Traditional Culture Encyclopedia - Traditional stories - How ambiguity arises in English and how to remove grammatical ambiguity
How ambiguity arises in English and how to remove grammatical ambiguity
2. Ambiguities arising from noun phrases
2. 1 Ambiguities arising from adjectives as antecedent qualifiers
In English, noun phrases are usually composed of "modifier + center word". Let's take the title of an English song Red Red W ine as an example. The title of the song is ambiguous: it can be interpreted either as "red wine" or as "red wine". There are many other examples of such ambiguities, and Halliday introduced the concepts of classifier and epithet in his discussion of the experiential structure of noun phrases (1994: 184). The function of classifiers is to describe the category of things: for example, the words bus, railway and train in bus station, railway station, train station function to distinguish different kinds of stations; the function of modifiers is to describe the characteristics of the objects they modify, for example, in the phrases new station, noisy station, noisy station, noisy station, noisy station, noisy station, noisy station, noisy station, noisy station, noisy station, noisy station, noisy station, noisy station, noisy station, noisy station. For example, in the phrase new station, noisy station, the function of the adjective new and noisy is only to show certain characteristics of the station, not to categorize the concept of "station" in a fine-grained way.
Bloor and Bloor believe that both the analogs and modifiers can be used in noun phrases to qualify the central word. If taken out of context, many expressions are ambiguous in terms of the functional distinction between genitives and modifiers (2001: 138). Accordingly, the example Red Red Wine mentioned above can be analyzed as follows:
(1) Red Red Wine
(a) Red Red Wine
modifier genitive object
Red Red Wine
(b) Red Red Wine
modifier modifier thing<
Red Red Wine
The two interpretations of example (1) are "red wine" and "red red wine". In the first case (a), the first Red has the semantic function of a modifier, while the second Red has the semantic function of a genitive, indicating the kind of the thing, and the meaning of the whole phrase is "red wine". "In the latter sense (b), the semantic function of both Reds is modifier, indicating the characteristics of the thing, and the meaning of the whole phrase is "red-colored wine". Thus, the ambiguity of the phrase Red RedWine is well explained. See another example:
(2) small children's cot
(a) smal children's cot
modifier category thing
small children's cot
(b) small children's cot
Class word Thing
cot
The two interpretations of example (2) are 'small children's cot' and 'cot'. In the former interpretation (a), the word small functions as a modifier, indicating the size of the bed, while in the latter interpretation (b), small and chil2dren are combined as a genitive, indicating the type of bed.
We can find similar expressions in contemporary English grammar: qualitative modifiers and classifying modifiers. These two concepts are interchangeable. Adjectives that usually express size, color, feature, etc. are qualitative modifiers, which are transformed into classifying modifiers when they describe the essential attributes of the central word; modifiers that usually express place, country, raw material, and usage are classifying modifiers, which become qualitative modifiers when they are used to describe the meaning of the central word in terms of style, pattern, feature, etc. (Zhang Keli 2005: 460). However, such categorization and presentation can easily confuse learners. In contrast, Halliday's concepts of generics and modifiers are more general and easier to use in actual language analysis.
2. The ambiguity of the 2 V2ing form as a prepositional qualifier
The structure of the 2 V2ing form of the verb as a prepositional qualifier is often found in English. Halliday, in his system of functional grammar, uses the term nom2inal group to encompass common nouns, adjectives, quantifiers, and qualifiers in traditional grammar, treating them as subordinate classes of nom2inal groups (1994: 185). Not only that, but the 2ing and 2ed forms of verbs, which can act as classifiers and modifiers, are also categorized as noun phrases by Hanleys, and Bloor and Bloor cite the example of some dancing girls (1995: 138) in their discussion of the functional distinction between classifiers and modifiers in relation to ambiguity. They argue that there is ambiguity in this noun phrase, which can mean either 'some girls who dance for a living - dancing girls' or 'some girls who are dancing'. The meaning of the word "dancer" can be either "some girls who dance for a living" or "some girls who are dancing".
Traditional grammar often introduces the concepts of gerunds and present participles when explaining the two meanings of some dancing girls. If dancing is taken as a gerund, the meaning of the phrase is "dancing girls"; if dancing is regarded as a present participle, the meaning of the whole phrase is "dancing girls". But this interpretation is difficult for learners to understand. If we analyze it from the point of view of functional grammar, the situation will be much simpler.
We can clearly see that when this phrase is interpreted as (a), danc2
ing functions as a genitive, specifying that the occupation of these girls is dancing, and when it is interpreted as (b), dancing functions as a modifier, describing the action that these girls are performing. By defining the dual function of the word dancing, the two meanings of the phrase some dancing girls are made very clear.
In traditional grammatical frameworks, learners often have to resort to complex grammatical categories and items to distinguish ambiguities. In the example of some dancing girls, learners need to elaborate on the difference between the present participle and the gerund to explain the ambiguity of the phrase. For most Chinese students, distinguishing between these two non-finite forms of verbs has always been very difficult. This will certainly make it more difficult for learners to resolve the ambiguity. On the contrary, if we explain this phenomenon according to the theory of functional grammar, the situation will be very different. By relying on the knowledge of systematic functional grammar and understanding the dual function of the word danc2ing, which can be used as both a genitive and a modifier, as well as taking into account the contextual factors, learners can recognize and analyze the ambiguity of the phrase. Thus, the advantages of functional grammar can be seen. The list goes on and on.
3. Ambiguities arising from finite verbs
Traditional grammar divides English verbs into two categories: finite and non-finite. Usually, the finite verb serves as the predicate of the sentence, which is one of the core components of the whole sentence. Depending on the syntactic function of the predicate verb, the syntactic status of the other related constituents will change (Qiu Shude 1998: 344). The multiple meanings of the predicate verb itself will inevitably lead to the ambiguity of the whole sentence. As early as 1991, when analyzing the ambiguities on the predicate plane, domestic scholar Qin Honglin noticed the ambiguities between act verbs and tensed verbs, and between tensed table constructions and the progressive tenses of transitive verbs (1991: 24428).
In the framework of systematic functional grammar, there is no notion of predicate verb, tense structure, etc. Halliday was the first to put forward the three major metafunctions of language--conceptual function, interpersonal function and schematic function. In the conceptual function, the clause expresses the language user's knowledge and reflection of the subjective and objective world through the transitivity system (Halliday 1994: F25). Transitivity is a semantic system which serves to divide what people see, hear and do in the real world into a number of "processes", i.e. to categorize experience through grammatical forms and to specify the "participants" (partakers) associated with the various processes (Halliday 1994: F25). "Halliday classifies human experience into six different kinds of processes: material processes, psychological processes, relational processes, behavioral processes, and behavioral processes, Halliday divides human experience into six different processes: material process, psychological process, relational process, behavioral process, verbal process and existential process. Among them, the first three are the main types of processes in the English language and the material system. However, the boundaries between these processes are not clear-cut, and some processes can be categorized into one category and another at the same time. In this case, ambiguity is inevitable. Structural ambiguity in English occurs more often in the determination of the three main processes: material, mental and relational. Sometimes, a clause can be interpreted as either a material or a relational process, or as a mental or a relational process. This ambiguity in judgment directly results in multiple interpretations of the meaning of the sentence.
In the following, we analyze the ambiguity in active and passive voice sentences based on systemic functional grammar.
3. 1 Ambiguities arising from active voice
3. 1. 1 Simple structure: ambiguities arising from intransitive verbs
In English syntax, the "noun phrase + intransitive verb" structure is a common type of sentence. The ambiguities it produces are numerous. Let's take
Mary looked very hard as an example. According to the analysis of transformational grammar, the structural ambiguity of this sentence is related to the category status of a phrase (Radford 2000: 66). In this sentence, the ambiguity concerns the category status of the phrase very hard. When very hard is taken as an adjectival phrase, it means 'very hard'; when it is taken as an adverbial phrase, it means
'very hard'. In this way, the double meaning of the phrase Mary looked very hard is revealed.
This theoretically-guided analysis is certainly feasible, but its shortcoming is that it analyzes some constituents of the sentence separately, cutting off the logical relationship between the local grammatical structure and the overall semantic composition.
If we follow the functional grammar of this example, we will be able to analyze the meaning of the phrase "looked very hard". If we analyze this example sentence according to functional grammar, the situation will be greatly improved.
(4) Mary looked very hard.
(a) Mary looked very hard.
actor process: behavior circumstance: mode
Mary looked very hard.
(b) Mary looked very hard.
carrier process:relationship property
Mary looked very hard.
We can clearly see that example (4) is a behavioral process when it is interpreted as (a). In it, Mary is the actor, very hard is the circumstantial component, indicating the way of behavior, and the meaning of the whole clause is "Mary looked very hard"; when interpreted as (b), the clause shows a relational process. In (b), the clause shows a relational process, in which Mary is the carrier of the process, and very hard is the attribute, and the meaning of the whole clause is "Mary looked very hard".
The source of ambiguity in this sentence is the multiple meanings of the word look. In traditional grammar, the word look can be used as an intransitive verb or as a
tethered verb. According to functional grammar, relational processes refer to processes that reflect the relations between things; behavioral processes refer to physical and mental behaviors such as breathing, coughing, dreaming, etc. Halliday, in his discussion of relational processes, puts the word look into the category of verbs that express sensation-perception (1994:120). In his discussion of behavioral processes, Halliday classifies the word look among the categories of typical verbs that appear in behavioral processes (1994: 139). It is these two functions of the verb look that make the clause Mary looked very hard ambiguous. Moreover, in the two readings (a) and (b) of example (4), a closer look reveals that not only is there a clear distinction between the meanings of the verb look, which refers to the behavioral process in the interpretation of (a) and the relational process in the interpretation of (b), but the other constituents of the sentence, Mary and very hard, also have different functions respectively.
Mary has the semantic function of actor in the (a) interpretation, but the semantic function of carrier in the (b) interpretation, and very hard denotes the mode in the (a) interpretation, but the attribute of carrier in the
(b) interpretation. These subtle differences in lexical functions are difficult to realize in the framework of traditional grammar.
3. 1. 2 Complex structures: ambiguities arising from transitive verbs
Let's analyze another example of a more complex form: they are chewing tobacco. this sentence has two meanings: "they are chewing
tobacco", and "They are chewing tobacco". The traditional grammatical interpretation requires first determining whether they refers to an animate person or to an inanimate object. If it is determined that they are referring to people, then the sentence structure is in the present tense, indicating that some people are doing the action of chewing. If they refers to an inanimate object, then the sentence is in the nominative case, where chewing is used as a gerund to denote the use of tobacco. Obviously, this traditional method of analysis is cumbersome. Let's try to analyze it from a functional grammar point of view.
(5) They are chewing tobacco.
(a) They are chewing tobacco.
Actor Process: substance Objective
They are chewing tobacco.
(b) They are chewing tobacco.
Carrier Process:Relationships Genus Center word
Attribute
They are chewing tobacco.
As shown above, example (5) can be read as either (a) a material process or (b) a relational process. In the (a) reading, the clause expresses "something happens", in which they are the actors and tobacco is the target of the action, and the meaning of the whole clause is "they are chewing tobacco"; in the (b) reading, the clause expresses a relational process. In (b) reading, the clauses express a relational process: they as the carrier, chewing tobacco as the attribute (in which tobacco is the center word, chewing is the genitive, indicating a kind of tobacco), and the meaning of the whole clause is "they are chewing tobacco". In this way, learners do not have to determine whether they refers to a person or an object, and they do not have to recognize the difference between the present tense and the dative case structure, in order to analyze the double meanings shown in example (5). This is a much simpler way of doing things than in traditional grammar. Another example is: They are lecturing engineers, which we analyze as follows:
〓44〓
(6) They are lecturing engineers.
(a) They are lecturing engineers.
(b) They are lecturing engineers.
(c) They are lecturing engineers.- Previous article:Why should we "blow" the wind of health?
- Next article:People's Education Edition 8th grade Chinese Textbook Volume I Ancient Poems
- Related articles
- What are the specialties of Gaozhou?
- What festival is the most interesting?
- Which animal in the zodiac represents Valentine's Day in China?
- Explanation of special transportation in logistics transportation.
- What progress did China opera music make in Ming and Qing Dynasties?
- What is the main content of China traditional culture? What is the main content of China traditional culture?
- Jinan old songs
- There are many important elements in China's excellent traditional culture, which have shaped the outstanding features of Chinese civilization. What are these characteristics?
- Work plan for factory work
Factory work plan 1
Over the past year, with the support of leaders at all levels of the company, our workshop has strengthened the internal management of each t
- From the perspective of classical aesthetics, this paper expounds the aesthetic laws of China classical dance?