A SYNTACTIC AMBIGUITY ANALYSIS OF EFL STUDENTS’ RECOUNT TEXT USING SYNTACTIC TREE DIAGRAMS

Riskawati Pakaya, Sri Widyarti

Abstract


This research aims to analyze the syntactic ambiguity in EFL students' recount texts by identifying the types and patterns of ambiguity and examining how differences in sentence structure can lead to various interpretations of meaning. A descriptive qualitative design was employed to identify results, with data consisting of ambiguous sentences taken from ten recount texts written by ten fourth-semester students in the English Language Education Program at Gorontalo State University. Data were collected through documentation. The results of the study showed that there are 16 sentences containing syntactic ambiguity. These ambiguities are classified into four types: noun phrase ambiguity, prepositional phrase ambiguity, adverbial ambiguity, and relative clause ambiguity, with 6 patterns of ambiguity occurring, such as (Adj+N+N), (Adj+N+conj+N), (VP+VP+AdvC), (V+NP+PP), (NP+NP+PP), and (NP+NP+RelC). The most dominant type found is prepositional phrase ambiguity. The analysis indicates that syntactic ambiguity arises because the grammatical arrangement of sentence elements allows for more than one possible structural interpretation. Furthermore, syntactic tree diagrams effectively reveal how differences between surface structure and deep structure produce multiple interpretations in students’ writing.


Keywords


Syntactic ambiguity, Syntax, Recount text, Syntactic tree diagram, EFL students writing, grammatical structure

References


Bustam, M. R. (2020). Structural ambiguity in the headline of The Jakarta Post news portal in its coverage of the West Java gubernatorial election. Diglossia, 11(2), 55–67. https://doi.org/10.26594/diglossia.v11i2.1865

Chicho, K. Z. H. (2022). An analysis of factors influencing EFL learners’ writing skills. Canadian Journal of Language and Literature Studies, 2(2), 28–38.

Demir, C. (2020). Lexical and structural ambiguities in student writing: An assessment and evaluation of results. African Educational Research Journal, 8(3), 100–108. https://doi.org/10.30918/AERJ.8S3.20.077

Fortuny, J., & Payrató, L. (2024). Ambiguity in linguistics. Studia Linguistica, 78(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/stul.12221

Harahap, L. W. (2020). Students’ problems in writing recount text at grade VIII MTS Al Furqon Aek Nabara Tonga (Doctoral dissertation, IAIN Padangsidimpuan).

Juliana, J., Nadirah, N., Lababa, L., Manda, I., & S. H. (2022). Investigating lexical and syntactic ambiguity on native Facebook celebritism. La Ogi: English Language Journal, 8(1), 40–47. https://doi.org/10.55678/loj.v8i1.588

Khawalda, M. I., & Al-Saidat, E. M. (2012). Structural ambiguity interpretation: A case study of Arab learners of English. Global Journal of Human Social Science, 12(6), 1–6.

Lee, S. Y., Scheinberg, R., Shore, A., & Agrawal, A. (2025). Who relies more on world knowledge and bias for syntactic ambiguity resolution: Humans or LLMs? In Proceedings of the 2025 Conference of the Nations of the Americas Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (pp. 3484–3498).

Li, M. Y., Liu, A., Wu, Z., & Smith, N. A. (2024). A taxonomy of ambiguity types for NLP. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.14072

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.

MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). Lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101(4), 676–703. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.101.4.676

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.

Mustika, H. Y., Udin, U., & Susanti, N. W. M. (2020). An analysis of students’ difficulties in writing recount text: A case study at the eleventh grade students of MA Putra Al-Ishlahuddiny Kediri academic year 2016/2017. Indonesian Journal of Teacher Education, 1(1), 1–10.

Sani, B. P. (2017). Analysis of students’ difficulties in ambiguous meaning on recount text at the fifth semester of State Institute for Islamic Studies (IAIN) of Metro in academic year 2016/2017 (Doctoral dissertation, IAIN Metro).

Sartika, D., Asmara, R., Islam, U., Komering, O., & Kayuagung, I. (2022). The analysis of students’ difficulties. Journal of English Education Program, 3(1), 59–66. https://doi.org/10.26418/jeep.v3i1.50496

Setiawan, R. G. (2014). Investigating ambiguity in EFL student writing (pp. 1–26). Repository Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana.

Shoghi, S., Arslan, S., Bastiaanse, R., & Popov, S. (2025). Visual priming and parsing preferences: A self-paced reading study of PP-attachment ambiguity in Dutch verb-final structures. Lingua, 313, 103840.

Stageberg, N. C. (1958). Some structural ambiguities. The English Journal, 47(8), 479–486.

Tarihoran, I. H., Jazadi, I., & Solihin, S. (2025). Resolving structural ambiguity in English relative clauses and prepositional phrases. JOLLT Journal of Languages and Language Teaching, 13(4), 2008–2020.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.31004/jele.v%25vi%25i.2632

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2026 Riskawati Pakaya, Sri Widyarti

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.