1 Introduction

This book investigates the concept of ambiguity and how it manifests itself in language and communication from a transdisciplinary perspective. According to Wasow et al. (2005, 265), “[a]n expression is ambiguous if it has two or more distinct denotations – that is, if it is associated with more than one region of meaning space.” A formal semantic definition is provided by Kennedy (2011, 508), who defines ambiguity as a subtype of uncertainty “which manifests itself as variation in truth conditions: one and the same utterance token can be judged true of one situation and false of another, or the other way around, depending on how it is interpreted.” This formal definition is complemented with the view that ambiguity is constitutive of communication (Bauer, Knape, Koch & Winkler 2010, Klein & Winkler 2010a) and productive in legal, political and philosophical discourse (Grewendorf & Rathert 2009, Knape, this volume, Koch & Landmesser, this volume, Rathert, this volume), as well as in literature (cf. Bade et al., this volume, Berndt & Kammer 2009, Berndt & Sachs-Hombach, this volume, Bode 1988, Winter-Froemel & Zirker, this volume) and the arts (Krieger & Mader 2010, Susanka, this volume).

The main goal of this book is to uncover a great mystery about ambiguity: why can we communicate effectively despite the fact that ambiguity is pervasive in the language that we use? And conversely, how do speakers and hearers use ambiguity and vagueness to achieve a specific goal? Comprehensive answers to these questions are provided from different fields which focus on the study of language, in particular, linguistics, literary criticism, rhetoric, psycholinguistics, theology, media studies and law. By bringing together these different disciplines, the book documents a radical change in the research on ambiguity. The innovation is brought about by the transdisciplinary perspective of the individual and co-authored papers that bridge the gaps between disciplines.

The research program that underlies this volume establishes theoretical connections between the areas of (psycho)linguistics that concentrate on the question of how the system of language works with the areas of rhetoric, literary studies, theology and law that focus on the question of how communication works in discourse and text from the perspective of both production and perception. On the basis of many fruitful discussions, a three-dimensional Ambiguity Model (see §2) has been developed that has served as a starting point for the analyses of the different types of ambiguity which will be discussed in the contributions to this book. The core idea is that a comprehensive definition and analysis of ambiguity requires reference to a specific theoretical model. The ambiguity model is a hybrid model which brings together the different perspectives on language and communication. It provides a frame for answering the question of how language and the language system work with respect to ambiguity as well as the question of how ambiguity is employed in communication. Within communication we have identified a set of specific features that are relevant for the description of ambiguity, such as whether the ambiguity arises in the production or perception process, and whether it occurs in strategic or nonstrategic communication. Our research program rests on the assumption that both the production and the perception of ambiguity, as well as its strategic and nonstrategic occurrence, can only be understood by exploring how these factors interact with each other and a reference system when ambiguity is generated and resolved.

This introduction is structured as follows: in §2, I will first discuss the transdisciplinary research program that led to the ambiguity model and then illustrate its characteristic features with examples. §3 provides the structure of the book and the abstracts of each chapter. §4 summarizes the results.

2 The Ambiguity Model

This book concentrates on phenomena of ambiguity in language and communication and classifies them on two separate levels: first, with respect to the linguistic source of ambiguity (e.g., phonetics, phonology, morphology, lexicon, syntax, semantics), and second, with respect to the pragmatic parameters of the communicative setting. The central parameters are whether the ambiguity occurs in the production or the perception process and whether it is deliberate or nondeliberate. This essentially pragmatic approach focuses on the overarching question of how the speaker and the hearer deal with ambiguity in discourse. Thereby, the question of whether ambiguity is deliberately or even strategically generated or avoided is equally as important as the complementary concern of whether ambiguity is productive or nonproductive. With respect to the latter issue, there are basically two opposing linguistic views: the traditional Chomskian view, which focuses on the fact that ambiguity is detrimental to the ease of communication (Chomsky 2002, 107), and the cognitive communicative view, which claims that ambiguity is a functional property of language “that allows for greater communicative efficiency” (Piantadosi et al. 2012, 280). These views are complemented by the perspective of literary scholars who think of the function of ambiguity as making communication more efficient through its ability to provide two or more meanings simultaneously, as for example in literary texts (p.c. Matthias Bauer).

To the formal linguist, ambiguity constitutes a challenge to a theory of grammar which is based on a one-to-one correspondence between meaning and form. The task of an adequate grammar is to provide an answer to the question of how to analyze, for example, the ambiguous utterance “He could not go to the party.” The formal linguist will argue that there are two possible underlying structures, where the not is construed in one reading with the modal verb could and in the other reading with the verb go. By assuming that there are two different ways of generating the meaning of the utterance, the grammatical model and the Fregean Principle of Compositionality are supported (Frege 1884, Szabó 2000). Thus, a model of grammar that accounts for ambiguity by the assumption of two different structures is more powerful than one that can only account for surface strings. Since the ultimate goal is to uncover how language works in the human mind and how it interacts with other cognitive components, ambiguity constitutes a good testing ground for different grammatical models. Therefore, the formal linguist is interested in the triggers of ambiguity and whether there are mechanisms available in the system of grammar that account for the different meanings. In the example above, the trigger is the scope of not. Either it was not possible for him to go to the party, or there is the possibility for him not to go to the party.² Contraction of “could not” to “He couldn’t go to the party” eliminates the ambiguity between the sentential and the constituent negation and allows only the first reading. One aim for this type of approach is to isolate trigger constellations and contexts which typically cause ambiguous interpretations. One such constellation is the occurrence of the negative particle not because of its scope taking capacity (see Wasow, this volume, and Schmeh, Culicover, Hartmann & Winkler, this volume).

To the psycholinguist, ambiguous sentences and utterances provide a testing ground for how language processing works. The majority of research in sentence processing has been focusing on the question of how ambiguous sentences are processed. The core question is whether ambiguity processing is modular, based only on the syntactic structure of the utterance, or constraint-based. This strand of research is directly concerned with the explication of the language system and its interfaces (see Stolterfoht, this volume and Wiedmann & Winkler, this volume).

To the rhetorician, ambiguity is a theoretical construct based on antique concepts that come in two varieties, as a flaw or vice (vitium) and as a virtue when it promotes productive communication. While ambiguity is conceived of as a problem of logical consistency in argumentation theory, it is recognized as a positive power in text-theoretical discussions. Richards (1936) was the first to recognize its capacity to promote and influence communicative processes positively. The central concern of rhetoric theory is the explication of the communicative process and the question of how it can be influenced for the purpose of persuasion (see Knape 2013, this volume).

To the literary scholar, ambiguity in texts has always been a leading topic since literary texts are less constrained in their communicative goals than nonfictional texts. However, what strategies are used by the author to create (or resolve) ambiguity in texts is an interesting question. The concern is not so much the actual communicative speech situation but the relation between the author and the reader on the one hand and the communicative function of the text on the other. The central question is how the tools which are used in the construction of the text influence the interpretation of the reader. This question is far from trivial since the ambiguity triggers are manifold and it is far from clear how the interpretation process of larger texts proceeds. This problem remains disregarding the possibility of multiple interpretations coexisting at the same time (cf. Bade et al., this volume, Berndt & Sachs-Hombach, this volume).

To the theologian, the interpretation of religious texts is a challenge because they can be interpreted on different levels. Beginning with the exegesis of the second century, it is possible to trace a strategic interpretation of the Bible with the overriding objective of establishing univocality. Paradoxically, this interpretation occurs through the assignment of multiple meanings, as each contemporary contextualization produces new ambiguities of its own, which, in turn, have to be resolved by following generations. Thus, a perpetuation of ambiguity takes place, with each disambiguation being discernible only in the respective historical context of the current interpretation (see Koch & Landmesser, this volume).

In each of these fields, research on ambiguity works with its own highly specialized theories and methodologies. At the same time, there will be no solution to the problem of ambiguity coming from just one area of study alone. Thus, the topic of ambiguity forces us to communicate findings over the language use versus language system divide. As a result, the contributions to this volume reflect the results of a transdisciplinary orientation.

The transdisciplinary research program on ambiguity laid out in this book is based on the intentionally underspecified three-dimensional ambiguity model that connects both communicative models and standard grammatical models in figure 1. It provides a framework for the investigation of the concept of ambiguity from different perspectives and allows us to relate individual phenomena to different reference systems. In this volume, we are interested in explicating the relation between discourse (front of the model) and the language system (back of the model).³ In particular, we focus on the explication of ambiguous communicative processes themselves. The quadripartite ambiguity matrix (front of the model) is used to address the following questions: i. Does the ambiguity occur in the production (P) or the perception / language reception (R) process?, and ii. Is the ambiguity strategic (S⁺) or nonstrategic (S^–)? The cross-classification brings about four conditions: ambiguity that occurs in the production process and is nonstrategic (PS^–) or strategic (PS⁺) and ambiguity that occurs in the perception process and is nonstrategic (RS^–) or strategically used (RS⁺). The description of ambiguity with the feature matrix is complemented by observations that target the principles found in the language system. The dialogue between the actual occurrence of the ambiguous event in a communicative setting and the regularities in the language system that contribute to the ambiguity form the core interest of this volume.

Let me start with the following example in order to illustrate how the ambiguity model in figure 1 is used: Imagine the first meeting of a search committee that was put together when the current holder of a professional position accepted a job offer from another university. The dean, who chairs the search committee, is still unhappy about the loss of a colleague to another university and utters the following opening statement (capitalization signals primary stress, the acute accent secondary stress):

(1)

The first question which must be answered is: Is this a case of ambiguity? The answer is yes. The meaning of the gradable adjective sad triggers the ambiguity which is subsequently discussed by the committee member and the dean. The next question is, how can the ambiguity be characterized? It can be classified according to the feature matrix: first, it occurs in a discourse situation; therefore the utterance can be characterized as an ambiguity in the production process (P). Second, the dean does not use an ambiguous phrase deliberately or strategically (S^–). That is, the utterance can be classified as a nonstrategic production of ambiguity (PS^–). Third, the question arises as to whether the trigger of ambiguity can be specified. The ambiguity is brought about by the fact that the same expression to come together on a very sad occasion can be used in at least two different situations that are very sad on an abstract scale: either the professor accepted a job offer elsewhere or he died. If it were the case that one of the colleagues had left and died under tragic circumstances, the second reading becomes more available. That is, context and world knowledge are strong factors that influence the interpretation of ambiguity.

It has frequently been claimed that ambiguity in discourse can be immediately disambiguated by the interlocutors, as is the case in this example. From the hearer’s perspective, the dean’s utterance can be classified as ambiguous in the perception process. The question of the committee member Not THAT sad, is it? can be interpreted as a request for clarification. Note, however, that the utterance of the committee member in (1) is still ambiguous. It could be a request for information or clarification, but it could also be interpreted as a strategic utterance (PS⁺). For example, to relieve the situation of its graveness and achieve comic relief, as is signaled by the laughter after the dean’s response.

The nonstrategic production and perception of ambiguous utterances is also interesting from a (psycho)linguistic perspective because it raises the following questions: why can we communicate effectively despite the fact that ambiguity is pervasive in the language that we use? And more specifically, how do speakers and hearers cope with ambiguity and vagueness in communicative situations? The instances in which ambiguity can be classified as incidental are very common. This leads us to the paramount observation, also referred to as the ambiguity paradox by Clark & Clark: “although most sentences are technically speaking ambiguous, practically speaking they are unambiguous. This paradox needs explaining” (Clark & Clark 1977, 80). What is the explanation for the fact that such a large number of utterances contain ambiguities which do not become apparent in their respective communicative situations and are often not even recognized as such by either the speaker or the hearer? The ambiguity paradox can be explained by the interplay of various factors: context, intonation, and world knowledge are all equally relevant, as is the possibility, known as ambiguity tolerance , that the speaker and hearer can decide to leave certain ambiguities unresolved (cf. Winter-Froemel & Zirker, this volume). However, the details of how these factors influence the interpretation of ambiguous utterances are far from clear.

The strategic usage of ambiguity by the speaker in communication (PS⁺) is made possible by the fact that double or multiple meanings can be deliberately taken into account, no matter whether they are inherent in the linguistic sign system or generated in the discourse. Strategic production of ambiguity is a central issue in literary criticism and rhetoric (cf. Bade et al., this volume, Knape, this volume). While the premise that ambiguity is employed strategically in literary texts can be deemed valid, it is often difficult to identify its effects. It is precisely for this reason that literary texts lend themselves extremely well to examining the functions of ambiguity.

Consider, for example, the passage from Shakespeare’s Antony speech in Julius Caesar, where Antony argues that Caesar was not ambitious. To support his argument, he refers to his having offered the crown to Caesar three times, which Caesar refused three times.

 

(2)

At this point, Mark Antony utters the formulaic expression Yet Brutus sayes, he was Ambitious and Brutus is an Honourable man (cf. also III,2,87–88) for the fourth time. However, there is a minor deviation in the continuation from the previous times. The certainty-marking particle sure is inserted in the conjoined utterance and sure he is an honourable man. The added particle is perceived as an exaggeration which can only be interpreted as a marker of irony. Therefore, the interpretation changes providing the opposite meaning, namely, Brutus is ambitious and he is not an honourable man (cf. Knape & Winkler, this volume).

The analysis of the speech segment in (2) in terms of the feature matrix seems straightforward at first sight. The ambiguity is strategically employed in production (PS⁺). At a closer look, however, the application of the feature matrix poses some challenges: there are various levels of production and perception in literary texts which are embedded or stacked. There is the outer perspective involving the author (Shakespeare) and the reader and the inner perspective involving the speaker (Mark Antony) and the listeners in the play. The production processes and the perception processes cut across these perspectives and thereby produce instances of irony (cf. Braungart 1998). That is, the matrix must be employed in a dynamic way as the discourse unfolds and the perspectives shift.

More specifically, the question arises whether the ironic utterance And sure he is an honourable man is ambiguous. One could argue that if the hearer picks up on the irony marker and interprets it as an ironic statement, the literal reading gets lost. From a (psycho)linguistic point of view, however, the challenging questions remain: how do listeners pick up on irony signals, how are ironic statements processed? Are ironic statements more complex and does it take longer to process them? And how are ironic instances recognized and analyzed in literary texts?⁵

A goal commonly encountered in communication is to establish clarity by avoiding or resolving ambiguity; this serves the overriding purpose of avoiding misunderstandings or of decision-making in complex situations (PS⁺). In recent studies, ambiguity avoidance has received special attention in regard to the relationship between the language system and communication (see Wasow, this volume). Two different approaches can be distinguished: The first or classic approach is based on the assumption that Grice’s (1975) maxim Avoid ambiguity and the cooperative principle are observed by speakers. The second, empirically motivated cognitive approach has determined, through experimental methods, that speakers hardly follow Grice’s maxim in actual speech situations. While the reasons for this have yet to be explored in detail, these findings suggest the complementary assumption, namely that ambiguity avoidance is motivated by intention. Ambiguity avoidance primarily concerns particularly those texts and utterances that lay claim to normativity, truth and universal validity and are hence binding and can impose sanctions. Among the rhetorical genres this is true for judicial speech, but also for legally binding contracts (cf. Rathert, this volume).

The emergence of ambiguity can also occur in the perception process. According to figure 1, there are at least two characterizations of ambiguity in language reception (R): either ambiguity emerges nonstrategically (RS^–) or it is generated strategically (RS⁺). A case of nonstrategic ambiguity can be observed in the case of mondegreens (mishearings), as in the original example in (3) that coined the term:

(3)

1. They hae slain the Earl of Murray / And laid him on the green. (original)
2. They hae slain the Earl of Murray / And Lady Mondegreen. (mishearing) (S. Wright 1954 The Death of Lady Mondegreen.)

 

In the original line of the poem given in (3a), the phrase and laid him on the green was understood as Lady Mondegreen given in (3b). In this particular case, the subjectless coordinate clause was misunderstood as a coordinate nominal phrase Lady Mondegreen. The syllable structure of the original was maintained in the mishearing (cf. Content et al. 2000). Mishearings of this type are nonstrategic (RS^–) and are assumed to arise as a result of near homophony or paronomasia and often lead to misinterpretations of the phrase.

Note, however, that these types of mishearings can also be used strategically. For example, the discourse in (4), which is quoted from P.G. Wodehouse’s (1948) novel Uncle Dynamite, can be classified as an intentionally designed paronomasia created by the author.⁶

(4)

Here the question Jamaica? can be understood as a fragmentary elaboration of the statement that she is taking a trip to the West Indies, as in Is she taking a trip to Jamaica? This reading is suggested by the graphemic representation (spelling) of Jamaica? However, under this interpretation the response of the first speaker is incoherent. The phonemic representation of the utterance, however, shows that /ʤəˈmeɪ.k|ə/ could also be understood as the assimilated form of /dɪdju:’meɪk hə:/ Did you make her? Here we clearly see that the ambiguous grapheme-phoneme correspondence (or near homophony) can be employed strategically in fictional texts to achieve a comic effect. The case is also a good example of the ambiguity created by the double communication of literary texts. While we can be sure that Wodehouse employs the homophony strategically, we cannot be sure whether Lord Ickenham deliberately mishears Bill Oakshott or not. There are good reasons to assume that Lord Ickenham, who is a bit of a rogue, knows what he is doing (see Bauer forthcoming).

There are two further research areas which have to do with processes of reanalysis in language and are typically classified as RS^–: language change and language perception. From a historical perspective, cases of reanalysis are particularly interesting: thus, the Old French word merci, which originally denoted mercy in English, was conventionally used as part of a formulaic expression of gratitude of the type Grant merci! (originally: What great mercy you are granting me!). Consequently, merci was reanalyzed as a direct expression for thank you because it had constantly occurred in the corresponding expression in communicative usage (p.c. Peter Koch). Even in cases of syntactic reanalysis (rebracketing) it is to be assumed that these actually constitute content-oriented processes of reinterpretation (cf. Bauer et al. 2010). The trigger here seems to be one of economy and not deliberateness in a strict sense.

Synchronic instances of reanalysis (RS^–) are frequently investigated in psycholinguistic research, such as example (5):

Example (5) is an attested example from a German newspaper article on language acquisition (acquiring languages is not a question of age). The example contains a temporary ambiguity at the point where the reader parses the word später (later). The ambiguity arises due to the word class ambiguity of this lexical item which is either a temporal adverb or the comparative form of the adjective spät(er)(late(r)). The dominant albeit surprising reading is the time adverbial reading which can be paraphrased as whoever speaks two languages fluently, will get ill with Alzheimer’s disease later in life. The reader must reanalyze this reading upon parsing the comparative clause als Einsprachige (than monolinguals). The disambiguated reading is whoever speaks two languages fluently will get ill with Alzheimer’s disease later than monolinguals.

Temporary ambiguities as in (5) have been intensively studied in the field of psycholinguistics (see Stolterfoht, this volume, for processing ambiguities of manner adverbs in relation to syntactic position). The aim is to explain how the hearer processes ambiguities during language perception (here reading) (RS^–). To this end, the first and foremost focus of research to date has been the examination of syntactic ambiguities and the formulation of principles of economy according to which parsing, i.e., the syntactic processing system, chooses the least complex structure, as in the following example (6), until it realizes that it has been led up the garden path:

 

(6) John gave the boy the dog bit the bandage. (Pritchett 1988, 566)

 

The observation is that readers choose the path of least effort and assume that John gave the dog to the boy. However, since the sentence continues with a verb, the reader must backtrack and reanalyze the sentence. In this particular case, the reader must identify the sequence the dog bit as a subject relative clause which leads to the reading that John gave the boy – who was bitten by the dog – the bandage. This type of ambiguity is referred to as a double object ambiguity since the double object reading seems to be the preferred one.

It has repeatedly been observed that prosody plays an important role in disambiguating syntactically ambiguous sentences (Féry 1994, Price et al. 1991, Wagner & Watson 2010, Wiedmann & Winkler, this volume). An attested case from the Dorset newspaper is provided in example (7):

(7)

Example (7) shows a typical syntactic ambiguity which is triggered by the scope taking conjunction and. In the first reading the casting directors are searching for men who can shear sheep and who can shear women with long hair (the two objects are conjoined) and in the second reading the casting directors are searching for men who can shear sheep and they are searching for women with long hair (the clauses are conjoined). The assumption is that the two different readings can be prosodically disambiguated since prosodic phrasing corresponds to sense units. The prediction then is that in the second reading, where the conjunction coordinates clauses, we would expect an intonational break right before the conjunction and which introduces the second clause. Interestingly, the corresponding soundfile of the BBC Friday Night Comedy did not provide a prosodic break before the conjunction and, thus favoring the object reading and leading to the listeners’ amusement. The comedian who spoke example (7) employed this example strategically anticipating the listeners’ preferred reading (PS⁺) when he skipped the break.

A question that has not been thoroughly investigated is whether the hearer draws any inferences concerning the (strategic) ambiguity production by the speaker. With respect to example (7), listeners who attend comedy shows expect to hear and see unexpected and funny contents. In regard to processes of ambiguity resolution in communication, it has recently been noted that multiple meanings are not always disambiguated, as in the good-enough interpretation or shallow processing approach (cf. Ferreira 2006, 2008, Ferreira et al. 2002, Sanford & Graesser 2006). More specifically, ambiguity resolution, at least for certain kinds of ambiguity (e.g., scopal ambiguity), is highly dependent on context. It is to be assumed that the hearer’s strategies and inferences concerning the strategic behavior of the speaker play a role in these cases. Likewise it remains to be determined which features of context or discourse (including genre, discourse tradition, etc.) do or do not force ambiguity resolution, i.e., which pragmatic principles are involved (e.g., the principle of least effort, cooperative principle). Clearly, not only linguistics and psycholinguistics, but all disciplines that are engaged in interpretation can and must contribute to the clarification of the principles of ambiguity resolution on the part of the listener.

It is also possible that ambiguities are not resolved, with the result that both interpretations remain equally available, as proposed by Klein & Winkler (2010b, 5) for the example in (8) and also as argued for in Bade et al. (this volume).

Klein & Winkler refer to the famous discussion of Emil Staiger and Martin Heidegger (1955) who disagree with respect to the interpretation of the last line of Eduard Mörike’s poem. The anchor point of their discussion was the ambiguous word scheint (seems/shines) in German. While Staiger assumed that it must be understood in the sense of videtur (seems), Heidegger assumed that it should be understood in the sense of lucet (shines). From today’s perspective and from the perspective of ambiguity research it seems as if both scholars were right. From the perspective of the author (Mörike) the example could be classified as an instance of PS⁺ where both readings coexist and thus enhance the poetic force of the last line.

Ambiguity in perception or interpretation can be part of a strategic calculation (RS⁺). This is the case, for instance, with processes in which the hearer intentionally reinterprets linguistic utterances. This predominantly affects larger linguistic units (texts) and, in effect, usually triggers ambiguity since either a univocal utterance is interpreted as ambiguous, or the meaning spectrum of an ambiguous utterance is altered. This reciprocal relationship between the production and resolution of ambiguity on the part of the listener is to be found in the strategic perception of texts in different cultural contexts. This is especially true for texts that are passed on, i.e., regarded as canonical (sacred texts, literary classics, canonical texts of law, etc.), and are frequently interpreted in accordance with certain rules. In order to make the significance of these texts intelligible to the present culture, multiple (scriptural) senses are established. The interpretation of the Bible is a paramount example of this: the disambiguation of biblical texts is essential to religious practice (cf. Koch & Landmesser, this volume).

The central underlying idea of this collection is to document this new transdisciplinary perspective on ambiguity with the aim of finding answers to the mystery of ambiguity.

3 The Chapters

The central rationale of the research reported on in this book is that ambiguity in communication can be described along the characteristics provided in the ambiguity model in figure 1. According to this model, ambiguity in discourse is crossclassified by four factors, namely: whether it occurs in the production process or whether it occurs in the perception process and whether it is strategically used or nonstrategically. Another central dimension of this model is the relation between the language system (back of the model) and its specific instantiation in discourse (front of the model). Therefore, this book investigates four major questions, as illustrated in (9):

 

(9)

• i. What are the major theoretical foundations of ambiguity in language and communication?
• ii. What characterizes strategic and nonstrategic ambiguity in the production process?
• iii. What characterizes it in the perception process?
• iv. What determines ambiguity in communicative interaction?

These four questions determine the structure of the book. There are altogether four sections which host the papers that provide answers to individual aspects of these research questions.

4 Conclusion

The above discussion has shown that the papers of this volume connect up in at least four important respects: First, all the papers investigate aspects of the ambiguity model in figure 1 that have hitherto been underinvestigated. Second, they look at different types of ambiguity with the goal of finding an answer to the theoretical questions posed in (9) above. Third, the papers build on the ambiguity matrix and relate the respective ambiguity phenomena under investigation to the underlying system of language. Thereby, the papers reflect an important step forward in the theoretical approaches to ambiguity. The progress concerns the common perspective on the functions of language and communication that is counterbalanced by those papers that ask questions that go beyond the language system proper. And last but not least, the papers reflect the cooperation of a group of researchers whose recent investigations into ambiguous phenomena in language and communication have yielded important results.

References

Bade, Nadine, Matthias Bauer, Sigrid Beck, Carmen Dörge & Angelika Zirker (this volume) Ambiguity in Shakespeare’s Sonnet 138.

Bauer, Matthias (forthcoming) Ironie und Ambiguität. In: Nicole Falkenhayner, Monika Fludernik & Julia Steiner (eds.) Faktuales und fiktionales Erzählen. Differenzen, Interferenzen und Kongruenzen in narratologischer Perspektive. Würzburg: Ergon.

Bauer, Matthias, Joachim Knape, Peter Koch & Susanne Winkler (2010) Dimensionen der Ambiguität: Ein interdisziplinärer Ansatz. In: Wolfgang Klein & Susanne Winkler (eds.) Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 158, 7–75.

Berndt, Frauke & Stephan Kammer (eds.) (2009) Amphibolie – Ambiguität – Ambivalenz. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann.

Berndt, Frauke & Klaus Sachs-Hombach (this volume) Dimensions of Constitutive Ambiguity.

Bode, Christoph (1988) Ästhetik der Ambiguität: Zu Funktion und Bedeutung von Mehrdeutigkeit in der Literatur der Moderne. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

Braungart, Wolfgang (1998) Freundschaft, Ironie und Opfer in Shakespeares Tragödie “Julius Cäsar”. In: Ferdinand van Ingen & Christian Juranek (eds.) Ars et Amicitia. Beiträge zum Thema Freundschaft in Geschichte, Kunst und Literatur. Festschrift für Martin Bircher zum 60. Geburtstag (Chloe; Beihefte zum Daphnis 28), Amsterdam: Rodopi, 99–114.

Chomsky, Noam (2002) On Nature and Language. Adriana Belletti & Luigi Rizzi (eds). Cambridge University Press.

Clark, Herbert H. & Eve V. Clark (1977) Psychology and Language: An Introduction to Psycholinguistics. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Content, Alain, Nicolas Dumay & Uli Frauenfelder (2000) The Role of Syllable Structure in Lexical Segmentation in French: Helping Listeners avoid Mondegreens. In: Anne Cutler, James M. McQueen, Rian Zondervan (eds.), Proceedings of SWAP (Workshop on Spoken Word Access Processes). Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, 39–42.

Culicover, Peter & Ray Jackendoff (2005) Simpler Syntax. Oxford University Press: Oxford.

Ferreira, Victor S. (2006) Avoid Ambiguity! (If You Can). CRL Technical Report 18.2, 3–13.

Ferreira, Victor S. (2008) Ambiguity, Accessibility, and a Division of Labor for Communicative Success. In: Brian H. Ross (ed.) The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 210–247.

Ferreira, Fernanda, Karl G. D. Bailey & Vittoria Ferraro (2002) Good-Enough Representations in Language Comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science 11.1, 11–15.

Féry, Caroline (1994) Prosodische und tonale Faktoren bei der Disambiguierung syntaktischer Strukturen. In: Karl Heinz Ramers, Heinz Vater & Henning Wode (eds.) Universale phonologische Strukturen und Prozesse. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 97–114.

Frege, Gottlob (1884) The Foundations of Arithmetic, Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1980.

Grewendorf, Günther & Monika Rathert (eds.) (2009) Formal Linguistics and Law. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Grice, H. Paul (1975) Logic and Conversation. In: Peter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (eds.) Speech Acts: Syntax and Semantics. New York: Academic Press, 43–58.

Heidegger, Martin & Emil Staiger (1955) Zu einem Vers von Mörike. In: Theophil Spoerri & Emil Staiger (eds.) Trivium. Schweizerische Vierteljahresschrift für Literaturwissenschaft. Zürich: Atlantis Verlag, 1–15.

Kennedy, Chris (2011) Ambiguity and Vagueness: An Overview. In: Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds.) The Handbook of Semantics, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 507–535.

Klein, Wolfgang & Susanne Winkler (eds.) (2010a) Ambiguität. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 158.

Klein, Wolfgang & Susanne Winkler (2010b) Ambiguität: Einleitung. In: Wolfgang Klein & Susan ne Win kler (eds.) Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 158, 5–6.

Knape, Joachim (2013) Modern Rhetoric in Culture, Arts and Media. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Knape, Joachim (this volume). Von der intendierten Ambiguität in die Aporie. Monologische und dialogische Erkenntniswege am Beispiel von Platons Hippias Minor.

Knape, Joachim & Susanne Winkler (this volume). Strategisches Ambiguieren, Verstehenswechsel und rhetorische Textleistung. Am Beispiel von Shakespeares Antony-Rede.

Koch, Peter & Christof Landmesser (this volume) Ambiguität und Schriftauslegung: Beobachtungen zu Augustins Schrift ‘De utilitate credendi’.

Krieger, Verena & Rachel Mader (eds.) (2010) Ambiguität in der Kunst. Typen und Funktionen eines ästhetischen Paradigmas. Köln, Weimar, Wien: Böhlau.

Merchant, Jason (2004). Fragments and Ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 27, 661–738.

Piantadosi, Steven T., Harry Tily & Edward Gibson (2012) The Communicative Function of Ambiguity in Language. Cognition 122, 280–291.

Price, Patti J., Mari Ostendorf, Stefanie Shattuck-Hufnagel & Cynthia Fong (1991) The use of prosody in syntactic disambiguation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 90: 6, 2956–2970.

Pritchett, Bradley L. (1988) Garden Path Phenomena and the Grammatical Basis of Language Processing. Language 64: 3, 539–576.

Rathert, Monika (this volume) Unbestimmtheit im Recht.

Richards, Ivor A. (1936) The Philosophy of Rhetoric. New York: Oxford University Press.

Sanford, Anthony J. & Arthur C. Graesser (2006) Shallow Processing and Underspecification. Discourse Processes 42: 2, 99–108.

Schmeh, Katharina, Peter Culicover, Jutta Hartmann & Susanne Winkler (this volume) Discourse Function Ambiguity of Fragments: A Linguistic Puzzle.

Shakespeare, William (1968) Julius Caesar. In: Charlton Hinman (ed.) The Norton Facsimile: The First Folio of Shakespeare. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 717–738.

Stolterfoht, Britta (this volume) Ambiguity and Sentence Position: An Experimental Case Study on Manner Adverbs.

Susanka, Thomas (this volume) Die Schuhe von van Gogh: Ambiguität vs. Unspezifität im Bild.

Szabó, Zoltán G. (2000) Problems of Compositionality. New York: Garland.

Wagner, Michael & Duane G. Watson (2010) Experimental and theoretical advances in prosody: A review. Language and Cognitive Processes 25, 905–945.

Wasow, Thomas, Amy Perfors & David Beaver (2005) The Puzzle of Ambiguity. In: C. Orhan Orgun & Peter Sells (eds) Morphology and the Web of Grammar: Essays in the Memory of Steven G. Lapointe. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 265–282.

Wasow, Thomas (this volume) Ambiguity Avoidance is Overrated.

Wiedmann, Natalie & Susanne Winkler (this volume) The Influence of Prosody on Children’s Processing of Ambiguous Sentences.

Winter-Froemel, Esme & Angelika Zirker (this volume) Ambiguity in Speaker-Hearer Interaction: A Parameter-Based Model of Analysis.

Wodehouse, Pelham G. (1966) Uncle Dynamite. Harmondsworth: Penguin. (First published 1948).

Wright, Sylvia (1954) The Death of Lady Mondegreen. Harper’s Magazine 209 (1254), 48–51.