik Santo Thomas Medan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54367/kairos.v4i3.1148

Abstract

The aims of this study were to figure out the casual factors of ambiguity found in students writing. The subject of this study was the students of Class XI-TKR of SMK Dharma Bakti Medan. The research design was in the form of descriptive qualitative research. The instrument of collecting data was the students’ sheet of English writing text. In conclusion, the most dominant ambiguity in lexical meaning found in writing text by Class XI-TKR of SMK Dharma Bakti Medan was polysemy ambiguity. There were 10 casual factors of why ambiguity found in students’ writing text based on the analysis of the structure of sentence in students’ English writing. The most reasons were: (1) the students did not give the specific details in their writing, usually they preferred the short writing, (2) there were several vocabularies which could be reasonably interpreted more than one way or reasonably interpreted  more  than  one  thing,  (3)  the  students  felt  confused  to  find  appropriate vocabularies to express the meaning. As a result, they sometimes left the sentence undone or hanged without a clear idea, due to the lack of vocabularies. The analysis of ambiguity in lexical  meaning  that  made by  students  of Class  XI-TKR  of SMK  Dharma  Bakti  Medan revealed  that  students  should  learn  semantic  as  the  main  subject  in  English  writing  to understand multiplicity of meanings.

References

Adams, C. M. & Cramer, P. K. 2014. Drafting Contracts in Legal English: Cross-border Agreement Governed by US Law. New York: Walter Kluwer Law and Business. Aurum,

A. & Wohlin, C. 2006. Engineering and Managing Software Requirements. Berlin: Springer.

Botha, W., Mavoungou, P. & Nikomo, D. 2013. Festschrift Rufus H Gouws. Stellenbosch: Sun Press.

Carley, P. & Mess, I. 2020. American English Phonetics and Pronunciation Practice. Oxon: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.

Chu, H. 2003. Information Representation and Retrieval in the Digital Age. New Jersey: Information Today, Inc.

Deane, P. D. 2011. Grammar in Mind and Brain: Explorations in Cognitive Syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Geisler, H. 2012. Sense Relations: Identity. Stockholm: Grin.

Heredia, R. & Cieslicka, B. 2020. Bilingual Lexical Ambiguity Resolution. Cambridge Cambridge University Press.

Hong, J. 2014. Verb Sense Discovery in Mandarin Chinese – A Corpus based Knowledge- Intensive Approach. New York: Springer.

Merriam, S.B. & Grenier, R.S. 2019. Qualitative Research in Practice: Examples forDiscussion and Analysis. San Fransisco: John Wiley and Sons.

Mishra. 2007. Communication Skills for Engineers. Chennai: Pearson Education.

Sarkar, D. 2016. Text Analytics with Python: A Practical Real-World Approach to GainingActionable Insights from Your Data. Karnataka: Apress.

Strazny, P. 2013. Encyclopedia of Linguistics. New York: Taylor and Francis Group.

Published

2021-03-16

How to Cite

Baren, E. B., Ginting, F. Y. A., & Tarigan, K. E. (2021). THE ANALYZING OF AMBIGUITY ON STUDENTS’ WRITING MADE BY STUDENTS IN SMK DHARMA BAKTI MEDAN. Kairos English Language Teaching Journal, 4(3), 187–196. https://doi.org/10.54367/kairos.v4i3.1148

Issue

Section

Artikel