This question has been parading
itself on Facebook for a while now like the madman in Achebe's The Madman,
looking for whom would do justice to it. Here is what I've got to say.
The statement, "A
mother beat up her daughter because she was drunk" is a clear case of
ambiguity. In English, ambiguity is a situation where a sentence can be
interpreted in more than one way. Ambiguous expressions, either caused by a
phrase or a word/lexical item, are always difficult to be given precise
meanings.
There are two types of
ambiguity:
1. Lexical ambiguity.
2. Structural ambiguity.
In lexical ambiguity, a
word, usually a polysemous word, will make a sentence to have more than one
meaning. For example, the word, "grace" in the sentence,
"Everyone needs grace to make it in life". This
sentence is ambiguous, (that is, it can be interpreted in more than one way)
because of the presence of the polysemous word, "grace". Is it that
everyone needs grace (as a person) to make it in life, or we
need the grace (of God) to make it in life? These are two
possible questions that will marry the mind of a reader who comes across such
sentence, and this will inarguably leave a reader in a state of confusion while
trying to ascertain the intended meaning of a writer.
Structural ambiguity
occurs when a phrase makes a sentence to have more than one possible meaning.
For example, the phrase, "the shooting of the robbers", in the
sentence, "The shooting of the robbers came as a shock", makes the
sentence ambiguous. Is it that the shooting (operation) which was done by the
robbers came as a shock, or the act of shooting the robbers came as a shock?
These are two possible ways one can interpret the sentence.
Let's now analyse our sentence of study:
"A Mother beat up her daughter because she was drunk."
The question is,
"who was drunk?". The truth of the matter is that no one can
precisely state or tell who was drunk between them because the sentence is
assigned with more than one interpretation. The ambiguity of this sentence is
caused by the lexical item, she, which is a pronoun. The speaker or
writer (of the sentence) assigned two antecedents, "a mother" and
"her daughter", to the pronoun, "she", without clearly
stating which of the antecedents the pronoun is referring to, thereby making it
difficult for the listener or reader to give a precise interpretation to the
sentence. So, while some would say that it was the mother who was drunk, others
would argue that it was the daughter who was drunk. We don't need to blame them
for the different interpretations because the sentence does not carry a precise meaning.
However, only the speaker
or writer of such sentence can state/give its actual meaning although that
doesn't disambiguate the sentence. But what happens in a case like this where
the speaker is unknown or can't be found to give the actual interpretation of
the sentence? In a case like this, one will only resort to disambiguating the
sentence in order to get a precise meaning. To disambiguate means to give a
precise or one interpretation to a sentence or construction which can be
interpreted in more than one way. The question now is, "how can one
disambiguate or give a precise interpretation to our sentence of study?"
HOW TO DISAMBIGUATE THE
SENTENCE, "A MOTHER BEAT UP HER DAUGHTER BECAUSE SHE WAS DRUNK."
We can disambiguate the
sentence by either of the following ways:
1. Inserting a more
definite noun phrase "the daughter" and deleting the pronoun
"she". So, the sentence should read:
"A mother beat up her
daughter because the daughter was drunk."
2. By inserting the
appositive phrase "the mother" after "she".
So, the sentence should read:
"A mother beat up her
daughter because she, the mother, was drunk".
3. Inserting the adjectives
(that are nominalised),"former" and "latter",
to refer to "mother" and "daughter"
respectively:
"A mother beat up her
daughter because the former was drunk." (In this case,
the mother is the one who was drunk)
or
"A mother beat up her
daughter because the latter was drunk. (In this case, it is her
daughter who was drunk).
In sum, ambiguous
sentences make it difficult for a reader or listener to understand a speaker's
intent. Therefore, for easy comprehension of a statement, a speaker should
avoid using ambiguous sentences.
Tags:
Tutorials
Tammy you are really doing a great job here... Keep up the good work man. I was just googling about some English articles and I found this blog. It's a great blog with a good design. A lot of work has been put in place. Well Done.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Charles! I'm glad you love what's happening here.
Deletethanks now I understand better.
ReplyDeleteThis sentence is intentionally made ambiguous. It should have been:
ReplyDeleteDrunk mother beats up daughter.
OR
Mother beats up drunk daughter.
Gotta disagree. Because there are two tenses here (was and beats), the mother is doing the beating now (beats) because the mother or daughter was at one point drunk (was). My read is that unless the mother is beating her daughter because the mother was at one point drunk (but isn't now), the mother is currently beating the daughter because the daughter was once drunk in the past. If you add two words for context at the end, the sentence makes sense:
ReplyDeleteA mother beats her daughter because she was drunk (at church)
The other possibility is along the lines of
A mother beats her daughter because she was drunk (at a PTA meeting and embarrassed herself and is taking it out on the daughter)
So my answer is that unless the mother is totally nuts, it's the daughter.
I often say that English is hard so we should try 123.
DeleteThe statement as ambiguous and incomplete. If it was a full text, you would understand who 'she' refers to.
Without a previous comment or a further explanation, we only have one piece and you cant solve a puzzle when u dont have all the pieces.
brings us back to the point of ambiguity
DeleteI think personal pronouns refer to the last used pronoun as a rule of thumb. So it is the daughter who was drunk.
ReplyDeletethat is good description. thanks lot
ReplyDeletethis thing actually got me puzzled.....femi
ReplyDeleteThis has really been helpful. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteIt is the mother that was drunk referring to the first pronounce 'A Mother' so the idea of beating her daughter came over her because she(mother) was drunk.
ReplyDeletewow, thank God for directing me here. you're doing a great job man. I just got a teaching job that's why I'm researching for the scheme of work and I've not only got what I wanted primarily but also gained other useful things. I'm bookmarking this site right now for regular consultation. Thanks alot
ReplyDeleteThank you, Ibrahim Opeyemi. You will never regret it. Always visit.
DeleteOh dear, so much violence in this. Beating people up is not my cup of tea at all. Whoever is beating anyone up really ought to calm down.
ReplyDeleteGood article. 10/10. :)
This one funny me die😂😂😂
DeleteMY dear I think you you're saying a different thing entirely, because all we need is to know who was drunk and not the other way, and i think I agree with the first write, because the pronoun "She" doesn’t specify either the mother nor the daughter was drunk.
ReplyDeleteLooking at it technically, a drunk person is supposed to be in a sober state where they are weak. Therefore, depending on the age of the daughter, the mother cannot beat up her daughter in a drunken mood. So, it was the daughter that was drunk. Secondly, the mother cannot beat her daughter because she (the mother) was drunk. Was the daughter the cause of her drunkenness? So, you see again why it was the daughter that was drunk and not the mother.
ReplyDeleteIn the statement making rounds on the internet, the word is 'beats' and not 'beat' as you analysed. From my own understanding the statement is therefore not ambiguous as you interpreted it to be. In this context it is the mother who is drunk. It is refering to why a mother would in any case beat up her daughter. Even though the statement is wrong (a mother could beat up her daughter for many reason and not just the one stated), the person being referred ro as 'drunk' is the mother.
ReplyDeletepersonally for me it's all in the placement of the word "because" as if that same word was placed in the beginning of the sentence it would have a different new meaning
ReplyDeleteA mother beats up her daughter because she herself was drunk.
ReplyDeleteA mother beats up her daughter, because she was drunk.
ReplyDeleteSo, The mother was drunk. Reason be that, the first pronoun "she" should refer to the mother who performed the action. If it were to refers to daughter, it will be pronoun "Her" I.e A mother beats up her daughter , because of her drunkenness.
Thank you
I see no problem with this text at all but of course I understand the katzenjammer. Point in case is that the subject "mother" is referred to by the first and only pronoun "she" in context. Zing!
ReplyDeleteThank you!
ReplyDelete