Cover not available
Part of
Vagueness, Ambiguity, and All the Rest: Linguistic and pragmatic approaches
Edited by Ilaria Fiorentini and Chiara Zanchi
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 347] 2024
► pp. 84–108

Chapter 5
Ambiguity in discourse

The Tübingen Interdisciplinary Corpus of Ambiguity Phenomena

 | University of Tübingen
 | University of Tübingen
 | University of Tübingen
 | University of Tübingen
 | University of Tübingen
 | University of Tübingen
 | University of Tübingen
Ambiguity in language and communication has recently come under increasing attention in a number of disciplines, such as linguistics, literary science, psychology, theology, and law. In this paper, we focus on ambiguity in discourse and present an online corpus which contains rich annotations for a variety of examples of ambiguity from different text genres and periods. The corpus features an annotation schema that allows users to specify the multiple attributes of an ambiguity, as well as its interaction with related but distinct phenomena, such as vagueness and underspecification. We discuss how this corpus might foster and enable the interdisciplinary study of ambiguity.
Keywords: ambiguity, strategic ambiguity, production, perception, digital humanities, interdisciplinary corpus
Article outline
  • 1.Studying ambiguity across disciplines
    • 1.1Definitions
      • 1.1.1Ambiguity, vagueness, and underspecification
      • 1.1.2Strategic and non-strategic ambiguity
      • 1.1.3Further distinctions
  • 2.Structure of the corpus
  • 3.Non-strategic ambiguity
    • 3.1Non-strategic ambiguity production
      • 3.1.1The letters of Paul
      • 3.1.2Ambiguity in news headlines
    • 3.2Non-strategic perception
  • 4.Strategic ambiguity
    • 4.1Strategic production
      • 4.1.1The letters of Paul
      • 4.1.2Strategic production: Two examples from fiction
    • 4.2Strategic perception
  • 5.Communication levels
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 26 September 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.347.05ach
References (61)
References
Abrams, M. H., and Geoffrey Harpham. 2012. A Glossary of Literary Terms. Wadsworth: Cengage.Google Scholar
Achimova, Asya, Gregory Scontras, Christian Stegemann-Philipps, Johannes Lohmann, and Martin V Butz. 2022. “Learning About Others: Modeling Social Inference through Ambiguity Resolution.” Cognition 218:104862. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Adam, Jens. 2009. Paulus und die Versöhnung aller: Eine Studie zum paulinischen Heilsuniversalismus nach dem Römerbrief. Tübingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Allen, James Frederick. 1979. A plan-based approach to speech act recognition. PhD thesis, Technical Report 131/79, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Asher, Nicholas, Julie Hunter, and Paul Soumya. 2021. “Bias in Semantic and Discourse Interpretation.” Linguistics and Philosophy 45: 393–342. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barron, William Raymond Johnston. 1998. Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Bauer, Matthias. 2011. “Poetic Economy: Ellipsis and Redundancy in Literature.” Connotations: A Journal for Critical Debate 21 (2–3): 159–164.Google Scholar
. 2019. “Ambiguity and Ambivalence before ‘Ambivalence.’” In Ambivalenz in Sprache, Literatur und Kunst. Ambivalence in Language, Literature and Art, ed. by Matthias Bauer, Frauke Berndt, and Sebastian Meixner, 141–154. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann.Google Scholar
Bauer, Matthias, and Sigrid Beck. 2014. “On the Meaning of Fictional Texts.” In Approaches to Meaning: Composition, Values, and Interpretation, ed. by Daniel Gutzmann, Jan Köpping, and Cécile Meier, 250–275. Boston/Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Matthias, Sigrid Beck, Julia Braun, Susanne Riecker, and Angelika Zirker. 2021. Multiple Contexts in Drama: the Example of Henry V. Ms., University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
Bauer, Matthias, and Martina Bross. 2023. “The (Strategic) Ambiguity of Poem Titles.” In Strategies of Ambiguity, ed. by Matthias Bauer, and Angelika Zirker, 35–55. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Matthias, Joachim Knape, Peter Koch, and Susanne Winkler. 2010. “Dimensionen der Ambiguität.” Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 40: 7–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Matthias, and Angelika Zirker. 2023. “Introduction: Strategy meets Ambiguity.” In Strategies of Ambiguity, ed. by Matthias Bauer, and Angelika Zirker, 1–11. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blass, Friedrich. 2020. Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch: Studienausgabe. Tübingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bross, Martina. 2017. Versions of Hamlet: Poetic Economy on Page and Stage. Paderborn, Deutschland: Brill – Schöningh. Dissertation. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bross, Martina, and René Ziegler. 2019. “Narrative Fiction and Evaluative Ambivalence: Jane Austen’s Northanger Abbey.” In Ambivalenz in Sprache, Literatur und Kunst. Ambivalence in Language, Literature and Art, ed. by Matthias Bauer, Frauke Berndt, and Sebastian Meixner, 121–139. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann.Google Scholar
Conrad, Joseph. 2004. Heart of Darkness. Literary Touchstones Classics. Prestwick House.Google Scholar
Coppola, Claudia, Mannaioli, Giorgia, and Edoardo Lombardi Vallauri. This volume. “Vagueness and ambiguity are very different (persuasion devices)”.
Deppermann, Arnulf. 2009. “Verstehensdokumentation: Zur Phänomenologie von Verstehen in der Interaktion.” Deutsche Sprache 3: 2–27.Google Scholar
Dijk, Teun A. van, and Walter Kintsch. 1986. Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Dunn, James DG. 1997. Jesus and the Spirit: A Study of the Religious and Charismatic Experience of Jesus and the First Christians as Reflected in the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.Google Scholar
Egg, Markus. 2011. “Semantic underspecification.” In Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, Volume 1, ed. by Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger, and Paul Portner, 535–574. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, Victor S. 2008. “Ambiguity, Accessibility, and a Division of Labor for Communicative Success.” Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory 49: 209–246. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fiorentini, Ilaria and Zanchi, Chiara. This volume. “Introduction: How vague and ambiguous are vagueness and ambiguity?”
Grice, Herbert Paul. 1975. “Logic and Conversation.” In Speech Acts, ed. by Peter Cole, and Jerry L. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hartmann, Jutta M., Asya Achimova, Lisa Ebert, Maren Ebert-Rohleder, Natascha Elxnath, Lorenz Geiger, Lea Hofmaier, et al.. 2021. TInCAP User Manual GRK 1808 Ambiguity Database.Google Scholar
Hartmann, Jutta M., Corinna Sauter, Gesa Schole, Wiltrud Wagner, Peter Gietz, and Susanne Winkler. 2016. “TInCAP: Ein interdisziplinäres Korpus zu Ambiguitätsphänomenen.” In DHd 2016, ed. by Elisabeth Burr, 322–323. Duisburg: Nisaba Verlag.Google Scholar
Hays, Richard B. 1997. “Salvation by Trust? Reading the Bible Faithfully.” Christian Century 114 (26): 218–23.Google Scholar
Headline ‘Rust Shooting’. 2022. [URL]. Retrieved January 25, 2022.
Hofius, Otfried. 1986. “Das Evangelium und Israel: Erwägungen zu Römer 9–11: Ernst Käsemann zum 80. Geburtstag.” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 83 (3): 297–324Google Scholar
Imo, Wolfgang. 2014. “Elliptical Structures as Dialogical Resources for the Manage- ment of Understanding.” In Grammar and Dialogism: Sequential, Syntactic, and Prosodic Patterns between Emergence and Sedimentation, ed. by Susanne Günthner, Wolfgang Imo, and Jörg Bücker, 139–176. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jones, Terry. 1970. Monty Python’s Life of Brian.Google Scholar
Käsemann, Ernst. 1980. An die Römer (HNT 8a). Tübingen: Mohn Sieebeck.Google Scholar
Klenk, Joel. in prep. Ansätze einer apophatischen Theologie bei Paulus. Eine kognitiv-ambiguitätstheoretische Untersuchung. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Tübingen.
Knape, Joachim. 2021. “Seven Perspectives of Ambiguity and the Problem of Intentionality.” In Strategies of Ambiguity in Ancient Literature, ed. by Martin Vöhler, Therese Fuhrer, and Stavros Frangoulidis, 381–404. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Knape, Joachim, Nils Becker, and Katie Böhme. 2009. “Strategie.” In Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik, Band 9, ed. by Gert Ueding, 152–172. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
Lahrsow, Miriam. 2022. The Author as Annotator. Ambiguities of Self-Annotation in Pope and Byron. Leiden: Brill|Schoeningh. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Landmesser, Christof. 2007. “Christus und Adam oder Adam und Christus: Anmerkungen zur Auseinandersetzung zwischen Karl Barth und Rudolf Bultmann im Anschluss an Röm 5.” Zeitschrift für dialektische Theologie-Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt 23 (2): 153–171.Google Scholar
. 2013. “Wie Gott handelt: Beobachtungen zur Gottesvorstellung in den Briefen des Paulus.” Paulus und Paulusbilder: 121–152.Google Scholar
Linell, Per, and Ivana Marková. 1993. “Acts in Discourse: From Monological Speech Acts to Dialogical Inter-Acts.” Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 123 (2): 173–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luther, Martin. 1968. D. Martin Luthers Werke [Abt. 1]. Schriften. Unveränd. Abdr. d. Ausg. 1928. Graz.Google Scholar
Magni, Elisabetta. This volume. “The role of ambiguity and vagueness in language change”.
Ossa-Richardson, Anthony. 2019. A History of Ambiguity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Parish, Peggy. 1963. Amelia Bedelia. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Pope, Alexander. 2009. The Dunciad: In Four Books. Edited by Valerie Rumbold. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rimmon, Shlomith. 1977. The Concept of Ambiguity: The Example of James. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Schnelle, Udo. 2014. Paulus: Leben und Denken. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seifrid, Mark A. 1992. “The Subject of Rom 7: 14–25.” Novum Testamentum 34 (4): 313–333. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shakespeare, William. 1982. Hamlet. Edited by Harold Jenkins. London/New York: Methuen.Google Scholar
Siebenthal, Heinrich von. 2022. Griechische Grammatik zum Neuen Testament. Neubearbeitung und Erweiterung der Grammatik Hoffmann / Von Siebenthal. Berlin: Brunnen Verlag.Google Scholar
Voghera, Miriam. This volume. “The role of ambiguity in intentional vagueness”.
Wagner, Wiltrud. 2020. Idioms and Ambiguity in Context: Phrasal and Compositional Readings of Idiomatic Expressions. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wasow, Thomas, Andrew Perfors, and David Beaver. 2005. “The Puzzle of Ambiguity.” In Morphology and the Web of Grammar. Essays in Memory of Steven G. Lapointe, ed. by Cemil Orhan Orgun, and Peter Sells, 265–282. Stanford and Calif.: CSLI-Publ.Google Scholar
Winkler, Susanne. 2015. “Exploring Ambiguity and the Ambiguity Model from a Transdisciplinary Perspective.” In Ambiguity, ed. by Susanne Winkler, 1–28. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Winter-Froemel, Esme. 2019. “Introducing Pragmatic Ambiguity: On the Diversity and Ambivalence of Ambiguity in Discourse.” In Ambivalenz in Sprache, Literatur und Kunst. Ambivalence in Language, Literature and Art, ed. by Matthias Bauer, Frauke Berndt, and Sebastian Meixner, 56–89. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann.Google Scholar
. 2021. “Reinvestigating ambiguity and frequency in reanalysis: A two-step methodology for corpus-linguistic analyses based on bridging use exposure.” Journal of Historical Syntax 5 (32–39): 1–52.Google Scholar
Winter-Froemel, Esme, and Angelika Zirker. 2015. “Ambiguity in Speaker-Hearer-Interaction: A Parameter-Based Model of Analysis.” In Ambiguity, ed. by Susanne Winkler, 283–339. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wolter, Michael. 2019. 5 und 6. Esra-Buch. Gütersloh/München: Gütersloher Verlagshaus. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhao, Xinxin. 2020. Form is Meaning: An Iconic Reading of Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness. Trier: WVT.Google Scholar
Ziegler, René. 2010. “Ambiguität und Ambivalenz in der Psychologie: Begriffsverständnis und Begriffsverwendung.” In Ambiguität, ed. by Wolfgang Klein, and Susanne Winkler, 125–171. Stuttgart: Metzler.Google Scholar