Structural Ambiguity Interpretation: A Case Study of Arab Learners of English

Emad M. Al-Saidat; Dr. Mohammad I. Khawalda

Authors

Emad M. Al-Saidat
Dr. Mohammad I. Khawalda

Keywords:

Ambiguity, Arabic, translation, structural ambiguity, lexical ambiguity

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to investigate how Arabic native speakers (non-native speakers of English) interpret English ambiguous sentences. It has been recognized that Arabic native speakers encounter problems with English sentences which involve structural ambiguity. Sixty subjects participated in the experiment. All were university students specialized in English. The subjects were given ambiguous sentences contain prepositional phrases, relative clauses, etc. For instance, prepositional phrases like 'the girl hit the boy with the book' in which the prepositional phrase (PP) can be attached either to the verb phrase (VP) or to the preceding noun phrase (NP). It has been recognized that the students face difficulty in interpreting ambiguous structure and generally take the general meaning which can be understood from the sequence of words.

Downloads

How to Cite

Structural Ambiguity Interpretation: A Case Study of Arab Learners of English. (2026). Global Journal of Human-Social Science, 12(A6), 1-6. https://socialscienceresearch.org/index.php/GJHSS/article/view/317

Download Citation

References

G Altmann, K Van Nice, A Garnham, J Henstra (1998) Late closure in context. 38, 459-484.

Joan Bresnan (2003) Explaining Morphosyntactic Competition. 10-44.

H Clahsen, C Felser (2006) Grammatical processing in language learners. 27, 3-42.

M Crocker (1996) Computational Psycholinguistics.

F Cuetos, D Mitchell (1988) Cross-linguistic differences in parsing: Restrictions on the use of the Late Closure strategy in Spanish. 30(1), 73-105.

L Frazier (1987) Sentence Processing: A Tutorial Review. 581-608.

Edward Gibson, Neal Pearlmutter (1998) Constraints on sentence comprehension. 2(7), 262-268.

E Gilboy, J Sopena, C Clifton, L Frazier (1995) Argument structure and association preferences in Spanish and English compound NPs. 54, 131-167.

J Guo, T Guo, Y Yan, N Jiang, D Peng (2008) ERP evidence for different strategies employed by native speakers and L2 learners in sentence processing. 22, 123-134.

D Jurafsky (1996) A probabilistic model of lexical and syntactic access and disambiguation. 20, 137-194.

Kalliopi Katsika (2009) Exploring the minimal structure in prepositional phrase attachment ambiguities: Evidence from Greek. 119(10), 1482-1500.

John Kimball (1973) Seven principles of surface structure parsing in natural language. 2(1), 15-47.

Lars Konieczny, Barbara Hemforth, Christoph Scheepers, Gerhard Strube (1997) The Role of Lexical Heads in Parsing: Evidence from German. 12(2-3), 307-348.

Don Mitchell, Fernando Cuetos, Martin Corley, Marc Brysbaert (1995) Exposure-based models of human parsing: Evidence for the use of coarse-grained (nonlexical) statistical records. 24(6), 469-488.

H Pan, C Felser (2011) Referential context effects in L2 ambiguity resolution: Evidence from self-paced reading. 121, 221-236.

C Phillips (1996) Order and Structure.

R Quirk, S Greenbaum, G Leech, J Svartvik (1985) A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language.

A Radford (2008) Analysing English Sentences: A Minimalist Approach.

Keith Rayner, Marcia Carlson, Lyn Frazier (1983) The interaction of syntax and semantics during sentence processing: eye movements in the analysis of semantically biased sentences. 22(3), 358-374.

Carson Schütze, Edward Gibson (1999) Argumenthood and English Prepositional Phrase Attachment. 40(3), 409-431.

Michael Spivey-Knowlton, Julie Sedivy (1995) Resolving attachment ambiguities with multiple constraints. 55(3), 227-267.

Patrick Sturt, Fabrizio Costa, Vincenzo Lombardo, Paolo Frasconi (2003) Learning first-pass structural attachment preferences with dynamic grammars and recursive neural networks. 88(2), 133-169.

Matthew Traxler, Martin Pickering, Charles Clifton (1998) Adjunct Attachment Is Not a Form of Lexical Ambiguity Resolution. 39(4), 558-592.