Resolving Structural Ambiguity in English Relative Clauses and Prepositional Phrases
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33394/jollt.v13i4.16456Keywords:
Structural ambiguity, C-command, Minimal attachment, Syntax instruction, EFL learnersAbstract
Structural ambiguity remains a persistent challenge in English comprehension, particularly when relative clauses (RCs) and prepositional phrases (PPs) admit multiple interpretations. While much research has examined native speakers or beginning L2 learners, little is known about how advanced learners apply formal syntactic knowledge to disambiguate such structures. This study addresses that gap by investigating how Indonesian EFL undergraduates resolve ambiguity using structural relation patterns—dominance, precedence, and c-command. A qualitative design was employed with 30 English Education majors who had completed a syntax course. Data were collected through tree-diagram tasks and a structured questionnaire, enabling structural and reflective insights. Findings revealed three main strategies: sorting by node, ignoring non-potential nodes, and using punctuation, with late closure as the most dominant approach. Structural analysis showed that while dominance and precedence guided parsing partially, c-command consistently supported accurate disambiguation when reinforced by semantic plausibility. Frequent reactivation also indicated that learners revised their interpretations when implausibility arose, demonstrating interactive rather than strictly structural parsing. The study contributes to syntactic theory by extending the role of c-command to advanced L2 contexts, parsing research by showing interactive strategy use, and pedagogy by advocating explicit instruction on structural relations combined with cognitive strategy training. These insights inform advanced grammar curricula and highlight the need for integrated approaches to ambiguity resolution in academic English.
References
Aguilar, M., Ferré, P., Gavilán, J. M., Hinojosa, J.A., & Demestre, J. (2021). The actress was on the balcony, after all: Eye-tracking locality and PR-availability effects in Spanish. Cognition, 211, 104624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104624
Augusto, M. R. A., & Orlando, A. A. S. (2023). Acceptability and production of preposition stranding in relative clauses in Brazilian Portuguese: Comparing BP speakers and BP English students. Revista de Estudos da Linguagem, 31(2), 688–718. https://periodicos-des.cecom.ufmg.br/index.php/relin/article/view/55110/45565
Berghoff, R. (2020). The processing of object-subject ambiguities in early second-language acquirers. Applied Psycholinguistics, 41(4), 963–992. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716420000314
Carnie, A. (2006). Syntax: A generative introduction (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.
Carrasco-Ortiz H, Frenck-Mestre C. (2014). Phonological and orthographic cues enhance the processing of inflectional morphology. ERP evidence from L1 and L2 French. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 888. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00888
Carreiras, M., & Clifton, C., Jr. (1993). Relative clause interpretation preferences in Spanish and English. Language and Speech, 36(4), 353–372. https://doi.org/10.1177/002383099303600401
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Foris Publications. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110884166
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE.
Crysmann, B. (2005). Relative clause extraposition in German: An efficient and portable implementation. Research on Language and Computation, 3(1), 61–82. https://www.dfki.de/web/forschung/projekte-publikationen/publikation/3558
Cuetos, F., & Mitchell, D. C. (1988). Cross-linguistic differences in parsing: Restrictions on the use of the late closure strategy in Spanish. Cognition, 30(1), 73–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(88)90004-2
De Vries, M. (2018). Relative clauses in syntax. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.56
Ellis, N. C., & Wulff, S. (2020). Usage-based approaches to L2 acquisition. In Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction (pp.69–82). Routledge.
Felser, C., Roberts, L., Marinis, T., & Gross, R. (2003). The processing of ambiguous sentences by first and second language learners of English. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24(3), 453–489. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716403000237
Fernández, E. M., & Cairns, H. S. (2010). Fundamentals of psycholinguistics. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.
Frank, R., & Vijay-Shanker, K. (1995). C-command and grammatical primitives. GLOW Newsletter, 34, 24–25.
Frazier, L., & Clifton, C., Jr. (1996). Construal. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14(2), 178–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(82)90008-1
Fromont, L. A. (2023). Age and proficiency in second language neurocognition. In Morgan-Short, K., & van Hell, J.G. (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition and Neurolinguistics (pp.247–259). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003190912
Goh, C. C. M. (2023). Learners’ cognitive processing problems during comprehension as a basis for L2 listening research. System, 119, 103164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2023.103164
Gorrell, P. (1995). Syntax and parsing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511627682
Hindle, D., & Rooth, M. (1993). Structural ambiguity and lexical relations. ACL '91: Proceedings of the 29th annual meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, 229 – 236. https://doi.org/10.3115/981344.981374
Hornstein, N., Nunes, J., & Grohmann, K. (2005). Understanding minimalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840678
Kurniasari, M. D. (2017). Tolerating structural ambiguity in grammar learning. Indonesian Journal of Informatics Education and Teaching, 1(1), 85-94. https://doi.org/10.24071/ijiet.v1i1.330
Lau, E. (2025). The acquisition of relative clauses and noun phrase accessibility: Testing the NPAH in Cantonese. Language Learning and Development, 21(2), 214–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2024.2429042
Luk, Z. P., & Darzhinova, L. (2024). Do L2 learners show attachment preferences? The processing of participial relative clauses in L2 Russian by English–Russian bilinguals. International Journal of Bilingualism. https://doi.org/10.1177/13670069241298887
MacDonald, M. C. (1994). Probabilistic constraints and syntactic ambiguity resolution. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 9(2):157–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690969408402115
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Papadopoulou, D., & Clahsen, H. (2006). Ambiguity resolution in sentence processing: The role of lexical and contextual information. Journal of Linguistics, 42(1), 109–138. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226705003701
Perez, A., Hansen, L., & Bajo, T. (2019). The nature of first and second language processing: The role of cognitive control and L2 proficiency during text-level comprehension. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 22(5), 930–948. https://doi.org/ 10.1017/S1366728918000846
Piantadosi, S. T., Tily, H., & Gibson, E. (2012). The communicative function of ambiguity in language. Cognition, 122(3), 280–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.10.004
Pozniak, C., Hemforth, B., Haendler, Y., & Grillo, N. (2019). Seeing events vs. entities: The processing advantage of pseudo relatives over relative clauses. Journal of Memory and Language, 107, 128-151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2019.04.001
Pozzan, L., & Trueswell, J. C. (2016). Second language processing and revision of garden-path sentences: A visual world study. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19(3):636-643. https://doi.org/ 10.1017/S1366728915000838
Radford, A. (2009). Analyzing English sentences: A minimalist approach. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511801617
Rentillo, P. (2021). L1 and L2 syntactic ambiguity resolution of relative clauses. Modern Journal of Studies in English Language Teaching and Literature, 3(1):18–30. https://doi.org/10.56498/31202147
Resnik, P., & Hearst, M. A. (1993). Structural ambiguity and conceptual relations. In Very Large Corpora: Academic and Industrial Perspectives (pp. 58–64). https://aclanthology.org/W93-0307/
Rohde, H., Levy, R., & Kehler, A. (2011). Anticipating explanations in relative clause processing. Cognition, 118(3), 339–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.10.016
Saito, K., Kachlicka, M., Suzukida, Y., & Tierney, A. (2024). Auditory processing as perceptual, cognitive, and motoric abilities underlying successful second language acquisition: Interaction model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 50(1), 119–138. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0001166
Li, S. (2023). Working memory and second language learning: a critical and synthetic review. In Godfroid, A., & Hopp, H. (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition and Psycholinguistics (pp.348–360). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003018872
Traxler, M. J., Pickering, M. J., & Clifton, C., Jr. (1998). Adjunct attachment is not a form of lexical ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 39(4), 558–592. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1998.2600
Triantafyllidou, C., Vogelzang, M., & Tsimpli, I. M. (2024). Exploring the contribution(s) of prosody to ambiguity resolution and reading comprehension in English as an Additional Language (EAL). Cambridge Open Engage [Preprint]. https://doi.org/10.33774/coe-2024-kx9v8
Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Garnsey, S. M. (1994). Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 33(3), 285–318. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1994.1014
Yang, Y., Yang, G., & Li, Y. (2022). The interactive model of L2 listening processing in Chinese bilinguals: A multiple mediation analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 871349. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.871349
Zhang, S., Tantucci, V., & Brandt, S. (2024). The comprehension of headed and headless relative clauses in Mandarin: Evidence from monolingual and Mandarin-English heritage bilingual children. Language Learning and Development, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2024.2429036
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Citation Check
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Irfan Hamonangan Tarihoran, Iwan Jazadi
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
License and Publishing Agreement
In submitting the manuscript to the journal, the authors certify that:
- They are authorized by their co-authors to enter into these arrangements.
- The work described has not been formally published before, except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture, review, thesis, or overlay journal.
- That it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere,
- That its publication has been approved by all the author(s) and by the responsible authorities – tacitly or explicitly – of the institutes where the work has been carried out.
- They secure the right to reproduce any material that has already been published or copyrighted elsewhere.
- They agree to the following license and publishing agreement.
Copyright
Authors who publish with JOLLT Journal of Languages and Language Teaching agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-SA 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
Licensing for Data Publication
-
Open Data Commons Attribution License, http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/ (default)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
