Ambiguity matters in linguistics and translation
Ambiguity implies that there are at least two distinct senses ascribed to one sign. It is inherent to language and speech. In this article, I reflect on the types of ambiguity, its typology, production and effect and propose an algorithm for tackling ambiguity in translation. I posit that the choice of a translation strategy and the need for disambiguation in general depend on the type of ambiguity, its sources and character, i. e. whether ambiguity is intended or not. Intended ambiguity occurs when the speaker intentionally does not follow the logic of conceptual clues (primes) and opts for a set of communicative strategies and linguistic means, which allow him/her to offer several possible interpretations of one event or even refer to several different events. I explore a rarely analyzed event-referential ambiguity, which requires additional conceptual information for disambiguation and, consequently, may pose a problem for translation. I argue that problems in disambiguation may occur for a variety of reasons: the translator and\or the recipient may have a wrong reference, have insufficient background knowledge to resolve the ambiguity or make wrong inferences since each recipient bears a different combination of cognitive, axiological, social, professional and gender attributes.
Apresjan, Yu., 1974. Leksicheskaya semantika: sinonimicheskie sredstva yazyka [Lexical semantics: synonymous means of language]. Russia, Moscow: Nauka (in Russ.).
Aristotle, 2016. Sophistical Refutations. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ambiguity/ [accessed 12 May 2019].
Atherton, C., 1993. The Stoics on Ambiguity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bach, K., 1982. Semantic Nonspecificity and Mixed Quantifiers. Linguistics and Philosophy, 4, pp. 593—605.
Barsalou, L., 1982. Context-independent and context-dependent information in concepts. Memory & Cognition, 10, pp. 82—93.
Benjamin, A., 2012, Translation and ambiguity: towards a reformulation. Australian Association for Literary Translation Review, 5, pp. 39—46.
Black, M., 1937. Vagueness: An exercise in logical analysis. Philosophy of Science, 4, pp. 427—455.
Camp, E., 2006. Metaphor and That Certain ‘Je Ne Sais Quoi’. Philosophical Studies, 129, pp. 1—25.
Chomsky, N., 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.
Chomsky, N., 2000. New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cruse, D., 1986. Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dunbar, G., 2001. Towards a Cognitive Analysis of Polysemy, Ambiguity and Vagueness. Cognitive Linguistics, 12, pp. 1—14.
Eco, U., 2011. Confessions of a young novelist. Harvard University Press.
Graham, R., 2001. Statutory interpretation: Theory and Practice. Toronto: Emond Publishing.
Fodor, J., 1998. Concepts: Where Cognitive Science Went Wrong. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fougner, R., 1998. La notion d'ambiguïté en traduction. TradTerm, 5(1), pp. 11—40.
Giammarresi, S. and Lapalme, G., 2016. Computer science and translation: natural languages and machine translation. In: Y. Gambier and L. van Doorslaer, eds. Border Crossings: Translation Studies and other disciplines. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: J. Benjamins. pp. 205—224.
Greenough, P., 2003. Vagueness: A Minimal Theory. Mind, 112, pp. 235—81.
Grice, H., 1975. Logic and Conversation. In: Cole and Morgan, eds. Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press. pp. 45—47.
Handwerker, B., 2004. Übersetzung und sprachliche Mehrdeutigkeit. In: H. Kittel et al., eds. Übersetzung Translation Traduction. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Übersetzungsforschung (HSK). Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter. pp. 362—369.
Jacobs, T., 2017. The appeal of ambiguity in art: German researchers find people don’t need to fully “get” a work to enjoy it. Available at: https://psmag.com/social-justice/ the-appeal-of-ambiguity-in-art [accessed 14 May 2019].
Kilgariff, A., 2011. I do not believe in word senses, Polysemy: Flexible Patterns of Meaning in Mind and Language. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, New York. pp. 361—392.
Lakoff, G., 1970. A note on vagueness and ambiguity. Linguistic Inquiry, 1, pp. 357—359.
Lyons, J., 1975. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge Cambridge University Press.
Nerlich, B., 2003. Polysemy and flexibility, Polysemy: Flexible Patterns of Meaning in Mind and Language. Mouton de Gruyter Berlin New York, p. 13.
Nunberg, G., 1995. Transfers of Meaning. Journal of Semantics, 12, pp. 109—32.
Quiroga, C., 2003. Language ambiguity: a curse and a blessing. Translation Journal, 7 (1), pp. 57—61.
Pym, A. and Hu, B., 2018. Constructive ambiguity in foreign-affairs translation. The case of “One China”. Available at: http://usuaris.tinet.cat/apym/on-line/ translation/2018_trust_hubris.pdf [accessed 14 May 2019].
Recanati, F., 1989. The Pragmatics of What is Said. Mind and Language, 4, pp. 295—329.
Anon, 2004. Literal Meaning, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Saka, P., 2007. How to Think About Meaning. Dordrecht: Springer.
Traxler, M., 2011. Introduction to Psycholinguistics: understanding language science. Boston: Wiley-Blackwell.
Tuggy, D., 1993. Ambiguity, Polysemy and Vagueness. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, pp. 273—290.
Zabotkina, V. and Boyarskaya, E., 2017. On the Challenge of Polysemy in Contemporary Cognitive Research: What is Conscious and what is Unconscious. Psychology. Russia: State of the Art, 10(3), pp. 28—39.
Zalizniak, A., 2007. The Phenomenon of Polysemy and Ways to Describe it, the Cognitive Basis of Polysemy. Metalinguistica, 19, pp. 93—97.
Zwicky, A. and Sadock, J., 1975. Ambiguity Tests and How to Fail Them. In: Kimball, ed. Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 4. New York: Academic Press. pp. 1—36.