Analytical framework of linguistic ambiguity in En- 123docz.net

As clearly defined in chapter 2, Linguistic ambiguity in English frequently exists in the form of lexical ambiguity and structural (or grammatical) ambiguity, with the former by far being more common. Nevertheless, recent studies in the field of Linguistic semantics have raised a hot discussion on a more detailed classification of Linguistic ambiguity, which extends the available framework of the subject matter. Three most prominent authors in the field are Empson (1949), Shultz and Pilon (1973) and Walton (1996), whose works have conditioned the current paper to have its reliable analytical framework for the being-discussed subject.

From his observation, Empson (1949) has published a book entitled “Seven types of ambiguity”, which clearly categorizes ambiguity into: comparative ambiguity, or metaphor (two things that have different properties are said to be alike), double metaphors, or resolution (two or more different metaphors are used at once), context (two ideas or notions connected through a context can be given simultaneously in a single word), complexity (two disconnected or different ideas are combined to make clear a complicated state within the mind of the author), fortune confusion or simile (an idea is come up by the author only during the stage of writing, which lies between two other statements made by the author), invented interpretations (when the author leaves his message intentionally

(LUAN.van.THAC.si).examining.linguistic.ambiguity.as.a.source.of.constructing.funniness.in.english.verbal.jockes(LUAN.van.THAC.si).examining.linguistic.ambiguity.as.a.source.of.constructing.funniness.in.english.verbal.jockes(LUAN.van.THAC.si).examining.linguistic.ambiguity.as.a.source.of.constructing.funniness.in.english.verbal.jockes(LUAN.van.THAC.si).examining.linguistic.ambiguity.as.a.source.of.constructing.funniness.in.english.verbal.jockes(LUAN.van.THAC.si).examining.linguistic.ambiguity.as.a.source.of.constructing.funniness.in.english.verbal.jockes(LUAN.van.THAC.si).examining.linguistic.ambiguity.as.a.source.of.constructing.funniness.in.english.verbal.jockes(LUAN.van.THAC.si).examining.linguistic.ambiguity.as.a.source.of.constructing.funniness.in.english.verbal.jockes(LUAN.van.THAC.si).examining.linguistic.ambiguity.as.a.source.of.constructing.funniness.in.english.verbal.jockes

vague, the readers are forced to make up a meaning of the text. As every reader is different, their invented interpretations often conflict with those of the author and other readers), contradiction (two or more opposite notions of the same text are connected only through the text itself and illustrate an inevitable division in the author‟s thought process).

Clearly, the classification by Empson is rather vague and not well-supported as he proposes the theory on the basis of literary works, poetry to be more specific. Hence, it may work extremely well in the case of literature research rather than the current paper.

On the other hand, Shultz and Pilon (1973), when researching different age stages of children‟s ability to detect linguistic ambiguity, draw a conclusion about the relationship between lexical ambiguity and phonological ambiguity (so-called phonetic ambiguity). The two authors assert, “Phonological ambiguity occurs when a given phonological sequence can be interpreted in more than one way. This can result from a confusion about the boundaries between words (e.g. “eighty cups” and “eight tea cups”)” (p.1) They also conclude that the ability to detect phonological ambiguity first appears when the child reaches the age of 6-9. Phonological ambiguity can also be seen through the similar phonological representations between “Some other I‟ve seen” and “Some mother I‟ve seen” found out by Nash (1985). This has proved the significance of phonological ambiguity, which should be considered another type of Linguistic ambiguity beside lexical and structural ones.

Walton (1996), furthermore, gives out an applicable model of ambiguity types including three sets of ambiguous sentences namely potential, actual and imaginary ambiguity, with each divided into smaller branches. Figure 2 below will help to further explain this point:

Figure 2: Types of ambiguity (adapted from Walton 1996)

According to this outstanding linguist, Potential ambiguity occurs when a word or sentence is ambiguous in and of itself, regardless its co-text in a sentence or paragraph.

Lexical and Structural ambiguity, therefore, belong to this subset. Inflective ambiguity, the third type of Potential ambiguity, actually makes use of both lexical and structural ambiguities. Actual ambiguity, in Walton‟s opinion, happens during the action of the speaking, providing that there exist no ambiguities of the lexical and structural items. Of the two subcategories of Actual ambiguity, Pragmatic ambiguity is described as a statement not having enough information to arrive at the intended meaning, while Extraneous ambiguity arises as a result of the fact that the provided information has redundant or unnecessary details. Finally, Imaginary ambiguity lies in a fixed meaning of a word, which seems to convey a different meaning arrived at by a different communication recipient. Emphatic and Suggestive ambiguity, in fact, are the subcategories of this type.

Unlike Empson‟s classification of ambiguity, Walton‟s model appears to be too trivial and covers a quite broad scope of linguistics, which should be applied for English verbalized humor, much broader a term than English verbal jokes, the subject matter of the current study (see chapter 1, section 1.3 for the detailed differentiation of the two terms). However, to fully attain the aims and objectives put forward of the paper, Walton‟s model of ambiguity types is exploited with a visible awareness of the researcher that adaptation is crucially needed.

Broadly speaking, the analytical framework of linguistic ambiguity applied for the current paper spins around the four fundamental types: lexical, structural, phonological and pragmatic ambiguity (a general term used to aim at both pragmatic and extraneous ambiguities by Walton 1996), which has been adapted critically from the trust-worthy works mentioned above in English linguistics. In short, the framework that works as guidelines for the paper is summarized as follows:

Types of linguistic ambiguity General definition

1 Lexical ambiguity The ambiguity of a word or lexical constituents within the sentence (Hurford and Heaseley, 2001).

2 Structural ambiguity

The ambiguity of various ways in which the lexical items of a sentence are said to relate to each other (Hurford and Heaseley, 2001).

3 Phonological ambiguity The ambiguity of sound similarities between two words or phrases (Shultz and Pilon, 1973).

4 Pragmatic ambiguity

The ambiguity aroused when not enough or excess information is provided, which leads to the fact that intended messages are misinterpreted (Walton, 1996).

Figure 3: Analytical framework of linguistic ambiguity in English

A detailed discussion of these ambiguity types will be given in later sections, in which each type‟s features and examples are analyzed thoroughly.

Analytical framework of linguistic ambiguity in English

Factors towards appreciating verbal jokes’ funniness