CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the Study

Language is a fundamental tool for human interaction, enabling

individuals to convey thoughts, express emotions, and share knowledge. It

serves as a medium through which people communicate their needs,

intentions, and experiences, as language functions primarily as a tool for

communication rather than thought (Fedorenko, Piantadosi & Gibson, 2024).

Despite its central role in human life, language is not always straightforward;

its complexity often leads to multiple interpretations, misunderstandings,

and sometimes miscommunication. The study of language, therefore,

involves not only understanding its structure and functions but also the ways

in which meaning is constructed, conveyed, and interpreted in various

contexts (Crystal, 2005).

One key aspect of language that influences communication is

ambiguity. Ambiguity occurs when a word, phrase, or sentence allows for

more than one interpretation, which may vary depending on context, cultural

background, or prior knowledge (Martínez del Castillo, 2015). Research has

shown that such ambiguity, particularly at the semantic level, can lead to

misunderstanding and breakdown in communication (Siahaan & Damanik,

2025). Among the different types of ambiguity, pragmatic ambiguity is

particularly significant because it arises from the interaction between the

speaker, the listener, and the context of communication. In addition to

ambiguity, language can also exhibit vagueness, which refers to imprecision

or indeterminacy in meaning. Unlike ambiguity, which involves multiple

distinct interpretations, vagueness arises when the boundaries of a concept

are unclear or flexible. Both ambiguity and vagueness are inherent features

of language that learners must navigate to achieve accurate understanding

and effective communication (Lyons, 1977; Cruse, 2000).

Understanding the nature of language, the distinction between

abstract and concrete expressions, the role of symbols, and the impact of

context on meaning is therefore essential for English language

undergraduates. This chapter provides a detailed exploration of these

concepts, beginning with the nature of language and meaning, the symbolic

function of language, and the interplay between abstract and concrete

forms, before examining the various types of ambiguity and their sources,

with particular emphasis on pragmatic ambiguity. The discussion further

highlights the significance of these concepts within the Nigerian multilingual

context, illustrating why the study of pragmatic ambiguity in higher

institutions is both relevant and necessary.

 Language and Meaning

Language plays a central role in human interaction, enabling

individuals to express needs, desires, intentions, and experiences. It serves

as the primary medium through which people connect, share knowledge, and

function within society. Without language, meaningful social interaction and

coordinated human activity would be severely limited. Language operates as

a structured system of communication that makes use of spoken and written

symbols to convey meaning. In addition to verbal expression, nonverbal

elements such as gestures, facial expressions, and body language also

contribute significantly to communication. Although these modes interact in

the construction of meaning, examining language as a distinct system

remains essential for understanding how meaning is formed and interpreted

(Crystal, 2005).

The relationship between language and meaning is complex and often

unpredictable. One major factor contributing to this complexity is the

generative nature of language, particularly languages such as English, where

a finite set of linguistic resources can be combined to produce an unlimited

number of expressions. As language evolves through social use, new words

and meanings continually emerge, increasing the potential for multiple

interpretations (Crystal, 2005). Meaning is therefore not fixed but arises from

an interaction between cognitive processes and contextual influences,

including social, cultural, and situational factors (Martínez del Castillo, 2015;

Hijam, 2024). Communication involves the encoding of meaning by the

speaker or writer and the decoding of that meaning by the listener or reader,

a process that does not always result in shared understanding.

One linguistic phenomenon that significantly affects this process is

ambiguity. Ambiguity occurs when a word, phrase, or sentence allows for

more than one plausible interpretation, depending on context, background

knowledge, or communicative intention (Martínez del Castillo, 2015). Among

the various forms of ambiguity, pragmatic ambiguity is particularly important

because it emerges from the interaction between linguistic expressions and

contextual factors such as speaker intention and shared knowledge. This

type of ambiguity poses challenges for comprehension, especially in

academic settings where accurate interpretation is crucial. For English

language undergraduates, difficulties in interpreting pragmatically

ambiguous texts, classroom discourse, and academic tasks can affect

comprehension, academic performance, and the development of effective

communicative competence (Yule, 1996; Berry et al., 2003).

 In addition to ambiguity, language also exhibits vagueness, which

refers to indeterminacy or lack of precise boundaries in meaning. Unlike

ambiguity, which involves multiple distinct interpretations, vagueness arises

when meanings are flexible or underspecified. Both ambiguity and

vagueness are inherent features of natural language, and learners must

develop pragmatic competence to navigate them effectively in academic

contexts (Lyons, 1977; Cruse, 2000).

Language is a powerful tool for human interaction, yet its complexity

introduces ambiguity—an inherent feature that allows multiple

interpretations. Understanding ambiguity is particularly important in

educational contexts, where precise comprehension is essential. For English

language undergraduates, navigating ambiguities in texts, classroom

discussions, or assignments can pose significant challenges, affecting

learning outcomes, comprehension, and the ability to communicate

effectively (Martínez del Castillo, 2015; Moxley, 2018).

Language and symbols in communication

Language plays a central role in human interaction, enabling

individuals to express their needs, desires, and intentions while facilitating

understanding between people. It allows connection and communication, but

it is not always straightforward; the complexity of language can lead to

misunderstandings or misinterpretation. Language operates as a system

through which humans encode, transmit, and decode meaning, shaped by

cognitive processes, social context, and cultural factors (Crystal, 2005;

Martínez del Castillo, 2015; Hijam, 2024). Understanding how meaning is

constructed and interpreted is particularly important in educational settings,

where precise comprehension is critical for learning and academic success.

One of the key challenges in communication is ambiguity, which arises

when a word, phrase, or sentence allows for more than one interpretation.

Ambiguity can occur due to context, cultural background, or prior knowledge,

and it is especially significant in the form of pragmatic ambiguity, which

emerges from the interaction between the speaker, the listener, and the

context of communication (Siahaan & Damanik, 2025; Yule, 1996; Berry et

al., 2003). Learners, particularly English language undergraduates, must

navigate such ambiguities in texts, classroom discussions, and assignments

to accurately infer meaning and respond appropriately. Alongside ambiguity,

vagueness—imprecision or indeterminacy in meaning—also contributes to

challenges in comprehension. While ambiguity allows for multiple distinct

interpretations, vagueness occurs when the boundaries of a concept are

flexible or unclear, requiring learners to engage actively with language to

interpret intended meanings (Lyons, 1977; Cruse, 2000).

Language functions primarily as a symbolic system, in which symbols—

whether spoken, written, or gestural—represent concepts, objects, or ideas.

Unlike ancient writing systems where symbols often resembled their

referents, modern language relies on arbitrary symbols whose meanings are

agreed upon by convention. For instance, the word “computer” could have

been any combination of sounds or letters, yet by convention it refers to a

technological device used for work, study, and entertainment (Coseriu, 1985;

Kabatek, 2015; Tektigul et al., 2023). This symbolic nature allows flexibility

and creativity in expression, but it also introduces potential for multiple

interpretations. Words and sentences require active interpretation by

listeners or readers, which depends on their knowledge, experience, and the

communicative context (Crystal, 2005; Obidova & Umirova, 2025).

In addition, language shapes thought and perception, as suggested by the

Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which posits that the structure and vocabulary of a

language influence how its speakers conceptualize the world (Natsir,

Harahap & Khairani, 2025). This perspective underscores the importance of

understanding both the symbolic and interpretive aspects of language,

particularly for students who must navigate complex academic texts and

infer meaning beyond literal expressions.

Language Ambiguity and Its Relationship to Meaning

Ambiguity arises when words, phrases, or sentences allow multiple

interpretations (Crystal, 2005; Coseriu, 1985). Meaning is shaped internally

by speakers and externally by social context, leading to varied

interpretations depending on listener knowledge, cultural background, or the

communicative situation (Kabatek, 2015). For English language

undergraduates, ambiguity may challenge comprehension, especially with

figurative, abstract, or context-dependent expressions. For example, “The

bank is dangerous today” could refer to a financial institution under threat or

a riverbank prone to flooding (Martínez del Castillo, 2015).

Ambiguity is a normal feature of language and communication. It may

arise from polysemy, homonymy, syntactic structure, or pragmatic context.

Scholars define ambiguity as the potential for multiple interpretations within

a single linguistic expression (Bach, 1994; Leech, 1987; Prakasam & Anvita,

1993). Context, punctuation, and pauses play a crucial role in clarifying

meaning in both speech and writing.

Types of Ambiguity

1. Lexical Ambiguity

Lexical ambiguity occurs when a word has more than one meaning.

Polysemy, where a word has multiple related meanings, and

homonymy, where words share spelling and pronunciation but differ in

meaning, are major sources of lexical ambiguity. For instance:

 “The fisherman went to the bank” – bank could be a riverbank or a

financial institution.
  “I need a pen to pen a poem” – pen as a writing instrument vs. pen as

a verb.

 “She looked at the ball happily” – ball could be a sports object or a

party.

Lexical ambiguity requires context for accurate interpretation (Schane,

2000; Al-Sulaimaan, 2011).

2. Structural or Syntactic Ambiguity

Syntactic ambiguity arises from sentence structure rather than

individual words. It occurs when a sentence can be parsed in multiple

ways:

 “They fed her dog biscuits” – biscuits fed to her dog vs. biscuits fed to

her.

 “John saw the boy with a telescope” – John used a telescope vs. the

boy held a telescope.

 Different grammatical structures create multiple interpretations,

requiring careful analysis for clarity (Thomas & Brommage, 2007).

3. Semantic Ambiguity

Semantic ambiguity occurs when sentences remain open to multiple

interpretations even after lexical and syntactic meanings are resolved. For

example:
  “John and Mary are married” – married to each other or married to

separate partners?

 “I saw Rachel with glasses on her hand” – eye glasses vs. drinking

glass.

This type of ambiguity reflects how meaning can shift based on

broader semantic context (Yule, 1996).

4. Pragmatic Ambiguity

Pragmatic ambiguity occurs when the intended meaning of an

utterance cannot be determined solely from its literal words and requires

contextual interpretation. It arises from the interaction between the speaker,

the listener, and the situation in which the communication occurs. Unlike

lexical or structural ambiguity, which can often be resolved by focusing on

the word or sentence alone, pragmatic ambiguity depends on understanding

speaker intention, shared knowledge, and the communicative setting (Yule,

1996; Walton, 1996).

For example:

 “Do you know what time it is?” can be a simple inquiry or a reprimand

for someone being late.

  “I’ve got plans for you” could signify a promise, a warning, or a threat

depending on the contex

Berry et al. (2003) explain that pragmatic ambiguity involves both linguistic

context—the sentences that precede or follow the utterance—and extra-

linguistic context, including the speaker’s intentions, the listener’s

expectations, and background knowledge. Misalignment between speaker

and listener in any of these areas can create ambiguity.

 Sources of Pragmatic Ambiguity

Pragmatic ambiguity can arise from multiple sources:

1. Speaker Intention – The intended meaning may diverge from the literal

words. For instance, “Can you pass the salt?” may be a polite request

or a rhetorical question depending on tone and context (Yule, 1996;

Walton, 1996).

2. Contextual Factors – Physical setting, prior discourse, social

relationships, and cultural norms all influence interpretation. The

sentence “I’ve got plans for you” could be interpreted differently in a

classroom, at home, or in a workplace (Berry et al., 2003).

3. Deictic Expressions – Words such as “this,” “that,” “here,” and “there”

rely on context for meaning. Misalignment between speaker and

listener perspectives can create ambiguity (Dastjerdi & Zamani, 2009).

4. Presupposition and Implicature – Statements often carry implicit

assumptions. For example, “John stopped smoking” presupposes that

John previously smoked; interpretations may vary if listeners’

assumptions differ (Levinson, 1983).

5. Tone, Emphasis, and Intonation – Spoken language uses prosody to

convey additional meaning. Stress on a particular word can change

interpretation: “I am working here today” may express contrast,

annoyance, or merely provide information, depending on intonation

(Dastjerdi & Zamani, 2009).

6. Cultural and Linguistic Background – Differences in linguistic or cultural

knowledge can cause pragmatic ambiguity, particularly in multilingual

or cross-cultural contexts. Words and phrases may carry different

connotations for speakers from different backgrounds (Adegbija, 2004).

 The Function and Value of Ambiguity

While often considered problematic, ambiguity can enhance

communication efficiency. Cognitive scientists, including Gibson et al.,

argue that ambiguity allows speakers to reuse short, frequent words that

listeners can disambiguate using context, reducing cognitive effort

(Piantadosi, Tily & Gibson, 2012). Words with fewer syllables, high

frequency, and simple pronunciation are often most ambiguous, but

listeners rely on context to resolve meaning quickly.

Ambiguity versus Vagueness

Ambiguity and vagueness are two distinct types of interpretive uncertainty in

language, each with different characteristics and implications for semantic

theory and the philosophy of language.

 Ambiguity

Ambiguity involves uncertainty about mappings between different

structural representations of meaning. A single linguistic expression—such as

a word, phrase, or sentence—can have multiple distinct meanings or

interpretations. For example, the sentence “The fish is ready to eat” can be

interpreted either as the fish is ready to eat a meal or the fish is ready to be

eaten. Ambiguity allows an utterance to be true under one interpretation and

false under another, and it can occur at all linguistic levels—from phonemes

to discourse. Tests for ambiguity include the contradiction test (showing that

the same expression can affirm and deny a state of affairs) and identity of

sense anaphora (which checks consistent reference across sentences).

Ambiguity has significant semantic and pragmatic consequences but

presents fewer challenges to semantic theories since distinct meanings can

be distinguished structurally and compositionally.

  Vagueness

Vagueness, on the other hand, involves uncertainty about the precise

boundaries or application of a term’s meaning. It occurs when a term’s

meaning lacks clear cut-offs or thresholds for its application, leading to

borderline cases where it is unclear whether the term applies or not. For

example, the adjective “expensive” is vague because whether something

counts as expensive depends on context and comparison standards that can

vary.

Vagueness is characterized by three main features: contextual

variability in truth conditions, the existence of borderline cases, and the

Sorites Paradox (which challenges classical logic by showing that small

incremental changes can accumulate to a paradoxical conclusion).

Vagueness raises profound questions about meaning, knowledge of

meaning, and semantic theory, as it challenges the notion that meanings

have fixed truth conditions. Various approaches to vagueness include super

valuations, epistemic uncertainty, contextualism, and interest relativity.

  Key Difference

Ambiguity is essentially a mapping problem between structures and

meanings, while vagueness is the indeterminacy of meaning boundaries.

Ambiguity does not significantly threaten semantic theory, whereas

vagueness raises fundamental problems about knowledge and meaning

representation and has led to multiple competing theories addressing its

complexity (ambivague, 2023)

Ambiguity in Written Texts and Its Implications for English Language

Undergraduates

Ambiguous language in writing can mislead readers, which

underscores the importance of awareness among both learners and

teachers. This research aims to raise such awareness, since ambiguity in

language can significantly impact comprehension and communication. Words

carry power in society: they can uplift, inspire, inflict pain, or deepen

insecurity (Harmon & Wilson, 2006). Therefore, learners must be guided to

choose words, phrases, and expressions carefully in their writing to ensure

that readers receive the intended message.

The significance of writing is further emphasized by its role in

evaluating learners’ academic performance (Bailey, 2006). This creates an

imperative for lecturers and teachers to support learners in enhancing their

writing abilities, including narrative texts, which are widely used and valued

(Knapp & Watkins, 2005). Narrative texts aim not only to entertain but also

to influence social opinions and attitudes. Structurally, narrative texts

typically include three components: orientation (introduction of story time,

place, and characters), complication (a sequence of events or conflicts), and

resolution (the outcome of the narrative) (Anderson & Anderson, 1997;

Knapp & Watkins, 2005).

Writing narrative texts correctly is challenging, particularly because

sentences often contain ambiguous language. Ambiguity occurs when a

sentence or word has multiple interpretations (Baker, 1995; Griffiths, 2006).

While everyday spoken communication may tolerate ambiguity, written

language demands greater precision, since readers cannot immediately seek

clarification (Kreidler, 1998). Writing requires careful attention to language

structure, text function, content, and genre to minimize misinterpretation

(Hyland, 2013).

Ambiguity is generally classified into lexical, syntactic, and

deep/underlying structure types. Lexical ambiguity occurs at the word level

and is often caused by polysemy—words with related multiple meanings—or

homonymy—words with the same form but unrelated meanings (O’Grady et

al., 1997; Hurford et al., 2007; Löbner, 2002).

Table 1: Polysemy Examples and Interpretations

Examples include:

Word Example 1 Example 2 Possible

Sentenc Interpretations
e
Earth “The people run in “Earth is one of the Soil / Planet
panic because the planets in the solar
earth was shaking.” system”
Guard There are many “Face guard is Person protecting /
guards in front of his needed when doing Protective shield
house.” dangerous sport.”
Punch “He gave that person “She provided Blow with a fist /
a punch.” punch for the party.” Fruity alcoholic
drink
Steer “My captain steered “John owns that To guide / Young
me towards the steer.” bull
river.”

Polysindo’s words like earth and guard have interrelated meanings, while

homonymous words such as punch and steer do not share related senses

(Hurford et al., 2007; Hirst, 1988).

Syntactic ambiguity arises from sentence structure and can be

classified into two categories: ambiguity in surface structures, where words

can cluster differently, and ambiguity in deep structures, where underlying

syntactic relationships create multiple interpretations (Kreidler, 1998; Cruse,

2000). Furthermore, Cruse identifies pure syntactic, quasi-syntactic, lexico-

syntactic, and pure lexical ambiguities at the sentence level.

The challenge for writers is that ambiguity in written texts can

misdirect readers, causing confusion or unintended interpretations.

Therefore, understanding both lexical and syntactic ambiguity is crucial for

English language undergraduates, particularly in academic writing contexts.

Awareness of ambiguity not only improves clarity and comprehension but

also enhances critical reading and writing skills, which are central to

academic success.

The Impact of Pragmatic Ambiguity on Undergraduates’

Comprehension

Pragmatic ambiguity occurs when the intended meaning of an

utterance cannot be fully determined from the words alone, requiring

interpretation of context, speaker intention, and shared knowledge (Yule,

1996; Berry et al., 2003). For English language undergraduates, such

ambiguities can present significant challenges in comprehension, particularly

in academic texts where precision of meaning is crucial.

Ambiguity in reading materials may lead to misinterpretation of key

concepts, confusion in understanding instructions, or errors in summarizing

or responding to texts. For instance, a sentence like “The lecturer discussed

the results with the students” could be interpreted as a discussion of general

outcomes, or, depending on the prior discourse, a discussion of individual

performance results. Misunderstanding such nuances can impact academic

performance and the learner’s ability to critically engage with texts

(Adegbija, 2004; Kreidler, 1998).

Similarly, pragmatic ambiguity affects writing skills. Undergraduates

who are unaware of potential ambiguities may produce texts that are open to

multiple interpretations, causing readers to derive unintended meanings.

This is particularly relevant in assignments, examinations, and academic

correspondence, where clarity is necessary for assessment and effective

communication. Ambiguity can result from lexical choices, sentence

structure, or insufficient contextual cues, and addressing it requires both

awareness and deliberate language use (Hurford et al., 2007; O’Grady et al.,

1997).

Moreover, pragmatic ambiguity is influenced by cultural and social

knowledge. Words, expressions, or idioms may carry different meanings for

students from diverse backgrounds, especially in multilingual contexts like

Nigeria. Failure to recognize these nuances can hinder comprehension and

participation in class discussions, as well as the accurate interpretation of

textbooks and scholarly articles (Christiansen & Dahl, 2005; Williams, 2004).

Research suggests that enhancing students’ awareness of pragmatic

ambiguity improves reading comprehension, inference skills, and writing

accuracy (Seibert, 1945; Fukkink, Blok & De Glopper, 2001). Teaching

strategies that incorporate examples of ambiguous language, exercises in

contextual interpretation, and practice in recognizing multiple meanings can

help undergraduates navigate the complexities of English, reducing

misunderstanding and improving overall academic performance.

In summary, pragmatic ambiguity poses real challenges to

undergraduates’ comprehension in both reading and writing. By

acknowledging the interplay between context, speaker intention, and

linguistic structures, educators and learners can better manage these

challenges, leading to clearer communication and more effective learning

outcomes.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

English functions as the primary medium of instruction, assessment,

and academic interaction in Nigerian higher institutions. Consequently,

undergraduates are expected to comprehend lectures, examination

questions, academic texts, and institutional directives with a high level of

accuracy. However, comprehension in academic contexts extends beyond

grammatical correctness and vocabulary knowledge; it requires the ability to

infer meaning from context, recognize speaker or writer intention, and

interpret implied or indirect messages. Scholars have noted that failure to

interpret such pragmatic meanings often results in misunderstanding, even

when learners possess adequate linguistic competence (Levinson, 1983;

Yule, 1996; Cutting, 2002).

In academic settings, language use frequently involves implicit

assumptions, indirect instructions, and context-dependent expressions.

Lecturers may rely on shared background knowledge, examination questions

may contain unstated expectations, and academic texts often encode

meaning through inference rather than explicit explanation.

These features introduce pragmatic ambiguity, a situation in which an

utterance allows multiple interpretations depending on context, speaker or

writer intention, or shared knowledge (Thomas, 1995; Mey, 2001). When

undergraduates fail to identify the intended meaning, comprehension

breakdown occurs, leading to inaccurate interpretation of academic content.

Studies have shown that pragmatic competence is a major challenge

for second language learners, particularly in formal academic environments

(Bachman, 1990; Kasper & Rose, 2002). In Nigeria’s multilingual context,

English is often acquired as a second language, while students operate

within diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds. This diversity affects how

meaning is inferred, how indirectness is interpreted, and how contextual

cues are processed (Adegbija, 2004; Odebunmi, 2006). Consequently,

pragmatic ambiguity may be intensified when undergraduates interpret

academic discourse using cultural assumptions that differ from those implied

by lecturers or academic writers.

Evidence from classroom practice and assessment outcomes suggests

that undergraduates frequently misunderstand examination questions,

misinterpret assignment instructions, and struggle to grasp implied

arguments in academic texts, despite demonstrating reasonable control of

grammar and vocabulary. For example, command words such as discuss,

examine, or comment on are often interpreted literally rather than

pragmatically, leading to responses that do not meet academic expectations

(Hyland, 2013; Flowerdew, 2015). Such misunderstandings have serious

academic consequences, including poor performance, reduced confidence,

and ineffective participation in academic discourse.

Although ambiguity has been widely discussed in linguistic studies,

much existing research concentrates on lexical and syntactic ambiguity, with

limited focus on pragmatic ambiguity and its impact on undergraduate

comprehension (Cruse, 2000; Griffiths, 2006). Pragmatic ambiguity, which

involves interpreting indirect speech acts, conversational implicatures, and

context-dependent meanings, poses a particular challenge for

undergraduates who may lack sufficient experience or background

knowledge to infer meaning beyond the literal level (Cook & Liddicoat, 2002;

Roever, 2001; Bardovi-Harlig, 1999).

Research in pragmatic comprehension highlights that learners at

different proficiency levels process pragmatic meaning differently. High-level

learners integrate both linguistic and contextual cues effectively to interpret

intended meaning, while lower-level learners rely primarily on surface

linguistic cues, often leading to misunderstanding (Van Dijk, 1977; Rost,

2002). Furthermore, the ability to comprehend speech acts and

conversational implicatures—the indirect actions or implied intentions

embedded in language—requires attention to sociolinguistic knowledge and

contextual analysis, not just vocabulary and syntax (Thomas, 1995;

Levinson, 1983; Bardovi-Harlig, 1999).

Despite the recognized importance of pragmatic competence in

language proficiency, few studies have examined how undergraduates

navigate pragmatic ambiguities in written academic texts in Nigerian higher

institutions. High-level learners may successfully integrate contextual and

linguistic knowledge, whereas lower-level learners often fail to access such

pragmatic cues, resulting in miscomprehension and incorrect interpretation

of academic instructions or texts. This gap highlights the need for research

focused on how ambiguity affects comprehension and how awareness of

pragmatic cues can enhance the interpretation of intended meaning in

academic writing and reading.

 Therefore, the problem addressed in this study is the limited

understanding of the nature, sources, and effects of pragmatic ambiguity on

English language undergraduates in selected higher institutions in Ilorin

metropolis. Without adequate awareness of how pragmatic ambiguity

influences comprehension, undergraduates may continue to experience

persistent communication difficulties that hinder academic success. This

study seeks to fill this gap by examining pragmatic ambiguity within

academic contexts and assessing its impact on undergraduate

comprehension of English.

1.3 Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of

pragmatic ambiguity on English language undergraduates’

comprehension of written academic texts in selected higher

institutions in Ilorin metropolis. Specifically, the study aims to:

1. Examine the extent to which pragmatic ambiguity affects

English language undergraduates’ comprehension of written

academic texts.

2. Identify the major types of pragmatic ambiguity that pose

comprehension challenges for English language

undergraduates.
 3. Determine whether undergraduates’ level of pragmatic

awareness influences their interpretation of ambiguous written

texts.

1.4 Research Questions and Hypothesis

The study seeks to answer the following questions:

1. To what extent does pragmatic ambiguity affect English language

undergraduates’ comprehension of written academic texts in

selected higher institutions in Ilorin metropolis?

2. Which types of pragmatic ambiguity pose the greatest

comprehension difficulty for English language undergraduates?

3. How does pragmatic awareness influence undergraduates’

interpretation of ambiguous written academic texts?

Research Hypotheses (Null Hypotheses)

1. Pragmatic ambiguity has no significant effect on English language

undergraduates’ comprehension of written academic texts in selected

higher institutions in Ilorin metropolis.

2. There is no significant difference in the level of difficulty posed by

different types of pragmatic ambiguity to English language

undergraduates.
 3. Pragmatic awareness does not significantly influence English language

undergraduates’ interpretation of ambiguous written academic texts.

1.5 Significance of the Study

This study is significant for several reasons. It provides insight for

English language educators into the specific pragmatic challenges

undergraduates face when interpreting written texts, allowing for more

targeted teaching approaches. It equips learners with strategies to better

navigate ambiguity in academic English, enhancing reading comprehension,

written expression, and overall communication effectiveness.

The findings will guide curriculum developers and policymakers in

designing instructional materials and assessment tools that consider the role

of pragmatic comprehension, ensuring that academic language instruction

aligns with students’ needs. Additionally, the study contributes to the

broader field of applied linguistics by addressing the under-researched area

of pragmatic ambiguity in Nigerian higher education, particularly among

English language undergraduates, offering a foundation for further empirical

research.

1.6 Scope of the Study

 This study focuses on the examination of pragmatic ambiguity and its

impact on comprehension in written texts. It specifically investigates how

learners interpret ambiguous language, including lexical, syntactic, and

pragmatic ambiguity, in academic contexts. The study is limited to selected

higher institutions in Ilorin metropolis, targeting undergraduates who use

English as the medium of instruction.

The research is concerned primarily with the comprehension of

meaning beyond literal interpretation, including the ability to infer implied

intentions, recognize indirect expressions, and interpret context-dependent

messages. While pragmatic ambiguity can occur in spoken language, this

study is restricted to written texts, such as narrative and academic passages,

because comprehension in reading is a critical skill for academic success.

The scope is further limited by the choice of participants, which

excludes postgraduate students and focuses on undergraduates with varying

proficiency levels in English. The study does not aim to cover all forms of

ambiguity exhaustively but rather to provide insights into the nature,

sources, and effects of pragmatic ambiguity as it affects academic

comprehension.

1.7 Operational Definition of Terms

For clarity and consistency, the following key terms are defined as they are

used in this study:

 Ambiguity – A situation in which a word, phrase, sentence, or text

allows multiple interpretations, potentially leading to misunderstanding

(Baker, 1995; Griffiths, 2006).

 Lexical Ambiguity – A type of ambiguity that occurs when a word has

more than one meaning, either related (polysemy) or unrelated

(homonymy), causing potential misinterpretation in reading or writing

(Hurford et al., 2007).

 Syntactic Ambiguity – A type of ambiguity that arises from sentence

structure, where words or phrases can be grouped in multiple ways,

creating more than one possible interpretation (Kreidler, 1998; Cruse,

2000).

 Pragmatic Ambiguity – Ambiguity that depends on context, speaker

intention, or shared knowledge, where the literal meaning of an

utterance may differ from what is implied or intended (Thomas, 1995;

Mey, 2001).

 Pragmatic Comprehension – The ability to interpret language

appropriately in context, including indirect meanings, speech acts, and

conversational implicatures, beyond just understanding vocabulary and

grammar (Van Dijk, 1977; Bardovi-Harlig, 1999).

 English Language Undergraduates – Students enrolled in higher

education programs focusing on English language, literature,

 linguistics, or applied English studies, who are expected to

demonstrate proficiency in reading, writing, and comprehension of

academic English.

 Speech Acts – Utterances in which a speaker performs an action, such

as requesting, offering, or correcting, that carries an intended

communicative function (Austin, 1962; Searle, 1969)..

 Conversational Implicatures – Meanings inferred by a listener based on

what is said, the context, and assumptions about the speaker’s

intentions, rather than explicitly stated content (Grice, 1975; Sperber &

Wilson, 1995).