Type |
Definition |
Cause |
Example Sentence |
Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Lexical Ambiguity | Occurs when a single word has multiple meanings (polysemy or homonymy). | One word can refer to different concepts. | “I went to the bank.” | “Bank” could mean a financial institution or river bank. |
| 2. Syntactic (Structural) Ambiguity | Occurs when a sentence can have multiple valid grammatical structures. | Unclear grouping or attachment of words/phrases. | “I saw the man with the telescope.” | The phrase “with the telescope” may modify “man” or “saw.” |
| → (Subtype) Attachment Ambiguity | A specific syntactic ambiguity where a phrase can attach to more than one constituent. | Ambiguous prepositional or modifying phrase. | “I saw the man with the telescope.” | “With the telescope” could attach to the noun or the verb. |
| → (Subtype) Part-of-Speech (Category) Ambiguity | Arises when a word can belong to multiple grammatical categories. | Word’s function (noun, verb, adjective, etc.) is unclear. | “They are hunting dogs.” | “Hunting” could be a verb (“chasing dogs”) or adjective (“dogs that hunt”). |
| 3. Semantic Ambiguity | The structure is clear, but the meaning is uncertain. | A phrase or clause can be interpreted in different ways conceptually. | “Visiting relatives can be annoying.” | Either “relatives who visit are annoying” or “the act of visiting relatives is annoying.” |
| 4. Pragmatic Ambiguity | Ambiguity arises from context or speaker intention, not structure. | The literal sentence meaning differs from intended meaning. | “Can you pass the salt?” | Literally a question about ability, but pragmatically a request. |
| 5. Referential Ambiguity | Occurs when a pronoun or referring expression can refer to multiple possible entities. | Ambiguous reference in discourse. | “John told Tom that he won.” | “He” could refer to John or Tom. |
| 6. Scope Ambiguity | Ambiguity arises from quantifiers or negation placement. | Logical operators’ scope is unclear. | “Everyone didn’t come.” | Could mean “No one came” or “Not everyone came.” |
| 7. Coordination Ambiguity | Happens when conjunctions (and/or) can group phrases in multiple ways. | Unclear grouping of coordinated phrases. | “Old men and women were seated.” | Either both are old, or only the men are. |
Learn 10 HOT MCQs on "Ambiguities in NLP"
Click View Answer to see the correct answer. Close using the × button or click outside to dismiss.
Answer: B. Pragmatic ambiguity
Explanation: Here, the ambiguity arises not from syntax or structure, but from context and shared knowledge. The listener must understand that “duck” is not an animal or an action but a toy. Meaning changes depending on speaker intent and common ground — the hallmark of pragmatic ambiguity.Pragmatic ambiguity - Definition:
Pragmatic ambiguity arises when multiple interpretations of an utterance exist because the mapping between linguistic form and communicative intent depends on external context, discourse situation, or shared world knowledge.
Answer: B. The prepositional phrase can attach to two different constituents
Explanation: This sentence is ambiguous. That means it has more than one possible meaning due to how its parts can be grouped (parsed) syntactically. ‘With the telescope’ can attach to either ‘saw’ or ‘the man’. This attachment leads to two possible interpretations as follows;
1. "I used a telescope to see the man."
→ The prepositional phrase “with the telescope” modifies the verb phrase “saw.”
→ Structure:
[(I) (saw [the man]) (with the telescope)]
2. "The man I saw had a telescope."
→ The prepositional phrase “with the telescope” modifies the noun phrase “the man.”
→ Structure:
[(I) (saw [the man with the telescope])]
This is a case of syntactic (structural ambiguity) also known as attachment ambiguity
Answer: B. “Hunting” can function as a verb or an adjective
Explanation: The sentence exhibits "Syntactic ambiguity". It can mean ‘they are hunting dogs’ or ‘they are dogs that hunt’.
Why This Is Syntactic Ambiguity?
Syntactic ambiguity occurs when a sentence can be assigned multiple grammatical structures, each leading to a different interpretation. In this case, the same sequence of words allows for two distinct syntactic parses:
- In the first reading, “are hunting” forms a verb phrase (present continuous tense).
- In the second reading, “hunting” serves as an adjective modifying “dogs,” with “are” functioning as a linking verb.
The confusion doesn’t stem from individual words having multiple meanings (which would be lexical ambiguity), nor from unclear pronoun reference, nor from punctuation issues, nor from violated word order. Rather, it results from the structural arrangement of words permitting multiple grammatical interpretations.
Answer: C. Structural Ambiguity
Explanation: “Visiting relatives” could mean “relatives who visit” or “the act of visiting relatives.”
Understanding the Structural Ambiguity
The sentence has two grammatically distinct interpretations based on how the phrase “visiting relatives” is structurally parsed:
- “Visiting” as a gerund (noun phrase subject): “Visiting relatives can be annoying” = The act or process of visiting relatives is annoying.
- “Visiting” as a present participle (adjective): “Visiting relatives can be annoying” = Relatives who are visiting (the ones that visit you) can be annoying.
Answer: A. Syntactic Ambiguity
Explanation: “Flying planes” can refer to the activity of flying or the planes themselves.
The phrase “Flying planes can be dangerous” best illustrates syntactic ambiguity because it permits multiple valid grammatical parse structures, each yielding a different interpretation.
Understanding the Syntactic Ambiguity
The sentence has two structurally distinct readings:
- “Flying” as a gerund (noun phrase subject): “Flying planes can be dangerous” = The act or process of flying planes is dangerous.
- “Flying” as a present participle (adjective): “Flying planes can be dangerous” = Planes that are flying (planes in flight) can be dangerous.
Answer: A. Thematic roles between agent and patient
Explanation: The sentence "The chicken is ready to eat" creates ambiguity because the system cannot distinguish thematic roles (semantic roles) between agent and patient. This is fundamentally about how the roles of participants in the action are assigned.
Understanding the Ambiguity
The sentence permits two structurally different interpretations based on which entity assumes the agent or patient role:
- The chicken as the agent: “The chicken is ready to eat” = The chicken (the one doing the eating) is prepared to consume something.
- The chicken as the patient: “The chicken is ready to eat” = The chicken (the one being eaten) is prepared as food for someone else to consume.
Why This Is About Thematic Roles
Thematic roles (also called semantic roles) capture how participants relate to events by answering “Who did what to whom.” The agent is typically the initiator or doer of an action, while the patient is typically the entity affected by or undergoing the action.
In this sentence, the ambiguity hinges directly on whether “the chicken” functions as:
- An agent (the one performing the action of eating)
- A patient (the one being acted upon, being eaten)
The linguistic structure permits both interpretations because the infinitive phrase “to eat” can take “the chicken” as either its subject (making the chicken the agent) or its object (making the chicken the patient).
Answer C: Referential Ambiguity
Explanation:'He' could refer to either 'John' or his 'friend'. The sentence "John told his friend that he would win" creates referential ambiguity because the pronoun "he" has multiple possible antecedents that it could refer to.
Understanding the Referential Ambiguity
The sentence permits two distinct referential interpretations:
- "He" refers to John: “John told his friend that John would win” = John is stating to his friend that John himself will be the winner.
- "He" refers to his friend: “John told his friend that he (the friend) would win” = John is telling his friend that the friend will be the winner.
Why This Is Referential Ambiguity
Referential ambiguity occurs when a pronoun could potentially refer to two or more different antecedent nouns in the sentence, leaving the reader or listener uncertain about which entity the pronoun actually denotes. The ambiguity is fundamentally about what entity the pronoun references, not about grammatical structure or multiple dictionary meanings.
In this case, both "John" and "his friend" are grammatically suitable antecedents for the pronoun "he", creating genuine ambiguity about the referent. This type of ambiguity requires understanding discourse context and pragmatic factors to resolve correctly.
Answer B: Pragmatic Ambiguity
Explanation: It could be a literal question or a polite request. The chatbot's misunderstanding of "Do you know the time?" as a factual question instead of a polite request demonstrates pragmatic ambiguity.
Understanding the Pragmatic Ambiguity
The sentence has two distinct interpretations based on context and speaker intention:
- Literal/Factual reading: “Do you know the time?” = A genuine question about whether the hearer possesses knowledge of the current time.
- Pragmatic/Indirect reading: “Do you know the time?” = An indirect request for the hearer to provide the current time (a polite way of asking “What is the time?”).
Why This Is Pragmatic Ambiguity
Pragmatic ambiguity arises when an utterance can convey multiple meanings or illocutionary forces (intended communicative purposes) depending on context, speaker intention, and social conventions. This is fundamentally an indirect speech act — where the literal meaning (locution) differs from the intended meaning (illocution).
In this case, the speaker's actual communicative purpose is to request information about the time, but the surface form poses a question about the hearer's knowledge state. The ambiguity exists at the pragmatic level of meaning-in-use, not at the level of grammar or word definition.
Answer D: Quantifier Scope Ambiguity
Explanation: It’s unclear whether all students read the same or different books.
Understanding the Quantifier Scope Ambiguity
The sentence permits two distinct interpretations based on how the quantifiers interact:
- "Every" has wide scope over "a": “Every student read a book” = Each student read at least one book (possibly different books for different students). For each student, there exists a book that the student read.
- "A" has wide scope over "every": “Every student read a book” = There is one particular book that every student read. All students read the same book.
These two readings have different truth conditions and different logical representations.
Why This Is Quantifier Scope Ambiguity
Quantifier scope ambiguity occurs when two or more quantifiers (words like every, a, some, many, no) can interact in different ways, with each quantifier potentially taking scope over the other. The scope of a quantifier refers to the domain or range of variables over which the quantifier operates.
This is fundamentally a semantic ambiguity because the two readings carry different meanings and truth conditions — they are not merely stylistic variations. The ambiguity arises at the level of logical interpretation, not from grammatical structure alone.
Answer A: Speech Act Ambiguity
Explanation: It may mean a question about ability or a polite request to act.
In dialogue systems, the ambiguity in "Can you open the window?" stems from speech act interpretation.
Understanding the Speech Act Ambiguity
The sentence permits two distinct communicative interpretations:
- Direct speech act (literal/informative): “Can you open the window?” = A genuine question requesting information about the hearer’s ability or capability to open the window (Yes, I can / No, I can’t).
- Indirect speech act (pragmatic/directive): “Can you open the window?” = A polite request asking the hearer to actually perform the action of opening the window.
Why This Is Speech Act Interpretation
A speech act is the communicative function performed by an utterance — the action the speaker intends to accomplish through language. Speech act ambiguity arises when an utterance can be interpreted as performing two different communicative functions.
In this case, the sentence’s surface form (interrogative) suggests one speech act (a question about ability), but the pragmatic intent is typically a different speech act (a request/directive). The interrogative structure is formally suited to requesting information, but it’s conventionally understood as indirectly requesting action.
No comments:
Post a Comment