Republic of lraq

Imam AL- Kadhum College

For Islamic science ( l.k.C)

English Department.

Semantic Ambiguity in English and Arabic

Submitted by:
Ali Saleh

Supervised by:
Asst. Lect. Adnan Zidan

A research submitted to Imam Al-Kadhum College for Islamic

Science / English department in partial fulfilment of the
requirements for bachelor degree of education

1
 Dedications

Dedicated to my sister and parents,

Throughout my academic journey, your unwavering

support has been a constant source of strength. My
sister, your belief in me and our shared aspirations
have fuelled my determination. Your
encouragement has always pushed me to strive for
excellence.

Mom and Dad, your sacrifices and guidance have

shaped me into the person I am today. Your values
of hard work, integrity, and resilience have been
my guiding principles. This research stands as a
testament to the lessons you've taught me and the
opportunities you've provided.

I am grateful for the love, understanding, and

encouragement you've given me, even during the
challenging times. This achievement is a reflection
of our collective efforts and dedication.

Thank you for believing in me and standing by my

side throughout this journey.

2
 Acknowledgments

I would like to extend my sincere gratitude to

Imam Al-Kadhum College for providing an
enriching and supportive environment
throughout my academic journey. The
college's commitment to excellence in
education, has played a pivotal role in
shaping my educational experience.
The opportunities and learning experiences
offered by Imam Al-Kadhum College have
been invaluable in developing my skills and
knowledge. I am grateful for the dedication
of the faculty and staff that have guided and
supported me along the way.
Thank you, Imam Al-Kadhum College, for
fostering an atmosphere of learning, growth,
and community. Your contribution to my
education is deeply appreciated.

3
Table of Contents

Introduction

Chapter One: View on Ambiguity…………………………………………6

1.1: Ambiguity in English

1.2: Ambiguity in Arabic

1.3: Classifications of Ambiguity

1.4: Semantic Ambiguity

Chapter two: Semantic Ambiguity in English……………………….11

2.1: Lexical Ambiguity

2.1.1: Homonymy
2.1.2: Polysemy
2.1.3: Synonyms
2.2: Structural Ambiguity
2.2.1: Types of Structural Ambiguity

Chapter three: Semantic Ambiguity in Arabic ……………………17

3.1: Lexical ambiguity

3.1.1: Homonymy
3.2: Structural Ambiguity
3.2.1: Pro-drop Ambiguity
3.2.2: Word Order Ambiguity
3.2.3: Diacritic Ambiguity
3.2.4: Multifunctionality of Arabic Nouns
3.2.5: Category Ambiguity
Conclusion

4
 Introduction
The potential for misunderstandings in language arises from various
differences across different language levels. Ambiguity, as a semantic aspect,
poses challenges in communication and comprehension. Misunderstandings
often occur due to unclear expressions in both written and spoken
communication. Ambiguity refers to the presence of unclear meanings
expressed through words, signs, terms, symbols, phrases, or sentences,
allowing for multiple interpretations. This phenomenon is pervasive in all
languages and is considered a significant challenge.

In literature, whether in poetry, drama, or prose, ambiguity serves as an

inherent element within the constraints of language. Despite being a source of
confusion for readers and critics, ambiguity is recognized as a rhetorical
device in artistic writing, contributing to the distinctive features of literary
works. Linguistically, ambiguity is clearly identified in various branches of
linguistic studies. There are instances where the written or spoken content
diverges significantly from the intended meaning.

Common aspects leading to ambiguity include the phonological

segments of a word, lexical aspects, syntactic structures of word groups, and
contextual functions of words, phrases, and sentences. These aspects often
act as obstacles to effective communication and comprehension, complicating
the translation process. It's important to note that in many cases,
disambiguating meaning relies on context, making the dictionary definition of
a word insufficient.

Hence, the presence of ambiguous expressions is inevitable in both

linguistics and other language-related fields, as ambiguity is deemed an
integral aspect of language itself. While ambiguity can evoke wonder and
astonishment, it also introduces confusion and difficulties. Acknowledging and
understanding ambiguity is crucial for all language users. This paper intends
to dive into semantic ambiguity in English and Arabic, with a specific focus on
two key areas: lexical and structural ambiguity. The data for this term paper
will be sourced from literary works in English and Arabic, as well as various
websites. In summary, the study will be structured into three chapters: a
general view regarding ambiguity in chapter one, discussion of semantic
ambiguity aspects of English in chapter two, and semantic ambiguity in Arabic
in chapter three.

5
 Chapter One
View on Ambiguity

1.1. Ambiguity in English

In delving into the essence of ambiguity, it is imperative to provide a
clear definition for the term. According to the Oxford English Dictionary,
ambiguity is characterized by "wavering of opinion, hesitation, doubt,
uncertainty regarding one's course" or as something "doubtful, questionable,
indistinct, obscure, not clearly defined." Moreover, it is described as "capable
of being understood in two or more ways" and, finally, as something "admitting
more than one interpretation or explanation; of double meaning or several
possible meanings."

William Empson extensively explores the concept of ambiguity in his

book, "Seven Types of Ambiguity." where he points seven different types of
ambiguity, all present in the relationship between two or more meanings of an
ambiguous expression. Empson defines ambiguity as "any consequence of
language which adds some nuance to the direct statement of prose." In its
simplest form, ambiguity can be understood as "a word or sentence which has
more than one meaning." The confusion and uncertainty that often arise when
encountering an ambiguous word or expression result from a lack of
knowledge and background in language. Hence, the level of understanding is
contingent on an individual's familiarity with a specific word or expression. as
stated by Boulton (1990:47): ‘’ Saying what we mean is not as easy
as it sounds and that the meaning of most words is open to
doubt, depending on such things as knowledge, context,
association and background.’’

Ambiguity arises in language for various reasons, and overcoming it is

facilitated by personal knowledge and understanding of language-related
culture. The lack of familiarity with different levels of the English language can
contribute to ambiguity. This is particularly evident in many English words,
where a word may evoke associations beyond its literal meaning and can be
interpreted based on context rather than its strict definition. Furthermore, the
same word may carry different meanings depending on its position in a
sentence, leading to potential misunderstandings.

To mitigate such ambiguities, it is essential to have ample contextual

information and cultural background. This becomes crucial for non-native
speakers, as native speakers may more easily grasp the correct
interpretation. However, even native speakers face challenges due to vast
and intricate vocabularies that involve lexical variations of sense. These
variations serve as the core of ambiguity, representing a significant semantic
property. Semanticists argue that the meaning of an expression is often linked
to diverse language representations, with words expressing closely related
concepts and embodying subtle variations, particularly in cases of homonymy
6
and polysemy. Harmer (2002:18) argues that ’’The most problematic issue of
vocabulary, it would seem, is meaning. We know that table means a thing with
legs, which we can write on and eat off…, but, of course, this is not the end of the
story at all.’’
Our understanding of a word is typically based on its meaning, and we
aim to use that word in accordance with its intended meaning. However,
challenges arise when a word has multiple meanings, a phenomenon known
as polysemy. Harmer (2002:19) illustrates this by referencing the Cambridge
International Dictionary of English, which lists three primary meanings for the
word "table," along with various phrases where its meaning subtly differs. He
provides three examples of the word "table": you can eat of a table, you can
table a motion at conference and you can summarize information in a table
too. The distinct meanings of this polysemic word can only be disambiguated
by closely examining the context. Harmer emphasizes (2002:19) that "it is
understanding the meaning in context that allows us to say which meaning of the
word, in the particular instance, is being used".

Ambiguity can also emerge from the syntactic structure of an entire

sentence. The interplay between words, phrases, and clauses within a
sentence can introduce ambiguity. Chomsky's model of Deep Structure,
Surface Structure, and Semantic Interpretations (1977) presents a new
framework capable of elucidating ambiguous sentences. According to
Chomsky, a sentence comprises both superficial (surface) and logical (deep)
structures, as exemplified in his classic illustration: "Flying plane can be
dangerous."

Ambiguity in language is not solely attributed to the lexical variations of a

word or syntactic structure but also stems from the Phonological ambiguity
which refers to situations where the pronunciation or sound patterns of words
or phrases create uncertainty or confusion in their interpretation. This can
occur due to various factors such as homophones, homographs, or the
influence of suprasegmental features like stress and intonation. In
phonological ambiguity, different words or meanings may share similar or
identical sounds, leading to potential confusion in understanding spoken
language.

7
1.2. Ambiguity in Arabic
The Arabic language is distinguished by its clarity and extensive
vocabulary. It boasts numerous words that can interchangeably substitute
each other in various positions within a sentence to convey specific meanings.
While this abundance of alternative vocabularies facilitates clear
communication, there are instances of ambiguous expressions that manifest
at different levels of the language. Arabic dictionaries clarify that ambiguity
refer to something that is unclear. Al-gorgani (2001: 83) points out that
‘’Ambiguity encompasses two dimensions: aesthetic and linguistic. The aesthetic
implications pertain to works of art, while the linguistic implications revolve
around fundamental aspects of language, including sounds, words, and
sentences.’’

Despite this, native speakers of Arabic actively avoid employing

ambiguous expressions and prioritize simplicity and clarity in their
communication. According to Al-sewti (1992:369), explains that
"communication is the essential role of language, and this can be done only
through clear language without confusion and ambiguity". Consequently, the
Arabic language consistently veers away from ambiguity, and individuals
strive to express themselves as clearly as possible. Arab grammarians have
established rules within the language to ensure its clarity, with Alsewti
(1992:812) asserting that "the main function of parsing movements (in written
English Alharakat) is only as a system for disambiguating the language".
However, when discussing ambiguity in Arabic, it is essential to acknowledge
the vast array of rhetorical devices employed. These devices, as highlighted
by Alsewti, contribute to the richness of the language but also create
opportunities for multiple interpretations. This aspect further underscores the
notion that the Arabic language is a remarkable and miraculous language that
has fascinated intellectuals throughout history. In their study, Othman et al
(2003: 13) argue that ‘’ Arabic is a strongly structured and highly derivational
language. Comprehending Arabic addressing language components, including
morphology, syntax, and semantics. Each component requires extensive study
and exploitation of the associated linguistics characteristics.’’

Hence, the Arabic language is structured in a manner that introduces

challenges in comprehension. The difficulties in understanding do not solely
arise from sentence structure; they can also stem from the various
interpretations of a word or its metaphorical extensions. To address these
challenges, a thorough study and practical application are essential to
disambiguate certain aspects of ambiguity within the language.

Furthermore, syntactic ambiguity poses a significant challenge for

comprehensive grammatical frameworks that aim to cover various aspects of
natural language. The word order in Arabic sentences presents numerous
divisible problems that extend across all levels of analysis. Occasionally, a
sentence deviates from its standard order, making the meaning unclear until
the sentence is properly disambiguated. Othman et al (2003:32) illustrate
various reasons which make Arabic to be considered a challenging language
in the case of comprehension. He states that ‘’Understanding Arabic sentence
is a difficult, requiring task. The difficulty comes from different sources: the
length of the sentence and the complex Arabic syntax, the omission of diacritics
8
(vowels) in written English 'altashkilah', the free word order of Arabic sentence
and the existence of personal pronoun 'aldamiir almushtarak'(dual pronoun).’’

Concerning lexical ambiguity, Arab linguists make a distinction between the

literal indications of a word and its metaphorical extension meanings, referred
to as "Magaz." They elucidate the concept of 'almushtarak
allafdhi'(homonymy) regarding the metaphorical meaning as a linguistic
phenomenon in the language that gives rise to ambiguity. As Al-gorgani
(2001) defines 'almushtarak allafdhi' as "A signal word possesses several
primary meanings that are unrelated at the semantic level of the language". He
describes how the various meanings of a word have broadened over time and
become less clear or apparent.

He (2001) adds "This broadens the spectrum of the Arabic language, making it
highly rich in vocabulary. However, at times, our understanding may become
less comprehensive". This suggests that Arabic is abundant in vocabularies,
providing native speakers with the confidence to freely express themselves.
However, within this richness, ambiguity finds a space to exist.

1.3. Classification of Ambiguity

The concept of ambiguity is classified into two categories:

a) The intentional ambiguity that we find in literature which is used to widen
the avenues of our understanding and thinking beside the enjoyment that
could provide us with. The intentional type is a positive one that could be
considered as an enhancement for the components of language.

But we have to note too, that the intentional type of ambiguity can be used
pragmatically, like in politic, commerce and other fields or places, which might
be for a reason of benefit, especially in documentations` applications, that
could cause farther complications in the field of international affairs.
“Ambiguity is one of the commonest features of the English components”.
(Palmer, 1971:81)

b) The unintentional type of ambiguity causes misunderstanding in language

communication on many levels of listening, speaking and writing which will be
illustrated throughout this paper.

1.4. Semantic ambiguity

The likelihood exists that, upon the uttering/writing of a sentence, the

listener/reader might derive a different interpretation. In certain instances, the
interpretation of the speaker's intention can lead to ambiguity. Semantic
ambiguity is generated through the inclusion of an ambiguous word or phrase
within a sentence. According to Malmkjær (2002), all ambiguous words and
structures encompass more than one extension or extended meaning, each
containing significantly different phenomena. Rupert (1957), as cited in

9
Chapman and Routledge (2005), views ambiguity as the examination of
meaning. Aniya (2007) defines ambiguous expressions as words, phrases, or
sentences allowing two or more interpretations in a given context. Some
scholars perceive ambiguity as a text possessing obscure or double
meanings, making it challenging to comprehend. Additionally, Fromkin et al.
(2003) assert that a word, phrase, or sentence is deemed ambiguous only
when it can be understood or interpreted in multiple ways. Echoing the views
of the aforementioned scholars, Hurford and Heasly (1995: 121) state that a
word becomes ambiguous when it has more than one sense, and a sentence
is considered ambiguous if it has two or more paraphrases that are not
inherently paraphrases of one another. They further clarify that a sentence
exhibits ambiguity when it has two or more paraphrases that are not
essentially equivalent.

According to Fromkin and Rodman (2007), the presence of ambiguity is

a result of the arbitrary nature of language. Native speakers of a language can
easily identify ambiguous structures or words within the language. Giertz
(2005) further explores ambiguity by considering the relationships between
signs or words and their meanings. She notes that ambiguity operates on all
levels of language and can manifest through various forms, including
homonymy (words with different meanings but the same sound), homophony
(words that sound the same but have different meanings), homography
(words spelled the same but with different meanings), and polysemy (words
with multiple meanings). Therefore, the existence of ambiguity is often
contingent on the speaker/writer or the hearer/reader and the context in which
the language is used.

Aniya (2007) categorizes ambiguities into three types: syntactic,

semantic, and pragmatic ambiguities. Similarly Kristiina and Tanja (2012)
affirm that real semantic ambiguity is not limited to the lexical level but also
extends to the structural level. Whether examined from a semantic or
pragmatic perspective, ambiguity is commonly classified into two categories:
lexical and structural ambiguity. Poesio (1996), as noted in Kees and Peters
(1996), emphasizes that semantic ambiguity arises when there is a
misinterpretation of words or phrases within a sentence.

Although many linguists have categorized semantic ambiguity into

different types but it must be noted that there are two main groups of semantic
ambiguity are described as follows:

1. Lexical semantic ambiguity

2. Structural semantic ambiguity

10
 Chapter two

Semantic Ambiguity in English Language

2.1. Lexical Ambiguity

The concept of lexical ambiguity pertains to a word or phrase having

more than one meaning, which is a common occurrence in language. Many
nouns (e.g., suit, bed, bank), verbs (e.g., run, draw), and adjectives (e.g.,
cool, dry, fast) used in everyday speech exhibit lexical ambiguity, representing
instances where a single word encompasses multiple meanings. Traxler and
Gernsbacher (2006) observe that lexically ambiguous words possess multiple
meanings associated with a single orthographic form, facilitating the
exploration of various lexical meanings and roles. Lexical semantic ambiguity
specifically encompasses homonymy, polysemy and synonyms.

2.1.1. Homonymy
Homonymous words often contribute to ambiguity, as they share
identical spelling and/or pronunciation but differ in meaning. To comprehend
this ambiguity type, it is beneficial to categorize it into two sub-groups: full and
partial homonymy.

a) Fully homonymous words are not only identical in spelling but also in
pronunciation, yet they carry distinct meanings, as seen in examples like
"bank," "light," and "table." These words create ambiguity, and the following
examples illustrate how they lead to potential confusion.

1. John found his wallet near the bank.

2. Mary is wearing a light coat.
3. That table is not useful at all.

In the first sentence, the ambiguity arises from the word "bank," which
could denote both the financial institution and the land alongside a river.
Consequently, it is unclear whether John found his wallet near the building
where money transactions occur or by the riverbank. The second example
introduces ambiguity with the word "light." It could refer to the coat being light
in colour or light in weight. Consequently, the reader or listener is uncertain
whether Mary is wearing a coat with a bright hue or a coat that is not heavy.
The third sentence's ambiguity is rooted in the word "table," which could
signify a piece of furniture or a list written on paper. This leads to confusion
about whether the table mentioned is a piece of furniture or a written
document. These examples illustrate how homonymous words, sharing
spelling or pronunciation but having different meanings, introduce ambiguity in
language, challenging readers or listeners to discern the intended meaning
based on context.

11
 b) Partially homonymous words can also contribute to ambiguity, and
this occurs in two specific cases where words have different meanings but are
similar in spelling or pronunciation.

In the first case, there are homographs words, which have distinct
meanings but are identical in spelling and differ in pronunciation. Take, for
instance, the word "wind," which has different meanings depending on its
pronunciation: /wind/ and /waind/. Consider the following example: "Old men
wind hardly." In this instance, the word may be pronounced as /wind/
(referring to the ability to breathe) or as /waind/ (indicating twisting in a
particular manner).

In the second case, there are Homophones words, which have different
spellings but are identical in pronunciation. An example is the pair of words
"flower" and "flour," pronounced the same way. Consider the sentence: "She
put the flour into the water." In this case, since the pronunciation of "flour" is
the same as "flower," confusion may arise. A listener might interpret the word
in the sentence as either "flower" or "flour," leading to potential ambiguity.

2.1.2. Polysemy
Certain words possess multiple cognitive meanings, where each word
has a primary meaning and two or more secondary meanings, often arising as
metaphorical extensions of the primary meaning. This characteristic can lead
to ambiguity. Two examples are the verb "cry" and the auxiliary verb "may."

1. The boy was crying.

2. The student may leave the class.

In the sentence "The boy was crying," the verb "cry" is ambiguous, having two
meanings. It could refer to either weeping or shouting. Consequently, the
reader or listener is uncertain about whether the boy was in tears or if he was
expressing himself loudly.

In the second sentence, "The student may leave the class," the auxiliary
verb "may" introduces ambiguity with two possible interpretations. In one
sense, it indicates the possibility but not certainty that the student will leave
the class. In the second interpretation, it suggests that the student has the
teacher's permission to leave. The ambiguity in this example demonstrates
how a single word can convey different nuances, requiring context for a more
precise understanding of the intended meaning.

Fingan (2004) highlights the challenge of distinguishing between

homonymy and polysemy. According to Fromkin, Rodman, and Hyams
(2003), polysemy is defined as a single word with several closely related but
slightly different meanings. They argue that homonyms typically have distinct
entries in dictionaries. Petho (2014) adds that two or more lexemes, which
happen to be formally identical and are realized by the same word, are
considered homonyms. Furthermore, he notes that when a single word has
two or more meanings, it is termed polysemy. Petho illustrates the difference
between homonymy and polysemy as follows:

12
 Polysemy Homonymy
Meaning 1 Word1

Word Word form

Meaning 2 Word2

2.1.3. Synonymous

Lyons (1995 : 60 ) states that “expression with the same meaning is

synonymous."

Lyons' assertion that expressions with the same meaning are

synonymous highlights the richness of the English language, which benefits
from a vast array of words. While no two words have precisely identical
meanings, synonymous words provide diversity and flexibility in expression.

1. He is sitting on the sofa.

2. He is sitting on the couch.

In the examples above, "sofa" and "couch" are considered synonymous

because they convey a very similar meaning – both refer to a piece of
furniture for sitting or lounging.

The potential for ambiguity arises when a person is unfamiliar with the
meaning of one of the synonymous terms. In this case, if someone doesn't
know that "couch" means "sofa," there may be confusion in interpreting a
statement like "He is sitting on the couch."

However, it's crucial to note that despite their synonymous nature, these
words exhibit differences in pronunciation. This makes it clear, that only if the
meaning is similar could an expression be considered as synonym.

13
2.2. Structural Ambiguity in English

while lexical ambiguity results due to the presence of a word capable of

more than one interpretation in a given sentence, Structural ambiguity
according to (Ndimele, 1997) results from the way the whole sentence is
structured or the way a word or phrase is placed in relation to other words in a
sentence This takes place when a phrase or clause has more than one
underlying interpretation, So structural ambiguity doesn't result from a word
having multiple meanings; instead, it arises from the way words, phrases, and
clauses within a sentence are related. This typically occurs when a reader can
perceive the sentence as having more than one potential structure.

Notice the following examples:

1. The chicken is ready to eat.

2. Flying planes can be dangerous.

These are Chomsky's well-known examples involving subject/object

ambiguity, where each sentence can be understood in two ways: one on the
surface and the other at a deeper level. In the first sentence, one
interpretation suggests that the chicken is prepared to eat something, while
another suggests the chicken is ready to be eaten by someone. Similarly, the
second example offers two meanings. In the first interpretation, "flying" is a
verb with "planes" as its subject. In the second interpretation, "flying" functions
as an adjective, and "planes" is its head noun serving as the subject of the
sentence. Therefore, the sentence can be rephrased as follows:

a. It can be dangerous to fly by planes.

b. Planes which are flying can be dangerous.
this illustrates that structural ambiguity is not inherent in individual words
but resides in the potential relationships among the words within a sentence.
Additionally, numerous syntactic ambiguities emerge from the option of
alternative sentence structures. Such ambiguous sentences can be clarified
by considering different bracketing possibilities, as demonstrated in the
following examples:

1. The man saw the girl with a telescope.

a. The man saw (the girl) (with a telescope).
b. The man saw (the girl with a telescope).

2. We dislike fat men and women.

a. We dislike (fat (men and women)).
b. We dislike ((fat men) and women).

14
 In the initial example, the ambiguity arises from the possibility that either
the man possessed the telescope and used it to observe the girl, or it was the
girl who had the telescope with her. Similarly, in the second example, the
ambiguity lies in whether the dislike extends to both men and women who are
fat, or if it specifically pertains to only those men who are fat.

In English grammar, Nordquist (2015) says that structural ambiguity is

also called syntactic ambiguity or grammatical ambiguity since it is usually
caused by grammatical factors. For example, ‘’the man flogged the girl with a
stick’’ is structurally ambiguous, in the sense that, the sentence can be
interpreted in two ways:

1. the girl was holding a stick and the man flogged her;
2. the man used a stick to flog the girl.

He maintains that the intended meaning of a structural or syntactic

ambiguous sentence can sometimes be determined by its context.

Structural ambiguity commonly occurs in three cases. Grouping

ambiguity, Cross-reference ambiguity, and Scope ambiguity.

2.2.1. types of structural ambiguity

Grouping ambiguity: Grouping ambiguity occurs when there is uncertainty

about which word or phrase a modifier (such as an adjective or adverb) is
intended to modify within a sentence. This ambiguity can lead to different
interpretations based on how the modifier is attached to different elements.

"Happily, Ronald's boss asked to meet with Ronald after work." - This
sentence features an unclear, or ambiguous, modifier. Since the main clause
is talking about two people, Ronald and his boss, it is unclear, in this situation,
to whom the modifier "happily" applies. Is it a happy occurrence for Ronald, or
does "happily" describe his boss' manner when asking the question?

Cross-reference Ambiguity: Cross-reference ambiguity occurs when there

is uncertainty or confusion regarding the intended referent of a cross-
referencing element within a text. Cross-references are linguistic devices that
point to other parts of a document or text, such as pronouns, demonstratives,
or other referencing expressions. Ambiguity in cross-references can lead to
confusion about which element the reference is pointing to. Let's explore this
concept with examples:

"John told Mark that he should finish the report."

In this example, the pronoun "he" creates cross-reference ambiguity. It's

unclear whether "he" refers to John or Mark.

15
"The team presented their project to the committee, and it was well-received."

It's unclear whether "it" refers to the team, the project, or the act of
presentation.

Scope ambiguity: Scope ambiguity refers to a type of linguistic ambiguity

that arises when the interpretation of a sentence is uncertain due to multiple
possible scopes of a quantifier or an operator. The scope of a linguistic
element, such as a quantifier or an operator, is the range of elements over
which it has an effect. When the scope is ambiguous, different interpretations
of the sentence may emerge based on the varying ways in which the scope
can be assigned. Let's explore this concept with an example:

"Everyone loves someone."

In this sentence, there are two quantifiers: "everyone" and "someone." The
ambiguity arises from the uncertainty about the scope of each quantifier. The
sentence can be interpreted in two main ways:

Scope of "Everyone": The sentence could mean that there is an individual

whom everyone loves.

Scope of "Someone": Alternatively, the sentence could mean that for each
person, there is someone they individually love.

16
 Chapter Three
Semantic Ambiguity in Arabic Language
Arabic's semantic ambiguity may arise from the language's extensive
vocabulary, homonymy, and the subtle shifts in meaning that words can
undergo based on context. The absence of diacritics in many written forms of
Arabic further contributes to semantic ambiguity, as these markings play a
crucial role in distinguishing between different meanings of a word.

Navigating semantic ambiguity in Arabic requires a keen awareness of

context, cultural nuances, and the various layers of meaning that words can
carry. The language's historical and cultural depth often adds layers of
interpretation, making it essential for speakers, writers, and learners to
consider context carefully.

3.1. Lexical ambiguity

In Arabic, as in any language, lexical ambiguity refers to situations where
a word has multiple meanings or interpretations. Arabic, with its rich
vocabulary and context-dependent nature, can exhibit lexical ambiguity mainly
in homonymy.

3.1.1. Homonymy

(Al-Khuli 2001:141 , and Mansur 2009:1) define homonymy as a word or

a that has one articulation (or form) and more than one meaning. For
example, the word ‫ سن‬has one articulation whether it means age or tooth;
and ‫ دقیق‬which means flour, precise, and thin.

Homonyms in Arabic can be divided into the following types:

1- Homonymic words that have two meanings. For example;

‫( قدم‬part of body) or (unit of length).

Another example is ‫( لسان‬organ of body) and (language)

2- Homonymic words that have multiple meanings. Such words in Arabic are
‫ فصول‬that has the meanings (chapters of a book), (seasons of year),
(semesters in school), (acts of a play), etc.
Another example is the word ‫( عین‬hole in a needle), (eye of man),
(fountainhead), (spy), i.e., Homographs.

3- Homonymic words that have a relation in meaning. For instance, in Arabic,

the word ‫ ید‬may mean (part of body and power); and the word ‫ ذراع‬has the
meanings (organ in body and unit of measurement). This type is actually
known as polysemy in English.

17
4- Homonymic words that have no relation in meaning. The word ‫ قرن‬may
mean the (horns of an animal) or (a hundred years). The word ‫ وجد‬which has
no relation between its meanings that are (to detest someone) or (to know).

5- A unique kind of homonymy in which the pronunciation is the same while

the writing is different, i.e., homophony, is found in Arabic. Instances of this
type are ‫( یحیا‬to live) ‫( یحیى‬name of a person)

Homonymy is a controversial subject among Arab linguists. In one hand,

some linguists, such as Ibn Dorstoya, deny the existence of this phenomenon
as they claim that only one of its meanings is real (physical) and the rest are
metaphorical. For instance, the word ‫ وجد‬has several meanings like to find,
anger, to love, etc. They declare that “One may think this word has several
meanings but actually all these meaning are related to one thing.” On the
other hand, other linguists, like Al Kheleel bin Ahmed, Sibawayh, and Abu
Zeid, agree on its existence in the Arabic language.

The definition of homonymy in Arabic is similar to the definition of

polysemy in English, i.e. they are considered to be one. The difference
between them is that homonyms in Arabic may have a relation or no relation
in their meanings, while polysemy in English have a relation in meaning.
Hence, the two types of homonyms, i.e., those that have a relation in meaning
and those that do not, are not found in English.

18
3.2. Structural Ambiguity

As a linguistic phenomenon, structural ambiguity arises from the inherent

flexibility of Arabic syntax and the rich morphological features of the language.
This complexity adds layers of nuance to sentence structures, making it
possible for a single sequence of words to be parsed in different ways, each
resulting in a distinct interpretation.

The structural aspects contributing to ambiguity in Arabic include word

order flexibility, the pro-drop nature of the language, the absence of diacritics
in many written forms of Arabic, Category ambiguity and the multifunctionality
of Arabic nouns.

Understanding and navigating structural ambiguity in Arabic is crucial for

effective communication and precise interpretation. Scholars and learners of
Arabic grapple with the challenge of disambiguating sentences to extract the
intended meaning, emphasizing the importance of syntactic analysis and
context in deciphering complex linguistic structures. The study of structural
ambiguity not only enhances linguistic proficiency but also sheds light on the
unique features of Arabic syntax and the intricate interplay between form and
meaning in the language.

3.2.1. Pro-drop Ambiguity

The pro-drop nature of the Arabic language contributes significantly to

ambiguity. According to the pro-drop theory (Baptista, 1995; Chomsky, 1981),
Arabic allows for a null category (pro) in the subject position of a finite clause,
provided that the verb's agreement features are robust enough for content
recovery. Arabic exhibits rich agreement morphology, with verbs conjugating
for number, gender, and person, facilitating the reconstruction of the omitted
subject. However, syntactic parsers face the challenge of determining the
presence of an omitted pronoun in the subject position (Chalabi, 2004b).

The ambiguity arises from the fact that many Arabic verbs can function
as both transitive and intransitive. When these verbs are followed by a single
noun phrase (NP), uncertainty emerges. For instance, in the example "‫قاوم‬
‫"( "الجندي‬resisted the soldier"), it is unclear whether the NP following the verb
is the subject (implying "The soldier resisted") or the object, with the subject
represented by an elliptic pronoun like "he" understood through the masculine
mark on the verb (resulting in "He resisted the soldier"). This ambiguity stems
from the pro-drop potential of Arabic verbs, the transitivity flexibility of the verb
"‫"( "قاوم‬resisted"), and the agreement features on the verb aligning with the
post-verbal NP, making it eligible to be the subject.

3.2.2. Word Order Ambiguity

The flexible word order in Arabic introduces considerable confusion in
sentence structure. Arabic sentences can be organized in three main ways:
Verb + Subject + Object (VSO): ‫ضرب عيسى موسى‬
Verb + Object + Subject (VOS): ‫ضرب موسى عيسى‬
Subject + Verb + Object (SVO): ‫عيسى ضرب موسى‬

19
 While SVO structures are easily understood by parsers, VOS often gets
mixed up with VSO. The differentiation between the nominative and
accusative cases, which typically clarifies subject and object roles, relies on
diacritics, often left out in modern writing. Consequently, every VSO sentence
has a potential VOS interpretation, leading to significant ambiguity issues.
Permitting VOS alongside VSO without grammatical constraints in Arabic
increases the number of ambiguities.

3.2.3. Diacritic Ambiguity

The term "‫( "التشكيل‬āltāshkyl), meaning 'forming,' along with "‫"الحركات‬
(ālhārākāt), which translates to 'motions,' function as phonetic guides in
Arabic. The latter specifically denotes short vowel marks. There's some
uncertainty about which ‫ التشكيل‬also serves as ‫الحركات‬. The diacritic marks
in Arabic, ‫الحركات‬, encompass:

In Arabic, words often have diverse pronunciations due to the absence

of diacritics. These varying pronunciations distinguish between active and
passive forms of nouns and verbs, as well as imperative and declarative
forms. Some verb forms may double the middle letter to convey causative
verbs, though this isn't reflected in writing. Moreover, certain agreement
morphemes on verbs introduce ambiguity, allowing for the selection of various
gender and person features.
before ‫َقْبَل‬
kiss ‫َقَبل‬
accept ‫َقِبل‬
kisses ‫ُقبل‬

An example of Diacritic Ambiguity

20
3.2.4. Multifunctionality of Arabic Nouns

Arabic nouns are characterized by their multifunctionality, deriving from

verbs and capable of taking on verbal functions within sentences. They can
also serve as prepositions, adverbs, adjectives, or quantifiers. Understanding
Arabic word categories has been complicated by historical ambiguities that
have persisted for over a millennium.

In the late 8th century, Ibn Sibawaih introduced a foundational

classification of Arabic parts of speech that remains influential to this day. This
classification categorizes words into nouns (‫)أسماء‬, verbs (‫)أفعال‬, and
particles (‫)حروف‬. While verbs are easily identified by their representation of
action and tense, particles are distinguished by their fixed form and lack of
derivational aspects. Nouns present a more complex challenge due to their
ability to encompass various subtypes.

Wright(2005) further elaborated on this complexity by classifying nouns

into six types: noun substantives ( ‫)أسماء مشتقة‬, adjectives (‫)صفات‬, numeral
adjectives (‫)صفات العدد‬, demonstrative pronouns (‫)ضمائر توكيد‬, relative
pronouns (‫)ضمائر نسبة‬, and personal pronouns (‫)ضمائر شخص‬. Additionally,
propositions (‫ )حروف الجر‬are divided into two categories: true propositions
such as [ālā] (‫ )على‬and [fy] (‫)في‬, and prepositions derived from nouns that
take the accusative case (‫)مشتقات األسماء المنصوبة‬, considered adverbs by
traditional Arabic grammarians, like [byn] (‫ )بين‬and [tht] (‫)تحت‬.

True adverbs such as [fqt] (‫ )فقط‬and [hnā] (‫)هنا‬, as well as nouns that
take the accusative case and function as adverbs, like [kthyrān] (‫ )كثيرًا‬and
[mjānān] (‫)مجانًا‬, further demonstrate the adaptability of Arabic nouns. This
adaptability leads to a variety of alternative possibilities and, consequently,
increases ambiguity levels in sentences.

In summary, Arabic nouns are complex and versatile, presenting

challenges for learners and scholars alike. Their multifunctionality enriches
the language but also requires a deeper understanding to use them
effectively.

3.2.5 Category ambiguity

The simplest type of lexical ambiguity is that of category ambiguity: a given

word could be assigned to more than one grammatical or syntactic category
(e.g. noun, verb or adjective) according to the context. There are several
examples in English: light can be a noun, verb or adjective, also, control can
be a noun or verb. In Arabic some words can be in more than one category,
for example: [ a̛ly]‫ على‬could be a preposition with the meaning of "on", or a
verb with the meaning of "raise".

21
 Conclusion

Both English and Arabic, as any other language, seek for clarity as well
as they deviate from ambiguity in order to achieve the significance of
language, which is meant for communication. However, still there are
confusion and doubt, which can be noticed on semantics and syntax.
Therefore, through this study, these aspects of linguistic ambiguity are seen in
both English and Arabic. It is revealed that both these two languages view
ambiguity as a problem that appears at various levels.

Ambiguity has a vital role in the language use among the individuals
from the same community. And it has a serious consequence in the
intercultural communication. Ambiguity is unavoidable, English language and
Arabic language share lexical and grammatical ambiguity. As stated in the
previous chapters, lexical ambiguity in both languages is created because of
the multiplicity of meaning of an English word like light and Arabic word like (
‫) قدم‬. In fact, this type of ambiguity is considered one of the common obscure
aspects in language. Whereas, the diacritic ambiguity exists only in the Arabic
language. Still, as it is explored that a sentence may have two interpretations,
both Flying planes can be dangerous in English and (‫ )قتل اخي صديقي‬in
Arabic are ambiguous. Thus, one can say that both English and Arabic
ambiguity are somehow similar.

It can be seen, therefore, ambiguity has existed in natural language as a

linguistic phenomenon that is regarded as an illustration of language
complexity. A well-developed knowledge of syntax and semantic for learners
would definitely play an exceptional role in the disambiguation of ambiguous
phrases, utterances, and sentences. Furthermore, most ambiguities escape
our notice because of our lack of knowledge of the world and using context at
resolving them. However, one can conclude that it is greatly preferred to avoid
any confusion in language in order to achieve a successful spoken or written
communication.

22
 References
Alkhuli, M.(1999). Comparative Linguistic: English and Arabic. Gordan: Alfalah
House.

Aniya, Sosei. 2007. Integrated ambiguity analysis model: Detection,

representation and optional meaning selection. Japan: Hiroshima University.

Baptista, Marlyse. (1995). On the Nature of Prodrop in Capeverdean Creole.

Harvard Working Papers in Linguistics 5:317.

Boulton, M. (1990). The Anatomy of Language. New Delhi: Kalyani Publisher.

Chalabi, Achraf. (2000). MT-Based Transparent Arabization of the Internet

TARJIM.COM. In Envisioning Machine Translation in the Information Future,
4th Conference of the Association for machine Translation in the Americas,
AMTA 2000, Cuernavaca, Mexico, ed. John S. White, 189- 191. Berlin:
Springer.

Cruse, A. (2000). Meaning in Language. New York: Oxford U. Press.

Empson, William. 1977. Seven types of ambiguity, 3rd ed. London: Chatte
and Windus.

Finegan, E. 2004. Language: Its structure and use, 4th ed. Boston: Thomson
Wadsworth.

Fromkin, V. & Rodman, R. 2007. An introduction to Language, 9th ed. Los

Angeles: University of California.

Fromkin, V., Rodman R., and Hyams N. 2003. An introduction to Language,

7th ed. Boston: Thomson Wadsworth.

Giertz, Irian. 2005. Lexical relations – Lexical ambiguity . Cologne: University

of – Institute für Englische Philogie.

Gorrell, P. (2006). Syntax and Parsing. New York: Cambridge U. Press.

Harmer, J. (2002). The Practice of English Language Teaching. London:

Cambridge U. Press.

Hamza Al-Harbi. (2016). The role of ambiguity in Arabic Language; Vol.3,

Issue 06.

Hockett, C. (1960). The origin of speech. Scientific American, 203, 88–96.

23
Hurford, J. & Heasly, B. 1995. Semantics: A course book. London: Cambridge
University Press.

Pinker, S., & Bloom, P. (1990). Natural language and natural selection.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 13, 707–784.

Kees, Deemter & Peters, Stanley. 1996. Semantic ambiguity and

underspecification. California: Standford University Press, USA.

Kristiina, M. & TanỊa, P. 2012. Detecting semantic ambiguity alternative

readings in treebanks. Helsinki: University of Helsinki.

Malmkjær, K. 2002. The Linguistics encyclopaedia. London: Routledge.

Ndimele, Ozo-Mekuri. 1997. Semantics: The frontiers of communication.
Portharcourt: University of Portharcourt Press Limited.

Nordquist, Richard. 2015. Glossary of grammatical and rhetorical terms:

Grammar and composition. about.com/od/rs/g/syntactic ambiguity term.htm

Palmer, F.R. (1996). Semantics. London: Cambridge U. Press.

Petho, G.193.6.132.72/honlap/what is polysemy? Retrieved, 2014.

Poesio, Massimo. 1996. Semantic ambiguity and perceived ambiguity.

Edinburgh:

Richards, J. & Schmidt, R. 2002. Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching

and Applied Linguistics. (third edition). England: Pearson Education Ltd.

Stageberg, N. C. (1981) Introductory English Grammar. (Fourth Edition) New

York. London: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.

Thakur, D. (2003). Linguistic Simplified Semantics. India: Bharati Bhawan.

Traxler, Matthew & Gernsbacher, Morton. 2006. Handbook of

psycholinguistics, 2nd ed. Davis & Madison: University of California &
Wisconsin Press, USA.

Ulman, S. (1962) Semantic: An Introduction to the Science of meaning.

Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. University of Edinburgh.

Yule, G. (1996) The study of Language. ( Fourth Edition) Cambridge:

Cambridge Un

Yule, G. (2006). The Study of Language. London: Cambridge U. Press.

24