Expect: How to disambiguate dual meaning?

Question

There seems to be two different meanings of the word 'expect' in common spoken English.

For example, 'I expect you to tidy your room this evening'. This is like a demand, in that the person speaking is asking someone to do something, and almost treat it like an order.

The second meaning is in a sentence like 'I expect it's going to rain tomorrow'. This isn't an order, merely relating what they think will happen in the future.

I don't believe either of the above examples would be ambiguous to a native speaker due to context, but the sentence 'I expect not to hear from you again' would be.

Is there a way to disambiguate this last use?

Answer 1

The differences you mention correspond to the following definitions:

Expect verb
1 Regard (something) as likely to happen.
1.4 Require (someone) to fulfil an obligation. [with object and infinitive] ‘we expect employers to pay a reasonable salary’
- ODO

When an expectation is made of a person, it tends to be taken as a demand. When it is made regarding an event, it tends to be taken as an expression of likelihood.

Consider the following examples:

1. A: I expect you to pass this exam. B: Yes, Sir!
2. A: I expect that you will pass this exam. B: Thank you!

These follow the pattern described above: expect [person] implies a demand; expect [event] implies likelihood.

However, consider changing the second example's response to that of the first:

3. A: I expect that you will pass this exam. B: Yes, Sir!

The sentence that was treated as an expression of likelihood is now treated as a demand.

The attitude of the speaker, their general demeanour, and the context in general must all be taken into account. As (2) and (3) demonstrate, there is no simple test for disambiguation that works in all situations. However, the earlier comment regarding the difference between (1) and (2) provides a useful rule of thumb.

---

You ask about disambiguating the following, which I will number for convenience:

4. I expect not to hear from you again.

Consider the following similar sentences, coloured with a little context:

5. I was looking for you for so long. I expected not to hear from you again.
6. Explain yourself! I expected not to hear from you again.
7. He was poorly treated. I expect not to hear from him again. You should apologise anyway.
8. Tell him I was poorly treated. I expect not to hear from him again.
9. Tell him I was poorly treated, though I expect not to hear from him again.

The only difference in the sentence between (4) and (5) is the tense of expect. However, the context of (5) makes clear that the expectation was an expression of likelihood, not a demand. In (6), keeping the sentence from (5) but changing the context gives a different sense - that of a past demand, perhaps from a headmaster to a recalcitrant trouble-maker.

Between (4) and (7), the difference is you vs him, just a switch in pronouns. The context of (7) contains no hint of a demand (of him). It's purely situational. Changing just the context to that of (8) colours the sentence as part of a sequence of demands. However, if we replace the first full stop with though (9), the sense is reversed and it's no longer a demand.

We now return to (4). By idiomatic usage (though probably more BrE than AmE), the context this suggests is closest to that of (8); it's read as a demand. To read it otherwise would require something explicit in the context, but even the following sits awkwardly as purely an expression of likelihood:

10. She saw him board the boat headed for uncharted waters and whispered sadly, "So this is our final goodbye. I expect not to hear from you again."

Answer 2

Credit to @Janus Bahs Jacquet who posted the comment.

As far as ambiguity is concerned, context isn't everything: intonation and facial expression also play an important role in conveying exactly what we mean.

In written English, however, context is everything and it's easy for those who are writing to miss ambiguity in their own sentence. That's why it's always wiser not to get into a heated debate in writing.

As for an ambiguous sentence, it's always possible to rewrite it and make your meaning unambiguous. I would suggest the ambiguity to be disambiguated by separate and unrelated words. It's always possible to do that.

The following sentence, for instance, should be avoided: "was he driving on the right side of the road?" It can be rephrased and one can substitute "right or left side?" or "right or wrong side?" to avoid ambiguity.

A verb such as "expect" can easily be ambiguous in a sentence due to its not so different meanings.

• To consider likely or certain: "I expect to see them soon."
• To consider reasonable or due: "We expect an apology."
• To consider obligatory; require: "The school expects its pupils to be on time."
• To presume; suppose. (informal) TFD

"I expect not to hear from you again" or a similar sentence as "I expect not to see you here when I return", meaning just an expectation but not a command, would be better written as:

• "I don't expect to hear from you again"
• "I don't expect to see you here when I return".

but you can always omit "expect" alltogether:

• "I won't probably hear from you again"
• "I won't probably see you here when I return."
• "I don't think you'll be here when I return."

If you really want to convey a command, then you can leave it as it is:

• "I expect not to hear from you again."

or even make it sound a little contentious changing the word order as suggested by BoldBen in his comment:

• "I do not expect to hear from you again." (you can always underline "do not")

Answer 3

'I expect not to hear from you again' doesn't sound ambiguous to me. It sounds clearly like your 'I expect you to tidy your room this evening' case.

If one wanted it to sound less imperative, one could say

I expect I won't be hearing from you again.

This is actually ambiguous. It could mean "leave me alone forever" or "I will understand if you don't want to have any more contact with me." The context would make it clear, I think.

A non-ambiguous way of saying the latter would be

I suppose I won't be hearing from you again. I'm sorry about how things played out, but I understand.

However, the best way to convey that is not to say anything, and just let the person go his own way.