Denison, David

English

The University of Manchester - Institutional Repository

The University of Manchester ResearchAmbiguity and vagueness in English: speakers vs.linguistsLink to publication record in Manchester Research ExplorerCitation for published version (APA):Denison, D. (2014). Ambiguity and vagueness in English: speakers vs. linguists. In host publicationPublished in:host publicationCiting this paperPlease note that where the full-text provided on Manchester Research Explorer is the Author Accepted Manuscriptor Proof version this may differ from the final Published version. If citing, it is advised that you check and use thepublisher's definitive version.General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the Research Explorer are retained by theauthors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise andabide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.Takedown policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please refer to the University of Manchester’s TakedownProcedures [http://man.ac.uk/04Y6Bo] or contact uml.scholarlycommunications@manchester.ac.uk providingrelevant details, so we can investigate your claim.Download date:09. Jun. 20221Denison, ‘Ambiguity & vagueness’David DenisonOutline of talk Introduction Ambiguity vs. vagueness Linguists’ assumptions Stepwise change of word class Prefabs and multi-word units Closing remarks2Full disclosure Talk draws on presentation at workshop on psycholinguistic perspectives on history of English Round table will help me with chapter on ‘Ambiguity and vagueness in historical change’ (in prep.), to be paired with one by Claudia Felser Talk also draws on my work on linguistic change in English, especially concerning word classes and word class boundaries4Hundt, Mollin & Pfenninger (in prep.); Denison (various); Felser (in prep.)Participants SP/W = speaker/writer AD/R = addressee(s)/reader Historical linguist is also R for written data, but potentially more knowledgeable than intended readership probably ignorant of cultural and pragmatic facts obvious to contemporary reader ≈ normal AD for recent audio broadcast or telephone data (but can listen repeatedly) with audio conversational data, probably lacks non-verbal communication available to actual AD Psycholinguist: highly peculiar SP/W and[??] AD/R!52Denison, ‘Ambiguity & vagueness’Incomplete knowledge Ambiguity AD/R cannot be sure which of two (or more) analyses was intended by SP/W, and something hangs on choice. Uncertain analysis may concern (e.g.) lexical semantics, syntactic structure, lexeme boundaries. Vagueness Linguistic analysis in some respect underdetermined, equally for SP/W and AD/R No further info needed for interpretation7Psychological difference Relevant kind of vagueness concerns properties normally specified (otherwise would be unlimited). A priori, vagueness less costly psychologically than ambiguity ambiguity: AD/R may need to explore alternatives –though evidently they often don’t vagueness: no need to back up and try againTraugott & Trousdale (2013: 199-200), Felser (in prep.)8Bridging context More than one interpretation of word possible in context, possibly only subtly different ‘Wrong’ selection by AD/R (≠ SP/W’s intention) → unrecognised misunderstanding, often harmless linguistic innovation = actuation of potential change By definition, must arise from ambiguity, not vagueness.Evans & Wilkins (1998; 2000: 549-50), Diewald (2002), Heine (2002)10Bridging contexts: example 1 Classic example: early history of still adv.2. ‘motionless’ (OE- )3a. ‘without change’ (ME-?lModE obs.)4a. ‘now as formerly’ (1535- ) Bridging context:One generaciõ passeth away, another commeth, but the earth abydeth still. (1535, not OED) Reasonable to invoke ambiguity here, but can bridging contexts involve vagueness too?OED Online, OED Dictionary Browser11Bridging contexts: example 2 discrimination n.neutral: 1a. The action of perceiving, noting, or making a distinction between things 1621-†3. The fact or condition of being differentiated. (1666-1867)positive: 4. The power or faculty of […] of making exact distinctions; discernment. (1764- )negative: 6. orig. U.S. Unjust or prejudicial treatment of a person or group, esp. on the grounds of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. (1819- )So long as the North treats the negro workman with blighting discrimination [...] (1906)12Bridging contexts: example 2 In basic sense 1a, semantics of discrimination carries no value judgement – so is vague in that respect Invited inference that discrimination is good (sense 4) or bad (sense 6) would belong to pragmatics and involves context and collocation. e.g. via ellipsis of against-PP or of a premodifier like racial for sense 6.133Denison, ‘Ambiguity & vagueness’Modularity, constituency Common assumptions: modular architecture centrality of syntax binary branching no crossing branches (no discontinuous constituents) single mother (no multiple inheritance)15Elegance and economy Further assumptions: grammaticality is binary: yes or no a grammar must be internally consistent every word in every grammatical sentence belongs to one and only one word class parsimony: avoid alternative ways of deriving grammatical sentences or blocking ungrammatical ones the fewer rules needed to account for some data, the greater the explanatory power16Which theories assume this? MIT-style generative grammar – or unfair to recent work? many other formal approaches (apart from centrality of syntax) much structuralist grammar17Networks rather than trees Cognitive Grammar, Construction Grammar (many flavours), ?Théorie des opérations énonciativesgenerally reject modular architecture centrality of syntax Dependency Grammars, Word Grammar reject binary branching, no crossing branches, one motherin favour of networks18The edges of grammaticality Usage-based work rejects grammaticality is binary: yes or no Acceptability is gradient, contingent on such factors as context, priming, discourse rather than isolated sentences, creativity, exposure to prescriptive ideas. Linguistic knowledge may be probabilistic. I reject every word in every grammatical sentence belongs to one and only one word class19Gahl & Garnsey (2006); Bresnan (2007); Sampson & Babarczy (2014); Denison (in prep. a: Ch. 1)4Denison, ‘Ambiguity & vagueness’Diseconomy I mistrust as psychologically implausible parsimony: avoid alternative ways of deriving grammatical sentences or blocking ungrammatical ones the fewer rules needed to account for some data, the greater the explanatory power More plausible that actual behaviour is additive:usage (SP/W) or analysis (AD/R) more likely, the more factors conspire to support it20Messiness of grammar I mistrust (but on largely anecdotal evidence): a grammar must be internally consistent Speaker grammar allows inconsistent fragments.21Well-studied type: N → Adj Nouns (esp. recently) may develop Adj usage alongside existing N distribution: fun, key, ace, amateur, apricot, core, bandaid, cardboard, champion, corker, cowboy, dinosaur, draft, freak, genius, killer, landmark, luxury, niche, pants, powerhouse, rubbish, surprise, Velcro … N and Adj are distinct word classes with some properties in common.Denison (2013; in prep. a)2324N AdjX takes D as dependent + ?–XP can be subject, direct object, indirect object, complement of preposition+ –X can postmodify N – +X takes intensifier as dependent – +X can premodify N + +XP can be predicative complement + +[various features characteristic of V, e.g. tense] – –[various features characteristic of other PoS] – –X inflects for plural + –X inflects for genitive + –X can be marked for comparative and superlative – +Syntactic ‘bridging contexts’ Premodifier of head noun:Gold is real money and paper is pretend money. (1974, OED)That’s why inflation money is false purchasing power. (1946, WebCorp) Predicative complement (N only if mass noun or plural):a third of the pictures are beautiful, but I think two-thirds of the pictures are fakes (BNC)His gentleness was fake (BNC) Word class underdetermined in these syntactic contexts (though may be known from distribution elsewhere)25NAdjNN or AdjAdjN or Adj5Denison, ‘Ambiguity & vagueness’Early history of core: only N Certain frequent collocations place core in pre-modifying function, a syntactic bridging context:‘Shall there be a core curriculum in secondary schools?’:a symposium. (1935, OED)in relation to our guiding ethical principles and core values and laws in American democracy (1975, COCA)the core ideas of Jung and LeviStrauss (1982, COCA) It remains N, even here. Acquisition of Adj behaviour is generally step-wise rather than all at once.26 27N AdjX takes D as dependent + ?–XP can be subject, direct object, indirect object, complement of preposition+ –X can postmodify N – +X takes intensifier as dependent – +X can premodify N + +XP can be predicative complement + +[various features characteristic of V, e.g. tense] – –[various features characteristic of other PoS] – –X inflects for plural + –X inflects for genitive + –X can be marked for comparative and superlative – +Word order Modifying adjectives usually precede modifying nouns Modifying N before Adj only if Adj is a classifier Determiner   Adjective(s)   Modifying Noun(s)   Head Noun29D Adjective zone Modifying noun zoneHead nouna big tourist attractiona garish big expensive London tourist attraction*a tourist big attractioncore: Adj too (not intended to show chronology) Before a non-classifier Adj:once you get away from the core big jobs in government -- like the President, his staff […] (1991, COHA)Tackling these jobs beyond Europe should be a core new mission of NATO (2003, COHA) With intensifier:Anything that was so core to the election (1995, COCA)It is very core to our program strategies (2011, web) In comparative or superlative:in my life and my most core beliefs (2007, COCA) As post-modifier:there is something central, something core, in everyone’s experience of shame (2004, WebCorp)30 During period of transition, three groups of speakers: Group 1 (most conservative): only have core = N Group 2: core = N and core with some but not all Adj properties (perhaps to be differentiated further) Group 3 (most advanced): core = N and core = Adj Can produce as SP/W (and accept as AD/R):Denison (2010; 2013)Mixed communityExamples that must be NExamples that could be vague N ~ Adj (but N for group 1)Examples that must be AdjGroup 1 + ?+ –Group 2 + + ?Group 3 + + +31Word class may depend on SP/W Typical example of core in ‘bridging context’:[…] to include only core academic content (2006, COHA) For Group 1 SP/W, example contains core as N. For Group 2 or 3, vague between N and Adj. SP/W and AD/R in these groups don’t need to decide. For AD/R, cf. ‘good enough’ analysis in psycholinguistics Distinction for linguist would be arbitrary. No semantic or structural ambiguity. Choice only affects labels.Christianson et al. (2001), Ferreira et al. (2002), Ferreira & Patson (2007), Felser (in prep.)326Denison, ‘Ambiguity & vagueness’Can word class be vague?33 “No”There is no evidence I am aware of that SPs/Ws create underspecified syntactic representations. (Claudia Felser, p.c.) “Problematic”Re underspecification, the problem I see is a logical one. […] In other words, every time you assume underspecification you assume a supercategory which may well conflict with other supercategories. Either that's a strong testable hypothesis (and you'll never actually need conflicting supercategories), or it's wrong. (Dick Hudson, p.c.) Response to Hudson Possible conflicts so far involve Adj (with N, D, V, Adv), and some with Pronoun and Modals – if separate word classes.Can word class be vague?34 “Maybe” Partial underspecification is compatible with rule-based, compositional models (Paul Kiparsky, p.c.)[…] even if [such words as fun] are underspecified in the mental lexicon, it's also possible that they always get fully specified in actual sentences. I don't see any way to decide between these possibilities on the basis of linguistic evidence. Perhaps there could be psycholinguistic experiments?’ (Kiparsky, p.c.) Response: Challenge idea that every word in sentence must be assigned unique word class in linguist’s grammatical representation. Query whether SP/W’s mental grammar must use word classes, and if so, whether must always specify them.Is word class always stored? Proper names can appear in Adj-like contexts:It’s very silly, it’s very odd, it’s very Woody Allen. (2008)This is so Woody Allen. Neurotic as ever and so on top of his game. (2000) Counter-intuitive to suggest that speakers store Woody Allen and any other name as both (Proper) Noun and Adj‘just in case’. Note anaphora in last example. Better interpretation: ‘wrong’ word class coerced by construction. Word class as epiphenomenon in Construction Grammar35Lexeme boundaries A word class must be assigned to a word (lexeme). Can knowledge of extent of lexeme be incomplete in mental lexicon? linguist’s grammar? Non-compositional a lot of as unit vs. modification of lot (a whole lot of) Many overlapping prefabs in the sort of family: kind of, all kinds of, what kind of, those sort of,sort of thing, etc.Traugott & Trousdale (2013: 27), Bybee & Beckner (2014: §3.3)37Complex prepositions in PDE Should strings like by dint of, in front of, on behalf of be analysed as a single lexeme (a complex preposition) or as separate words with internal structure? The Cambridge Grammar argues for separate words except for the few cases where there is no evidence at all for the separate analysis, e.g. dint, which is hardly used as N.38Huddleston & Pullum (2002: 618-23)7Denison, ‘Ambiguity & vagueness’Complex prepositions in ModE Behalf analysed as N, head of NP:on behalf of his country (PPCMBE)[PP [P on] [NP [N behalf] [PP [P of] [NP his country]]]] Justified by varied distributionof behalf in PPCMBE (1700-1914) Same analysis in Cambridge Grammar,citing alternations likeon his country’s behalf but PDE ≠ 18-19C English39Pattern Nin behalf of X 6in the behalf of X 2in X’s behalf 6in that behalf 16on behalf of X 11on the behalf of X 1on X’s (own) behalf 6Total 48Complex prepositions Alternative analysis as [P on behalf of] supported e.g. by infrequency of interruption possibility of substitution different distribution of on behalf of X and on X’s behalf(common nouns vs. proper nouns or pronouns) Choice affects word class but structure too Both analyses available to AD/R Ambiguity or vagueness? Very little hangs on choice.Hoffmann (2005), Denison (2010: 118-22), Bybee & Beckner (2014: §3.3)40Problems and questions For historical linguist: Ambiguity and structural change needs more work. Differentiating ambiguity and vagueness in their diachronic effects and historical stability? How to constrain vagueness to relevant properties Perhaps need functions like attribute and classifier rather than, or as well as, word class categories like N and Adj. Striking frequency in recent decades of N > Adj transitions. Perhaps type frequency relevant after all? (cf. ‘gang effect’)Bolinger (1967), Denison (2013: 174), Bybee & Beckner (2014)42Problems and questions For psycholinguist: What is known about (real) speaker grammar? Are mutually inconsistent parts of grammar possible? Are word classes a necessary prerequisite for using language? If so, is vagueness as to word class possible for speakers? Is underspecification (vagueness) in general possible? Is there psycholinguistic evidence for my groups 1, 2 and 3?43On handout, and alsoSlides from presentation + references will be onhttp://tinyurl.com/DD-downloadwork-in-progress comments very welcome, but please don’t quoteReferences Bolinger, Dwight. 1967. Adjectives in English: Attribution and predication. Lingua 18, 1-34. Bybee, Joan & Clayton Beckner. 2014. Language use, cognitive processes and linguistic change. In Claire Bowern & Bethwyn Evans (eds.), Routledge handbook of historical linguistics, 503-18. Routledge. Christianson, Kiel, Andrew Hollingworth, John F. Halliwell & Fernanda Ferreira. 2001. Thematic roles assigned along the garden path linger. Cognitive Psychology 42.4, 368-407. Denison, David. 2002. History of the sort of construction family. Paper presented at ICCG2: Second International Conference on Construction Grammar, Helsinki. Denison, David. 2010. Category change in English with and without structural change. In Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization (Typological Studies in Language 90), 105-28. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Denison, David. 2012. On the history of English (and) word classes. Paper presented at ICEHL17, Zurich. Denison, David. 2013. Parts of speech: Solid citizens or slippery customers? Journal of the British Academy 1, 151-85. Denison, David. in prep. a. English word classes: Categories and their limits (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Denison, David. in prep. b,2015. Ambiguity and vagueness in historical change. In Hundt, Mollin & Pfenninger (eds.). Diewald, Gabriele. 2002. A model for relevant types of contexts in grammaticalization. In Ilse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization (Typological Studies in Language 49), 103-20. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Evans, Nicholas & David Wilkins. 1998. The knowing ear: An Australian test of universal claims about the semantic structure of sensory verbs and their extension into the domain of cognition (Arbeitspapier 32 (Neue Folge)). Cologne: Institut fur Sprachwissenschaft. Felser, Claudia. in prep.,2015. Syntactic ambiguity in real-time language processing and diachronic change. In Hundt, Mollin & Pfenninger (eds.). Ferreira, Fernanda, Karl G. D. Bailey & Vittoria Ferraro. 2002. Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science 11.1, 11-5. Ferreira, Fernanda & Nikole D. Patson. 2007. The 'good-enough' approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass 1.1-2, 71-83. Gahl, Susanne & Susan Garnsey. 2006. Knowledge of grammar includes knowledge of syntactic probabilities. Language 82, 405-10. Heine, Bernd. 2002. On the role of context in grammaticalization. In Ilse  Wischer & Gabriele  Diewald (eds.), New reflections on grammaticalisation, 83-102. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hoffmann, Sebastian. 2005. Grammaticalization and English complex prepositions: A corpus-based study (Routledge Advances in Corpus Linguistics 7). London and New York: Routledge. Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hundt, Marianne, Sandra Mollin & Simone Pfenninger (eds.). in prep.,2015. The changing English language: Psycholinguistic perspectives (Studies in English Language). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  OED Online http://dictionary.oed.com/ Sampson, Geoffrey & Anna Babarczy. 2014. Grammar without grammaticality: Growth and limits of grammatical precision (Topics in English Linguistics (TiEL) 254). Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Graeme Trousdale. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes (Oxford Studies in Diachronic and Historical Linguistics 6). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

Ambiguity and vagueness in English: speakers vs. linguists

https://pure.manchester.ac.uk/ws/files/37800780/SUPPLEMENTARY_1.PDF

Ambiguity and vagueness in English: speakers vs. linguists

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

The University of Manchester - Institutional Repository