Ambiguity

Christian Baden, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel
c.baden@mail.huji.ac.il

Ambiguity refers to uncertainties in the meaning to be derived from a message or discursive situation, caused by the simultaneous co-presence of multiple competing interpretations. While there are also manifest, grammatical forms of ambiguity (e.g., ambiguous anaphora, such as in ‘the man played well with the dog, until he bit him’; answering ‘yes’ to ‘you don’t mind, do you?’), most ambiguity arises from the fundamental semantic openness of text. Characteristically, texts – including non-linguistic messages, such as symbols or communicative images – require reader’s or interlocutors’ active participation in their interpretation, and thus are subject to being read in different ways. While some textual genres tend to try and exclude ambiguity by narrowly guiding interpretation, other genres deliberately play with or strategically exploit ambiguity (e.g., ‘strategic ambiguity’, a practice in political speech that allows different audiences to read different preferred meanings into a message; innuendos, dog whistles, and other practices designed to permit the speaker to deny specific intended meanings if challenged). Two important drivers of ambiguity are underspecification and polysemy.

Regarding underspecification, messages conventionally focus on specifying any information that is needed to convey a specific communicative intent, while omitting all that is not deemed important or already available from context (e.g., prior turns; the situation; generic conventions). As a result, messages can be ambiguous if read to derive meaning other than what was intended (e.g., does ‘I don’t know her’ entail an invitation to elaborate?), or out of their original context. Messages may also be deliberately underspecified, so as to avoid commitment or permit varying interpretations. Linguistically encoded messages are primarily underspecified by omission (everything that is not mentioned), while visual communication tends to be underspecified in terms of the intended semantic concepts. Underspecification is particularly widespread in informal, interactive discourse, where contextual cues support interpretation, and least pronounced in formal genres addressing unknown audiences (e.g., manuals, legal documents).

Regarding polysemy, the cultural embedding of communication offers rich semiotic resources for creating a multiplicity of meaning potentials. Polysemy may arise accidentally (e.g., if a statement evokes connotations or associations that compete with or overlay the intended communication); it may be mobilised to offer additional, optional interpretations that add depth to a message; or it may be instrumental for conveying communicative intent (e.g., humor often relies on the co-presence of colliding meaning potentials). A key source of polysemy is intertextuality, where specific expressions, symbols, or scenes evoke culturally familiar texts or contexts that endow a message with additional meanings. Also language can be a source of polysemy, for instance, when homonyms refer to multiple relevant meanings, or via the use of linguistic symbols, analogical or figurative speech. Especially pop-cultural messages are often rich in polysemy.

Ambiguity can also be expressed directly by marking uncertainties in meaning or expressly presenting multiple, competing interpretations. In specific cases, ambiguity can also result in ambivalence, if the multiplicity of available meanings cues competing evaluative or affective tendencies.

Keywords: polysemy, underspecification, strategic ambiguity

Related Entries: Ambivalence, Communication, Critical Discourse Analysis

References:
Baden, C., Boxman-Shabtai, L., Tenenboim-Weinblatt, K., Overbeck, M., & Aharoni, T. (2023). Meaning multiplicity and valid disagreement in textual measurement: A plea for a revised notion of reliability. Studies in Communication and Media, 12(4), 305-326. https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2023-4-305
Eco, U. (1984). The role of the reader: Explorations in the semiotics of texts. Indiana University Press.