Syntactic synonymy II. On Syntactic Polysemy

Syntactic polysemy means that there are two or more structural meanings in a syntactic structure, and different people can make different interpretations, thus causing differences in understanding. Syntactic polysemy means syntactic ambiguity.

The study of ambiguous structure is a noticeable research topic in the field of Chinese grammar in recent years. In fact, in the process of verbal communication, due to various factors inside and outside the language, the possibility of ambiguity is very small. Linguists are interested in the study of ambiguity, not because of its practical value in language use, but because it is regarded as a breakthrough to explore the complex correspondence between language form and language content. Mr. Zhu put it well: "The intricacies and subtleties in the grammatical system of a language are often reflected in ambiguity. Therefore, the analysis of ambiguity will give us many useful inspirations and make our observation and analysis of grammatical phenomena more in-depth. " (See Ambiguity in Chinese Syntax, China Chinese, No.2, 1980).

(A) the types of syntactic ambiguous sentences

Inducing the types of syntactic polysemous sentences, that is, the types of inductive ambiguity, is actually looking for the causes of ambiguity at the same time.

The main types of syntactic polysemy are:

1, homonym. For example:

He stayed for a while. (doing/sitting)

Pippa is at home. (Pipa/Loquat)

You have to overcome Jiāo qi. (arrogant/coquettish)

Qi Zhiang's exam has been arranged. (Mid-term/Final)

2. Polysemous words. For example:

You should eat more, more. (vegetables/dishes)

He still has baggage. (cloth/mental burden)

The training team fucked around. (out/in)

Most of the visitors are students of TV University. (probably/mostly)

3. If you work part time. For example:

This soup is not hot. (verb/adjective)

The wardrobe is unlocked. (noun/verb)

I live with him. (preposition/conjunction)

Did he climb the mountain? (Directional verbs/auxiliary words)

4. Homomorphic structure.

The contribution of structuralist grammar to the study of ambiguous structure is mainly to reveal the grammatical rules of ambiguity caused by different levels and grammatical structures.

There are three main types of this isomorphic structure:

(1) The structural division is different, that is, the grammatical structural relationship is the same but the levels are different.

First, the grammatical structure at all levels is the same. For example:

Second, the grammatical structure of the first level is the same, but the grammatical structure of other levels is different. For example:

⑵ Different structural relations, that is, the same level but different grammatical structural relations. For example:

Reference data of baked sweet potato (serving/set)

Your Lao Zhang's army (parity/alliance)

Parents of students in hospital canteen (United/fixed middle school)

Thinking science of economic difficulties (subject-predicate/neutrality)

⑶ Structural segmentation and structural relations are different, that is, different levels have different grammatical structural relations. For example:

Transformational generative grammar further reveals the inherent law of ambiguity caused by the same hierarchical structure and grammatical structure but different semantic relations.

There are two main types of this isomorphic structure:

(1) Verbs and nouns have different semantic relations. For example:

He has weighed it, and he doesn't even know the headmaster.

(Agent/Patient)

Visiting a patient is caring for his mother.

(Agent/Patient)

Woman barber shop youth service center

(Agent/Patient)

(2) The semantic relationship between nouns is different. For example:

The Temperament of Ba Jin's Poet (Possession/Nature)

Battery transport vehicle in toy factory (use/material)

() Pragmatic means to eliminate syntactic ambiguity

1, voice restriction.

Many written ambiguities are no longer ambiguous once they are spoken, because pronunciation plays a role in eliminating ambiguity. For example:

Tone: This person is easy to talk to (ho is easy to talk to, adjective /h ao likes, verb), which reflects the difference of parts of speech.

Stress: He is 12 years old and 1.3 meters tall (stress refers to the front height/back height), which reflects the different semantic orientation.

Pause: I can't say it well (pre-pause means a possibility/post-pause means a judgment), which reflects the difference in hierarchy and grammatical structure. that is

2. Grammatical restrictions.

Due to the limitation of some characteristics of the grammatical function of words, the possibility of ambiguity is ruled out. For example:

A is a predicate-object phrase and b is a noun attributive phrase. The quantitative phrase "one" can only modify a noun phrase, but not a verb predicate-object phrase, so "the child who loved her" can only be analyzed as B here, but not as A.

3. Semantic constraints.

Because the words in the sentence contain each other semantically, the ambiguity is eliminated. For example:

A is a subject-predicate phrase, the predicate is a subject-predicate phrase, B is a subject-predicate phrase, and the subject is an attribute. When "novel book" becomes a "big topic", "he has many younger brothers" can only be analyzed as B, not A.

According to abstract sentence patterns, there can be two kinds of segmentation: A and B, but the quantifier "bit" in "bit" shows respect and can only be applied to "lawyer" but not to "criminal suspect", so here, it can only be analyzed as B, not A.

4. Context constraints.

Prefaces and postscripts in spoken language and contextual constraints in written language can also eliminate ambiguity. For example:

Good health, good study and good work. )

These trousers are well tailored (just wear them! )

It was my father who performed the operation. Don't worry, he is skilled. )

"Learning well" can be a predicate-complement phrase or a subject-predicate phrase, which can only be analyzed as a subject-predicate phrase in example sentences. The complement of "well cut" can (can be well cut) or indicate the result (well cut), and the "good" in the example sentence can only be the complement of the result; The word "my father" in "My father had the operation" can be either a patient or an agent, but in this sentence, it can only be understood as an agent.

5. Add or delete words.

Adding or deleting individual words can make the grammatical relationship within the structure clear, thus eliminating ambiguity. For example:

Parents of students (parents of students/students and parents)

New teachers' dormitory (new teachers' dormitory/new teachers' dormitory)

Reference is necessary (reference is necessary/reading reference is necessary)

Members of the public can put forward their opinions before 15 every month (members of the public can put forward their opinions before 15 every month).

6. Change the sentence pattern.

It is also an effective means to eliminate ambiguity by using conversion method and choosing synonymous sentences. For example:

He poured a glass of water.

Guide teenagers to read good books (read good books/read good books) → guide teenagers to read good books.

He (himself/others) has been questioned.

His name is Xiao Wang → His name is Xiao Wang.

For another example, in the syntactic structure with the same format of "preposition+noun 1+ locative word+verb+noun 2", the following group A is a sentence with syntactic ambiguity, which can be eliminated by changing the sentence pattern, while group B and group C have no ambiguity:

Group A: "Write slogans on the train" and "Draw on the roof".

There are two ways to change the syntax of "writing slogans on the train", one is "writing slogans on the train", the other is "writing slogans on the train"; The painting on the roof is also syntactically ambiguous. It can be transformed in two ways, one is the painting on the roof, and the other is the painting on the roof, because the combination of "preposition+noun 1+ locative words" here may indicate the place of "noun 2" and the other may indicate "verb+noun 2".

Group B: "Water in a bottle" and "Fish in a glass jar".

There is no ambiguity between these two syntactic structures. "Bottle irrigation" can only be transformed into "bottle irrigation", but not into "bottle irrigation". The word "fish in a glass jar" can only be changed to "fish in a glass jar", but not to "fish in a glass jar": because the combination of "preposition+noun 1+ locative words" here can only indicate the place of noun 2, but not the place of verb+noun 2, there is no ambiguity.

Group C: "College Linguistics" and "Singing on horseback".

There is no ambiguity between these two syntactic structures. "University Linguistics" can only be transformed into "University Linguistics", but not into "University Linguistics". "Singing on horseback" can only be changed to "singing on horseback", but not to "singing on horseback": because the combination of "preposition+noun 1+ locative words" here can only indicate the place of "verb+noun 2", but not the place of "noun 2", there will be no ambiguity.

Lv Shuxiang's article Examples of Ambiguity (China Chinese 1984 No.5) has collected a wealth of language materials, which can be said to be a collection of ambiguity or syntactic polysemy, and made a detailed analysis. Interested students may wish to look for it.