Scholarly record
AMBIGUITY: MANIPULATIVE OR CONSTRUCTIVE?
Abstract
The problem addressed in the article is ambiguity and its subtypes. Depending on the intention of employing ambiguity in different types of discourse, one can identify several subtypes of ambiguity – strategic, constructive, destructive and manipulative. Broadly speaking, any kind of intended ambiguity can be considered manipulative since the speaker when generating an utterance aims at achieving a particular goal or effect. Strategic ambiguity can be defined as a deliberate choice of words or language structures allowing the freedom to alter interpretations, which, however, may produce a positive effect. Manipulative ambiguity is aimed at gaining control or achieving a goal, which is not morally right or otherwise correct. By opting for an ambiguous word or an ambiguous communicative strategy, the speaker diverts the recipient’s attention from the true meaning of a statement. Manipulative ambiguity is associated with a number of related concepts – doublespeak, newspeak and unspeak, which are widely used in political, diplomatic and media discourse. All strategies and techniques of achieving intended ambiguity create an opportunity for manipulating public opinion since they provide several reference points. The multiplicity of reference points for the formation of a judgment creates conditions for generating ambiguity.
Publication Impact Profile
Publication details
References15
Apresjan Yu. Leksicheskaia Semantika: Sinonimicheskie Sredstva Jazika, Russia, Moscow: Nauka, Russia, p.366, 1974.
Cruse D. Lexical Semantics. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, US, p 325, 1986.
Fodor J. Concepts: Where cognitive science went wrong. New York, NY, US: Clarendon Press/Oxford University Press, 174 p., 1998.
Hodges A. How fake news lost its meaning, Anthropology News, URL https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/DOI: 10.1111/AN.880
Kilgariff A. I do not believe in word senses, Polysemy: Flexible Patterns of Meaning in Mind and Language, US, pp. 361-392, 2011.
Lakoff G. A note on vagueness and ambiguity. Linguistic Inquiry, MIT journals, US, issue 1, pp. 357–359, 1970.
Nunberg G. Transfers of Meaning, Journal of Semantics vol.12, pp. 10–32, 1995.
Poole S. Unspeak, London:Little, Brown, UK, 282 p., 2006.
Quiroga C. Language ambiguity: a curse and a blessing, Translation Journal vol.7/issue 1, pp. 57-61, 2003.
Pym A., Hu B. Constructive ambiguity in foreign-affairs translation. The case of “One China”, URL http://usuaris.tinet.cat/apym/online/translation/2018_trust_hubris.pdf, 2018.
Saka P. How to think about meaning, Dordrecht, Springer, 279 p., 2007.
Tuggy D., Ambiguity, polysemy and vagueness, Cognitive Linguistics, vol.4/issue 3, pp. 273-290, 1993.
Zabotkina V.I., Boyarskaya E.L. РЎonceptual foundation of event-referential ambiguity SGEM International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conference on Social sciences and Arts, vol. 5. в„– 3.6. pp. 143-148, 2018.
Zalizniak A. The phenomenon of polysemy and ways to describe it, Cognitive Basis of Polysemy, Metalinguistica, vol. 19, pp. 93-97, 2007.
Zwicky A. and Sadock J. Ambiguity tests and how to fail them, Syntax and Semantics, Kimball (ed.), New York: Academic Press, pp.1–36, 1975.
View or Download full articleAccess options
SWS access login
Login as SWS Scientific CommitteeLogin as SWS Scientific PartnerLogin as SWS AuthorAuthors and approved SWS contributors will read and export their own linked papers after identity matching by SWS profile, email and SGEM GlobalID.
For librarian assistance: [email protected]
Purchase Instant Access
- Article can be downloaded after successful payment.
- Article may be used according to SWS library access terms.
- Article cannot be redistributed.