Group1-Ex2-b-Solutions: Difference between revisions

From Lexical Resource Semantics
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
Line 1: Line 1:
''We need more intelligent administrators.'' <br/>
''We need more intelligent administrators.'' <br/>
Here we have a case of structural ambiguity, i.e. the ambiguity arises on the sentence level. <br/>
There are two different ways how this sentence can be read:<br/>


Possibility 1: <br/>
Possibility 1: <br/>
We have enough administrators, but they are not bright enough and need to become more intelligent.<br/>
We have enough administrators, but they are not bright enough and need to become more intelligent.<br/>


Here, ''more'' is used as a comparative particle. So, ''more intelligent'' forms one constituent.
Here, ''more'' is used as a comparative particle. So, ''more intelligent'' forms one constituent.<br/>


Possibility 2:<br/>
Possibility 2:<br/>
We do not have enough administrators and need more administrators who are intelligent.<br/>
We do not have enough administrators and need more administrators who are intelligent.<br/>


In this case, ''more'' is used as a determiner. Thus, it combines with the phrase ''intelligent administrators''.
In this case, ''more'' is used as a determiner. Thus, it combines with the phrase ''intelligent administrators''.<br/>
 


[[NMTS-Group1#Exercise II|Back to the exercise]]
[[NMTS-Group1#Exercise II|Back to the exercise]]

Latest revision as of 15:29, 14 February 2013

We need more intelligent administrators.

Here we have a case of structural ambiguity, i.e. the ambiguity arises on the sentence level.
There are two different ways how this sentence can be read:

Possibility 1:
We have enough administrators, but they are not bright enough and need to become more intelligent.

Here, more is used as a comparative particle. So, more intelligent forms one constituent.

Possibility 2:
We do not have enough administrators and need more administrators who are intelligent.

In this case, more is used as a determiner. Thus, it combines with the phrase intelligent administrators.


Back to the exercise