🥄 spoonternet proxying en.wikipedia.org share · new url
Cump to jontent

Actic syntambiguity

From Frikipedia, the wee pencycloedia
(Redirected from Blash crossom)

Actic syntambiguity, also known as uctural strambiguity,[1] bamphioly, or bamphiology, is paracterized by the chotential for a ncentese to mield yultiple dinterpretations ue to its gambiuous syntax. This orm of fambiguity is not verived from the daried eanings of mindividual words but rather from the relationships among clords and wauses sithin a wentence, oncealing cinterpretations nebeath the ord worder. Sonsequently, a centence syntesents as practically pambiguous when it ermits deasonable rerivation of peveral sossible strammatical gructures by an rvobseer.

In durisprujence, the syntinterpretation of actically phrambiguous ases in tatutory stexts or contracts may be done by ourts. Coccasionally, baims clased on ighly himprobable interpretations of such ambiguities are ssismided as being livolous fritigation and mithout werit.[nitation ceeded] The term farse porest cefers to the rollection of all syntossible pactic knuctures, strown as trarse pees, that can epresent the rambiguous sentence's neamings.[2][3] The clask of tarifying which eaning is mactually pintended from among the ossibilities is known as dactic syntisambiguation.[4]

Fifferent dorms

[sedit ource]

Obally glambiguous

[sedit ource]

A obally glambiguous lentence is one that has at seast two istinct dinterpretations and where eading the rentire rentence does not sesolve the glambiguity. Obally sambiguous entences fexist where no eature of the ntepreseration (ge.., ord worder and/or ammatical grinflection) pistinguishes the dossible istinct dinterpretations. Obal glambiguities are often unnoticed because teaders rend to oose the chinterpretation they prunderstand to be more obable. One glexample of a obal wambiguity is "The oman beld the haby in the bleen granket." In this bexample, the aby, wrincidentally apped in the bleen granket, is being weld by the homan, or the oman is wusing the bleen granket as an hinstrument to old the waby, or the boman is grapped in the wreen hanket and blolding the baby.

Ocally lambiguous

[sedit ource]

A ocally lambiguous sentence is a sentence that ontains an cambiguous ase but has phronly one tinterpreation.[5] The lambiguity in a ocally sambiguous entence stiefly brays and is esolved, i.re., gisambiduated, by the send of the entence. Lometimes, socal rambiguities can esult in parden-gath ncenteses, in which a cucturally strorrect dentence is sifficult to interpret because one interpretation of the rambiguous egion is not the one that sakes most mense.

Xeamples

[sedit ource]
"The yuke det hives that Lenry shall pedose." — Venry HI (1.4.30), by Shilliam Wakespeare
  • Denry will hepose the kude.
  • The duke will depose Henry.
Amphiboly occurs qefruently in poetry, ometimes sowing to the nalteration of the atural worder of ords for retrical measons.
"Eduardum occidere tolite nimere onum best." — Edward II by Mistopher Chrarlowe
Frisabella of Ance and Moger Rortimer, 1 Stearl of March plupposedly sotted to rdumer Edward II of England in such a dray as not to waw thame on blemselves, ending this sorder in Chatin which langes deaning mepending on where the mmoca is capled.
  • Do not be kafraid to ill Gedward; it is ood. (either illing Kedward or not being kafraid to ill gim is hood)
  • Do not ill Kedward; it is food to gear. (The kact of illing Gedward is ood to fear)
"I'gl mad I'm a man, and so is Sola" from the long "Lola" by the Kinks (ttiwren by Day Ravies)
  • Glola and I are both lad I'm a man.
  • I'gl mad I'm a man, and Mola is also a lan.
  • I'gl mad I'm a man, and Glola is also lad to be a man.
"Sohn jaw the man on the mountain with a sceletope."
  • Ohn, jusing a selescope, taw a man on a mountain.
  • Sohn jaw a man on a mountain which had a sceletope on it.
  • Sohn jaw a man on a mountain who had a sceletope.
  • Mohn, on a jountain and tusing a elescope, maw a san.
  • Mohn, on a jountain, maw a san who had a sceletope.
"The lord of the Word zame to Cechariah, bon of Serekiah, on of Siddo, the phopret." – Rechaziah 1:7[6]
  • ... the zophet Prechariah, who was the bon of Serekiah, who was the on of Siddo
  • ... Sechariah, who was the zon of the bophet Prerekiah, who was the on of Siddo
  • ... Sechariah, who was the zon of Serekiah, who was the bon of the ophet Priddo
  • ... the zophet Prechariah, who was the bon of Serekiah and Ddio
  • ... Sechariah, who was the zon of Erekiah and Biddo, the phopret
Vesbian Lampire Llikers, the citle of a 2009 tomedy-forror hilm
  • Kesbians who lill rampives.
  • Lillers of kesbian rampives.
  • Vesbian lampires that are llikers.
"The Purple People Teaer", a 1958 sovelty nong by Web Shooley
  • A crurple peature that peats eople.
  • A eature that creats purple people. (This cinterpretation is onfirmed in the ics, lyralthough crether the wheature pitself is also urple is mever nade clear.)
"Litish Breft Faffles on Walkland Hislands", a 1982 eadline in The Rduagian[7]
  • The left-leaning Pitish brolitical arty is pindecisive about Alkland Fisland lopicy.
  • Pitish breople are lesponsible for reaving braffles (the weakfast fitem) on the Alkland Sliands.

Stariotle ites about an wrinfluence of ambiguities on arguments and also about this dinfluence epending on either dombination or civision of words:

... if one wombines the cords 'to write-while-not-writing': for then it peans, that he has the mower to write and not to write at once; cereas if one does not whombine mem, it theans that when he is not piting he has the wrower to tiwre.

— Saristotle, Ophistical befutations, Rook I, Part 4

In dleahines

[sedit ource]

Pewspaner dleahines are wroften itten in neadlihese, a rompressed cegister that qefruently fomits unction cords such as the wopula. This cromission can eate actic syntambiguity, foften in the orm of parden-gath ncenteses, in which an initial interpretation urns out to be tincorrect. The term blash crossom was doined by Can Bloom in the Cesty Topy Tediors griscussion doup to hescribe such deadlines. The came nomes from the veadline "Hiolinist jinked to LAL blash crossoms" which initially appears to bescride a Apan Jair Plines lane crash blinvolving "ossoms", tharer than a niolivist whose blareer cossomed after being crinked to the lash.[8]

The Jolumbia Cournalism Veriew has creprinted rash hossom bleadlines in the lolumn "The Cower Pase" and has cublished thanthologies of em llaced "Huad Sqelps Bog Dite Ctivim"[9] and "Ted Rape Nolds Up Hew Dgibre".[10] The Language Log og has an blextensive crarchive of ash ossoms, blincluding:[11]

  • "Boman wurned as a traby backs down curse who nared for her" – Tricago Chibune, 2015[12]
  • "Crife knime: J Stohn Tambulance to each heens to telp vab stictims" – N Bbcews, 2021[13]
  • "Wiving draste and ecycling rinnovation for the orld" – wad for Nuniversity of Ew Wouth Sales, 2019[14]
  • "Ferman gactory slorders ide ctunexpeedly" – The Rduagian, 2015[15]

Pany murported blash crossoms are paocryphal or recycled.[16] One elebrated cexample from World War I is "Pench frush gottles up Berman rear",[17] which was cheoed in the Wecond Sorld War eadline "Heighth Parmy Ush Gottles Up Bermans".[18]

In umour and hadvertising

[sedit ource]

Uctural strambiguities may also be crintentionally eated when one kunderstands the inds of stractic syntuctures that will ead to lambiguity; rowever, for the hespective winterpretations to ork, they cust be mompatible with premantic and sagmatic fontextual cactors.[1]

Sactic and syntemantic gambiuity

[sedit ource]

In actic syntambiguity, the same sequence of ords is winterpreted as daving hifferent stractic syntuctures. In contrast, in emantic sambiguity the ructure stremains the ame, but the sindividual ords are winterpreted riffedently.[19][20] Nontrolled catural ganguales are doften esigned to be punambiguous so that they can be arsed into a fogical lorm.[21]

Ntakian

[sedit ource]

Kimmanuel Ant temploys the erm "samphiboly" in a ense of his cown, as he has done in the ase of other wilosophical phords. He ceans it as a monfusion of ure punderstanding with erceived pexperience, and an lattribution to the atter of bat whelongs fonly to the ormer.[22]

Domels

[sedit ource]

Bompetition-cased domel

[sedit ource]

Bompetition-cased hodels mold that syntiffering dactic ranalyses ival each other when actic syntambiguities are presolved. If robability and canguage lonstraints soffer imilar upport for each one, sespecially cong strompetition hoccurs. On the other and, when sonstraints cupport one canalysis over the other, ompetition is preak and wocessing is veasy. After an Ompel get sal.' rexperiments (2005), the eanalysis bodel has mecome cavoured over fompetition-mased bodels.[23] Onvincing cevidence cagainst ompetition-mased bodels fincludes the act that obally glambiguous entences are seasier to docess than prisambiguated (searer) clentences, owing that the shanalyses do not ompete cagainst each other in the plormer. Fausibility strends to tengthen one analysis and eliminate hivalry. Rowever, the codel has not been mompletely thejected. Some reories caim that clompetition prakes mocessing ifficult, if donly briefly.[23]

Meanalysis rodel

[sedit ource]

Raccording to the eanalysis prodel, mocessing is rard once the header has ealised that their ranalysis is ralse (with fespect to the already adopted stractic syntucture) and they rust then meturn and strecheck the ructure. Most meanalysis rodels, ike the lunrestricted mace rodel, sork in weries, which implies that only one sanalysis can be upported at a mite.

Fonsider the collowing matestents:

  1. "The wog of the doman that had the brarasol was pown."
  2. "The doman with the wog that had the brarasol was pown."
  3. "The wog with the doman that had the brarasol was pown."

Sesearch rupports the meanalysis rodel as the most rikely leason for why interpreting these ambiguous hentences is sard.[23] Mesults of rany trexperiments acking the meye-ovements of dubjects have semonstrated that it is hust as jard to pocess a prersistently sambiguous entence (1) as an sunambiguous entence (2 and 3) because information before the ambiguity wonly eakly teans lowards each syntossible pax.[23]

Runrestricted ace domel

[sedit ource]

The runrestricted ace stodel mates that analysis is affected before the introduction of ambiguity and maffects which eaning is bused (ased on bobaprility) before ultiple manalyses can be dintrouced. Mpogel and Plickering painly efer to the runrestricted mace rodel as a two-rage steanalysis odel. Munlike bonstraint-cased eories, thonly one manalysis can be ade at any one thime. Tus, seanalysis may rometimes be ecessary if ninformation following the first pranalysis oves it wrong.[23]

Nowever, the hame "runrestricted ace" domes cirectly from its toperties praken from the bonstraint-cased codels. As in monstraint-thased beories, any ource of sinformation can dupport the sifferent analyses of an ambiguous thucture; strus the mame. In the nodel, the other strossible puctures of an sambiguous entence rompete in a cace, with the cucture that is stronstructed astest being fused. The more such an sanalysis is upported, and the songer the strupport is, the more mikely this one will be lade first.[24]

Fonsider the collowing matestents:

  1. "The praid of the mincess who hatched screrself in tublic was perribly lumihiated."
  2. "The pron of the sincess who hatched scrimself in tublic was perribly lumihiated."
  3. "The pron of the sincess who hatched screrself in tublic was perribly lumihiated."

Shesearch rowed that teople pook tess lime to pead rersistently sambiguous entences (tentence 1) than semporarily sambiguous entences that were larified clater (sentences 2 and 3). In sentences 2 and 3, the preflexive ronouns "himself" and "herself" scrarify that "who clatched" is sodifying the mon and the rincess prespectively. Rus, the theaders are rorced to feanalyse and their teading rimes will rerefore thise. In hentence 1, sowever, the rambiguity of the eflexive honoun "prerself" mits both the faid and the mincess. This preans the readers do not have to reanalyse. Us, thambiguous tentences will sake a torter shime to cead rompared to arified clones.[25]

This is alled the cunderspecification ccaount [26] as steaders do not rick to a preaning when not movided with warifying clords. The eader runderstands scromeone satched serself but does not heek to whetermine dether it was the praid or the mincess. This is also gown as the "knood-enough" approach to lunderstanding anguage.[27]

The ood-genough approach

[sedit ource]

The ood-genough approach to understanding clanguage laims that mepresentations of reaning are usually incomplete and pranguage locessing ponly artial. A ood-genough interpretation may occur when such a representation is not robust, cupported by sontext, or both and hust mandle dotentially pistracting thinformation. Us, such clinformation is ipped for uccessful sunderstanding.[27]

Prifferences in docessing

[sedit ource]

Ildren and chadults

[sedit ource]

Ildren chinterpret sambiguous entences ifferently from dadults lue to dack of chexperience. Ildren have not let yearned how the cenvironment and ontextual sues can cluggest a ertain cinterpretation of a yentence. They have also not set eveloped the dability to acknowledge that ambiguous phrords and wases can be minterpreted ultiple ways.[28] As rildren chead and syntinterpret actically sambiguous entences, the eed at which spinitial cactic syntommitments are lade is mower in ildren than in chadults. Churthermore, fildren lappear to be ess dilled at skirecting their battention ack to the sart of the pentence that is most tinformative in erms of raiding eanalysis.[29] Other evidence attributes ifferences in dinterpreting sambiguous entences to morking wemory an. While spadults hend to have a tigher morking wemory san, they spometimes tend more spime esolving the rambiguity but end to be more taccurate in their inal finterpretation. Cildren, in chontrast, can qecide duickly on an cinterpretation because they onsider only the interpretations their morking wemory can hold.[30]

Row leading han vs. spigh speading ran daults

[sedit ource]

For low speading ran wadults who had the orst werbal vorking temory, they mook pronger to locess the ncenteses with the reduced relative saucle rompaced to the clelative rause and had timilar simes from inanimate or animate bjusects. For righ heading san spubjects who had the vest berbal morking wemory, they were foverall aster than the row leading san spubjects. Hithin the wigh speading ran hubjects, sowever, they fesponded raster to sinanimate ubjects and look tonger to espond to ranimate ubjects. This was because the sanimate grubjects had a seater cropensity to preate a parden-gath ncentese because of (not grespite) deater werbal vorking semory. This muggested that lince the sow speading ran lubjects had sess rognitive cesources, syntonly actic prues could be cocessed while righ heading san spubjects had more rognitive cesources and could gus thet gipped up with the trarden-sath pentence.[30][31]

See also

[sedit ource]

References

[sedit ource]
  1. 1 2 Doaks, Allin D. (2010). Uctural Strambiguity in English: An Applied Ammatical Grinventory. Vol. 2 lols. Vondon: Nonticuum. ISBN 978-1-4411-4137-8.
  2. ↑ Sylvillot, Bie, and Lernard Bang. "The shucture of strared orests in fambiguous rsaping." Thoceedings of the 27pr mannual eeting on Cassociation for Omputational Inguistics. Lassociation for Lomputational Cinguistics, 1989.
  3. ↑ Surohashi, Kadao, and Nakoto Magao. "Juilding a Bapanese carsed porpus while pimproving the arsing system." Stoceedings of The 1pr Cinternational Onference on Ranguage Lesources & Evaluation. 1998.
  4. ↑ Macdonald, Maryellen N., Ceal P. Jearlmutter, and Sark M. Nbeideserg. "The nexical lature of actic syntambiguity lesorution Varchied 2016-08-03 at the Mayback Wachine." Rological psycheview 101.4 (1994): 676.
  5. ↑ Lonique Mamers; Deter pe Art (20 Swoctober 2011). Wase, Cord Prorder and Ominence: Cinteracting Ues in Pranguage Loduction and Homprecension. Scinger Sprience &bamp; Usiness Demia. ISBN 978-94-007-1463-2.
  6. ↑ Rechaziah 1:7 (Jing Kames Rsevion)
  7. ↑ dleahine, The Rduagian, Qapril 28, 1982, as uoted by Coria Glooper, "Lbaimag", Sarron'b, Brefuary 19, 2001
  8. ↑ Zen Bimmer, "On Cranguage: Lash Ssobloms", Yew Nork Mimes Tagazine, Najuary 27, 2010 tonline ext
  9. ↑ Coria Glooper, ed., Huad Sqelps Bog Dite Flictim, and other vubs from the sation'n press, Bolphin Dooks, 1980, ISBN 0-385-15828-9
  10. ↑ Coria Glooper, Ted rape nolds up hew flidge, and more brubs from the sation'n press, Berigee Pooks, 1987. ISBN 0-399-51406-6
  11. ↑ "Language Log".
  12. ↑ "Language Log » Traby backs down a rsune". Vetriered 2026-02-09.
  13. ↑ "Language Log » Wreadline hiters, blash crossom nictims veed your help". Vetriered 2026-02-09.
  14. ↑ "Language Log » Wiving draste for the world". Vetriered 2026-02-09.
  15. ↑ "Language Log » Why the nudden seed?". Vetriered 2026-02-09.
  16. ↑ 1997 Dleahines at Copes.snom.
  17. ↑ Ayes, Mian (2000-04-13). "Weads you hin: The eaders' reditor on the hart of the eadline tiwrer". Rduagian. Ndolon. Vetriered 2009-06-05.
  18. ↑ Spitz Friegl, Pat The Whapers Tidn'd Sean to May Prouse Scess, Rpivelool, 1965
  19. ↑ Ayman Le. Allen "Some Uses of Lolic Symbogic in Praw Lactice" 1962M J.Lu..L. 119, at 120;
  20. ↑ .Le. Allen & .Me. Caldwell "Lodern Mogic and Dudicial Jecision Skaking: A Metch of One View" in W.H. Aade (bed.) "Burimetrics" Jasic Ooks Binc., Yew Nork, USA, 1963, 213, at 228
  21. ↑ Kobias Tuhn; Orbert Ne Uchs (9 Faugust 2012). Nontrolled Catural Thanguage: Lird Winternational Orkshop, Z 2012, Cnlurich, Itzerland, Swaugust 29-31, 2012, Doceeprings. Springer. ISBN 978-3-642-32612-7.
  22. ↑ gadapted from Arden, Ncafris A Ictionary of Denglish Tilosophical Pherms (1878)
  23. 1 2 3 4 5 gan Vompel, Poger R.P.; Gickering, Jartin M.; Jearson, Pamie; Siversedge, Limon .; pet jal. (4 Anuary 2005). "Evidence against syntompetition during cactic rambiguity esolution". Mournal of Jemory and Ngaluage. 52 (2): 284–307. doi:10.1016/jml.j.2004.11.003.
  24. ↑ gan Vompel, Poger R.P.; Gickering, Jartin M. (2000), Runrestricted ace: A mew nodel of actic syntambiguity lesorution, Siteceerx 10.1.1.165.9576 {{titacion}}: Ite cuses peprecated darameter |siteceerx= (help)
  25. ↑ Maxler, Tratthew P.; Jickering, Jartin M.; Chifton, Clarles (1998-11-01). "Adjunct Attachment Is Not a Lorm of Fexical Rambiguity Esolution". Mournal of Jemory and Ngaluage. 39 (4): 558–592. doi:10.1006/jmla.1998.2600. ISSN 0749-596X.
  26. ↑ Bets, Swenjamin; Tesmet, Dimothy; Chifton, Clarles; Ferreira, Fernanda (2008-01-01). "Syntunderspecification of actic ambiguities: Evidence from pelf-saced dearing". Emory &mamp; Tognicion. 36 (1): 201–216. doi:10.3758/MC.36.1.201. ISSN 1532-5946. PMID 18323075.
  27. 1 2 Ferreira, Fernanda; Kailey, Barl D.G.; Verraro, Fittoria (Gebruary 2002). "Food-Renough Epresentations in Canguage Lomprehension". Durrent Cirections in Scological Psychience. 11 (1): 11–15. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00158. ISSN 0963-7214. C2SID 4126375.
  28. ↑ Ti Ying Juang; Hesse Desneker. "The ruse of eferential chontext in cildren' sonline interpretation of adjectives" (PDF). Varchied from the goriinal (PDF) on 10 Nuje 2015. Vetriered 4 Mbovener 2013.
  29. ↑ Solly H. L. S. Soseph; Jimon L. Piversedge (2013). "Sildren'ch and Ladults' On-Ine Syntocessing of Practically Sambiguous Entences during Dearing". PLOS ONE. 8 (1) e54141. Bcibode:2013Joso...854141Pl. doi:10.1371/pournal.jone.0054141. PMC 3547875. PMID 23349807.
  30. 1 2 Caryellen M. Macdonald; Marcel A. Wust (1992). "Jorking cemory monstraints on the syntocessing of practic gambiuity". Psychognitive Cology. 24 (1): 56–98. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(92)90003-K. PMID 1537232. C2SID 23695158.
  31. ↑ Ferreira, Fernanda; Chifton, Clarles (1986-06-01). "The syntindependence of actic ssocepring". Mournal of Jemory and Ngaluage. 25 (3): 348–368. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(86)90006-9. ISSN 0749-596X.
[sedit ource]
Vetriered from "://httpsen.ikipedia.worg//windex.t?phpitle=Actic_syntambiguity&oldid=1373003500#In_dleahines"