0
Dtwx Posted 16 years ago
Grammar
Lexical ambiguitiy
Consider the following sentence:
The cat ate the bird after it fell out of its nest.
Grammatically, this can mean:
1) The cat ate the bird after [the cat] fell out of [the cat's] nest.
2) The cat ate the bird after [the cat] fell out of [the bird's] nest.
3) The cat ate the bird after [the bird] fell out of [the cat's] nest.
4) The cat ate the bird after [the bird] fell out of [the bird's] nest.
Common sense tells us that cats normally don't live in nests, so we can assume that (4) is the case.
However, some things aren't so clear. Consider this sentence:
Joe and John's family accompanied us to Disneyland.
This can mean one of the following:
1) Joe [alone] and John's family accompanied us to Disneyland.
2) Joe and John are from one family that accompanied us to Disneyland.
In the first case, disambiguation is easy: John's family accompanied us to Disneyland, as did Joe.
However, the second case needs something like this: The family of both Joe and John accompanied us to Disneyland.
The problem is, this sentence, although grammatically correct, sounds clumsy and awkward. I know it's possible to resolve the ambiguity using context from other sentences, but what if I want this sentence to be a standalone one?
The cat ate the bird after it fell out of its nest.
Grammatically, this can mean:
1) The cat ate the bird after [the cat] fell out of [the cat's] nest.
2) The cat ate the bird after [the cat] fell out of [the bird's] nest.
3) The cat ate the bird after [the bird] fell out of [the cat's] nest.
4) The cat ate the bird after [the bird] fell out of [the bird's] nest.
Common sense tells us that cats normally don't live in nests, so we can assume that (4) is the case.
However, some things aren't so clear. Consider this sentence:
Joe and John's family accompanied us to Disneyland.
This can mean one of the following:
1) Joe [alone] and John's family accompanied us to Disneyland.
2) Joe and John are from one family that accompanied us to Disneyland.
In the first case, disambiguation is easy: John's family accompanied us to Disneyland, as did Joe.
However, the second case needs something like this: The family of both Joe and John accompanied us to Disneyland.
The problem is, this sentence, although grammatically correct, sounds clumsy and awkward. I know it's possible to resolve the ambiguity using context from other sentences, but what if I want this sentence to be a standalone one?
Top answer
If both Joe and John belong to the same family, Joe's family is John's family, so there is no need to mention both. Either of these will do. Joe's family accompanied us to Disneyland.
- If both Joe and John belong to the same family, Joe's family is John's family, so there is no need to mention both.
- Either of these will do.
- Joe's family accompanied us to Disneyland.
- John's family accompanied us to Disneyland.
- CJ
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
6 Answers
0
If both Joe and John belong to the same family, Joe's family is John's family, so there is no need to mention both. Either of these will do.
Joe's family accompanied us to Disneyland.
John's family accompanied us to Disneyland.
CJ
Joe's family accompanied us to Disneyland.
John's family accompanied us to Disneyland.
CJ
00
Hi,
Consider the following sentence:
The cat ate the bird after it fell out of its nest.
Grammatically, this can mean:
In strictly grammatical terms, I don't agree. The standard grammatical procedure in a sentence like this is to trace the pronoun and possessive back to the closest eligible preceding noun, which is 'bird'.
1) The cat ate th
Consider the following sentence:
The cat ate the bird after it fell out of its nest.
Grammatically, this can mean:
In strictly grammatical terms, I don't agree. The standard grammatical procedure in a sentence like this is to trace the pronoun and possessive back to the closest eligible preceding noun, which is 'bird'.
00
0
Hi,
The chick ate the worm after it fell out of its nest.
I'd say the grammatical meaning is unambiguous, but that it is not the meaning that the writer intends. The writer is relying not on grammar but on iinterpretation by the reader. Writers often do.
The chick ate the worm after it fell out of its nest.
I'd say the grammatical meaning is unambiguous, but that it is not the meaning that the writer intends. The writer is relying not on grammar but on iinterpretation by the reader. Writers often do.
00
Clive ... relying ... on the common sense of the reader. Writers often do.And thank goodness they do! Even if they don't always get it.
00
Thanks for the information.
However, I have two more questions:
1. Consider this sentence:
"I ate a portion of a cake and a sandwich."
What do(es) the "portion" modify? Grammatically, the sentence could mean:
a. I ate a portion of a cake and a portion of a sandwich.
b. I ate a portion of a cake and a whole sandwich.
I know I can disambigua
However, I have two more questions:
1. Consider this sentence:
"I ate a portion of a cake and a sandwich."
What do(es) the "portion" modify? Grammatically, the sentence could mean:
a. I ate a portion of a cake and a portion of a sandwich.
b. I ate a portion of a cake and a whole sandwich.
I know I can disambigua
0
Related Questions