PHIlosophy

1

Philosophy 105

TYPES OF AMBIGUITY

I. Introduction

Language is very useful, of course, but it also presents us with problems, especially when we

take it for granted and don’t think before we speak or write. Here are some cases:

A radio announcer talking about the gathering for the Phillies held in the stadium after the team

had won the World Series in 2008: “Free tickets to the event were up for grabs yesterday, but

sold out in less than 90 minutes.” D’Oh.

Jimmy Rollins, Phillies’ shortstop, trying to make fun of the New York Mets, after the Phils won

the World Series in 2008: “New York was always getting the notoriety – now it’s our turn.”

That's what we always wanted to be, notorious.

Figure out what is wrong in each example above. Then restate the mistaken sentences so that

they make (better) sense.

A more recent example: A few months ago a TV announcer was describing an automobile

accident in which several people had died (no one famous, local citizens) and used the phrase

"such a bittersweet event." Another one: a TV anchor announcing that "a fairly unique"

weather pattern has occurred. Huh? Is "unique" a comparative concept?

It is common to misuse words by not knowing their meanings. Further, words often have more

than one meaning – they exhibit ambiguity. We may end up using a word in one sense when we

wanted or needed the other sense. Or the sentences that we speak or write are unclear because the

words themselves are unclear.

Here's an example of ambiguity, from the “Frasier” television program: Frasier says (at a posh,

catered party, spoken to the protective son of the rich hostess): “I think I should warn you

that one of the waiters, an actor, is going to hit on your mother for $50K to back a play he

has a part in.” The son replies, “Oh? Which one?” Frasier, “Something by Chekhov, I

think.”

What is the ambiguity? How could it have been avoided? Rewrite the dialogue to eliminate the

ambiguity. NOTE: you can rewrite it in at least two different ways, one for each of the possible

meanings of the ambiguous element. Be sure not to use the ambiguous words while rewriting;

that may only perpetuate the ambiguity.

Another example: “You can count on him.” Rewrites: (1) “You can use his fingers and toes to

do arithmetical problems.” (2) "You can use his back as a chalk board to do the calculations." (3)

2

“He is a very reliable person.” What is really meant will often depend on the context in which the

original sentence is stated. If you know the context, you may be able to disambiguate the

sentence (by rewriting it in all its possible or intended senses). Or the original might be meant as

a joke, in which case the ambiguity is essential and should not be eliminated. If a joke has to be

explained (or disambiguated), ….

Advice: As much as you can, you should provide at least two rewrites for each ambiguous

sentence you come across, keeping in mind to avoid the ambiguous words or phrases that

cause the original sentence to be ambiguous. Of course, recognizing that a sentence is

ambiguous is the first, sometimes hard, step. I won't always be at your back telling you that

a particular sentence is ambiguous. For example, that one?

2. Vagueness

Vague language is not the same as ambiguous language, but it is useful to learn what it is and

how it differs. Sometimes vagueness and ambiguity overlap.

Vagueness is a lack of precision in an assertion or statement, sometimes meant to deceive or to

be humorous, but sometimes necessitated by the nature of language and sometimes simply an

error, an unintentional or perhaps negligent misuse of language.

“That’s a pretty big elephant.” “How big is it?” “You’ll see!” [This sentence is also ambiguous. Do

you see how?]

“Love is a strong emotion.” (How strong is “strong”? As powerful as a locomotive?)

This sentence is ambiguous, but not vague: “I went to the bank.” It has at least two precise

meanings: “I went to my financial institution” and “I went to the shore of the river.” ["I went to

the river bank" is still ambiguous. Explain why.]

Try to construct other sentences that are vague but not ambiguous and some that are ambiguous

but not vague. Even try this: Sentences that that are neither vague nor ambiguous (not easy!), and

sentences that are both vague and ambiguous.

3. Ambiguity (= "Polysemy") & Disambiguation

A word that has more than one meaning is ambiguous. A sentence composed of ambiguous

words is therefore also ambiguous, has more than one meaning. There are several ways this can

arise (see below). Besides words and sentences, images and actions can also be ambiguous or

polysemous. Think of examples of ambiguous images [photographs, drawings, etc.], as well as

acts or behaviors that are ambiguous. When presented with an ambiguity, we have the task of

3

disambiguating the item (word, sentence, image, act), i.e., clarifying the item to eliminate the

ambiguity and exposing the various possible meanings. We can restate the assertion using other

words, or add information to it, or understand it in its context. Context is in fact very important.

Note the paradox in trying to disambiguate a linguistic item, a sentence, by using other linguistic

items – which might also be ambiguous. Look at Stanley Fish, Is There a Text in This Class?

Ambiguous sentence:

“I went to the bank and left my paycheck there.”

Disambiguation #1: “I went to my financial institution on 4 th St. and deposited last week’s

wages.”

Disambiguation #2: “While I was walking along the river, I lost my paycheck.”

Ambiguous sentence:

“Nothing is better than pizza.”

Disambiguation #1: “Pizza is the most delicious food.”

Disambiguation #2: “Eating nothing is better than eating pizza – it has too much grease.”*

*Be careful. Even this disambiguation is ambiguous. How (the main syntactical way)?

4. Equivocation

Equivocation is relying (intentionally or accidentally) on ambiguity to make an argument (a

piece of logos; see Clump #1) appear to be valid when it is actually a case of bad reasoning. A

word changes its meaning during the course of the argument. That’s a logical sin. All words must

have one and the same meaning all the way through your line of thought when you are trying to

convince someone to believe or do something.

Premise (evidence) #1: Feathers are light.

Premise (evidence) #2: What is light is not dark.

Hence, therefore (ergo): Feathers are not dark.

4

"Light" in P1 means "weighs very little." In P2 it means "lacks color." No support is given to the

assertion that feathers are not dark by the assertion that feathers do not weigh very much. (Some

butterflies do not weigh very much, but their wings have dark colors.)\

5. Semantic Ambiguity

Sentences that are ambiguous because one or more words in the sentences have more than one

semantic meaning exhibit “semantic ambiguity.”

“Is he on the right side?” – Disambiguations: The right-hand side of a street, or the correct side

of an issue? Even: on the political side called "Right"? Maybe even: Or is he on the reading side?

“Why did Adam eat the apple?”

"I went to the bank."

6. Grouping Ambiguity:

Total versus Average

“In the 1990s, guns caused more deaths than nuclear missiles.” Did each gun kill more

people than each missile? Or did all the deaths, the total, by guns exceed all the deaths by the one

missile bomb that was launched? What about: average deaths by gun vs. average deaths by

bombs?

“Professors make more money than street cleaners.” Each professor makes more than each

street cleaner? Or professors as a whole, on average, make more than street cleaners make, on

average? Or the total made by all professors is greater than the total made by all street cleaners?

[Notice another ambiguity, a syntactic ambiguity, Section 8, below: What do professors make? Whatever else they make, they

make more money than they make street cleaners.]

7. Grouping Ambiguity:

Fallacies of Division & Composition

Compare “The students in this class are bright” with “This is a bright class of students.”

Can it be true that this is a bright class yet some students are not bright? (Or vice versa.)

"All the Phillies players are great players." Does this make the team great? (Or vice versa.)

“Each Eagle player is smart.” Does this mean that the team is smart? (Or vice versa.)

5

8. Syntactic Ambiguity (= Amphiboly)

Ambiguity in a sentence that is due to awkward or misleading grammar; ambiguous pronouns;

oddly-placed prepositional qualifiers; and misplaced modifiers. These sentences have syntactic

(syntax = form or structure; grammatical infelicities) problems. As a result of the syntactic

problem, the sentence becomes semantically ambiguous.

“I want to see a doctor pronto.” (Said by Joy in the ER, from My Name is Earl. This is better

orally.) “I’ll see if we have such a doctor.”

[“Pronto” as a proper noun/name vs. an adverb, two different grammatical types.]

“Don’t drink and drive.” [Don’t do both; or don’t drink, but it is OK to drive.]

“I like killing flies.” [“killing” as a verb, what I do to flies; “killing” as an adjective, what the

flies do.]

“I like reading books and empty boxes.” [This one has many interpretations. Make a list.]

“Helicopter powered by human flies.” [The power is provided by “human flies,” an odd

species; a helicopter, powered by humans, flies. “Flies” as a noun vs. as a verb.]

Ambiguous reference of pronouns:

The anthropologists went to a remote area and took photographs of some native women,

but they weren't developed.

Source: Marilyn vos Savant, The Power of Logical Thinking (St. Martin's Press, 1996),

p. 76. In this example, the pronoun "they" is ambiguous between the photographs and the

native women.

Misplaced propositional modifier:

One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. (Groucho Marx, Animal Crackers)

6

Amphibolous sign: Are the wet sheep slippery? Or the implied roads?

In each passage (some are jokes) below, what type of ambiguity is employed? Explain the

ambiguity (the various meanings) and how it arises. Rewrite the sentences in unambiguous

ways (i.e., disambiguate them). Also make up your own examples, or find some in

newspapers and magazines. (Not the Internet, please; that's too easy.)

“I drew a blank.”

Female: “I think you’re the father of one of my kids.” Male: “Cancun 2002?”

"Don’t stop." vs. "Don’t. Stop."

“Is your refrigerator running?”

“Do you have Prince Charles in a can?”

"I took Mary Ellen through the tunnel, and by 11 PM I was asleep on her."

"He wished he had found some instructions about communicating in the trash piles.” (Wall-E,

the book, p. 19)

Headline: NEW MED SCHOOL DRAWS YOUNG BLOOD

"I’d really like a foundation that matches my skin."

"We serve our friends in our house."

7

“We don’t serve food here.”

“I had a dream last night in which I was playing football with my child.”

Sarah threatened to kill your brother by email.

Sex between two people is a wonderful thing. [From Woody Allen]

I’m on the radio.

Free toilet paper coupons.

“You are SO grounded, coffee will look at you and say ‘Damn!’” [George Lopez]

Obama likes playing a round of golf. Clinton just liked playing around. [David Letterman]

Ralph’s only human.

A highway patrolman pulled along side a speeding car on the freeway. Glancing in the

window, he was astounded to see that a woman behind the wheel was knitting while

driving. Realizing that she was oblivious to his flashing lights and siren, the trooper

cranked down his window, turned on his bullhorn, and yelled at her, “PULL OVER!”

“No,” the woman yelled back, “IT’S A SCARF!”

One night, a guy was playing Trivial Pursuit with his friends. It was his turn. He rolled

the dice and landed on Science & Nature. The question was, “If you are in a vacuum and

someone calls your name, can you hear it?” The dude thought for a time and answered,

“Not if it’s on.”

9. Spoonerism

Take a look at the pertinent article in Wikipedia: it defines “spoonerism” and provides some

information about Reverend William Archibald Spooner, who had a tendency to switch one or

more beginning letters of successive words. One of my favorite examples: “You have hissed all

my mystery lectures. You have tasted a whole worm.” Here’s another (mixed with a pun):

“Evidence has been found that William Tell and his family were avid bowlers. All the Swiss

league records were, however, unfortunately destroyed in a fire, so we’ll never know for whom

the Tells bowled.” Also, see the Muppets’ version of The Frog Prince. An evil witch has cast a

spell on the king’s daughter, so that everything she says is a spoonerism: “Bake the hall on the

candle of her brain.” If you can solve this one, you will know how to destroy the witch’s spell.

8

10. The Use/Mention Distinction

In philosophy, we frequently distinguish the use of an expression (i.e., of a word, a phrase, sometimes a sentence)

from mentioning it. Confusing these two is often taken to be a philosophical sin (either mortal or venial). Use/

mention can generate ambiguities. But if we are careful, they can be avoided. Consider these two sentences:

1. Jim went to Paris

2. “Jim” has three letters

In sentence (1) the word “Jim” is used to talk about (or refer to) a person, Jim, and the sentence says about that

person that he went to Paris. In sentence (2), the string “Jim” is used to talk about a word, “Jim,” and the sentence

says that this word has three letters. In (1), “Jim” is being used; in (2) it is mentioned. 1. An example seen on Robot Chicken: A: “My name is 'Ludicrous'.” B: “No it isn’t. It’s not even ridiculous.” C: “That’s true, it’s not ridiculous, nor is it 'Ridiculous', but I swear to you that even though it is not ludicrous, it is 'Ludicrous'.” D: “Man, don’t be so down on yourself!” Question: What is the name of Speaker A? (There are two viable and quite different answers.)

2. I’m reading a book by Raymond Smullyan, entitled What Is the Name of This Book? You ask me, “What’s the name of the book you’re reading?” I reply, What Is the Name of This Book? You say: “Yeah, that’s what I wanted to know. So, tell me.”

3. Using vs. mentioning dangerous ideas or words. The medieval pastoral problem: how to tell people not to do something, without telling them what not to do and hence putting the idea (that it co uld be done) in their heads? The problem of teaching children what not to do by telling them, describing to them, what it is they are not allowed to do. Teaching children not to say certain words because they are bad words. "How am I supposed to know what word not to say unless you say it for me?"

4. Pete and Repeat are in a canoe. Pete falls out. Who's left? Repeat. (Yuk.) The next example: not use/mention. Just stupidity. Directions: Wet hair. Pour on two tablespoons of shampoo. Churn it up. Rinse thoroughly. Repeat.

5. One person says “Nothing.” Another person says nothing. 6. "Isn’t your name ‘3-PO?’" “C- 3-PO.” “That’s what I thought, ‘3-PO’.” “Hey! ‘C-3-PO’.” "Great! '3-PO' it is!"

MAKE UP YOUR OWN EXAMPLES IN WHICH A CONFUSION ABOUT USE/MENTION LEADS TO TROUBLE INSTEAD OF BEING MERELY A JOKE OR FUNNY.

9

11. The De Re, De Dicto Ambiguity

Consider the sentence "Jana wants to marry the tallest man in California." There are two ways to

interpret this sentence (it s ambiguous). One interpretation is that Jana wants to marry the tallest

man in California, whoever he might be. On this interpretation, what the statement tells us is that

Jana has a certain fairly unspecific desire; what she desires is that a certain situation should

obtain, namely, Jana's marrying the tallest man in California. The desire is directed at that

situation, regardless of how it is to be achieved (for example, no matter who happens to "fill this

office" by being the tallest man – that's the lack of specificity). The other interpretation is that

Jana wants to marry a certain man, who in fact happens to be (per accidens) the tallest man in

California. Her desire is for that man, and she desires herself to marry him – even if at some time

he is no longer the tallest man in California. The first interpretation, "Jana desires that she marry

the tallest man in California," is the de dicto interpretation. The second interpretation, "Of the

tallest man in California, Jana desires that she marry him," is the de re interpretation. A fine but

real line. It is the difference between wanting to marry him because he is the tallest man (or the

richest, etc.) and knowing he is the tallest but that is not the reason for marrying him.

Feel free (as already implied) to understand the distinction by asking what Jana would want if the

man who was the tallest man in California at the time the original statement was made were to

lose his legs, such that he was no longer the tallest man in California. If she continued to want to

marry that man – and, importantly, perceived this as representing no change in her desires – then

she could be taken to have meant the original statement in a de re sense. If she no longer wanted

to marry that man but instead wanted to marry the new tallest man in California, and saw this as

a continuation of her earlier desire, then she meant the original statement in a de dicto sense.

Some philosophers claim that genuine love is de re. And love that hinted of de dicto attitudes or reasoning would not be love at all, but a fake, a pretender. Other philosophers find nothing disturbing in the idea that love, the real thing, might be de dicto. By the way, "wanting to marry X" – if it is not confused with love – may very well be (rationally) de dicto. Just make sure that it is de dicto with the respect to the "right" property or set of properties and the right person.

Make up your own examples of expressions or sentences that can be understood either as de re or as de dicto and explain the two meanings it can have. Show how the difference might be important in your life.

Here's one of mine: “I hate my cousin.”

10

12. CONDITIONALS

CONVERSES

INVERSES

CONTRAPOSITIVES [possible sources of ambiguity and confusion]

1. CONDITIONAL statement (a type of statement or sentence):

If A, then B. If something is a dog, it has hair.

All As are Bs. All dogs have hair.

2. CONVERSE statement (the converse of the conditional above, #1; it is also a conditional):

If B, then A. If something has hair, it is a dog.

All Bs are As. All hairy things are dogs.

3. INVERSE statement (the inverse of the conditional way above, #1; it, too, is a conditional*):

If not-A, then not-B. If it is not a dog, it does not have hair.

All not-As are not-Bs. All things that are not dogs do not have hair.

4. CONTRAPOSITIVE statement (the contrapositive of the conditional way, way above, #1):

If not-B, then not-A. If it does not have hair, it is not a dog.

All not-Bs are not-As. All nonhairy things are not dogs.

Lesson: What a conditional says or asserts is different from what its converse says or asserts.

(Take a careful look at them and think.) So a conditional can be true (or false) while its

converse and inverse can be false (or true). In other words, from the fact that a conditional is

true, we do not know whether its converse or inverse are true (or false). They all say

different, separate things. (Some tricky people like to assert a true conditional and pretend

that the converse or inverse are also true. Beware.) However: a conditional and its

contrapositive do say exactly the same thing, so either they are both true or they are both

false. Yup.

Create some realistic examples that sharply illustrate the problems with conditional

statements.

*And hence it, too, like all the other conditionals, has its own converse, inverse, and contrapositive.

Work out what they are.