- Read the following paper,
- Make a summary of the paper dealing with: Sources of ambiguity and English Verb Pattern with 'to infinitive'.
- Submit the summary to the academic staff.
AMBIGUOUS SENTENCE PATTERN WITH ‘TO-INFINITIVE’
Abstracrt
The combinatorial characteristics of words in utterances are constrained not only by their lexical meanings, but also by their grammatical properties (Cruse, 1986, 1). It can, thus, be inferred that grammatical properties play a significant role in representing the semantic contents of the words. If two similar strings of words have different structural arrangements, they have different semantic contents represented in them. At least, the difference underlies different pragmatic purposes, if it is not semantic ones. This paper discusses the importance of lexical-semantic analyses on Hornby’s (1975, 1-13) two different VP17A and VP17B with ‘to infinitive’ to avoid semantic ambiguity.
Key words: ambiguity, to infinitive, direct object (DO), lexical meaning, sentence meaning,
I. Introduction
Linguistic semantics is a branch of linguistics, which focuses on the study of linguistic meaning. In the conceptualist view, meaning is an indirect association between a signifier and a signified, with thought playing the mediating role. Ogden and Richards (in Frawley, 1992: 7) characterize meaning as a semiotic triangle, a relation between a symbol (word) and referent (an object), mediated by concept:
Thought
Symbol Referent
Fig. 1. Ogden and Richard’s semiotic triangle.
In philosophical semantics, meaning is possible because there is a relation between a signifier and the signified. The meaning of the word table is the conventional information that this overt signal (this word) evokes.
Kempson (1977: 11-12) proposes three main ways to construct explanation of meaning in natural language: a. by defining the nature of word meaning, b. by defining the nature of sentence meaning, and c. by explaining the process of communication. In the first way, word meaning is taken as the construct in terms of which sentence meaning and communication can be explained. In the second, it is sentence meaning, which is taken as basic, with words characterized in terms of the systematic contribution they make to sentence meaning. In the third, both sentence and word meaning are explained in terms of the ways in which sentences and words are used in the act of communication. From these three ways, it can be identified three aspects of meaning, word meaning, sentence meaning, and communication—the interpretation of language should be explained in terms of its role in communication since language is the vehicle by means of which communication is carried out.
This paper is going to discuss one aspect of meaning i.e. sentence meaning. Since the meaning of a sentence is determined, at least partly, by the meaning of the words of which it is composed (Lyon, 1995: 32); and both words and sentences can have more than one meaning, it often happens that a sentence is ambiguous. To be more specific, this paper is going to find the answers of the following questions:
1. Why is a sentence ambiguous?
2. What are the patterns of ‘to infinitive’, which cause ambiguity?
3. How can the patterns cause ambiguity?
To answer the first question, this paper will present the causes of ambiguity from the lexical meaning and sentence meaning. The answer for the second question is based on the English verb patterns with ‘to infinitive’, which cause ambiguity, and the answer for last question is based on the theories on semantic field and componential analysis of the ‘to infinitive’ i.e. transitivity.
II. Discussion
A. The Sources of Sentence Ambiguity
Since the meaning of a sentence is determined not only by the meaning of words of which it is composed, but also by its grammatical structure (Lyon, 1995: 33), the sources of sentence ambiguity may originate from two aspects of meaning, word (lexical) meaning and sentence meaning.
1. Word meaning as the source of sentence ambiguity
A word may have more than one meaning (Kempson, 1977: 123). Take the word good in ‘She has good legs’. The word good can either mean that she has healthy legs (no varicose veins, no broken or badly mended bones, no weak ankles, etc.), or it can mean that she has beautiful legs, or it can mean that she has legs, which function well (as an athlete’s, or a gymnast’s, or indeed if the object referred to is a horse her legs may be understood to function well from the point of view of racing). It proves true that the word good may be used in sentences with different interpretations where the difference lies solely in the basis of the evaluation the word good has been used to make.
It is worth noted that two different words may have the same form, homonyms. Take the word bank in ‘The man stood near by the bank.’ The sentence can either mean the man stood near by the financial institution, or the man stood near by the sloping side of river. It proves right that the source of sentence ambiguity can come from the aspect of word meaning
2. Sentence meaning as the source of sentence ambiguity
Two sentences composed of exactly the same words may differ in meaning (Lyon, 1995: 33). For example, the following two sentences, (1) and (2) contain the same words but differ grammatically.
(1) John needs to study a room.
(2) John needs a room to study.
The grammatical difference between (1) and (2) causes different meaning. The meaning of (1) is obvious that someone called John, who is (possibly) an architect, needs to study an object, a room. A room is the object of John’s activity, to study. Sentence (2) is not obvious. It can mean the same as (1) does; or it means someone called John, who is a student, needs to study something, which is not overtly stated, and to do that he needs a room, as an instrument. Hence, the word a room is not the object of the verb to study but an instrument for John to study. Since sentence (1) does not cause sentence ambiguity, the rest of the discussion will focus on sentence (2).
B. English Sentence Patterns with ‘to Infinitive’
Hornby (1975, 12 – 13) lists 25 verb patterns of English. Among the 25 verb patterns, there are 2 verb patterns, which have ‘to infinitive’ after a direct object. They are [VP17A] and [VP17B]. In this pattern, the verb is followed by a noun or pronoun and by ‘to-infinitive’.
Verb Pattern 17
S + vt + DO + to-infinitive.
Abbreviations used: S = Subject; vt = transitive verb; DO = direct object
In [VP17A], a passive construction is possible.
(3) a. The parents urged the boy to jump across the stream.
b. The boy was urged by the parents to jump across the stream.
(4) a. They persuaded the drunken man to leave.
b. The drunken man was persuaded to leave.
Among verbs used in [VP17A] are: advise, allow, ask, beg, beseech, bribe, cause, challenge, command, compel, dare, direct, drive, empower, enable, encourage, entice, entitle, entreat, expect, forbid, force, help, impel, implore, incite, induce, instruct, intend, invite, know, lead, mean, oblige, permit, persuade, predispose, press, request, require, teach, tell, tempt, urge, warn.
In [VP17B], there is no passive construction.
(5) a. They want another war to break out.
b. *Another war is wanted to break out.
(6) a. This event decided me to resign.
b. *I was decided by this event to resign.
Among verbs used in [VP17B] are bear, decide, help, like, need, prefer, want, and wish.
Between the two versions of [VP17], [VP17A] does not cause sentence ambiguity. In sentence (3a, b) and (4a, b), it is the DOs (direct objects) do the action represented by the to-infinitive. It is obvious that (3a) means the subject (the parents) urged the DO (the boy) to do something (to jump across the stream). By its passive construction (3b), it is even clearer who does what. In short, the semantic representation of all the verbs in [VP17A] is:
+[CAUSE] +[DO]
The above simple binary features can be further expanded. Instead of
+[CAUSE] +[DO]
for persuade, the semantic representation is:
(7) persuade: +[CAUSE] X +([DO] YZ)
From the above semantic representation, it is obvious that the subject of persuade (X) must be interpreted as the individual who is the cause of the action (Z) done by the object (Y). Considering the standard way of indexing for subject and object, the lexical entry for persuade would be:
[CAUSE] XNP,S ([DO] NP,VP ([ACTION] Z))
Based on the lexical entry, it is then obvious that the NP Subject of the sentence causes the NP VP (direct object) to do an action. It proves that sentences in [VP17A] are not ambiguous.
It happens differently with [VP17B], sentence (5a) means that they want to break out another war, but it is not obvious who carries out the action—breaking the war. The sentences in [VP17B] are more ambiguous when the NP VPs (direct objects) belong to the unmarked semantic fields, which are not typical to the to-infinitives and when the to-infinitives have double transitivity—can be either transitive or intransitive.
(8) The student needs a table to draw.
Sentence (8) can mean the student needs to draw and what he is going to draw is a table. Hence, a table is the object of the to-infinitive. The sentence can also mean the student needs to draw, and in order for him to be able to draw he needs a table. A table here functions as an instrument not as an object of the to-infinitive. Viewed from the thematic roles, the words a table can function either as the PATIENT or the THEME.
(9) a. The student needs a table to draw.
ACTOR PATIENT
b. The student needs a table to draw.
ACTOR THEME
(9a) and (9b) show the two different possible interpretations of the same sentence. It seems that (9b) is acceptable, but actually not. When the NP VP (direct object) is considered a theme, the to-infinitive requires an overt object.
When the NP VPs (direct objects) belong to the semantic fields, which are typical to the to-infinitives, the sentences are not ambiguous even though the to-infinitives have double transitivity.
(10) The boy wants some food to eat.
(11) The students need some books to read.
(12) The artist needs some songs to sing.
Sentences (10), (11), and (12) show that the semantic fields to which the NP VPs (direct objects) belong indicate the specific thematic roles between the NP VPs and the to-infinitives. It is obvious that the NP VPs (direct objects) function as the objects of the to-infinitives. When the semantic fields to which the NP VPs (direct objects) are typical to the to-infinitives but they cannot be the objects of the to-infinitives, the sentences require overt NP VPs (objects).
(13) a. *I need some money to buy.
b. I need some money to buy a ticket.
(14) a. *The guests prefer big glasses to drink.
b. The guests prefer big glasses to drink beer.
(15) a. *The girl needs a pen to write.
b. The girl needs a pen to write a letter.
The above explanations support the idea on (9b) that if the NP VP (direct object) is interpreted as the THEME, the to-infinitive will require an overt object.
The sentences in [VP17B] are not ambiguous when the to-infinitives are pure transitive verbs even though the NP VPs (direct objects) have the semantic fields, which are typical to the to-infinitives.
(16) The soldiers need a target to destroy.
(17) You need some friends to contact.
(18) The scientists want a place to observe.
Since the to-infinitives are pure transitive verbs, the direct objects of the sentences become the objects of the to-infinitives. In another word, sentences (16), (17), and (18) are not ambiguous since it is obvious who does what. The similar case happens to the sentences in [VP17B] with pronouns as the direct objects. When the direct objects of the sentences are pronouns, it is the pronouns, which carry out the ACTION represented by the to-infinitives.
(19) The woman wanted me to stay.
(20) I prefer her to dress colourfully.
(21) He likes you to come earlier.
In (19), (20), and (21), the pronouns cannot be the objects of the to-infinitives. Viewed from the thematic roles, the pronouns tend to be the THEME rather than the PATIENT, otherwise the to-infinitives will require overt NP as the objects.
(22) I prefer her to dress colourfully.
ACTOR THEME
Since the thematic roles of the sentences in [VP17B] are very much determined by the semantic fields of the direct objects and the types of transitivity of the to¬-infinitives, the semantic representation and lexical entry of the sentences in [VP17B] cannot be generalized. The semantic representation can only explain the relation between the ACTOR and the ACTION.
(23) + [CAUSE] X ([DO] X, Y, Z)
(24) + [CAUSE] X ([DO] Y, Z)
Since the verbs in [VP17B] are reflexive, the NP Subjects in (23) carry out the ACTION represented by the to-infinitives. In (24) of which the direct objects are pronouns, it is the pronouns, which carry out the ACTION indicated by the to-infinitives.
III. Conclusion
Sentences with to-infinitives as Hornby formulates in [VP17] tend to be ambiguous. The ambiguity is very much influenced by the relation between the semantic fields of the direct objects and the to-infinitives, and the transitivity of the to-infinitives.
The sources of the sentence ambiguity can be explained by analyzing the thematic roles of the sentence elements and finding the relation between the semantic fields of the direct objects and the to-infinitives.
The aspect of word meaning helps analyze the semantic fields of the direct objects, which may influence the ambiguity of the sentence, and the aspect of the sentence meaning helps analyze the thematic roles of the sentence elements, which also very much influence the sentence ambiguity.
Refference:
1. Cruse, D A., (1986), Lexical Semantics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge CB2 1RP.
2. Frawley, William, (1992), Linguistic Semantics, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publisher, Hillsdale, New Jersey 07642.
3. Hornby, A S., (1975), Guide to Patterns and Usage in English, Oxford University Press, Great Britain.
4. Kempson, Ruth, (1977), Semantic Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge CB 1RP.
5. Lyons, John, (1995), Linguistic Semantics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge CB2 1RP.
6. Palmer, F R., (1981), Semantics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge CB2 1RP.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar