ANALYSIS THE EFFECT OF POLYSEMY ON THE SPEECH LEARNING FROM COVID-19 BY NADIEM MAKARIM TO ELEMENTARY STUDENT

Authors

  • Resty Wahyuni Universitas Muhammadiyah Sumatera Utara
  • Alfitriani Siregar Universitas Muhammadiyah Sumatera Utara
  • Habibah Eka Agustriani Universitas Muhammadiyah Sumatera Utara

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24114/sejpgsd.v12i4.40366

Keywords:

Polysemy, Learning from Covid-19 Speech, Nadiem Makarim

Abstract

This study entitled œAnalysis the Effect of Polysemy on the Speech Learning from Covid-19 by Nadiem Makarim to Elementary School Student. The objectives of this study were (1) to identify the types of polysemy, (2) to investigate polysemy elements used in the speech, and (3) to identify the effect of polysemy were used on the speech to elementary students. The descriptive qualitative is applied in this study. The data were obtained from the speech by Nadiem makarim using documentation method. Afterward, analysis of this study use data reduction, data display, conclusion drawing and verification. The findings of the research show that there are 65 data of polysemy™s words which find in Learning from Covid-19 speech. Based on the types of polysemy, most of Irregular Polysemy were 38 words (58.5%) and followed by Regular Polysemy with 27 words (41.5%). The effect of polysemy on the speech to the elementary student has not been widely applied to elementary school students. Inasmuch as, the student has limited complex reasoning to a word that has another meaning and is critical. In a sentence, polysemy plays an important role and has the function to distinguish the meaning of a word meaning.

Author Biographies

Resty Wahyuni, Universitas Muhammadiyah Sumatera Utara

Universitas Muhammadiyah Sumatera Utara

Alfitriani Siregar, Universitas Muhammadiyah Sumatera Utara

Universitas Muhammadiyah Sumatera Utara

Habibah Eka Agustriani, Universitas Muhammadiyah Sumatera Utara

Universitas Muhammadiyah Sumatera Utara

References

Creswell, J. W. 2014. Research Design Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches (Fourth). California: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Dunbar, G. 2001. Towards a cognitive analysis of polysemy, ambiguity, and vagueness. Cognitive Linguistics, 12(1), 1“14. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.12.1.1

Ichsan, I. Z., & Henita Rahmayanti. 2020. Revised Anderson™s taxonomy in environmental learning of COVID-19. European Journal of Educational Research, 9(3), page: 1257“1265. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.9.3.1257

James R. Hurford, B. H. 2007. Semantics. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Klein, D. E., & Gregory. L. Murphy. 2001. The Representation of Polysemous Words. Journal of Memory and Language, 45(2), 259“282. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2001.2779

Klein, D. E., & Gregory. L. Murphy. 2002. Paper has been my ruin: Conceptual relations of polysemous senses. Journal of Memory and Language, 47(4), 548“570. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00020-7

Kussanti, D. P., & Murtiadi. 2020. Personal Branding Nadiem Anwar Makarim Melalui Pidato Hari Guru. Jurnal Trias Politika, 4(1), halaman: 51“65.

Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Novikov, A. L. 2019. Polysemy. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118339893.wbeccp423

Palmer, F. 1976. Semantics. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Pylkkänen, L., Rodolfo Llina, & Gregory L. Murphy. 2006. The representation of polysemy: MEG evidence. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(1), 97“109. https://doi.org/10.1162/089892906775250003

Reimer, N. 2010. Introducing Semantics. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Taylor, J. R. 1995. Prototypes in linguistic theory (Second). United Kingdom: Clarendon Press.

Tuggy, D. 1993. Ambiguity, polysemy, and vagueness. Cognitive Linguistic, 3(1993), 273“290.

https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.3.273

Downloads

Published

2022-12-25