Psycholinguistics and Language Teaching
“Ambiguity and Comprehension”
This paper created to fulfill assignment of Psycholinguistics and Language Teaching
Lecturer: Mr. Muh. Husin AL Fatah, M. Pd
Arranged by :
Rheeva Angga Rossy J.P (216121253)
Umi Nur Rofiah (216121246)
Fatimah Az Zahra (216121251)
Anifa Zahra Safina (216121269)
PRODI PENDIDIKAN BAHASA INGGRIS
FAKULTAS ADAB DAN BAHASA
UNIVERSITAS ISLAM NEGERI RADEN MAS SAID SURAKARTA
2023
PREFACE
Praise be to the presence of Allah SWT, who has given mercy and also guidance so that
the writer can finish this paper “Ambiguity and Comprehension”well.
The purpose of writing this paper is to fulfill the assignment for the Psycholinguistics and
Language Teaching. It is hoped that the papers that the authors have compiled can be additional
insights for the readers and for the authors themselves.
The author would like to thank Mr. Muh. Husin AL Fatah, M. Pd. as a lecturer in the
Psycholinguistics and Language Teaching who has entrusted this assignment to the author, so it
really helps the writer to deepen our knowledge in the field of study that is being occupied.
The author would also like to thank all parties starting from myself, friends and others, who
have worked well together in helping to complete this paper, so that this paper can be completed
on time.
There is no ivory that is not cracked, the author realizes that this paper is far from perfect.
Therefore, the authors expect criticism and suggestions for the perfection of this paper. That's all
for this paper the author made and thank you.
Boyolali, 28 October 2023
Group 3
Table of Content
PREFACE .................................................................................................................................2
CHAPTER I Introduction ............................................................................................................4
A. Background of the study .....................................................................................................4
B. Formulation of the Problem:................................................................................................5
C. Purpose of the Writing: .......................................................................................................5
CHAPTER II Discussion .............................................................................................................6
1. AMBIGUITY and COMPREHENSION ...........................................................................6
2. Introduction ......................................................................................................................7
A. The Notion of Ambiguity .................................................................................................8
a) Lexical Ambiguity ........................................................................................................8
b) Surface Structure Ambiguity .........................................................................................9
c) Deep Structure Ambiguity........................................................................................... 10
B. Comprehension of Ambiguous Sentences ....................................................................... 11
a) The Garden Path Theory ............................................................................................. 11
b) The Many Meaning Theory ......................................................................................... 12
c) The Mixed Theory ...................................................................................................... 13
CHAPTER III Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 14
Citation ..................................................................................................................................... 15
CHAPTER I
Introduction
A. Background of the study
Language comprehension is a complex cognitive process that involves the decoding of
linguistic elements to extract meaning. One significant challenge in this process arises from the
presence of ambiguity within sentences. Ambiguity occurs when a word, phrase, or sentence can
be interpreted in multiple ways, leading to potential confusion or misinterpretation.
This phenomenon of ambiguity has been a subject of extensive investigation in both
linguistics and psycholinguistics. Researchers have sought to understand how individuals process
ambiguous sentences and the cognitive mechanisms involved in resolving potential multiple
meanings.
The study of ambiguity encompasses various levels of linguistic analysis, including lexical
ambiguity (arising from multiple meanings of words), surface structure ambiguity (stemming from
differing syntactic structures), and deep structure ambiguity (involving logical relationships within
sentences). Each of these levels contributes to the complexity of ambiguity in language
comprehension.
Additionally, the paper introduces three prominent theories concerning the comprehension
of ambiguous sentences: the Garden Path Theory, the Many Meanings Theory, and the Mixed
Theory. These theories offer insights into how individuals navigate through ambiguous linguistic
constructions and attempt to arrive at a coherent interpretation.
Understanding how ambiguity influences language processing is crucial for several fields,
including linguistics, psychology, and education. It provides valuable insights into the intricacies
of language comprehension and offers practical implications for language instruction and
communication strategies.
In light of the importance of this topic, this study aims to further explore the mechanisms
underlying the processing of ambiguous sentences and contribute to the body of knowledge in the
field of psycholinguistics.
B. Formulation of the Problem:
1. Identify the cognitive processes involved in resolving ambiguity in language
comprehension.
2. Investigate the impact of lexical, surface structure, and deep structure ambiguity on
sentence processing.
3. Examine the applicability and limitations of the Garden Path Theory, the Many
Meanings Theory, and the Mixed Theory in explaining how individuals navigate
through ambiguous sentences.
C. Purpose of the Writing:
1. To provide a comprehensive understanding of the challenges posed by ambiguity in
language comprehension.
2. To offer insights into the various levels of linguistic analysis affected by ambiguity.
3. To critically evaluate and compare the three prominent theories regarding the
comprehension of ambiguous sentences.
4. To contribute to the body of knowledge in psycholinguistics and enhance the
understanding of language processing mechanisms.
CHAPTER II
Discussion
1. AMBIGUITY and COMPREHENSION
Definition of Ambiguity
Ambiguity refers to a situation where information is unclear or open to multiple meanings
and interpretation. Some examples of how ambiguity is:
1. Risk in decision making. Ambiguity can affect decision making under conditions
of risk and uncertainty. (Ellsberg, 1961) states that people often have difficulty
making decisions when they don’t have complete information, and that this can
lead to biases or errors.
2. Role conflict and organizational stress. Ambiguity can have negative consequences
in organizations. Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970) states that role
conflict and ambiguity can result in dysfunctional consequences for individuals and
organizations and Levinson (1965) also states that role ambiguity was associated
with higher levels of stress among employees in companies or institutions in
receiving instruction or information.
3. Natural language processing: Ambiguity is a common challenge in natural language
processing, where the same word or phrase can have multiple meanings depending
on the context. According to (Resnik. 1999) a measure of semantic similarity that
can help resolve ambiguities in natural language processing tasks.
Overall, ambiguity is a common challenge in many contexts and on average has negative
consequences.
2. Introduction
Knowing a word means knowing its sounds and meanings. Both aspects are very important,
since the same sounds may sometimes mean different things. When different words are
pronounced the same but have different meanings, they are called homophone or homonyms.
Homophones are sounds which have the same pronunciation but different spelling. For example,
the words to, too, and two are all pronounced /tu/ but they refer to different things. Whereas,
homonyms are sounds which are pronounced and spelled identically, such as in the word well in
the following sentence, "Oh well, I will dig a well to see how well the well water will well up".
Homonyms often create ambiguity. A word or a sentence is ambiguous when it can be
interpreted in more than one way. Ambiguity often becomes the bane of comprehension. It takes
people longer process to comprehend ambiguous sentences than those which are not. Ambiguities
are usually resolved without awareness, but language resolution always takes time. Listers usually
use different strategies to comprehend ambiguous sentences. They may use single reading,
multiple reading, or both.
This section will specifically shed light on the above matter. The presentation will be
divided into two parts. It begins with the notion of ambiguity and is followed by three different
kinds of ambiguity. This ends with the proposed theories which explain how listeners could
process ambiguous sentences. The prominent theories discussed here are the garden path, the many
meaning, and the mixed theory.
A. The Notion of Ambiguity
The study of ambiguity has been a central area of study in both linguistics and
psycholinguistics. In linguistics, ambiguity (i.e., ambiguous sentence) demands
independent syntactic analysis. In psycholinguistics the concern is on how ambiguity
affects sentence processing.
Sentences can be ambiguous on at least three levels, namely: on lexical level
(lexical ambiguity), on syntactic relationship with ambiguity in the surface structures
(surface structure ambiguity), and on the deep structure level of logical relationships
between underlying syntactic constituent (deep structure ambiguity) (Kess, 1999: 133).
There follows the description of each.
a) Lexical Ambiguity
Sentences which are ambiguous on the lexical level of word are also called
lexical ambiguity. Lexical ambiguity is illustrated the sentence, She cannot bear
children. This sentence may be understood to mean (1) She is unable to give birth
to children or (2) she cannot tolerate children, since they are noisy. The ambiguity
exists because the word bear may have two different meanings in this sentence: to
give a birth and to endure. Additional context to the sentence sometimes can
disambiguate the sentence, as illustrated below:
She cannot bear children if they are noisy.
She cannot bear children because she is sterile.
(Fromkin and Rodman, 1983: 168-169)
What follows are some other examples of such lexically ambiguous sentences:
- The Rabbi married my sister.
- The girl found a book on Main Street.
- The man put the straw on a pile.
- He took the right turn on the intersection.
- I was amazed of Ali's powerful punch.
- The spy put out the torch as signal to attack.
b) Surface Structure Ambiguity
Sentences which are ambiguous in surface level of syntactic relationship are
called surface structure ambiguity. Surface structure ambiguity is illustrated in the
sentence, Old men and woman are advised to apply for their benefits. This sentence
has two meanings: (1) The old men and the old women are advised to apply for
their benefits and (2) The old men and women are advised to apply for their
benefits.
The double meaning of the above sentence is not due to any ambiguous
words but rather to the fact that it has two different surface structures. In the above
sentence the word old can be associated either with the man only or with the man
and the woman.
Context may provide the information needed to disambiguate the sentence.
In fact, we usually understand an ambiguous sentence in only one of its meanings
and may not notice it to be ambiguous until it is pointed out to us. After being told,
we do see that the ambiguity shows that more than one meaning are there.
Ambiguous sentences which are in written form may be not ambiguous in
speech, as in the sentence The English history teacher is coming. If English gets
stronger stress than history, with teacher being most meaning stressed, the sentence
would refer to a teacher of English history. However, if history receives the
strongest stressed, the teacher would be English. (From and Rodman, 1983; Kess,
1999)
What follows are some other examples of surface structure ambiguity:
- Mary and Joe or Bill frightened the Sheep dog.
- I know a man with a dog who has fleas.
- John saw Joan walking to the store this morning.
- They said she would go yesterday.
- The girl hit the boy with a book.
- John knows a richer man than Trump.
c) Deep Structure Ambiguity
Sentences which are ambiguous on the deep structure level of logical
relationship is called deep or underlying structure ambiguity. Deep structure
ambiguity is illustrated in the sentence Cheating students will not be tolerated. This
sentence is ambiguous since it has two meanings: (1) Some one who is cheating
students will not be tolerated and (2) Students who are cheating will not be
tolerated.
Such example only has one surface structure. But it has two different deep
structures: (1) Some one is cheating students and he will not be tolerated and (2)
Some students are cheating and they will not be tolerated. The basic difference
between the two interpretations is explicitly revealed in the two deep structures
(Fromkin and Rodman, 1983; Kess, 1999)
Other examples of deep structure ambiguity are seen in sentences below:
- Flying planes can be dangerous.
- Visiting relatives can be boring.
- The horse is ready to ride.
- John loves Martha more than Dick.
- We deplore the shooting of the hunters.
- It is too old to eat.
In conclusion, there exist two different kinds of ambiguity on the structural level
(often referred to as structural ambiguity): surface structure ambiguity and deep
structure ambiguity. There are some differences between them. Surface structure
ambiguity sometimes can be disambiguated by pronouncing them differently,
depending on the intended meaning. The deep structure ambiguity however cannot
be disambiguated.
B. Comprehension of Ambiguous Sentences
Ambiguity is also the concern of psycholinguists. They concern with how
ambiguity affect sentence processing. Experimental studies conducted have yielded several
theories to account for the mental process in which listeners comprehend ambiguous
sentences. Three notable theories to discuss here in this section are (1) the garden path
theory, (2) the many meanings theory, and (3) the mixed theory. (Clark and Clark, 1977:
80)
a) The Garden Path Theory
The garden path or one meaning theory of ambiguity states that "as listeners
proceed through a sentence they compute only one reading for each ambiguous
construction. Only if this reading later becomes implausible or contradictory they
do go back and compute a second, third, or fourth interpretation" (Clark and Clark,
1977: 80). There are two facts which could support such a claim. The first is that
the reason people do not see a sentence is ambiguous is that they never compute
more than one readings or interpretations. Second, it explains why people are stutter
when they are let down in the garden path. (Clark and Clark, 1977: 81)
What follows is an example of how the garden path theory works. On
hearing an ambiguous sentence I was afraid of All's powerful punch, especially
since it had already laid out many tougher men who had bragged they could handle
that much alcohol, the listeners compute only one meaning for punch namely a
blow. Further they find this reading impossible or contradictory; they then go back
and compute the second interpretation, that is a drink after they find a reference to
alcohol.
This theory appears to have a defect, since it cannot explain research
findings by Mackay (in Clark and Clark, 1977: 82) Mackay found, in his
experimental research, that people to longer time to begin completing ambiguous
than the unambiguous fragments. The fragments with more than one ambiguity
took longer than those just one. In addition, in ambiguous fragment people were
also more likely to stutter, repeat themselves, become ungrammatical, and even
titter.
In his experimental research, Makay (in Clark and Clark 1977: 81) has
provided the research subjects with a sentence fragment typed on an index card and
asked to give a sensible completion as quickly as possible. Some were presented
ambiguous fragments and others were presented unambiguous fragments that
corresponded to them. The ambiguous fragments are seen below:
- After taking the right turn at the intersection, I ………
- Although Hannibal sent troops over a week age, ..........
- Knowing that visiting relatives could be bothersome, I ……..
And the unambiguous fragments that corresponded to the above sentences are as
follows:
- After taking the left turn at the intersection, I....
- Although Hannibal sent troops almost a week ago,...
- Knowing that some relatives could be bothersome, I....
The above findings have led Mackay to suggest other theories, that is, the
many meaning and the mixed theory as follows.
b) The Many Meaning Theory
This theory claims that listeners compute two or more readings for each
ambiguous construction and then immediately pick up one on the basis of context.
For the above sentence, for example, the listeners would compute two
interpretations for the word punch, namely: a blow and a drink. They then pick the
second since it matches with the context. (Clark and Clark, 977: 81-82)
The second theory seems also appear contradictive; since it cannot satisfy
the question of how listeners could identify that a construction was ambiguous until
they had computed at least two readings. He further suggests a combination of both
garden path and the many meaning theory. The third theory is termed the mixed
theory.
c) The Mixed Theory
It claims that when listeners encounter an ambiguous construction, they
compute multiple readings. Using the context, listeners then attempt to select the
most plausible reading. If the ambiguity has not been resolved by the end of the
clause, they select one reading and stick to it. If later context contradicts the selected
reading, they try to retrieve the surface structure of the prior clauses and compute a
new compatible reading. This theory seems to satisfy other researchers working on
ambiguity. (Clark and Clark, 1977: 81-82)
CHAPTER III
Conclusion
Summary
Words which have the same sound but semantically different are homophones or
homonyms. They are called homophones when they are pronounced the same but different in form
or spelling, such as in flour and flower. They are called homonyms when they have the same
pronunciation as well as spelling, such as bear in she cannot bear children when they noisy and
she cannot bear children because she is sterile. The use of homophones in a sentence (like the
above sentence) may lead to ambiguity. Such a sentence is called lexically ambiguous.
Ambiguity can also occur because of the structure of the sentence, for examples, (1) the
young men and women are standing in a queue and (2) Flying planes can be dangerous. These
sentences are ambiguous. The first sentence is ambiguous due to its surface structure and the
second because of its deep structure.
Psychologists have great concern on ambiguity. They conducted experimental research to
find out how listeners process ambiguous sentences. The findings have led to the emergence of the
notable theories, namely: the garden path, the many meanings, and the mixed theory.
Citation
Ellsberg, D. (1961). Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms. The quarterly journal of economics,
75(4), 643-669.
Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex
organizations. Administrative science quarterly, 150-163.
Levinson, H. (1965). Organizational Stress: Studies in Role Conflict and Ambiguity.
Resnik, P. (1999). Semantic similarity in a taxonomy: An information-based measure and its
application to problems of ambiguity in natural language. Journal of artificial intelligence
research, 11, 95-130.
