The communicative function of ambiguity in language

We present a general information-theoretic argument that all efficient communication systems will be ambiguous, assuming that context is informative about meaning. We also argue that ambiguity allows for greater ease of processing by permitting efficient linguistic units to be re-used. We test predictions of this theory in English, German, and Dutch. Our results and theoretical analysis suggest that ambiguity is a functional property of language that allows for greater communicative efficiency. This provides theoretical and empirical arguments against recent suggestions that core features of linguistic systems are not designed for communication.

[1]  J. Trueswell,et al.  Using prosody to avoid ambiguity: Effects of speaker awareness and referential context , 2003 .

[2]  Dmitrii Y. Manin,et al.  Zipf's Law and Avoidance of Excessive Synonymy , 2007, Cogn. Sci..

[3]  Andrew Gelman,et al.  Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models: Multilevel linear models: the basics , 2006 .

[4]  Steven T Piantadosi,et al.  Word lengths are optimized for efficient communication , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[5]  R. Levy.  Expectation-based syntactic comprehension , 2008, Cognition.

[6]  Andrew Gelman,et al.  Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models , 2006 .

[7]  Liam Paninski,et al.  Estimation of Entropy and Mutual Information , 2003, Neural Computation.

[8]  William D. Marslen-Wilson,et al.  Discourse: The Establishment and Maintenance of Reference , 2022 .

[9]  J. Elman,et al.  Why is that? Structural prediction and ambiguity resolution in a very large corpus of English sentences , 2006, Cognition.

[10]  Ramon Ferrer i Cancho,et al.  When language breaks into pieces. A conflict between communication through isolated signals and language. , 2006, Bio Systems.

[11]  S. Brennan,et al.  Prosodic disambiguation of syntactic structure: For the speaker or for the addressee? , 2005, Cognitive Psychology.

[12]  S. Piantadosi,et al.  Refer efficiently : Use less informative expressions for more predictable meanings , 2009 .

[13]  S. Levinson.  Presumptive Meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature , 2001 .

[14]  M. Pickering,et al.  Do Speakers Avoid Ambiguities During Dialogue? , 2005, Psychological science.

[15]  George A. Miller,et al.  Language and Communication , 1951 .

[16]  A. Garnham,et al.  Avoiding the garden path: Eye movements in context , 1992 .

[17]  John J. McCarthy,et al.  Formal Problems in Semitic Phonology and Morphology , 2018 .

[18]  Julie C. Sedivy,et al.  Invoking Discourse-Based Contrast Sets and Resolving Syntactic Ambiguities ☆ , 2002 .

[19]  Thomas Hofmann,et al.  Speakers optimize information density through syntactic reduction , 2007 .

[20]  David J. C. MacKay,et al.  Information Theory, Inference, and Learning Algorithms , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory.

[21]  R. Shillcock,et al.  Eye Movements Reveal the On-Line Computation of Lexical Probabilities During Reading , 2003, Psychological science.

[22]  George Kingsley Zipf,et al.  Human behavior and the principle of least effort , 1949 .

[23]  R. Ratcliff,et al.  Reliability of prosodic cues for resolving syntactic ambiguity. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[24]  G. Altmann,et al.  The time-course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: Evidence from anticipatory eye-movements , 2003 .

[25]  Victor S. Ferreira,et al.  How do speakers avoid ambiguous linguistic expressions? , 2005, Cognition.

[26]  Susan M. Garnsey,et al.  Semantic Influences On Parsing: Use of Thematic Role Information in Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution , 1994 .

[27]  E. Gibson.  Linguistic complexity: locality of syntactic dependencies , 1998, Cognition.

[28]  Mark Steedman,et al.  The use of context by the psychological parser , 1981 .

[29]  G. Altmann,et al.  Incremental interpretation at verbs: restricting the domain of subsequent reference , 1999, Cognition.

[30]  David Yarowsky,et al.  One Sense per Collocation , 1993, HLT.

[31]  S. Pinker,et al.  Natural language and natural selection , 1990, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[32]  J. Trueswell,et al.  The role of discourse context in the processing of a flexible word-order language , 2004, Cognition.

[33]  Julie C. Sedivy,et al.  Subject Terms: Linguistics Language Eyes & eyesight Cognition & reasoning , 1995 .

[34]  Ricard V. Solé,et al.  Least effort and the origins of scaling in human language , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[35]  R. Schiffer.  Psychobiology of Language , 1986 .

[36]  Tessa C. Warren,et al.  The influence of referential processing on sentence complexity , 2002, Cognition.

[37]  Christiane Fellbaum,et al.  Book Reviews: WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database , 1999, CL.

[38]  Lynne M. Reder,et al.  A semantic interpretation of encoding specificity , 1974 .

[39]  Jeanette K. Gundel,et al.  Cognitive Status and the form of Referring Expressions in Discourse , 1993, The Oxford Handbook of Reference.

[40]  Mark Steedman,et al.  On not being led up the garden path : The use of context by the psychological syntax processor , 1985 .

[41]  George Kingsley Zipf,et al.  The Psychobiology of Language , 2022 .

[42]  H. Grice.  Utterer's meaning and intentions , 1969 .

[43]  Mark Steedman,et al.  Interaction with context during human sentence processing , 1988, Cognition.

[44]  Duane G. Watson,et al.  The influence of contextual contrast on syntactic processing: evidence for strong-interaction in sentence comprehension , 2005, Cognition.

[45]  Eugene Charniak,et al.  Variation of Entropy and Parse Trees of Sentences as a Function of the Sentence Number , 2003, EMNLP.

[46]  Thomas Wasow,et al.  Post-verbal constituent ordering in English , 2003 .

[47]  Michael J. Spivey,et al.  Syntactic ambiguity resolution in discourse: modeling the effects of referential context and lexical frequency. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[48]  Mira Ariel.  Accessing Noun-Phrase Antecedents , 1990 .

[49]  J. Pierrehumbert,et al.  Similarity and phonotactics in Arabic , 1997 .

[50]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  On Nature and Language: An interview on minimalism , 2002 .

[51]  Julie C. Sedivy,et al.  Achieving incremental semantic interpretation through contextual representation , 1999, Cognition.

[52]  Adam Tauman Kalai,et al.  Compression without a common prior: an information-theoretic justification for ambiguity in language , 2011, ICS.

[53]  Eugene Charniak,et al.  Entropy Rate Constancy in Text , 2002, ACL.

[54]  Alice Turk,et al.  The Smooth Signal Redundancy Hypothesis: A Functional Explanation for Relationships between Redundancy, Prosodic Prominence, and Duration in Spontaneous Speech , 2004, Language and speech.

[55]  C. F. Hockett.  The origin of speech. , 1960, Scientific American.

[56]  Sang Joon Kim,et al.  A Mathematical Theory of Communication , 2006 .

[57]  Thomas Givon,et al.  The Genesis of Syntactic Complexity: Diachrony, Ontogeny, Neuro-Cognition, Evolution , 2009 .

[58]  Lyn Frazier,et al.  ON COMPREHENDING SENTENCES: SYNTACTIC PARSING STRATEGIES. , 1979 .

[59]  David Yarowsky,et al.  One Sense Per Discourse , 1992, HLT.

[60]  David I. Beaver,et al.  The puzzle of ambiguity , 2005 .

[61]  Claude E. Shannon,et al.  A mathematical theory of communication , 1948, MOCO.

[62]  Daniel Jurafsky,et al.  A Probabilistic Model of Lexical and Syntactic Access and Disambiguation , 1996, Cogn. Sci..

[63]  T. Jaeger,et al.  Speaking Rationally: Uniform Information Density as an Optimal Strategy for Language Production , 2008 .

[64]  K. Rayner.  Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. , 1998, Psychological bulletin.

[65]  Thomas M. Cover,et al.  Elements of Information Theory , 2005 .

[66]  Vera Demberg-Winterfors,et al.  Broad-coverage model of prediction in human sentence processing , 2010 .

[67]  Ting Qian,et al.  Cue Effectiveness in Communicatively Efficient Discourse Production , 2012, Cogn. Sci..

[68]  V. Ferreira.  Ambiguity, Accessibility, and a Division of Labor for Communicative Success. , 2008, Learning and motivation.

[69]  T. Florian Jaeger,et al.  Redundancy and reduction: Speakers manage syntactic information density , 2010, Cognitive Psychology.

[70]  G. Dell,et al.  Effect of Ambiguity and Lexical Availability on Syntactic and Lexical Production , 2000, Cognitive Psychology.

[71]  J. McCarthy.  OCP effects: Gemination and antigemination , 1986 .

[72]  Jennifer E. Arnold.  RUNNING HEAD : AVOIDING ATTACHMENT AMBIGUITIES Avoiding Attachment Ambiguities : the Role of Constituent Ordering , 2004 .

[73]  Roberto Navigli,et al.  Word sense disambiguation: A survey , 2009, CSUR.

[74]  K. Rayner,et al.  Effects of contextual predictability and transitional probability on eye movements during reading. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[75]  Jennifer E. Arnold,et al.  Reference production: Production-internal and addressee-oriented processes , 2008 .

[76]  Louis C. W. Pols,et al.  How efficient is speech , 2003 .