Babe-Bolyai University of Cluj-Napoca

Faculty of Letters
Department of English Language and Literature

LANGUAGE AMBIGUITY
IN TRANSLATION
- Summary -

Doctoral Supervisor:
Prof. Mihai Zdrenghea, Ph.D.
Doctoral Candidate:
Andreea Maria Teodorescu

Cluj-Napoca
2012
 Contents

Introduction ..1
1. Language Ambiguity: General Considerations..................6
1.1. Defining Language Ambiguity.9
2. Types of Language Ambiguity........12
2.1. Lexical Ambiguity .19
2.1.1. Sources of Lexical Ambiguity......19
2.1.2. Resolving Lexical Ambiguity...29
2.2. Categorial Ambiguity.....36
2.3. Grammatical Ambiguity.....46
2.3.1. Types of Grammatical Ambiguity....46
2.3.2. Resolving Grammatical Ambiguity..78
2.4. Referential Ambiguity88
2.4.1. Characteristics of Referential Ambiguity..88
2.4.2. Resolving Referential Ambiguity..95
3. Intentional and Unintentional Ambiguity....101
3.1. Unintentional Ambiguity.......102
3.2. Intentional Ambiguity........................................................107
3.2.1. Ambiguity in Verbal Humour......108
3.2.2. Newspaper Headlines...123
3.2.3. The Language of Advertising...124
4. Language Ambiguity in Translation ....133
4.1. Translation of Fiction/Translation of Non-Fiction ...133
4.2. Translation of Ambiguity in Non-Fiction......137
4.3. Translation of Ambiguity in Fiction......148
5. Romanian Translation of Wordplay in Alices Adventures
in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass......166
Conclusions..202
Works Cited....205
Selected Bibliography.................215
 Summary

Key words: lexical ambiguity, categorical ambiguity, grammatical

ambiguity, referential ambiguity, disambiguation techniques, intentional
ambiguity, unintentional ambiguity, translation of non-fictional texts,
wordplay translation.

Ambiguity is an inherent property of any natural language, particularly

fostered by synthetic languages like English because of the loss of most of
the endings. Given its frequent occurrence in both spoken and written
discourse, and its influence on the ability of language to fulfill its main
purpose, that of communicating, language ambiguity has been a topic of
interest for philosophers and linguists ever since the times of Aristotle or
Quintilian. However, interest in the study of language ambiguity in the
context of translation is of fairly recent date. In the past thirty years or so,
research in the field of translation of ambiguous language has been moving
forward at an increasing pace. During this time, the main focus of interest for
theoreticians in the field of translation studies has been the translation of
wordplay occurring in literary discourse, rather than that of inadvertent
ambiguities occurring in non-fictional prose.

The purpose of the present dissertation is to investigate the

recommendable approaches to the highly elusive phenomenon of language
ambiguity in the translation of both fictional and non-fictional types of
discourse. The aim is to explore how certain types of language ambiguity are
translated from English into Romanian. To the best of our knowledge, no
research has been conducted into the translation of ambiguous language into
Romanian. Therefore, the present dissertation is meant as a modest attempt at
breaking new ground in the investigation of the translation of language
ambiguity from English into Romanian, with particular focus on the
translation of various types of wordplay occurring in two novels famous for
their authors proclivity towards language games: Lewis Carrolls Alices
Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass. In our approach,
we started from the premise that the study of how ambiguous language is to
be dealt with in the translation from English into Romanian calls for
contrastive research.

The proposed approach to the topic of discussion is interdisciplinary,

bringing together elements from several areas of research: semantics and
pragmatics (in the investigation of language ambiguity occurring in written
and oral discourse), the theory of translation as a field of intercultural
communication (applied to the translation of ambiguous literary and non-
fictional discourse), and discourse analysis (analysis of word play as integral
part of literary discourse).

The methods employed in order to achieve the goals aimed at in this

dissertation can be grouped into two categories: general research methods,
namely description and analysis, used with a view to familiarizing ourselves
with the material at hand, and linguistic methods, more specifically
contrastive methods, applied primarily in comparing examples of ambiguous
language with their translation into Romanian. Given the nature of the topic,
the approach is not predominantly theoretical; on the contrary, attention
concentrates mostly on selecting relevant examples to illustrate as effectively
as possible the theoretical points that we are going to make.

Regarding the structure of the present dissertation, it consists of five

chapters, divided into two main parts: a theoretical part, which includes the
first two chapters, and focuses on ambiguity as a phenomenon of natural
language, and a practical section, which includes the last two chapters, and
investigates the specific problems occurring in the translation of ambiguous
language in non-fictional and fictional discourse. Between these two main
parts there is an intermediary chapter meant to create a smooth passage from
the theoretical to the practical section of the dissertation.

The paper opens with an introductory chapter under the motto One
cannot but be amazed at the ubiquity of ambiguity in language. (Kess and
Hoppe 5), whose purpose is to highlight the pervasiveness and importance of
ambiguity in natural language. The main points touched upon in this first
chapter are: ambiguity as an impediment to communication, the importance
of the study of ambiguity for the linguistic description of any language, and
reasons for the failure in most circumstances of both speakers/writers and
listeners/readers to acknowledge the presence of ambiguities in natural
discourse. This analysis is followed by an account of the way language
ambiguity has been defined by various theorists, according to the main focus
of interest of their research: semantic, pragmatic, truth-conditional, etc.

The second chapter, Types of Ambiguity, opens with a survey of

different classifications of language ambiguity suggested by various linguists.
Then, the perspective narrows and attention focuses on four major types of
ambiguity: lexical, categorial, grammatical and referential. The reason why
we have limited the focus of our interest to these four types to the detriment
of others no less important is the fact that these types of ambiguity tend to
occur more frequently in both fictional and non-fictional discourse, and
therefore are more likely to create difficulties for translators.

In our discussion of lexical ambiguity, the first aspect taken into

consideration refers to homonymy and polysemy as main sources of word
sense ambiguity. Theorists opinions are divided on the topic of the
relationship between homonymy, polysemy, and ambiguity. Some argue that
only homonymic series are likely to create ambiguity, and polysemous words
do not, while others claim that both polysemous words and homonymic pairs
generate ambiguity in the absence of a disambiguating context. The second
aspect brought into discussion concerns the techniques most likely to be used
in the resolution of lexical ambiguity. The most common disambiguation
techniques for word sense ambiguity are: contextual evidence, collocation,
morpho-syntactic structure, selectional restrictions or semantic constraints,
frequency, and world knowledge.

Categorial ambiguity is analysed from the point of view of its status as

a borderline type of ambiguity. Opinions among linguists are divided
between those who consider it a lexical type of ambiguity on the grounds that
it is based on the partial homonymy of individual lexical items, and those
who deem it a grammatical type of ambiguity on account of the fact that it
involves lexical items that function as different parts of speech.

Grammatical or syntactic ambiguity is an extremely eclectic type of

ambiguity in that there is an extremely wide variety of types of constructions
that can qualify as grammatically ambiguous. Our analysis of grammatical
ambiguity includes a comprehensive survey of these constructions, grouped
under five headings: grouping ambiguity, coordination ambiguity, attachment
ambiguity, analytical ambiguity, and ambiguity through ellipsis. In as far as
the resolution of grammatical ambiguity is concerned, a distinction is made
between disambiguation techniques specific for oral discourse and
disambiguation techniques that can be applied in written texts. Grammatical
ambiguities occurring in oral discourse are readily resolved by prosodic
features such as stress, intonation, pauses, etc. In written discourse, on the
other hand, depending on the type of grammatical ambiguity involved, there
are a number of disambiguation techniques that can be applied, among which:
punctuation, local attachment, minimal attachment, rephrasing, changing the
order of clauses, or changing the structural relationship of the clauses. All
these techniques are analysed in detail and illustrated with relevant examples.
 The most important aspects pointed out in our discussion of referential
ambiguity are: unclear reference of anaphoric and cataphoric pronouns,
confusion arising from ambiguous reference of certain nouns, and ambiguity
stemming from the use of a double verb. As for referential ambiguity
resolution, the most common disambiguation techniques employed are: the
recency rule, parallel structure, textual coherence, speaker or writer intent,
and world knowledge.

As mentioned above, the third chapter of this paper, Intentional and

Unintentional Ambiguity, is an intermediary chapter meant to bridge the gap
between the theoretical part and the practical, illustrative section of the paper.
This chapter provides, on the one hand, examples of contexts where
ambiguity is likely to occur inadvertently, and more often than not escapes
the notice of either the speaker/writer or both speaker/writer and
listener/reader. On the other hand, there are context where ambiguity is made
deliberate use of, where language is exploited consciously in such a way as to
convey messages loaded with overtones. The genres that are the focus of our
interest in this paper because of their proclivity towards the deliberate use of
ambiguity for various purposes are: verbal humour, more specifically puns,
jokes, and riddles, newspaper headlines, and the language of advertising.

The second part of the paper, starting with Chapter IV, Language
Ambiguity in Translation, concentrates more closely on ambiguity seen
from the perspective of the translator who is faced with the challenge of
deciding how to tackle it. The purpose of this second part is to discuss
whether translators should preserve source language ambiguities into the
target language or attempt to resolve them before rendering the text in the
target language. Since this depends on whether the translator is presented
with a fictional or a non-fictional text, a sub-chapter is devoted to pointing
out the particular characteristics of instrumental language, that is the
language of non-fiction, and literary language, the language of fiction. This is
followed by a discussion of the types of challenges translators are faced with
in the translation of literary texts as compared with non-fictional texts.

In the next sub-chapter attention concentrates more specifically on the

types of ambiguity that are more likely to occur in each type of discourse, and
on the way they should be dealt with in the process of translation. Relevant
examples of ambiguous language identified in actual non-fictional texts from
various fields are used to illustrate the translation strategies that can be
applied in rendering such texts into Romanian. On the other hand, with
application to ambiguity employed deliberately in literary texts in the form of
puns and wordplay, we set out to investigate various strategies devised for the
translation of wordplay, according to the types of puns translators are
presented with. This study relies heavily on the work of Dirk Delabastita,
whose definition and typology of wordplay, as well as translation strategies
for wordplay are used as frames of reference.

The last chapter of the dissertation is a systematic and detailed study of

the way in which the instances of wordplay occurring in Lewis Carrolls
Alices Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass have been
dealt with by two reputable Romanian translators who have embarked on
translating both novels: Frida Papadache and Antoaneta Ralian. To the best of
our knowledge, no such study of the translation of Lewis Carrolls wordplay
into Romanian has been attempted so far. Our approach is a descriptive one,
the purpose being that of presenting the way in which the types of wordplay
discussed in the previous chapter were translated from English into
Romanian, and, where appropriate, suggesting other possible translations.

Conclusions
 We believe that we have managed to demonstrate that there are fields
of human activity where the use of ambiguous language is not only
unadvisable, but may have serious consequences. Thus, official documents
such as: business agreements, contracts, legal or court proceedings,
international documents, etc. should be worded in such a way as not to allow
more than one interpretation. The problem becomes even more serious when
such documents are to be translated into another language. Faulty translation
due to the presence of inadvertent ambiguities in the source text may result in
harmful consequences for the parties involved.
We believe that the study of language ambiguity in translation can
contribute to a better understanding of this phenomenon. There may be seen
to exist a partial overlapping of the theory of language ambiguity and
translation theory in that both fields may benefit from new developments in
the other. Translators, on the one hand may find it useful to be acquainted
with strategies of decoding and encoding of linguistically ambiguous
language when they are faced with this phenomenon in their work. On the
other hand, researchers in the field of language ambiguity may benefit from
tests of translation in identifying the linguistic, social, and psychological
factors that shape this phenomenon.
We hope that, throughout the dissertation, we have managed to bring
sufficient evidence to support our conclusion that ambiguous language has to
be approached differently depending to the type of text to be translated.
Given their intended purpose of conveying factual information in an
objective, precise, and straightforward language, non-fictional texts require
complete disambiguation when they are rendered into the target language, in
order to avoid undesired consequences. The ideal strategy for translators of
non-fictional texts faced with ambiguities in the source language is to work
closely with the author of the text to be translated. The author is in the best
position to give the translator information about the intended meaning of an
ambiguous sentence. If the author of the original text is unavailable for
clarification, translators may resort to other sources, that is to co-operate very
closely with other experts in the field to which the text to be translated
belongs, or to do extensive research on the subject matter.
In literary texts, on the other hand, more often than not ambiguous
language is used deliberately, in the form of wordplay or puns, as part of the
style of the author. Since a proficient translator is one that manages to convey
in the target language not only the intended meaning but also the individual
style of the source language writer, s/he should be able to preserve the
original ambiguities as part of the writers style. Therefore, an important
factor in the effective translation of wordplay is the translator. S/he may
either acknowledge the source text pun but be unable to employ a translation
strategy that would create the same effect on the target audience as the one
created by the original pun on the source reader, or s/he may completely fail
to recognize the source language pun, in which case it comes down to
inadequate command of the source language. The two translators whose
versions of Carrolls Alices we have selected for analysis and comparison are
two highly esteemed and experienced translators, whose command of both
English and Romanian is unquestionable. However, the extensive use of
wordplay in the two books poses such difficulties for translators that even if
they are perfectly acquainted with the source and target languages and
cultures, they are still unable to avoid the loss of certain units of information
or shades of meaning. It is impossible for translators to be prepared for each
translation problem they may be faced with. However, the level of
knowledge, skill, training, commitment to the task in hand are essential tools
in producing a good translation. Moreover, in the translation of texts that rely
heavily on wordplay, creativity, imagination and resourcefulness may prove
even more useful to the translator than training and experience. Seeing all
these, we can definitely conclude, along with Cecilia Quiroga-Clare, that
language ambiguity, whether occurring inadvertently in non-fictional texts, or
used intentionally in the form of wordplay in literary texts, is both a blessing
and a curse for translators.
 Bibliography

Aarts, Flor, and Jan M. G. Aarts. English Syntactic Structures: Functions and
Categories in Sentence Analysis. Oxford; New York: Pergamon
Press, 1982. Print.
Alexieva, Bistra. There Must Be Some System in This Madness. Metaphor,
Polysemy, and Wordplay in a Cognitive Linguistic Framework.
Traductio. Essays on Punning and Translation. Ed. Dirk Delabastita.
Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing, 1997. 137-154. Print.
Allen, James. Natural Language Understanding. Menlo Park, Calif.:
Benjamin/Cummings, 1995. Print.
Alley, Michael. The Craft of Scientific Writing. New York: Springer, 1996.
Print.
Attridge, Derek. Unpacking the Portmanteau, or Whos Afraid of Finnegans
Wake? On Puns. The foundation of Letters. Ed. Jonathan Culler.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1988. 140-155. Print.
Bach, Kent. Ambiguity.Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Taylor and
Francis Group, n. pag. Web. 11 June 2010.
Ballard, Michel. Effets DHumour, Ambiguite et Didactique de la
Traduction. Meta 34.1 (1989): 20-25. Print.
Bassnett-McGuire Susan. Translation Studies. London: Methuen, 1980. Print.

Beaugrande, Robert de. Factors in a Theory of Poetic Translating. Assen:

Van Gorcum, 1978. Print.

Benjamin, Walter. Illuminations. New York: Schocken Books, 1969. Print

Bierce, Ambrose. The Devils Dictionary. BrainyQuote. Web. 10 Aug. 2012.

Caramazza, A., E. Briber, C. Garvey, and J.Yates. Comprehension of
Anaphoric Pronouns. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal
Behaviour 16.5 (1977): 601-609. Print.
Carey, Peter W., Jacques Mehler, and Thomas G. Bever. Judging the
Veracity of Ambiguous Sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and
Verbal Behaviour 9.2 (1970): 243-254. Print.
Carroll, Lewis. The Annotated Alice. The Definitive Edition: Alices
Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass. Allen
Lane: The Penguin Press, 2000. Print.
Carroll, Lewis. Peripeiile Alisei n Lumea Oglinzii. Trans. Frida Papadache.
Bucureti: Ed. Ion Creang, 1971. Print.
Carroll, Lewis. Peripeiile Alisei n ara Minunilor. Trans. Frida Papadache.
Bucureti: InterCONTEMpress, 1991. Print.
Carroll, Lewis. Alice n ara Minunilor. Alice n ara din Oglind. Trans.
Antoaneta Ralian. Bucureti: Editura Univers, 2007. Print.
Catford, J. C. A Linguistic Theory of Translation: An Essay in Applied
Linguistics.Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1965. Print.
Chiaro, Delia. The Language of Jokes. London and New York: Routledge,
1992. Print.
Clark, Herbert H., and Eve V. Clark. Psychology and Languages: An
Introduction to Psycholinguistics. New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich, 1977. Print
Cline, Austin. Fallacy of Equivocation. About.com. n. pag. Web. 20 Aug.
2011.
Cronin, Mary Elizabeth. Wrapping Up -- Downtown Seattle Fur-Salon
Owner To Close His Doors After 65 Years Of Business. The Seattle
Times Online. 26 Oct. 1994. Web. 25 Aug. 2011.
Crutch, Denis. Lewis Carroll: Linguist of Wonderland. Mr. Dodgson: Nine
Lewis Carroll Studies. London: Lewis Carroll Society, 1973. 34-37.
Print.
Cooper, Gloria, ed. Squad Helps Dog Bite Victim and Other Flubs from the
Nations Press. New York: Doubleday & Company Inc., 1980. Print.
Davis, Ernest. Introduction to Artificial Intelligence. New York U, Fall 2010.
Web. 12 Aug 2011.
Deemter, Kees van, and Stanley Peters, eds. Semantic Ambiguity and
Underspecification. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 1996. Print.

Delabastita, Dirk. Translating Puns. Possibilities and Restraints. New

Comparison 3 (1987): 143-159. Print.
Delabastita, Dirk. Focus on the Pun: Wordplay as a Special Problem in
Translation Studies. Target 6. 2 (1994): 223-243. Print.
Delabastita, Dirk, ed. Wordplay and Translation. Namur: St. Jerome
Publishing, 1996. Print.
Delabastita, Dirk, ed. Traductio. Essays on Punning and Translation.
Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing, 1997. Print.
Diot, Roland. Humor for Intellectuals: Cant It Be Exported and Translated?
The Case of Gary Trudeaus In Search of Reagans Brain. Meta
34.1 (1989): 84-87. Print.
Dolitsky, Marlene. The Translation of Nonsense. Babel 34.2 (1988): 80-89.
Print.
Duff, Alan. The Third Language. Oxford: Blackwell, 1981. Print.
Egan, Gary. Wordplay. Verbatim 20. 4 (1994): 1-3. Print.
Empson, William. Seven Types of Ambiguity. London: Penguin Books, 1995.
Print.
Esar, Evan. Humorous English. New York: Horizon Press, 1961. Print.
Etienne Luc. Les Jeux de Langage chez Lewis Carroll. Lewis Carroll. ed.
Henri Parisot. Paris: Editions de lHerne, 1971. 30-34. Print.
Fisher, Arthur. Waddee Say? Popular Science Dec. 1986: 60-63, 90-92.
Print.
Franois, Denise, and Frdric Franois. Lambiguite linguistique. Word
23. 1-3 (1967): 150-179. Print.
Frazier, L., and K. Rayner. Making and Correcting Errors during Sentence
Comprehension: Eye Movements in the Analysis of Structurally
Ambiguous Sentences. Cognitive Psychology 14 (1982): 178-210.
Print.
Gordon, Terrence W. Translating Word-Play: French-English, English-
French. Babel 32. 3 (1986): 146-150. Print.
Green, Georgia M. Ambiguity Resolution and Discourse Interpretation.
Semantic Ambiguity and Underspecification. Eds. Kees van Deemter
and Stanley Peters. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 1996. 1-26. Print.
Heald, Isobel. Elimination of Ambiguity in Technical Translation.
Traduccion y Nuevas Tecnologias. Herramientas Auxiliares del
Traductor. Eds. Carmen Valero Garces, and Isabel de la Cruz
Cabanillas. Alcala: Imprenta de la Universidad de Alcala, 2001. 287-
294. Print.
Herzberg Max J, and Leon Mones. Humor of America. New York : D.
Appleton-Century Company, Inc., 1945. Print.
Hirst, Graeme. Semantic Interpretation and the Resolution of Ambiguity.
London: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Print.
Hockett, Charles F. Two Models of Grammatical Description. Word 10
(1954): 210-231. Print.
Hoenisch, Steve. Identifying and Resolving Ambiguity. Criticism.com, 20
Aug 2004, n. pag. Web. 15 Aug 2010.
House, Juliane. On the Limits of Translatability. Babel 19 (1973): 166-167.
Print.
Huddleston, Rodney. Introduction to the Grammar of English. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1988. Print.
Hurford, James R., and Brendan Heasley. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1987. Print.
Jakobson, Roman. On Linguistic Aspects of Translation. On Translation.
Ed. Reuben A. Brewer: New York: Oxford University Press, 1966.
232-239. Print.
Jokes in English for the ESL/EFL Classroom. The Internet TESL Journal.
25 May 2011. Web. 8 Aug. 2012.
Kaplan, Abraham. An Experimental Study of Ambiguity and Context.
Mechanical Translation 2. 2 (1955): 39-46. Print.
Kelly, L.G. Punning and the Linguistic Sign. Linguistics 66 (1971): 5-11.
Print.
Kempson, Ruth M. Semantic Theory. Great Britain: Cambridge University
Press, 1979. Print.
Kess, Joseph F., and Ronald A. Hoppe. On Psycholinguistic Experiments in
Ambiguity. Lingua 45 (1978): 125-140. Print.
Kess, Joseph F., and Ronald A. Hoppe. Ambiguity in Psycholinguistics.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins B.V., 1981. Print.
Kess, Joseph F., and Yoshihiro Nishimitsu. Linguistic Ambiguity in Natural
Language: English and Japanese. Tokyo: Kuroshio Shuppan, 1989.
Print.

Kess J.F., A.C. Kess, and R.A. Hoppe. Intentional Ambiguity as Verbal
Sleight of Hand in Commercial Advertising. Grazer Linguistische
Studien 22 (1984): 147-66. Print.
Kingsbury, Roy, and Guy Wellman. Longman Advanced English. Harlow:
Longman, 1986. Print.
Kirk, Daniel F. Charles Dodgson Semeiotician. Gainesville: University of
Florida Press, 1963. Print.
Kittay Feder, Eva. Metaphor: Its Cognitive Force and Linguistic Structure.
Oxford: Clarendon, 1987. Print.
Kooij, Jan G. Ambiguity in Natural Language. An Investigation of Certain
Problems in Its Linguistic Description. Amsterdam: North-Holland
Publishing Company, 1971. Print.
Korhonen, Elina. Translation Strategies for Wordplay in The Simpsons. The
Simpsons Archive. The Simpsons TM and Fox, 3 Nov. 2009. Web.
15 Aug. 2012.
Kurland, Daniel J. How the Language Really Works: The Fundamentals of
Critical Reading and Effective Writing. Criticalreading.com. n.pag.
2000. Web. 11 Nov. 2009.
Lamb, Charles. That the Worst Puns Are the Best. About.com. n. pag. Web.
3 Aug. 2012.
Landheer, Ronald. LAmbiguite: un Defi Traductologique. Meta 34.1
(1989): 33-43. Print.
Lederer, Richard. Anguished English, New York: Dell Publishing, 1987.
Print.
Lederer, Richard. Pun and Games. Chicago: Chicago Review Press, 1996.
Print.
Lederer, Richard. Foreword. The Lexicon of Intentionally Ambiguous
Recommendations (L.I.A.R.). By Robert J. Thornton. New York:
Barnes & Noble Books, 2003. vii-ix. Print.
Leech, Geoffrey. Semantics. The Study of Meaning. London: Penguin Books,
1981. Print.
Leffa, Vilson J. Textual Constraints in L2 Lexical Disambiguation. System
26. 2 (1998): 183-194. Print.
Leibold, Anne. The Translation of Humor; Who Says It Cant Be Done?
Meta 34.1 (1989): 109-111. Print.
Levey, Bob. Headlines That You Just Have to Hang On To. The
Washington Post 22 Nov. 2002: C08. Print.
Liberman, Mark. Lawyers in Need of Linguistic Training. Language Log, 7
Aug. 2007. Web. 11 June 2009.
Liberman, Mark. Do Magpies Understand Structural Ambiguities?
Language Log, 11 Aug. 2006. Web. 11 June 2009.
Lunsford, Andrea, and Robert Connors. The New St. Martins Handbook.
Boston: Bedford / St. Martins, 1999. Print.
Lyons, John, ed. New Horizons in Linguistics. Harmondswoth: Penguin,
1970. Print.
Lyons, John. Semantics. Vol. 1-2. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1978. Print.
Maley, Alan, and Alan Duff. Words! Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1980. Print.
Marello, Carla. Alices Omissions. Semiotics and Linguistics in Alices
Worlds. Eds. Rachel Fordyce, and Carla Marello. Berlin, New York:
Walter de Gruyter, 1994. 176-192. Print.
McKerras, Ross. How to Translate Wordplays. Notes on Translation 8. 1
(1994): 7-18. Print.
Merriam-Websters Collegiate Dictionary. Springfield, MA: Merriam-
Webster, Inc., 2000. Print.
Merriam-Webster Online. Merriam-Webster Inc., 2012. Web. 10 Aug 2012.
Meyer Spacks, Patricia. Logic and Language in Through the Looking-
Glass. ETC: A Journal of General Semantics 18 (1961): 267-275.
Print.
Monz, Cristof. Modeling Ambiguity in a Multi-Agent System. Proceedings
of the 12th Amsterdam Colloquium (AC99). Ed. P. Dekker.
Amsterdam: Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, 1999.
43-48. Print.
Mounin Georges. Los problemas teoricos de la traduccion. Madrid: Gredos,
1977. Print.
Nash, Walter. The Language of Humour.Style and Technique in Comic
Discourse. London and New York: Longman, 1985. Print.
Nida, Eugene. Toward a Science of Translating. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1964.
Print.
Nida, Eugene, and Charles R. Taber. The Theory and Practice of Translation.
Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2003. Print.
Nilsen, Don L.F. Better Than the Original: Humorous Translations that
Succeed. Meta 34.1 (1989): 112-124. Print.
Nordquist, Richard. Metaphor. About.com. n. pag. Web. 10 Aug. 2012.
Ortony, Andrew, ed. Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1993. Print.
Oz, Avraham. Divine Accidents Invoked. The Case of Bad Puns in
Translation. Shakespeare Translation 3 (1976): 55-60. Print.
Palmer, F.R. Semantics. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press,
1981. Print.
Pehar, Drazen. Use of Ambiguities in Peace Agreements. Language and
Diplomacy. Eds. Jovan Kurbalija and Hannah Slavik. Malta:
DiploProjects, 2001. 163-185. Print.
Prez, Maria Calzada. Translators in Wonderland: A Study of the Tempo-
Cultural Aspects of Alice in Wonderland. Babel 41. 2 (1995): 86-
109. Print.
Philip Morris Bible gets $12.8 mln in 1999. Tabacco.org, n.a., n.d., n. pag.
Web. 6 Aug. 2012
Pinker, Stephen. The Language Instinct: How the mind creates language.
New York: Harper Collins, 1994. Print.
Poesio, Massimo. Semantic Ambiguity and Perceived Ambiguity. Semantic
Ambiguity and Underspecification. Eds. Kees van Deemter and
Stanley Peters. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 1996. 159-201. Print.
Pullum, Geoffrey K. Menands Acumen Deserts Him. Language Log, 5
Oct. 2003. Web. 19 Aug. 2011
Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech, and J. Svartvik. A Comprehensive
Grammar of the English Language. New York: Longman, 1987.
Print.
Quiroga-Clare, Cecilia. Language ambiguity: A Curse and a Blessing.
Translation Journal 7. 1 (2003): n.pag. Web. 20 Sept. 2011.
Qvale, Per. Wordplay and Foul Play. Perspectives: Studies in
Translatology vol. 3 no. 2 (1995): 221-234. Print.
Raphaelson-West, Debra S. On the Feasibility and Strategies of Translating
Humor. Meta 34.1 (1989): 128-141. Print.
Raskin, Victor. Semantic Mechanisms of Humour. Dordrecht: D. Reidel
Publishing Company, 1985. Print.
Rodes, Robert E. Jr., and Howard Pospesel. Premises and Conclusions:
Symbolic Logic for Legal Analysis. Upper Saddle River, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall, 1997. Print.
Rozakis, Laurie E. The Complete Idiot's Guide to Grammar and Style.
Indianapolis, IN: Alpha, 2003. Print.
Saad, Ibrahim. Language and Choice for Learning/Translating English.
Translation Journal 7. 4 (Oct. 2003): n. pag. Web. 15 Aug. 2009.
Sacks, Harvey. On Some Puns: With Some Intimations. Report of the 32nd
Annual Round Table on Linguistics and Language Studies. ed. Kobin
Kendrick. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 1973. 135-
144. Print.
Sherzer, Joel. Oh! Thats a Pun and I Didnt Mean It. Semiotica. ed.
Thomas A. Sebeok. The Hague: Mouton Publishers, 1978. 335-349.
Print.
Shetter, William Z. British Left Waffles on Falklands: Why Do Some
Headlines Sound so Funny? La Salle University, 31 Aug. 2004. Web.
15 Aug 2012.
Slotkin, Joel L. More Supposedly Real Funny Sentences. Rec. Humor.
Really Funny Jokes. n. pag. Web. 6 Aug. 2012.
Smith, Neil, and Deirdre Wilson. Modern Linguistics: The Results of
Chomskys Revolution. London: Penguin Books, 1983. Print.
Solan, Lawrence. The Language of Judges. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1993. Print.
Tanaka, Keiko. The Pun in Advertising: A Pragmatic Approach. Lingua 87
(1992): 91-102. Print
Thomas, Jenny. Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics.
London: Longman, 1995. Print.
Thomas, Owen, and Eugene Kintgen. Transformational Grammar and the
Teacher of English. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.,
1974. Print.
Tolmach Lakoff, Robin. Lewis Carroll: Subversive Pragmaticist.
Pragmatics 3.4 (1993): 367-385. Print.
Ullmann, Stephen. Semantics: an Introduction to the Science of Meaning.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1962. Print.
Veisbergs, Andrejs. The Contextual Use of Idioms, Wordplay, and
Translation. Traductio. Essays on Punning and Translation. Ed.
Dirk Delabastita. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing, 1997. 155-176.
Print.
Ward, Raymond. Use Parallel Structure to Remove Ambiguity. The (New)
Legal Writer. TypePad, 21 Nov. 2011. Web. 19 Aug. 2012.
Warren, Beatrice. Ambiguity and Vagueness in Adjectives. Studia
Linguistica 42.2 (1988): 122-172. Print.
Wasow, Thomas. Postverbal Behavior. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI, 2002. Print.
Weissbrod, Rachel. Curioser and Curioser: Hebrew Translations of
Wordplay in Alices Adventures in Wonderland. Wordplay and
Translation. Ed. Dirk Delabastita. Namur: St. Jerome Publishing,
1996. 219-234. Print.
Weaver, Warren. Alice in Many Tongues. The Translations of Alice in
Wonderland. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1964.
Print.
Wheelwright, Philip. The Burning Fountain: a Study in the Language of
Symbolism. Gloucester, Mass.: Smith, 1982. Print.
Wilson, John. Language and the Pursuit of Truth. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1978. Print.
Winograd, Terry. Computer Software for Working with Language.
Scientific American 251.3 (1984): 230-245. Print.
Zwicky, Arnold. More Theory Trumping Practice. Language Log, 22 May
2008. Web. 19 Aug 2011.
Verbal Humour. Encyclopaedia Britannica Online. Encyclopdia
Britannica Inc., 2011. Web. 29 Aug. 2011.
Yet More Bush Quips. n.a., n.d. Web. 6 Aug. 2012.