My picture was not of a hat. It was of a boa constrictor digesting an elephant. But since the grown-ups were not able to understand it, I made another drawing… so that the grown-ups could see it clearly. They always need to have things explained clearly.
– The Little Prince
For instance, according to the theory, hearers aim at an interpretation that satisfies their expectations of relevance and the relevance of an interpretation varies inversely with the effort needed to derive it.
– The why and how of experimental pragmatics: The case of ‘scalar inferences’
There is considerable ambiguity in human communication. This results in “misinterpretation and misunderstanding” which “vary from subtle nuances of meaning to a complete distortion of the intended message” (Harris & Monaco, 1978). The reason for this is that even a simple form of words is capable of bearing multiple meanings. Mainly, only the negative aspects of ambiguity in communication have been highlighted. Thinkers like Noam Chomsky have argued language in general is poorly designed for the purposes of communication because recipients of messages have to engage in a laborious process of narrowing meaning from a range of possibilities.
Arguably, the presence of ambiguity in human language is not without very real advantages. Animal behaviourist, M.W Fox showed how a mother turkey would turn maternal towards its natural enemy, the polecat, so long as it hears ‘cheep-cheep’ sounds coming from it (Cialdini, 2007). For turkeys, ‘cheep-cheep’ signals the presence of their young. There was nothing ambiguous about ‘cheep-cheep’ for the turkey which took to nurturing the polecat.
Some benefits of ambiguity are as follows.
It allows continuation of dealings when there is ambivalence. Would you be attending this talk? I might. It allows for polite disagreement. Do you not agree with what I am saying? I understand what you are saying.
It results in humour. “At the clinic yesterday, there were two babies, Dr Alfian and Dr Chai” (Aman & Tan, 2018). It makes for witty prose like in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar. The excerpt below is of a conversation between a cobbler dressed in nice clothes being interrogated by an official. The official was interrogating workers on the street who self-declared a holiday to celebrate on the streets, in order to send them back to work. The law at the time required workers to be plying their trade during work hours.
you, sir, what trade are you?
Truly, sir, in respect of a fine workman, I am but, as you would say, a cobbler.
But what trade art thou? Answer me directly.
A trade, sir, that I hope may use with a safe conscience; which is indeed, sir, a mender of bad soles.
(Ibrahim, Ambiguity in Poetry: Definition, Functions and Elements)
We see how the cobbler was evasive with the official, using ambiguity without risking perjury. While it was true that he was in fact a cobbler, the way he strung words together, “I am but, as you would say a cobbler” seemed to suggest that he was not a cobbler but of a profession which the official might consider lowly or he could have meant to come across as conveying humility – the modern equivalent of saying, “I’m a small fry”.He reinforced the perception of being something other than a cobbler by saying he mended bad “soles” which in speech would have sounded like ‘souls’. The cobbler could not lie but at the same time, being plain would have seen him unceremoniously evicted from the streets. Instead he asserted power against the official with ambiguity.
Ambiguity allows face saving in Asian cultures. For example, instead of rejecting outright, a proposal they consider a bad deal, Asians might say, “Let us study it”. (Harvard Business Review, 2003).
In sum, ambiguity allows a certain latitude and flexibility in communications to fulfil social purposes. At the same time, without an awareness of ambiguity, catastrophe could result. For example, when Croesus, King of Lydia asked the Delphic Oracle if he should attack Persia, the response was, that if he were to do so, he would destroy a great empire. The king did not consider the ambiguity of the prophecy and so ended up destroying his own empire.
It is important to be aware of ambiguity. Researchers have found that children are likely to understand only the literal meaning more than implied meaning. For example, in experiments in the field of pragmatics (the study of how meaning is communicated), young children differed in their interpretation of the words ‘might’, ‘some’ and ‘or’ from adults.
As a matter of logic, ‘might’ is a subset of ‘definitely’, ‘some’ is a subset of ‘all’ and ‘or’ is a subset of both. It would require contextual inference, for example to disambiguate if ‘or’ means ‘only one’ or includes ‘both’. For example, consider the phrase, “class notes or summary” (Noveck & Sperber, 2007) and how ‘or’ could be inclusive or exclusive.
a) Bill had very little time. He could read the class notes or summary if he still hopes to pass.
b) The course is very difficult. Bill should read the class notes or summary to pass.
Noveck and Sperber (2007) also documented how children in experiments, were more inclusive in their interpretation of these words. For them, ‘might’ included ‘definitely’. They were shown 2 open boxes. One had a parrot and a bear. The other only had a parrot. They were then shown a closed box and told the contents of the closed box could be like either of the 2 open boxes. When asked if the statement, “The closed box might contain a parrot” was true or false, an overwhelmingly high percentage of children answered ‘true’. Adults mostly said, ‘false’.To children, something possible included something that was definitely true. To adults, ‘might’ was only used to indicate a lack of certainty.
Similarly, children answered as true, statements like, “Some giraffes have long necks” and were more inclusive in their interpretation of ‘or’. For example, a child might understand a statement like, “Bill will sing or play the piano” as Bill would do both.
If they had had an awareness of ambiguity, they would have moved past the logical and literal meaning of those words, taken context into account and have been more exclusive in their interpretations.
In the Journal of Experimental Psychology, Harris and Monaco state how children tend to recall details from statements wrongly because of possible but unnecessary inferences. For example, if they had read, “The python caught the mouse”. They might recall, “The python ate the mouse”. They might also treat words in a continuum as though they were part of a binary pair. For example, ‘not fast’ might be recalled as ‘slow’ even though there is a range of possible speeds between, ‘fast’ and ‘slow’. These misinterpretations are a result of lack of awareness of ambiguity.
Awareness of ambiguity is necessary across all components of every paper of English exams. Ambiguity goes unnoticed because of the subconscious operation of Grice’s maxims for communication. Grice states the following.
1. Try to make your contribution one that is true.
2. Make your contribution as informative as necessary and not more.
3. Be relevant.
4. Be clear in your expression so that you are easily understood.
It is assumed in communication that speakers and writers would adhere by these maxims. Therefore, receivers and especially students are quite satisfied with the first meaning which appears obvious to them. It has been pointed out that in practice, the maxims are not followed and in certain cases, are used to mislead. Even if they were followed, it is not difficult to see how misunderstanding can occur because of words like, ‘true’, ‘necessary’, relevant’ and ‘clear’.
One way to handle ambiguity and to avoid making unnecessary inferences or appearing too certain about one meaning when another exists is to understand the difference between contradiction and incongruence as pointed out by psychologist Charles Osgood.
A statement containing a contradiction has two parts which cannot agree. Ben is taller than Bill but Bill is not shorter than Ben. A statement which is incongruent has two parts which could possibly agree but which agreement would go against expectations. The python caught the mouse and had to let it go free.
Students who can tell apart contradictory statements from incongruent ones might be able to entertain a wider range of meanings and narrow them only when the context or other features of a text supports such narrowing. Ben is taller than Bill must necessarily mean Bill is shorter than Ben. It is alright to infer Bill is shorter than Ben from ‘Ben is taller than Bill’. If a sentence or question is merely incongruent, students should not make inferences which would be more aligned with expectations.
Why did the bull cross the road? Who knows?
The Brain Dojo
