UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL DEL COMAHUE - FACULTAD DE LENGUAS

PROFESORADO EN INGLÉS Y TRADUCTORADO EN INGLÉS

Class notes written by Matías Fernández and revised by Ma. Teresa Araya

Structural ambiguity

What you know about the English language so far surely allows you to explain why (1a)
below does not make any sense and is an ungrammatical sentence: it does not conform to
the rules of the language for a number of reasons. Sentences in English and in all natural
languages are not just an array of words that sound fancy together. Instead, you know that
(1a) is ungrammatical because English has a specific word order which dictates the
positions that the constituents of any grammatical construction must occupy (SVO, in typical
declarative sentences).

1. a. *really caught book this attention my.

b. Martha phoned her friend from jail.

On the other hand, the “problem” in (1b) can’t be explained in terms of wrong constituent
order and it’s not an ungrammatical sequence (hence the absence of the asterisk). The
structure in (1b) displays a phenomenon known in the literature as structural ambiguity,
syntactic ambiguity or structural homonymy. You’ve probably noticed that it can be
interpreted in two different ways: either Martha was in jail at the time she phoned her friend,
or from jail serves to specify which friend is being talked about (the one from jail). The
reasons why this is possible in the language will be further discussed in the remaining
pages, but do have this in mind, before moving on: in structurally ambiguous
constructions all possible interpretations remain available if no context, paraphrases
or a structural (visual) representation are provided.

In English Grammar this topic is part of the syllabus because it helps us to:

● understand how words are grouped together into syntactic constituents and
● identify competing interpretations (allowed by varying levels of semantic congruity) in
terms of their structural realization to later be able to isolate, label and analyze
constituents (i.e., types of phrases, syntactic functions within the phrase)
● apply tests to prove whether a given string of words functions as a unit in a specific
context

1
1. Structurally ambiguous sequences in detail

Structural ambiguity is part of our language and it

can just “happen” in everyday communication, or be
purposefully put to use if one’s intention is to
confuse others or to make them laugh. Some
linguistic jokes or puns rely heavily on structural
ambiguity (see the one about the dogs) in that they
lay open the possibility of interpreting meaning (A),
one which goes in accordance with the world as we
know it, while pushing readers/listeners to interpret
(B), which is far more incongruent and (sometimes)
funnier than the first interpretation. In the joke about
the dogs, the constituent [on bikes] seems to be
having a fundamental role in its humorous reading.
We’ll see why this happens from a syntactic
perspective.

Before delving into the technicalities of this phenomenon, try solving the following exercise.
Once you finish, continue reading the notes.

The following structures are ambiguous. Analyze them and explain the (2 or more)
interpretations available. Then, identify the problematic constituent using brackets,
and say which syntactic function it has in EACH of the readings.

2. a. skinny jean lovers

b. The police spotted the man using binoculars.

The instruction in bold above is an example of a typical exercise about structural ambiguity.
There are 2 concepts that you need to pay close attention to: syntactic function and
problematic constituent. You know phrases and sentences in English can be described in
terms of their constituents. Each of those constituents may have a particular syntactic
function depending on the relation it establishes with a central category known as the
predicate. Also, constituents have an internal structure, and so certain grammatical functions
can be identified for those constituents, which are part, in turn, of the constituents of a
sentence (much as when you slice an onion and see its layers, or open up a Mamushka and
keep finding smaller Mamushkas in it). Having this in mind, the instruction given to work on
(2) requires that you analyze the internal structure of a Determiner Phrase (DP) in (2a) and
the internal structure of a sentence in (2b).

The phrase skinny jean lovers is a DP, whose head is a null/zero determiner(∅). The
complement of this D head is a Noun Phrase, and the function some constituents have
within this NP can vary because, as you know, it’s a structurally ambiguous sequence.
Skinny jean lovers may refer to the people who love a specific type of jeans (skinny jeans) or
to skinny people who love jeans of any type. This is because the Adjectival Phrase (AP)
skinny, which functions as a pre-nominal modifier in both cases, may add information about
the jeans, specifying which type of jeans they are, or about the people who love jeans,

2
providing information about their physical appearance. See how this becomes clearer if we
aid our analysis with square brackets. The underlined element(s) fall under the scope of the
AP skinny:

a’ . [[{skinny} jean] lovers]]

a’’. [{skinny} [jean lovers]]

This is a simplified analysis of the two possible readings for (2a). We may complete it by
adding the type of categories these phrases are, but this is enough for the time being.
Skinny is an AP, hence, a constituent, which turns out to be “problematic” because there are
two possible elements which it can pre-modify. As we said earlier, knowledge about syntactic
functions is the key to finding this problematicity alluded to in the instruction.

Let’s now turn our attention to (2b). The structure under analysis is a sentence (a Tense
Phrase (TP), to be precise). When dealing with a sentence, finding the main predicate is a
good start. In this case, the predicative verb spot is the category that selects arguments in
the main clause. There needs to be a SOMEONE who spots another SOMEONE, and so the
argument structure for this predicate is: spot (DP,DP), and its thematic structure is <Agent,
Theme>, which are realized in (2b), by the DPs the police and the man, respectively.

But still there’s a remaining constituent whose presence renders the sentence ambiguous.
The string using binoculars can plausibly post-modify the noun man alone, meaning that he
was using binoculars at any given time, or it may add information about the whole event of
spotting the man, and so the binoculars were (being) used by the police officers who did the
spotting, not by the man, mainly because the act of spotting is can be done by using such
equipment . Yes, we’ve found the problematic constituent: the non-finite subordinate clause
using binoculars can be interpreted as “linked” to two potential elements. In both
interpretations this clause functions as a modifier, since neither the predicate spot nor the
noun man require a complement of such sort.

b’. Non-finite clause modifier of N: …[spotted [the man {using binoculars}]]

b’’. Non-finite clause modifier of T: [the police [[spotted the man] {using binoculars}]]

2. Constituency tests1 to get rid of ambiguity

At the beginning we said that structurally ambiguous sequences remain ambiguous unless
something “is done” to disambiguate them. Apart from the thorough explanation presented
above, which should be part of your answers, some constituency tests work well in some
of the cases. Let’s see how they come in handy.

There are some tests which may be applied to favor one reading or another, which requires
manipulating the problematic constituents as part of different structures. There are some
restrictions, but some of them can be applied as follows. Can you recognize which test
favors which interpretation in each case?

1
See the Class notes on this topic. Available on Pedco or upon request.

3
 Test type Results when applied to (2a) and (2b)

Replacement thin jean lovers / fat jean lovers

Oxford jean lovers / ripped jean lovers
The police spotted the man who was using binoculars.
The police spotted him using binoculars2.

Left dislocation Using binoculars, the police spotted the man _.

Clefting It is skinny jean(s) that people love

It is jeans that skinny people love
It was the man using binoculars that the police spotted.
It was the police that spotted the man using binoculars.
It was using binoculars that the police spotted the man.

Exercises

1. Analyze the following sequences and explain the ambiguity. Identify the problematic
constituent and be specific as to what syntactic function they have in the sentence/phrase,
and what element they modify/are complement of.
a. remote learning techniques
b. Exchange students and teachers will attend the lecture.
c. an Italian restaurant owner
d. They have wounded people there.
e. What is the easiest way to make a banana split? Cut it in half!

2. Study the trees below. Say which interpretation each of them illustrates and how you
conclude this.

2
In this case, we haven’t replaced the problematic constituent, but the DP the man by the DP
containing the personal subjective pronoun him. What’s the only interpretation in this case? Any idea
why this is so?

4
3. The pun below has a case of syntactic ambiguity, but this is triggered by the categorial
status of a specific word. Identify which word it is, explain the ambiguity, and say which
interpretation is forced/preferred once you read the whole joke.

References

Haegeman, L. (2006). Thinking Syntactically. A Guide to Argumentation and Analysis.

Blackwell Publishing. Chapter 1: §1.1.3.1, 1.1.3.2.

Zipke, M. (2008). Teaching Metalinguistic Awareness and Reading Comprehension with

Riddles. The Reading Teacher, 62(2), 128-137.