Search

The main aim of this chapter is to analyse under‐determination, generalisation, vagueness, and ambiguity in the speaker's self‐reference strategies used in Catalan parliamentary debate and Twitter. Parliaments are one of the main arenas where politicians develop their activity. On the other hand, Twitter allows politicians to build their own public image and to be in touch with voters, and citizens in general, in a more direct way. The theoretical background of the analysis includes the classical studies on deixis and on person deixis in Catalan; Goffman (1981)'s participation frameworks; functional linguistics and the ethnography of communication, and Twitter communication analysis. In this corpus‐driven analysis, parliamentary discourses and tweets of two members of the Parliament of Catalonia are analysed. The corpus has been drawn from their speeches in the 2020 general politics debate and from the Twitter messages they published in the same period, in autumn 2020. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article gives an explanation of how recent results on ambiguity logics are relevant to the linguistic and philosophical theory of ambiguity. To this aim, some fundamental definitions and results are explained. We formulate and provide evidence for three main hypotheses: Firstly, ambiguity is not a vague notion. Secondly, in (explicit) reasoning with ambiguity, we always have to consider the parameter ±trust. Thirdly, ambiguous propositions exist, but they cannot have the same rights and properties as unambiguous propositions; rather they should be considered "second class". [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ambiguity is conventionally defined in Linguistics as a property of a word or an utterance that has two meanings or two interpretations, and is usually classified as lexical, morphological, syntactic (or structural), and pragmatic. Giving an adequate definition of linguistic ambiguity is not trivial, nor is there unanimity in accepting it. Most researchers tend to agree that ambiguity should be distinguished from related concepts such as vagueness, context sensitivity, reference transfer, and underdetermination or generality of meaning. The distinction between these concepts is also related to the divergences or connections between the perspectives of analysis of ambiguity, and the aim of each work. In this introduction, we define the limits of ambiguity with respect to related concepts and summarize the studies contained within this special issue. These studies do not cover all possible approaches to linguistic ambiguity, but provide a broad overview that can be useful in different fields. We trust that they will contribute to deepening into a phenomenon that is not yet well described and that seems to be consubstantial with the use of language. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This exploratory study aims to offer new insights into the lexical ambiguity in the interlanguage arising from the use of false cognates. The study is based on written texts from two learners' corpora. Utterances including false cognates were retrieved from both corpora and presented to two groups of native speakers who assessed their correctness and stated whether or not they were ambiguous. While the first group was informed beforehand that the sentences had been produced by non‐native speakers (as well as the meaning of the false cognates in their L1), the second group had no information regarding the speakers who wrote them. The goal of this analysis is to shed light on the different perceptions that can arise from native vs. non‐native speakers' productions, focusing on lexical ambiguity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article investigates what structural ambiguity reveals about the architecture of language. It analyzes two basic types of structural ambiguity, constituent ambiguity and chain formation ambiguity, and illustrates with a small class of selected case studies how they interweave. It observes that several movement locality constraints have the effect of reducing chain formation ambiguities; however, it argues that movement locality constraints are not primarily motivated to reduce ambiguity. Finally, it defends that structural ambiguity is due to a loss of resolution at the PF branch of the language faculty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The goal of this work is to put forward a pragmatic and translational framework for analysing target texts (TT) and source texts (ST) containing conversational implicatures that lead to pragmatic ambiguity. Ambiguity, sensu lato, is deemed to be related to indeterminacy and vagueness. Nevertheless, in the strict sense, ambiguity is understood as 'more than a single processing instruction for a given utterance'. More specifically, pragmatic ambiguity arises whenever differences in cultural conventions between SL speakers and TL speakers lead to differences in the existence, meaning and salience of implicatures among ST and TT. Using real translation cases selected from a purpose‐built corpus containing fiction written and oral texts, we show which pragmatic ambiguities translators come across, and how translation techniques are used, either to maintain ambiguity or to select one intended processing instruction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Political discourse has been characterised as being 'vague' and 'ambiguous'. It is argued that politicians tend to use generic and unspecific words in order to avoid explicit commitment (McGee 2018). Although this situation may describe discourse genres such as political interviews and election debates, it is unclear that it can be applied to parliamentary debate. This study analyses a corpus consisting of two parliamentary debates in English and Catalan with respect to ambiguity, vagueness and generality in connection to referential cohesion. Three variables are qualitatively and quantitatively analysed: a) the abstractness of the topics, b) the non‐specific or specific nature of these entities, and c) the grammatical or lexical nature of the units that maintain referential cohesion. The results show that ambiguity and vagueness are rather infrequent in parliamentary debate. However, the high frequencies of non‐concrete referential entities, and of non‐specific referents characterise parliamentary debate as a general discourse. As a counterpart, lexical cohesion devices as repetition and encapsulation highlight the topics under discussion, what leads to avoid ambiguity and vagueness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]