Lexical ambiguity appears at the interface between form and meaning of lexical items. Ambiguity is triggered by the assumption that the similarity of form is also reflected in the similarity of meaning. Whereas ambiguities violate the maxim of manner in the co-operative principles postulated by Grice, they are highly acclaimed in poetic language where they originate not in lack of specification or the complexity of the discourse, but in the complexity of the reader’s presuppositions. In this sense, it depends on the reader’s expertise, reading experience and profundity in determining the number of noted ambiguities. Linguistic ambiguity is a rich source of various word plays mostly known as punning. It reveals and emphasises linguistic peculiarities like homonymy and polysemy in a self-referential play of language with itself in a kind of mirroring.
Table of Contents
- 1. Ambiguity, vagueness, generality (non-specificity), etc.
- 2. Homonymy and Polysemy
- 3. Dynamic construal approach
Objectives and Key Themes
The essay aims to demonstrate lexical ambiguity as an inherent characteristic of language. It differentiates ambiguity from vagueness, explores homonymy and polysemy, and outlines a dynamic construal approach to understanding ambiguous word meanings.
- Distinction between lexical ambiguity, vagueness, and generality
- Analysis of homonymy and polysemy as sources of lexical ambiguity
- Exploration of the relationship between related and unrelated meanings within a word
- Presentation of a dynamic construal approach to understanding ambiguous word meanings
- Examination of tests to differentiate between ambiguity and vagueness
Chapter Summaries
1. Ambiguity, vagueness, generality (non-specificity), etc.: This chapter establishes the concept of lexical ambiguity as a linguistic universal stemming from the arbitrary relationship between sign and meaning. It differentiates lexical ambiguity from vagueness and generality, highlighting that ambiguous words possess discrete meanings selected by context, while vague words allow contextual additions to their unspecified meanings. The chapter introduces several tests (identity, truth conditions, sense relations) proposed to distinguish between ambiguity and vagueness, acknowledging their limitations in application. The example of "His designs upset her" illustrates how grammatical and lexical ambiguities can coexist within a single sentence, showcasing the interplay between syntactic, grammatical, and lexical levels of linguistic analysis. The chapter emphasizes that ambiguity is often potential rather than actual due to language redundancy and contextual clues aiding disambiguation.
2. Homonymy and Polysemy: This chapter delves into homonymy and polysemy, two key sources of lexical ambiguity. Homonymy is defined as unrelated senses of the same word, categorized as total (sharing all distinctive properties) or partial (coinciding in some but not all grammatical forms). The chapter further differentiates between homography (same spelling) and homophony (same sound), providing numerous examples in English to illustrate these concepts. Polysemy, in contrast, involves interrelated meanings of the same word. The distinction between homonymy and polysemy is crucial for lexicography, as polysemous senses are grouped under one entry, while homonymous senses receive separate entries. The chapter discusses the challenges in determining the degree of relatedness between senses, noting that speakers' intuitions and historical development can offer conflicting evidence. Examples like the word "gay" highlight the subjective nature of distinguishing between polysemy and homonymy. The chapter concludes by examining different ways of classifying polysemous relations, including linear (hyponym/hyperonym) and non-linear relationships.
Keywords
Lexical ambiguity, vagueness, generality, homonymy, polysemy, linguistic universal, context, meaning, mental lexicon, dynamic construal, sense relations, relatedness, discrete meaning, homography, homophony, hyponymy, hyperonymy, autohyponymy, automeronymy, autosuperordination.
Frequently Asked Questions: A Comprehensive Language Preview on Lexical Ambiguity
What is the main focus of this language preview?
This preview focuses on lexical ambiguity – the existence of multiple meanings for a single word – as an inherent characteristic of language. It explores different types of ambiguity and provides a framework for understanding how we resolve these ambiguities in context.
What types of ambiguity are discussed?
The preview distinguishes between lexical ambiguity, vagueness, and generality. It then delves into the specific sources of lexical ambiguity: homonymy (unrelated meanings of the same word, such as "bank" as a financial institution and "bank" as the edge of a river) and polysemy (related meanings of the same word, such as the various meanings of "bright").
How does the preview differentiate between ambiguity, vagueness, and generality?
The preview explains that ambiguous words have discrete, contextually selected meanings, while vague words have unspecified meanings that are filled in by context. Generality refers to non-specific language. Several tests are introduced to help differentiate between these concepts, though their limitations are acknowledged.
What is a dynamic construal approach to understanding ambiguous word meanings?
The preview introduces a dynamic construal approach, suggesting that understanding ambiguous words involves a process of interpreting meaning based on context and other linguistic clues. It's an active process of meaning construction rather than simple retrieval from a mental lexicon.
How are homonymy and polysemy explained and differentiated?
Homonymy is defined as the existence of unrelated meanings for the same word (e.g., "bat" as a flying mammal and "bat" as a piece of sporting equipment). Polysemy involves related meanings of the same word (e.g., the various senses of "bright"). The preview discusses the challenges in distinguishing between these two, including the role of speaker intuition and historical development.
What are some key examples used to illustrate the concepts?
The preview uses examples such as "His designs upset her" (to illustrate the interplay of grammatical and lexical ambiguity), and the word "gay" (to highlight the subjective nature of distinguishing between polysemy and homonymy) to demonstrate the complexities of lexical ambiguity. Numerous other examples of homonyms and polysemous words are provided in English.
What are the key takeaways or conclusions of the preview?
The preview concludes that lexical ambiguity is a pervasive feature of language, often potential rather than actual, with context playing a crucial role in disambiguation. It also emphasizes the challenges of categorizing words as either homonymous or polysemous, reflecting the dynamic and subjective nature of meaning.
What are the key words associated with this preview?
Key words include: Lexical ambiguity, vagueness, generality, homonymy, polysemy, linguistic universal, context, meaning, mental lexicon, dynamic construal, sense relations, relatedness, discrete meaning, homography, homophony, hyponymy, hyperonymy, autohyponymy, automeronymy, autosuperordination.
What is the structure of the original text?
The original text is structured with a table of contents, objectives and key themes, chapter summaries (for each of the three chapters outlined in the table of contents), and a list of keywords. This provides a comprehensive overview of the topic of lexical ambiguity.
What is the intended audience for this preview?
The preview's academic nature and structured approach suggest it is intended for students and researchers in linguistics or related fields.
- Quote paper
- LL.M., MA Irina Giertz (Author), 2005, Lexical Relations - Lexical Ambiguity, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/285206
