CRL Technical Report, Vol. 18 No. 2, December 2006 CENTER FOR RESEARCH IN LANGUAGE December 2006 Vol. 18, No. 2 CRL Technical Reports, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla CA 92093-0526 Tel: (858) 534-2536 • E-mail: [email protected] • WWW: http://crl.ucsd.edu/newsletter/current/TechReports/articles.html TECHNICAL REPORT Avoid Ambiguity! (If You Can) Victor S. Ferreira Department of Psychology, University of California, San Diego EDITOR’S NOTE The CRL Technical Report replaces the feature article previously published with every issue of the CRL Newsletter. The Newsletter is now limited to announcements and news concerning the CENTER FOR RESEARCH IN LANGUAGE. CRL is a research center at the University of California, San Diego that unites the efforts of fields such as Cognitive Science, Linguistics, Psychology, Computer Science, Sociology, and Philosophy, all who share an interest in language. The Newsletter can be found at http://crl.ucsd.edu/newsletter/current/TechReports/articles.html. The Technical Reports are also produced and published by CRL and feature papers related to language and cognition (distributed via the World Wide Web). We welcome response from friends and colleagues at UCSD as well as other institutions. Please visit our web site at http://crl.ucsd.edu. SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION If you know of others who would be interested in receiving the Newsletter and the Technical Reports, you may add them to our email subscription list by sending an email to [email protected] with the line "subscribe newsletter <email-address>" in the body of the message (e.g., subscribe newsletter [email protected]). Please forward correspondence to: John Lewis and Jenny Staab, Editors Center for Research in Language, 0526 9500 Gilman Drive, University of California, San Diego 92093-0526 Telephone: (858) 534-2536 • E-mail: [email protected] 1 CRL Technical Report, Vol. 18 No. 2, December 2006 Back issues of the the CRL Newsletter are available on our website. Papers featured in recent issues include the following: The Brain’s Language New corpora, new tests, and new data for frequency- Kara Federmeier and Marta Kutas based corpus comparisons Department of Cognitive Science, UCSD Robert A. Liebscher Vol. 12, No.3, November 2000 Cognitive Science, UCSD Vol. 15, No.2; December 2003 The Frequency of Major Sentence Types over Discourse Levels: A Corpus Analysis The relationship between language and coverbal Frederic Dick and Jeffrey Elman gesture in aphasia Department of Cognitive Science, UCSD Eva Schleicher Vol. 13, No.1, February 2001 Psychology, University of Vienna & Cognitive Science, UCSD A Study of Age-of-Acquisition (AoA) Ratings in Adults Vol. 16, No. 1, January 2005 Gowri K. Iyer, Cristina M. Saccuman, Elizabeth A. Bates, and Beverly B.Wulfeck In search of Noun-Verb dissociations in aphasia Language & Communicative Disorders, SDSU & across three processing tasks UCSD and Center for Research in Language, UCSD Analía Arévalo, Suzanne Moineau Vol. 13, No. 2, May 2001 Language and Communicative Disorders, SDSU & UCSD, Center for Research in Language, UCSD Syntactic Processing in High- and Low-skill Ayşe Saygin Comprehenders Working under Normal and Stressful Cognitive Science & Center for Research in Language, Conditions UCSD Frederic Dick, Department of Cognitive Science, Carl Ludy UCSD VA Medical Center Martinez Morton Ann Gernsbacher, Department of Elizabeth Bates Psychology, University of Wisconsin Cognitive Science & Center for Research in Language, Rachel R. Robertson, Department of Psychology, UCSD Emory University Vol. 17, No. 1, March 2005 Vol. 14, No. 1, February 2002 Meaning in gestures: What event-related potentials Teasing Apart Actions and Objects: A Picture Naming reveal about processes underlying the comprehension Study of iconic gestures Analia L. Arevalo Ying C. Wu Language & Communicative Disorders, SDSU & Cognitive Science Department, UCSD UCSD Vol. 17, No. 2, August 2005 Vol. 14, No. 2, May 2002 What age of acquisition effects reveal about the nature The Effects of Linguistic Mediation on the of phonological processing Identification of Environmental Sounds Rachel I. Mayberry Frederic Dick , Joseph Bussiere and Linguistics Department, UCSD Ayşe Pınar Saygın Pamela Witcher Department of Cognitive Science and Center for School of Communication Sciences & Disorders, Research in Language, UCSD McGill University Vol. 14, No. 3, August 2002 Vol. 15, No.3, December 2005 On the Role of the Anterior Superior Temporal Lobe in Effects of Broca's aphasia and LIPC damage on the Language Processing: Hints from Functional use of contextual information in sentence Neuroimaging Studies comprehension Jenny Staab Eileen R. Cardillo Language & Communicative Disorders, SDSU & CRL & Institute for Neural Computation, UCSD UCSD Kim Plunkett Vol. 14, No. 4, December 2002 Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford Jennifer Aydelott A Phonetic Study of Voiced, Voiceless, and Alternating Psychology, Birbeck College, University of London) Stops in Turkish Vol. 18, No. 1, June 2006 Stephen M. Wilson Neuroscience Interdepartmental Program, UCLA Vol. 15, No. 1, April 2003 2 CRL Technical Reports, Vol. 18 No. 2, December 2006 Avoid Ambiguity! (If You Can) Victor S. Ferreira Department of Psychology, University of California, San Diego Abstract When people create linguistic expressions, they should avoid ambiguity. Current evidence on this is mixed. In two experiments, subjects read sentences including passive relative clauses, which can be written in full or reduced form (The team (that was) defeated in the Super Bowl vowed revenge); when reduced (without the that was), ambiguity is a threat. Subjects were told about the optional material, and instructed to include or omit it to make the sentence “easier to understand.” One experiment manipulated past participle ambiguity (The team defeated... is ambiguous, whereas The team beaten... is not). Another experiment also manipulated plausibility (The winning team defeated... is more ambiguous relative to The losing team defeated...). Past-participle ambiguity failed to influence whether subjects wrote full embedded clauses, but plausibility tended to. A third experiment verified that the ambiguous fragments are consistent with main-verb interpretations. Thus, when instructed to edit sentences to make them easy to understand, subjects avoid ambiguity not based on morphological ambiguity, but (perhaps) only as conditioned upon pragmatic, real-world knowledge.highlight certain common, but problematic, methodological practices in patient research, and alternative approaches are suggested. the defeating) is especially likely; however, by the It’s right there in the Gricean maxim of manner end of the expression, this main verb interpretation (Grice, 1975): Avoid ambiguity. The reason for this proves incorrect, because defeat is actually a passive directive is obvious: An ambiguous linguistic verb in a relative clause (implying that the team got expression is difficult to understand, and so to defeated). Garden paths pose demonstrable problems produce one is to be uncooperative (unless of course for readers (as shown by the last few decades of the aim is to flout the maxim of manner, but that’s a research on language comprehension), and so, by the different matter entirely). Therefore, speakers -- or, logic described above, writers should avoid them too. more relevantly in the present context, writers -- (In fact, once the wider contexts of utterances in should avoid ambiguity when they can. natural language use are taken into account, this distinction between full and temporary ambiguity is The “avoid ambiguity” component of the Gricean likely to collapse. “I can’t say enough good things” is maxim of manner is obviously important when full likely unambiguous in its larger context, though its ambiguity is at stake. Full ambiguity arises when a tolerance of an inappropriate [here opposite] complete linguistic expression can be interpreted in interpretation might pose temporary comprehension more than one way. The recommendation, “I can’t difficulties.) say enough good things about this candidate,” is fully ambiguous. (Is the candidate stronger than words can So, do speakers avoid full ambiguities or garden express? Or is the candidate not worthy of positive paths? Many investigations have explored this description?) However, temporary ambiguity too is question. Two early (and conflicting) observations likely to be problematic for linguistic relevant to this point come from Elsness (1984). He communication. Temporary ambiguity arises when looked at naturally occurring text from the Brown part-way through, a linguistic expression can be corpus (a variety of written forms, including books, interpreted in more than one way, but by the end of periodicals, government documents, etc.), the expression, the inappropriate interpretation investigating “that” omission in fully ambiguous becomes impossible. Temporary ambiguities are sentences like “The newspaper reported (that) called garden paths when, at the point of ambiguity, yesterday (that) the politician had lied” (without one linguistic or contextual factors encourage the of the “thats,” it is uncertain whether the reporting or ultimately incorrect interpretation. “The team the lying happened yesterday). He found that defeated in the Super Bowl vowed revenge next sentences with such medial adverbials (“yesterday”) season” is a garden path, because after reading “The indeed included “thats” more often than other similar team defeated...,” the