Talk:Ambiguity

Philosophy: Logic / Language C‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic
	Philosophy of language

Linguistics: Philosophy of language C‑class

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Philosophy of language task force.

Untitled

Old discussion deleted.

Suggest 2 possible wiki links for Ambiguity.

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Ambiguity article:

an ambiguous story is when the author leaves the ending to the readers to figure out.

Can link Spoken language: ...at he was sitting on the [[couch]] when he ate the cookies. Spoken language can also contain lexical ambiguities, where there is more t...
Can link economic growth: ... will think he opposes taxes in general because they hinder economic growth; others will think he opposes only those taxes that he beli...

Notes: The article text has not been changed in any way; Some of these suggestions may be wrong, some may be right.
Feedback: I like it, I hate it, Please don't link to — LinkBot 11:31, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC) Dick sucker that is what it means — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.165.170.125 (talk) 02:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lojban/ Loglan reference

I added this passage, which I shifted in slightly edited form from the Imprecise language page to here, since these languages do not seek to avoid Vagueness; they merely avoid ambiguity. (At the imprecise language page, the suggestion was that they avoid vagueness.) For example, Loglan users presumably do not have in mind, when they apply their predicate "X is tall" to "John" (asserting of John that he is tall), that there is a certain exact number of inches which John's height is thereby said to exceed. So their word for "tall" is still vague, and hence imprecise, in this respect. Matt9090

Rationale for removal

Dreftymac added this in an HTML comment in the article, and I figured it'd be better here (I changed a little formatting):

The following was removed;;

Their unambiguity makes them better suited than natural languages for use in communication between humans and computers.

Highly debatable: 1) conclusion that conlang better suited than "natural languages" for this purpose; 2) whether there *is* such a thing as "communication between humans and computers" (as opposed to communication between humans who use computers and humans who program them); 3)whether the increased precision of conlangs is empirically superior by themselves (rather than superior because the people who use them just tend to be more precise than average anyway). 4) sounds a bit too much POV.

--Galaxiaad 17:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

In linguistics there are some famous examples like "The horse raced past the barn fell" and in speech segmentation "How to wreck a nice beach you sing calm incense". it might be nice to note these examples with the appropriate references. Josh Froelich 15:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, idiomatic or anaphoric ambiguity. I can't think of the right example, but something like "Dick, Bob and Jane went to the mall, but he left without her" where the pronoun "he" is ambiguous in whether it is Dick or Bob.Josh Froelich 15:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced with the last example. According to my teacher, the pronoun always refers to the last noun it can apply. If Jane is girl, hence, "he" means Bob. dima 03:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

A good rule of thumb is that a pronoun corefers with the last noun that has the right characteristics, but this is a weak constraint and is easily violated. In the previous example "Dick, Bob and Jane went to the mall, but he left without her", (prosodically) emphasizing "he" makes "Dick" the preferred antecedent of "he". IdleBoy 16:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More suggestions

Ambiguity in Mathematics is absent.. We need examples and reterences. dima 02:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with the above. I've never heard of ambiguity in Math, either.--Orthologist 18:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on Patent ambiguity. I lost data while editing, poss. an edit conflict. Bearian 20:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magmi (talk) 21:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Hopefully , We need a link to "Ambiguity" related to formal languages theory and automata . That will be good linking to other materials . Especially , the field of theoretical computer science .[reply]

Music, Video, Film, Poetry, Art, Philosophy

The following is something I wrote in reference to the ambiguous nature of a certain music video. Later I realized with potent effect that the statement rings true for ambiguity in all of the above. I poetically described ambiguity as differing "personal interpretations begetting the divine spark that ignites debate." ---Eaglekrafts08 09:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In nuce

In a nutshell, ambiguity is the use of one word to designate more than one concept. This article fails to communicate clearly this basic truth. A reader who is looking for information about ambiguity is provided with many unessential, even misleading, definitions and examples.Lestrade (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]

The sentence "He hit the man with the gun" is ambiguous, but one can hardly maintain that in this example the ambiguity is the use of one word to designate more than one concept. Thus your nutshell packs something that is less than true. I see nothing wrong with the definition in the lede: a word, term, notation, sign, symbol, phrase, sentence, or any other form used for communication, is called ambiguous if it can be interpreted in more than one way. Can you give an example that is not ambiguous but satisfies this definition, or that is ambiguous but fails to satisfy it? --Lambiam 17:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. My definition was limited to the ambiguity of a word. It didn't take into consideration that a sentence could be ambiguous. I said that ambiguity is the use of one word to designate more than one concept. Your example shows that one group of words (one sentence) can ambiguously designate more than one concept. Concept 1 is "using a gun to hit a man." Concept 2 is "hitting a man who is holding a gun."Lestrade (talk) 00:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]

Points

Ambiguity is not a property of being ambiguous, just as meaning is not a property of something being communicated to you. Ambiguity means that there are at least two ways to interpret what you hear - and you cannot decide on how to understand something that sounds to have multiple meanings to you. You may come to that conclusion, because you segment what you hear in a different way, or because your scope of knowledge covers more than just one sense. It may also be that the form you find ambiguous is meant to be ambiguous in the sense that we expect something in one usual form but we read something slightly distorted on purpose to communicate both ideas as a kind of blending. Multiple meaning may be attributed not just to one word, but longer clusters and passages, subject to your capacity to keep a chunk of verbal input in your working memory. Besides, you also deal with other sensory input, body talk, etc. and the total impression may also be confusing as you cannot decide on which signs to interpret in a congruent and sensible way and which ones to ignore. So ambiguity needs to be got rid of, and calls for more contextualization. Just as disambiguation like here in Wikipedia is the same as decontextualization, a rather stupid exercise. 92.29.97.67 (talk) 14:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Mendez' Sex Tape

would be a good example (tape=video OR tape=glued strip). --77.4.100.224 (talk) 21:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

do with

This phrasal verb does indeed have several meanings, but when accompanied by the modal verb 'could', it has only one meaning: 'need'. (Pamour (talk) 15:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

Suggestions for the Linguistic Forms section

Hello. I’m taking a syntax course at my University and one of our assignments is to provide suggestions for articles under the Linguistics category. Below are some of my suggestions for the ‘Linguistics Forms’ section based off the guidelines for good Wikipedia articles.

The lead section isn’t a very comprehensive overview of the article, so, I think there can be a paragraph on the role of ambiguity in the disciplines mentioned in the article. There isn’t a clear structure in this section of the article. I would suggest that subheadings be added such as lexical ambiguity, structural ambiguity etc. to allow the section to be more structured and readable. Also, this section does maintain a rather neutral language. However, paragraphs such as the one that explains structural ambiguity, is not very well written (e.g. the use of capitalization and quotation marks). It would be great if someone went back in to re-write the different meanings behind one sentence. This section is lacking citations (there’s even a missing one!). To strengthen the article, many citations could be added. Finally, the balance in this section is fairly decent but lexical ambiguity is more explained than other ambiguities. Syntactic and semantic ambiguity could be further explained and pictures for syntactic ambiguity could be added (one tree for one meaning).

I hope these suggestions will be of use! Xmizuro (talk) 05:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]