Ambiguity is the type of meaning in which a phrase, statement, or resolution is not explicitly defined, making for several interpretations; others describe it as a concept or statement that has no real reference. A common aspect of ambiguity is uncertainty. It is thus an attribute of any idea or statement whose intention meaning cannot be definitively resolved, according to a rule or process with a finite number of steps. The prefix - reflects the idea of "two", as in "two meanings".
The concept of ambiguity is generally contrasted with vagueness. In ambiguity, specific and distinct interpretations are permitted (although some may not be immediately obvious), whereas with vague information it is difficult to form any interpretation at the desired level of specificity.
Ambiguity in human language is argued to reflect principles of efficient communication. Languages that communicate efficiently will avoid sending information that is redundant with information provided in the context. This can be shown mathematically to result in a system that is ambiguous when context is neglected. In this way, ambiguity is viewed as a generally useful feature of a linguistic system.
Linguistic ambiguity can be a problem in law, because the interpretation of written documents and oral agreements is often of paramount importance.
The context in which an ambiguous word is used often makes it clearer which of the meanings is intended. If, for instance, someone says, "I put $100 in the bank", most people would not think someone used a shovel to dig in the mud. However, some linguistic contexts do not provide sufficient information to make a used word clearer.
Lexical ambiguity can be addressed by methods that automatically associate the appropriate meaning with a word in context, a task referred to as word-sense disambiguation.
The use of multi-defined words requires the author or speaker to clarify their context and sometimes elaborate on their specific intended meaning (in which case, a less ambiguous term should have been used). The goal of clear, concise communication is that the receiver(s) have no misunderstanding about what was meant to be conveyed. An exception to this could include a politician whose "" and obfuscation are necessary to gain support from multiple constituents with mutually exclusive conflicting desires from their candidate of choice. Ambiguity is a powerful tool of political science.
More problematic are words whose multiple meanings express closely related concepts. "Good", for example, can mean "useful" or "functional" ( That's a good hammer), "exemplary" ( She's a good student), "pleasing" ( This is good soup), "moral" ( a good person versus the lesson to be learned from a story), "righteous", etc. "I have a good daughter" is not clear about which sense is intended. The various ways to apply and can also create ambiguity ("unlockable" can mean "capable of being opened" or "impossible to lock").
Syntactic ambiguity arises when a sentence can have two (or more) different meanings because of the structure of the sentence—its syntax. This is often due to a modifying expression, such as a prepositional phrase, the application of which is unclear. In the sentence "He ate the cookies on the couch", for example, could mean that he ate the cookies that were on the couch (as opposed to those that were on the table), or it could mean that he was sitting on the couch when he ate the cookies. The sentence "To get in, you will need an entrance fee of $10 or your voucher and your drivers' license." could mean that you need EITHER ten dollars OR BOTH your voucher and your license, or it could mean that you need your license AND you need EITHER ten dollars OR a voucher. Only rewriting the sentence or placing appropriate punctuation can resolve a syntactic ambiguity.Critical Thinking, 10th ed., Ch 3, Moore, Brooke N. and Parker, Richard. McGraw-Hill, 2012 For the notion of, and theoretic results about, syntactic ambiguity in artificial, formal languages (such as computer programming languages), see Ambiguous grammar.
Usually, semantic and syntactic ambiguity occur in the same sentence. The sentence "We saw her duck" is also syntactically ambiguous. Conversely, a sentence like "He ate the cookies on the couch" is also semantically ambiguous. Rarely, but occasionally, the different parsings of a syntactically ambiguous phrase result in the same meaning. For example, the command "Cook, cook!" can be parsed as "Cook (noun used as vocative), cook (imperative verb form)!", but also as "Cook (imperative verb form), cook (noun used as vocative)!". It is more common that a syntactically unambiguous phrase has a semantic ambiguity; for example, the lexical ambiguity in "Your boss is a funny man" is purely semantic, leading to the response "Funny ha-ha or funny peculiar?"
Spoken language can contain many more types of ambiguities that are called phonological ambiguities, where there is more than one way to compose a set of sounds into words, such as "ice cream" and "I scream". Such ambiguity is generally resolved according to the context. A mishearing of such, based on incorrectly resolved ambiguity, is called a mondegreen.
In continental philosophy (particularly phenomenology and existentialism), there is much greater tolerance of ambiguity, as it is generally seen as an integral part of the human condition. Martin Heidegger argued that the relation between the subject and object is ambiguous, as is the relation of mind and body and part and whole. In Heidegger's phenomenology, Dasein is always in a meaningful world, but there is always an underlying background for every instance of signification. Thus, although some things may be certain, they have little to do with Dasein's sense of care and existential anxiety, e.g., in the face of death. In calling his work Being and Nothingness an "essay in phenomenological ontology" Jean-Paul Sartre follows Heidegger in defining the human essence as ambiguous, or relating fundamentally to such ambiguity. Simone de Beauvoir tries to base an ethics on Heidegger's and Sartre's writings (The Ethics of Ambiguity), where she highlights the need to grapple with ambiguity:
as long as there have been philosophers and they have thought, most of them have tried to mask it ... And the ethics which they have proposed to their disciples has always pursued the same goal. It has been a matter of eliminating the ambiguity by making oneself pure inwardness or pure externality, by escaping from the sensible world or being engulfed by it, by yielding to eternity or enclosing oneself in the pure moment.Ethics cannot be based on the authoritative certainty given by mathematics and logic, or prescribed directly from the empirical findings of science. She states: "Since we do not succeed in fleeing it, let us, therefore, try to look the truth in the face. Let us try to assume our fundamental ambiguity. It is in the knowledge of the genuine conditions of our life that we must draw our strength to live and our reason for acting".
In the narrative, ambiguity can be introduced in several ways: motive, plot, and character. F. Scott Fitzgerald uses the latter type of ambiguity with notable effect in his novel The Great Gatsby.
Creators of algorithmic languages try to avoid ambiguities. Many algorithmic languages (C++ and Fortran) require the character * as a symbol of multiplication. The Wolfram Language used in Mathematica allows the user to omit the multiplication symbol but requires square brackets to indicate the argument of a function; square brackets are not allowed for grouping of expressions. Fortran, in addition, does not allow the use of the same name (identifier) for different objects, for example, a function and a variable; in particular, the expression is qualified as an error.
The order of operations may depend on the context. In most programming languages, the operations of division and multiplication have equal priority and are executed from left to right. Until the last century, many editorials assumed that multiplication is performed first, for example, is interpreted as in this case, the insertion of parentheses is required when translating the formulas to an algorithmic language. In addition, it is common to write an argument of a function without parentheses, which also may lead to ambiguity. In the scientific journal style, one uses Roman letters to denote elementary functions, whereas variables are written using italics. For example, in mathematical journals the expression does not denote the sine function but the product of the three variables although in the informal notation of a slide presentation it may stand for
Commas in multi-component subscripts and superscripts are sometimes omitted; this is also potentially ambiguous notation. For example, in the notation the reader can only infer from the context whether it means a single-index object, taken with the subscript equal to the product of variables and or it is an indication of a trivalent tensor.
The expression means in several texts, though it might be thought to mean since commonly means Conversely, might seem to mean as this exponentiation notation usually denotes function iteration: in general, means However, for trigonometric and hyperbolic functions, this notation conventionally means exponentiation of the result of function application.
The expression can be interpreted as meaning however, it is more commonly understood to mean
A highly confusing term is gain. For example, the sentence "the gain of a system should be doubled", without context, means close to nothing.
The term intensity is ambiguous when applied to light. The term can refer to any of irradiance, luminous intensity, radiant intensity, or radiance, depending on the background of the person using the term.
Also, confusions may be related to the use of atomic percent as a measure of concentration of a dopant or resolution of an imaging system as a measure of the size of the smallest detail that can be resolved at the background of statistical noise. See also Accuracy and precision.
The Berry paradox arises as a result of systematic ambiguity in the meaning of terms such as "definable" or "nameable". Terms of this kind give rise to vicious circle fallacies. Other terms with this type of ambiguity are: satisfiable, true, false, function, property, class, relation, cardinal, and ordinal.Russell/Whitehead, Principia Mathematica
Logical ambiguity and self-contradiction are analogous to visual ambiguity and impossible objects, such as the Necker cube and impossible cube, or many of the drawings of M. C. Escher.
Subsequently, the Ki-, Mi-, and Gi- prefixes were introduced so that binary prefixes could be written explicitly, also rendering k, M, and G in texts conforming to the new standard—this led to a ambiguity in engineering documents lacking outward trace of the binary prefixes (indicating the new style) as to whether the usage of k, M, and G remains ambiguous (old style) or not (new style). 1 M (where M is ambiguously or ) is uncertain than the engineering value (defined to designate the interval ). As non-volatile storage devices begin to exceed 1 GB in capacity (where the ambiguity begins to routinely impact the second significant digit), GB and TB almost always mean 109 and 1012 bytes.
|
|