English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The present paper considers three types of constructions where optional function words have been claimed to be used primarily for the purpose of avoiding a global or local attachment ambiguity. a) In the absence of the complementiser in  that -clauses, certain subject NPs might be (temporarily) misconstrued as direct objects of the superordinate verb. b) In the absence of the complementiser  that , certain adverbials might be (wrongly) assigned to the subordinate or the superordinate clause. c) In the absence of a relativiser, certain combinations of the antecedent NP and the relative clause subject might be (temporarily) misconstrued as forming a single NP. The paper uses two corpus-based testing procedures to refute these claims. (i) Analysing otherwise comparable ambiguity-free and ambiguity-prone structures in a)–c) we find that they involve similar rates of function word use. (ii) Moreover, it is shown that a variety of other ambiguity-free constructions, containing the same or other optional grammatical markers, display similar distributional profiles.

Ambiguity Avoidance by Means of Function Words in English? Providing Additional Corpus-based Counterevidence