Ambiguity as a Natural Outcome of Language Evolution Serving the Communicative Function

Authors

  • Aydan Tahir Malikzadeh

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14738/assrj.94.12140

Keywords:

ambiguity, meaning, multiple, language, function, communication

Abstract

While defining language, its being a means of communication is always highlighted. Languages have evolved to allow individuals to express themselves and exchange information. Having said that, it is questioned why languages, as a primary tool for communication, are full of ambiguities occurring at almost all linguistic levels. To answer this question, this paper attempts to analyze the concept of linguistic ambiguity examining its role and function in the language. For achieving this purpose, the concept of ambiguity has been explained thoroughly and argued that despite some occasional misunderstandings in communication, ambiguity is a merit of a language rather than a drawback for humans who have inherent and sophisticated cognitive mechanisms to understand what is meant. The claim that ambiguity is a curse not a blessing is applicable to computer sciences where Natural Language Processing is inhibited due to ambiguity. Arising from the disproportion between linguistic items and realities, ambiguity should be regarded as a natural evolutionary outcome thanks to which easier and shorter words are reused making the language more efficient.

References

Altmann G.T.M. (1998) Ambiguity in sentence processing. Trends in cognitive sciences, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp 146-152.

Berry M.D., Kamsties E., Krieger M.M. (2003). From Contract Drafting to Software Specification: Linguistic Sources of Ambiguity. A Handbook.

Cohen A. (no date) Why ambiguity? http://www.bgu.ac.il/~arikc/Ambiguity.pdf

Cowie F., (2003) Innateness, philosophical issues about, Encyclopaedia of Cognitive Science, Macmillan Publishing Co., 2003, pp. 1-8.

Chomsky N.(2002) Syntactic structures. Berlin New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Church K., Patil R. (1982) Coping with syntactic ambiguity or how to put the block in the box on the table. American Journal of Computational Linguistics, Vol. 8, No 3-4, pp. 139-149.

Crystal D. (1998) Language Play. UK: Penguin.

Cushing S. (1997) Fatal Words: Communication Clashes and Aircraft Crashes. US: University of Chicago Press.

Oaks D. (2010) Structural ambiguity in English. New York: Continuum.

Pehar D. (2011) Diplomatic ambiguity: Language, power, law. LAP Lambert Academic Publishing.

Pehar D. (2001) Use of ambiguities in peace agreements https://www.researchgate.net/publication/200667590_Use_of_Ambiguities_in_Peace_Agreements

Piantadosi S.T., Tily H., Gibson E., The communicative function of ambiguity in language, Cognition 122 (2012), pp. 280–291.

Raskin V. (1985) Semantic mechanisms of humor. Dordrecht/ Boston/ Lancaster: D.Reidel Publishing Company.

Salvatore A. (1990) The violation of Grice’s maxims in jokes / Proceedings of the sixteenth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 355-362.

Salvatore A. (ed) (2017), The Routledge handbook of language and humor. New York London: Routledge.

Salvatore A. (1994) Linguistic theories of humor. Berlin New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Wasow T. (2015) Ambiguity avoidance is overrated. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Ambiguity-Avoidance-is-Overrated-Wasow/d8a1fafc8e1c98d8103310ad4904ae8183d2cb87

Downloads

Published

2022-04-26

How to Cite

Malikzadeh, A. T. (2022). Ambiguity as a Natural Outcome of Language Evolution Serving the Communicative Function. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 9(4), 297–302. https://doi.org/10.14738/assrj.94.12140