Volume 69, Issue 3 - Special Issue: Ambiguity (Non-)Avoidance in English; Guest Editor: Anatol Stefanowitsch

The present paper considers three types of constructions where optional function words have been claimed to be used primarily for the purpose of avoiding a global or local attachment ambiguity. a) In the absence of the complementiser in that -clauses, certain subject NPs might be (temporarily) misconstrued as direct objects of the superordinate verb. b) In the absence of the complementiser that , certain adverbials might be (wrongly) assigned to the subordinate or the superordinate clause. c) In the absence of a relativiser, certain combinations of the antecedent NP and the relative clause subject might be (temporarily) misconstrued as forming a single NP. The paper uses two corpus-based testing procedures to refute these claims. (i) Analysing otherwise comparable ambiguity-free and ambiguity-prone structures in a)–c) we find that they involve similar rates of function word use. (ii) Moreover, it is shown that a variety of other ambiguity-free constructions, containing the same or other optional grammatical markers, display similar distributional profiles.

Personal pronouns are vague and highly versatile. In addition to their canonical functions as deictics and anaphors, they can be used to express meanings that go beyond morphosyntactic mapping and feature matching. Potential ambiguity is minimised by a variety of syntactic and extra-syntactic means, including the conversational context. Disambiguation through categorical morphological distinctions is rarely needed. Different non-canonical uses that may theoretically result in ambiguous utterances are presented to illustrate how speakers embrace variable pronoun choice that eludes prescriptive isomorphism, for the sake of expressivity and pragmatic meaning. An ‘Avoid Ambiguity’ principle is suggested for conversation that takes account of the benefits of linguistic variability, vagueness, and the situatedness of natural talk.

Lexical ambiguity in the English language is abundant. Word-class ambiguity is even inherently tied to the productive process of conversion. Most lexemes are rather flexible when it comes to word class, which is facilitated by the minimal morphology that English has preserved. This study takes a multivariate quantitative approach to examine potential patterns that arise in a lexicon where verb-noun and noun-verb conversion are pervasive. The distributions of three inflectional suffixes, verbal - s , nominal - s , and - ed are explored for their interaction with degrees of verb-noun conversion. In order to achieve that, the lexical dispersion, context-dependency, and lexical similarity between the inflected and bare forms were taken into consideration and controlled for in a Generalized Additive Models for Location, Scale and Shape (GAMLSS; Stasinopoulos, M. D., R. A. Rigby, and F. De Bastiani. 2018. “GAMLSS: A Distributional Regression Approach.” Statistical Modelling 18 (3–4): 248–73). The results of a series of zero-one-inflated beta models suggest that there is a clear “uncanny” valley of lexemes that show similar proportions of verbal and nominal uses. Such lexemes have a lower proportion of inflectional uses when textual dispersion and context-dependency are controlled for. Furthermore, as soon as there is some degree of conversion, the probability that a lexeme is always encountered without inflection sharply rises. Disambiguation by means of inflection is unlikely to play a uniform role depending on the inflectional distribution of a lexeme.

The present study provides an empirical analysis of British-American contrasts in the overall use of the past perfect as well as its functional distribution. Studies on variation according to national variety report a decline of the past perfect spearheaded by American English (cf. Elsness, J. 1997. The Perfect and Preterite in Contemporary and Earlier English (Topics in English Linguistics 21). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyte; Bowie, J., S. Wallis, and B. Aarts. 2013. “The Perfect in Spoken British English.” In The Verb Phrase in English. Investigating Recent Language Change with Corpora , edited by B. Aarts, J. Close, G. Leech, and S. Wallis, 318–52. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 348; Yao, X., and P. Collins. 2013. “Recent Change in Non-present Perfect Constructions in British and American English.” Corpora 8 (1): 115–35: 121f.). However, these findings still await an explanation as to possible motivations for the decline. The present study is able to provide novel insights by taking the semantic functions of past perfect structures into account (anteriority, backshifting in indirect speech, hypothetical past). A functional quantitative and qualitative analysis of newspaper corpora comprising 112 million words (27 million British English and 85 million American English) reveals that the overall decline results in a reduction of redundant information at the cost of potential ambiguity. Finally, our findings will be related to the four dichotomies of British-American differences outlined in Rohdenburg and Schlüter (2009 “New Departures.” In One Language, Two Grammars? Differences between British and American English (Studies in English Language), edited by G. Rohdenburg, and J. Schlüter, 364–423. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 421), i.e. progressiveness, formality, consistency and explicitness.

This brief discussion paper is concerned with the sequence [ have NP V pp ] and its distinction into a causative and a passive construction, which hinges on the (non-)agentivity of the subject participant, so that the sequence can be seen as ambiguous in that respect. Instead of analyzing these uses as two different constructions, I propose a unified analysis as instances of the affactive construction. This construction has the functional potential of putting primary focus on secondary participants, so-called afficiary participants. The potential ambiguity with regard to the agentivity of these participants is not an issue in usage, as it is only evoked as part of the conceptual content in the background.