Ambiguity Avoidance is Overrated

In other words, natural language is highly ambiguous. A search of any good dictionary will reveal that most words have multiple definitions, and (as first noted by Zipf, 1949) more frequent words tend to be more ambiguous. Likewise, as computational linguists discovered a few decades ago, most strings of words that constitute well-formed sentences have multiple possible parses. For example, Martin, et al (1987) reported that their system assigned 455 distinct parses to the relatively simple sentence List sales of the products produced in 1973 with the products produced in 1972. In addition, there are other ambiguities that do not seem to be tied either to polysemous words or alternative parses. Among these is perhaps the most widely studied type of ambiguity, scope ambiguity. I will return to a more careful taxonomy of types of ambiguity in the next section.

[1]  H. Grice Logic and conversation , 1975 .

[2]  Douglas Roland,et al.  Frequency of Basic English Grammatical Structures: A Corpus Analysis. , 2007, Journal of memory and language.

[3]  R. Jakobson,et al.  Beitrag zur allgemeinen Kasuslehre: Gesamtbedeutungen der russischen Kasus , 1971 .

[4]  Thomas Wasow,et al.  Processing as a Source of Accessibility Effects on Variation , 2005 .

[5]  Victor S. Ferreira,et al.  Avoid Ambiguity! (If You Can) , 2006 .

[6]  Ronald W. Langacker,et al.  Movement rules in functional perspective , 1974 .

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

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

[9]  Kenneth Ward Church,et al.  PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF A BREADTH-FIRST PARSING ALGORITHM: THEORETICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS , 1987 .

[10]  C. Habel,et al.  Language , 1931, NeuroImage.

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

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

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

[14]  H. Kucera,et al.  Computational analysis of present-day American English , 1967 .

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

[16]  M. Tanenhaus Afterword The impact of “The cognitive basis for linguistic structures” , 2013 .

[17]  Charles Carpenter Fries,et al.  On the Development of the Structural Use of Word-Order in Modern English , 1940 .

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

[19]  Gerlof Bouma,et al.  Production and Comprehension in Context: the Case of Word Order Freezing , 2010 .

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

[21]  Daniel C. Richardson,et al.  Effects of merely local syntactic coherence on sentence processing , 2004 .

[22]  Kenneth Ward Church,et al.  Coping with Syntactic Ambiguity or How to Put the Block in the Box on the Table , 1982, CL.

[23]  J. Hayes Cognition and the development of language , 1970 .

[24]  Lyn Frazier,et al.  Ambiguity avoidance as contrast preservation: Case and word order freezing in Japanese , 2004 .

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

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