{"id":4597,"date":"2021-10-15T16:08:13","date_gmt":"2021-10-15T14:08:13","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/?p=4597"},"modified":"2025-03-28T07:33:56","modified_gmt":"2025-03-28T06:33:56","slug":"ambiguity","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/ambiguity\/","title":{"rendered":"Ambiguity"},"content":{"rendered":"

AMBIGUITY<\/strong><\/span><\/h1>\n

The words ambiguity<\/em> (N), ambiguous<\/em> (Adj) come from the Latin verb ambigere<\/em>, \u201cto discuss, to be in controversy\u201d: qui ambigunt<\/em> \u2018those engaged in a discussion\u2019 (Cic. Fin<\/em>. 2,4)\u201d (Gaffiot, Ambigo<\/em>). To refer to the issue, to the point on which the partners disagree, Cicero uses the expression \u201cillud ipsum de quo ambiguebatur<\/em>\u201d, \u201cprecisely that – on which – [they] disagree\u201d (ibid<\/em>.).
\nAmbiguitas<\/em> means \u00ab\u00a0doubt\u00a0\u00bb; the answers given by the Oracles were ambiguous<\/em> in this sense.
\nThe word amphiboly<\/em> is sometimes used in discussing the Aristotelian fallacy of ambiguity. It adapts a Greek word [amphibology<\/em>] composed of amphi-<\/em> \u00ab\u00a0on both sides\u201d; bolos<\/em> \u201cthrowing on all sides\u201d; logos<\/em>, \u00ab\u00a0word\u201d, and means \u201chaving a double meaning, ambiguous. Literally, an amphiboly<\/em> is an \u201cexplosion of meaning\u201d.<\/p>\n

The word ambiguity<\/em> can be used to refer to three fallacies \u201cdependent on language\u201d, homonymy<\/em>, amphiboly<\/em>, and accent<\/em>. These fallacies are defined as violations of the rule of syllogism<\/a> or of dialectical reasoning, which requires that language be unambiguous, see Dialectic<\/a>; Fallacies (2): Aristotle basic list.<\/a><\/p>\n

Problems of ambiguity arise at the level of words<\/em> (homonymy, accent), at the level of sentences (syntactic ambiguity), or at the level of discourse<\/em>. Such problems are combined with the fact that non<\/em>-ambiguous sentences may have multiple layers of meaning, see Presupposition<\/a>; Words as Arguments<\/a>.<\/p>\n

1. Syntactic ambiguity<\/span><\/h1>\n

Sentence ambiguity, discussed by Aristotle from the perspective of a grammar of argumentation, is now seen as a syntactic problem. The famous Chomskyan ambiguous statement \u201cflying airplanes can be dangerous<\/em>\u201d can be paraphrased as:<\/p>\n

Under some circumstances, flying airplanes<\/em> is a dangerous activity<\/span>
\nAirlanes<\/em> are dangerous when they fly.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

These paraphrases are not equivalent. The no less famous statement \u201cThe teacher says the principal is an ass<\/em>\u201d is syntactically ambiguous, it allows for two syntactic structures whose difference is marked by intonation or punctuation:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe teacher,<\/em>\u201d says the principal, \u201cis a donkey<\/em>\u201d<\/span>
\nThe teacher says: \u201cThe principal is a donkey<\/em>\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n

Ambiguity is sometimes an artifact of decontextualization, produced for the sake of grammatical or logical theory. In practice, the addition of a sufficient amount of left and right context is sufficient to clarify the intended meaning, as shown by the re-contextualization of the sentence \u201cWe saw her duck<\/em>\u201d (Wikipedia, Ambiguity<\/em>), which is four times ambiguous when decontextualized:<\/p>\n

We saw her duck swimming in the pool
\n<\/em>We saw her duck picking up something on the floor
\n<\/em>We do not have a knife, so we saw her duck
\n<\/em>She is a clever bridge player, so we saw her duck<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

Serious ambiguity occurs when the context does not disambiguate the sentence. The reduction of ambiguity to univocity is no less important for the interpretation<\/a> of texts, sacred and otherwise, than it is for logic. In De Doctrina Christiana<\/em>, St Augustine gives a rule to be applied when trying to interpret religious texts:<\/p>\n

But when proper words make Scripture ambiguous, we must see in the first place that there is nothing wrong in our punctuation or pronunciation. Accordingly, if, when attention is given to the passage, it shall appear to be uncertain in what way it ought to be punctuated or pronounced, let the reader consult the rule of faith which he has gathered from the plainer passages of Scripture, and from the authority of the Church<\/span><\/em>.<\/span><\/span>
\nAugustine, [397] On Christian Doctrine, in Four Books<\/em>, (our emphasis)[1]<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

The rule of interpretation in the highlighted passage appeals to the consistency<\/a> of the field of theological argument. It applies to the interpretation of the first verse of the first chapter of the Gospel of John, the Genesis<\/em>. Nothing less than the very concept of God is at stake. It must be shown that the correct \u201cpunctuation\u201d, that is the correct reading of this verse, is consistent with the orthodox conception of the Trinity, which affirms the divine identity and equality of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The reading that ascribes a syntax of coordination to the utterance results in the denial the identity of the Word, that is the Holy Spirit, with God; it must therefore be considered heretical and rejected as such.<\/p>\n

3.<\/strong> Now look at some examples. The heretical pointing, \u00ab\u00a0In principio erat verbum, et verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat<\/em>\u00a0\u00bb (In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with
\nGod, and God was), so as to make the next sentence run, \u00ab\u00a0Verbum hoc erat in principio apud <\/em>Deum<\/em>\u00a0\u00bb (This word was in the beginning with God), arises out of unwillingness to confess that the Word was God. But this must be rejected by the rule of faith, which, in reference to the equality of the Trinity, directs us to say: \u00ab\u00a0et Deus erat verbum<\/em>\u00a0\u00bb (and the Word was God); and then to add: \u00ab\u00a0hoc erat in principio apud Deum<\/em>\u00a0\u00bb (the same was in the beginning with God). (Id<\/em>., Chap. II, 3)<\/span><\/p>\n

The disputed passage is a sentence taken from the Sacred Text: \u00ab\u00a0et verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat\u00a0\u00bb (\u00ab\u00a0<\/em>the Word was with God1<\/sub> and God was\u00a0\u00bb). <\/span>I can’t and don’t want to touch the theological discussion. I risk the following bracketing, and leave the last word to the wise.<\/p>\n

Orthodox bracketing<\/strong> \u2013 For Augustine, the orthodox punctuation and construction of the verse is: \u00ab\u00a0In principio erat verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum<\/em>.\u00a0\u00bb
\n(Biblia Sacra<\/em>\u2026Parisiis, Letouzey et An\u00e9, 1887).<\/p>\n

{<\/strong><\/span>The Word [<\/strong><\/span>was with God]<\/strong> <\/span>and [<\/span><\/strong>was God]<\/span>}<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The argument is not grammatical, but drawn, as indicated above, \u00ab\u00a0<\/em>from the plainer passages of Scripture, and from the authority of the Church.\u201d<\/p>\n

Heretical bracketing:<\/strong><\/p>\n

{<\/span>[<\/span><\/strong>the Word was with God<\/span>]<\/strong><\/span> and [<\/strong><\/span>was God<\/span>]<\/span>}<\/span>\u00a0<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Disambiguation is the foundational operation for the vast and important domain of interpretive argumentation.<\/p>\n

2. Word ambiguity: homonymy, polysemy<\/span><\/h1>\n

Two words are homonymous when they have the same signifier (the same spelling (homographs), the same pronunciation (homophones) or both), but completely different meanings. Homonymous words are listed as separate entries in the dictionary:<\/p>\n

Mine<\/em>: \u201cthat which belongs to me.\u201d (MW, Mine<\/em>)<\/span>
\nMine<\/em>: \u201ca pit or excavation in the earth from which mineral substances are taken\u201d (ibid<\/em>.).<\/span><\/p>\n

Polysemous<\/em> words are semantic particularizations or acceptances of the same signifier within the same grammatical category. In the dictionary, they are listed under the same entry, and correspond to the first subdivision of meaning:<\/p>\n

Mine,<\/strong> noun<\/span>
\n1 a<\/strong>: a pit or excavation in the earth from which mineral substances are taken. b<\/strong>: an ore deposit.<\/span>
\n2<\/strong>: a subterranean passage under an enemy position.<\/span>
\n3<\/strong>: an encased explosive that is placed in the ground or in water and set to explode when disturbed.<\/span>
\n4<\/strong>: a rich source of supply (id.<\/em>)<\/span><\/p>\n

When two different series of derived words come from the same root word, that word is in the process of splitting into two homonyms. This is the case of the three series derived from the word argument<\/em>, see To Argue<\/em>, Argument<\/em><\/a>.<\/p>\n

2.1 Paralogism and Sophism of Homonymy<\/span><\/h2>\n

A syllogism is fallacious by homonymy when it articulates not three but four terms, one of which is taken in two different senses, see Paralogism<\/a>.<\/p>\n

In the Euthydemus<\/em>, Plato provides an example of sophisticated practice using a very special kind of homonymy. The sophist Euthydemus, the eponymous character of this dialogue, asks Clinias, \u201cWho are the men who learn, the wise or the ignorant?\u00a0\u00bb (Euth<\/em>., 275d; p. 712). Poor Clinias blushes and replies that \u201cthe wise are the learners\u201d; and six turns of speech later, he must agree that \u00ab\u00a0it is the ignorant who learn\u00a0\u00bb (<\/span>Euth.,<\/em> 276a – b; p. 713). The young Clinias is quite stunned, and Euthydemus\u2019 followers \u201cbroke into applause and laughter\u201d (ibid<\/em>.). Such sophisms are not intended to deceive their victims, but to destabilize their naive certainties about the language. Through this salutary shock, the public becomes aware of the opacity and the proper form of language, S. Persuasion<\/a>; Sophism<\/a>. As Socrates later explains, \u201cthe same word is applied to opposite\u2028 sorts of men, to both the man who knows and to the man who does not\u201d (id<\/em>., 278a, p. 715).<\/p>\n

In general, the subject and object of a verb are not interchangeable; the situation in which \u201cA<\/strong> loves B<\/strong>\u201d is different from the situation in which \u201cB<\/strong> loves A<\/strong>\u201d. To learn<\/em>, to be the host of<\/em>, to rent<\/em> are examples of this property:<\/p>\n

to rent<\/strong> 1. pay someone for the use of (something, typically property, land, or a car). 2. (of an owner) allow someone to use (something) in return for payment. (MW, Rent<\/em>)<\/span><\/p>\n

2.2 Homonyms and Polysemy<\/span><\/h2>\n

The polysemy of words is considered a major source of confusion. Scientific language prohibits both polysemy and homonymy, and requires the use of unambiguous, well-defined terms stabilized in their meaning and syntax, in a given scientific field. Homonymy between a scientific term and a common word is harmless. In physics, the use of the word charm<\/em> to refer to a particle, the charm quark<\/em> creates no ambiguity.<\/p>\n

In a natural language argument, the meaning of terms is constructed and recomposed in the course of the discourse, see Object of discourse<\/a>. The meaning of a word used by the same speaker may change from one stage of the argument to the next. This results from a variety of mechanisms, such as the use of homonymous or closely similar words, or the use of a word in both its literal and figurative senses in the same discourse. For example, when discussing the credit<\/em> to be given to a person, there may be a, subtle shift between \u00ab\u00a0determining the amount of a loan\u00a0\u00bb <\/em>and \u00ab\u00a0trusting\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> that person. In German, the economic discussion of financial debt<\/em> seems to remain linked to the discussion of moral guilt<\/em>, the same signifier, Schuld<\/em>, has these two meanings. (Reverso, Schuld<\/em>).<\/p>\n

Homonymy and polysemy can be readjusted by the operation of distinguo<\/em><\/a>.<\/p>\n

3. \u201cAccent\u201d: stress and paronomasia<\/span><\/h2>\n

In a language where word stress is linguistically relevant, shifting the stress from one syllable to another can change the meaning of the word, for example in Spanish (my underlining):<\/p>\n

Hac\u00ed<\/u>a<\/em>: stress on the second syllable, 1st pers. sing of the verb hacer, \u00ab\u00a0I did\u201d.<\/span>
\nHa<\/u>cia<\/em>: stress on the first syllable, means \u201cto, towards\u201d, preposition.<\/span><\/p>\n

The words seem to be the same, except for the accent<\/em> (oral and written), but they are actually two different words. Much like the fallacy of homonymy which shifts the meaning of a single signifier, the fallacy of accent also shifts the meaning of the word through a minimal but crucial suprasegmental change. This process occurs as though the difference between the signifiers is not considered salient enough to distinguish between the variations in meaning.<\/p>\n

This is a special case of paronomasia<\/em> (or annominatio<\/em>), defined as a:<\/p>\n

(pseudo-) etymological play on the slightness of the phonetic change on the one hand and the interesting range of meaning which is created by means of the change on the other. In such cases, the range of meaning can be raised to the level of paradox. (Lausberg [1960], \u00a7637)<\/span><\/p>\n

Generally speaking, paronomasia creates a meaning-generating cell, by contrasting or assimilating a word (signifier) W0<\/sub><\/strong> with a minimally different word (signifier) W1<\/sub><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

In the dialog, the paronomastic resumption of a term functions as a rectification, breaking the orientation of this discourse, S. Orientation Reversal<\/a>, \u201cthis is not a crisis of conscience, this is a crisis of confidence<\/em>\u201d.<\/p>\n

\n

[1]<\/a> Book III, Ch. 2, 2. No pag. Quoted from https:\/\/www.ccel.org\/ccel\/augustine\/doctrine.txt<\/a> . (11-08-2017)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

AMBIGUITY The words ambiguity (N), ambiguous (Adj) come from the Latin verb ambigere, \u201cto discuss, to be in controversy\u201d: qui ambigunt \u2018those engaged in a discussion\u2019 (Cic. Fin. 2,4)\u201d (Gaffiot, Ambigo). To refer to the issue, to the point on which the partners disagree, Cicero uses the expression \u201cillud ipsum de quo ambiguebatur\u201d, \u201cprecisely that […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4597","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-non-classe"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4597","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4597"}],"version-history":[{"count":23,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4597\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":13828,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4597\/revisions\/13828"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4597"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4597"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4597"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}