ENRICHING THE DISCOURSE WITH CONTEXTUAL ELEMENTS TO AVOID AMBIGUITY CAUSED BY THE USE OF AMBIGUOUS WORDS IN COMMUNICATION AMONG ALBANIAN STUDENTS OF ENGLISH (ESL)
Keywords:
ambiguous words, context, ambiguity, meaningAbstract
Ambiguity or vagueness, the state in which our discourse consists of words that are ambiguous or unclear regarding the meaning they convey, is a serious issue encountered while communicating in English. Albanian students of English as a second language are no exception to this problem. This article aims to highlight the problem of ambiguity that results from the use of the ambiguous words in communication, as well as to reflect on the effective ways for avoiding misunderstandings that might occur in our discourse and communication as a result of their use especially among Albanian students of English as second language. Lexical ambiguity is a common and widespread phenomenon in English. If we refer to the studies carried out in this linguistic aspect, it results that in English, over 80% of common words have more than one entry in the dictionary (Rodd, Gaskell, & Marslen-Wilson, 2002), as well as a considerable number of words have several different definitions. In such situation, when a listener (or reader) encounters ambiguous or multiple meaning words, it is the context in which that word is used that clarifies the intended meaning of the speaker. It is hypothesized that context resolves the ambiguity which is emerged as a consequence of words that bear more than one meaning. This hypothesis is supported by the findings of the research related to it. Does the context help clarify the meaning of the ambiguous word? Is the discourse, which consists of ambiguous words, clarified if it is enriched with contextual elements? These are some research questions that this study aims to answer using descriptive, analytical and comparative methods. Through descriptive methods, the study brings and analyses the theories that have already been conducted in this field. By means of analytical and comparative methods, the study draws different examples of sentences that carry ambiguous meaning as a result of ambiguous words, along with the same sentences enriched with contextual elements that avoid ambiguity. This way, it is proved and clarified how the ambiguity in the given discourse is resolved by the help of appropriate contextual elements. Based on the theoretical research and practical examples, the ambiguity that these ambiguous words carry in discourse, is evident and the comparison with the statement enriched with contextual elements illustrates how ambiguity, misunderstandings and misinterpretations in communication can be avoided by using the appropriate context. In conclusion, context is the framework that shapes thought and minimizes the wide range of possible interpretations (Crystal, 2008 p.22). Providing the discourse with the appropriate contextual elements plays a crucial role in resolving lexical ambiguities that come from ambiguous words which is in turn an essential component of skilled language comprehension. It should be given the due importance to the context by both actors (speaker and listener) in order to avoid misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the speakers intended discourse.
References
Ambiguity. (2009). In Macmillan Dictionary. Macmillan Publishers Limited. Retrieved June 25, 2013, from Macmillan Dictionary website.
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction. Guilford Press.
Blott, L. M., Gowenlock, A., Nation, K., & Rodd, J. M. (2022). Piloting a novel web-based paradigm to measure disambiguation skill in adults. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/ufnzd
Booton, S. A., Hodgkiss, A., Mathers, S., & Murphy, V. A. (2022). Measuring knowledge of multiple word meanings in children with English as a first and an additional language and the relationship to reading comprehension. Journal of Child Language, 49(1), 164–196. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000921000355
Crystal, D. (2008). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics (6th ed.). Blackwell.
Cutts, M. (2015). Making leaflets clearer for patients. Medical Writing, 24(1), 14–19. https://doi.org/10.1179/2042134015Z.000000000220
Duffy, S. A., Kambe, G., & Rayner, K. (2001). The effect of prior disambiguating context on the comprehension of ambiguous words: Evidence from eye movements. Language and Cognitive Processes, 16(6), 613-635. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960143000021
Eiling, Y., & Thompson-Schill, S. H. (2016). Putting concepts into context. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(4), 1015–1027. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0946-2
Fillmore, C. J. (1977). The case for case reopened. In P. Cole & J. L. Sadock (Eds.), Grammatical relations (pp. 59-81). Brill.
Frisson, S., & Pickering, M. J. (2007). The processing of familiar and novel senses of a word: Why reading Dickens is easy but reading Needham can be hard. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22(4), 595-613. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960601049762
Hymes, D. (1962). The ethnography of speaking. Anthropology and Human Behavior, 13(53), 11-74.
Kaltsa, M., Prentza, A., & Tsimpli, I. M. (2020). Input and literacy effects in simultaneous and sequential bilinguals: The performance of Albanian–Greek-speaking children in sentence repetition. International Journal of Bilingualism, 24(2), 159-183. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006919827101
Li, J., & Joanisse, M. F. (2021). Word senses as clusters of meaning modulations: A computational model of polysemy. Cognitive Science, 45(4), e12955. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12955
Matthews, B., & Ross, L. (2010). A practical guide for the social sciences. Sage.
Papadopoulou, D., & Clahsen, H. (2006). Ambiguity resolution in sentence processing: The role of lexical and contextual information. Journal of Linguistics, 42(1), 109–138. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226706003906
Perfetti, C. A., & Hart, L. (2002). The lexical quality hypothesis. In L. Vehoeven, C. Elbro, & P. Reitsma (Eds.), Precursors of functional literacy (pp. 189–213). John Benjamins.
Rodd, J. M., Gaskell, M. G., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (2002). Making sense of semantic ambiguity: Semantic competition in lexical access Journal of Memory and Language 46(2) 245–266. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2001.2802
Rodd, J. M., Gaskell, M. G., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (2004). Modelling the effects of semantic ambiguity in word recognition. Cognitive Science, 28(1), 89-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsci.2003.09.003
Rodd, J. M. (2004). The effect of semantic ambiguity on reading aloud: A twist in the tale. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(3), 440–445. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196571
Rodd, J. M. (2018). Lexical ambiguity. In S.-A. Rueschemeyer & M. G. Gaskell (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Rice, C. (2019). Learning vocabulary through generation with translation-ambiguous and semantically ambiguous words (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Pittsburgh.
Thomas, D. R. (2003). A general inductive approach for qualitative data analysis. School of Population Health, University of Auckland.
Turner, R. (1992). Properties, propositions and semantic theory. In M. Rosner & R. Johnson (Eds.), Computational linguistics and formal semantics (pp. 161-175). Cambridge University Press.
Walton, D. N. (1996). Argument structure: A pragmatic theory. University of Toronto Press.
Widdowson, H. G. (1988). Teaching language as communication. Oxford University Press.
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford University Press.
Zukswert, J. M., Barker, M. K., & McDonnell, L. (2019). Identifying troublesome jargon in biology: Discrepancies between student performance and perceived understanding. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 18(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-07-0128
