The notion of deep structure can be especially helpful in explaining ambiguous utterances; e.g., "Flying airplanes can be dangerous" may have a deep structure, or meaning, like "Airplanes can be dangerous when they fly" or "To fly airplanes can be dangerous".
In fact, even when speakers produced syntactically ambiguous utterances in situations that supported both interpretations, eye-tracking data showed that 40% of the time addressees did not even consider the non-intended objects.
The first time the Koreans referred to potentially ambiguous objects, utterances took longer to initiate; once they were aware of the potential for ambiguity, initiating contrasting labels took no more time than initiating labels primed by the partner.
This was a strong constraint, and some incorrect alignments were rejected, but because there were so many ambiguous words among the utterances, such as 'here' and 'this', which had many possible corresponding gestures, it was not highly effective.
Thus, our best theory may determine an ambiguity that is never actually expressed by a sincere utterance of the ambiguous sentence.
There is no guarantee that every utterance of an ambiguous sentence will result in any unclarity regarding what was expressed or meant by the speaker.
Thus an utterance of 'the temple is holey' is ambiguous between two sentences, while an inscription in English is not.
Unlike an utterance of (9), an utterance of (10) is ambiguous.
When performing such tasks, verbal utterances are often accompanied by pointing because individual modalities are often ambiguous.
Her utterances, however, were unintelligible and needed to be interpreted by priests, who generally turned them into ambiguous prophecies.
