Ambiguity, Generality, and Definitions

Sign In

Review: Vagueness and Semantic Ambiguity

Syntactic Ambiguity

Arguments and Ambiguity

Definitions

For next time: Comprehensive Ch. 3 HW: (3-1)
1,3,5; (3-2) 1,5,10; (3-7) 1,12,27; (3-9) 3,7,10
Review: Vagueness




Vague sentences include concepts that have
borderline cases
Because people may draw the boundaries of these
concepts in different ways, a vague sentence can
mask sources of agreement / disagreement
Vague sentences are also difficult to translate into
argumentative claims
The best we can do when we run into vague claims
is to make them more precise
Vagueness



How might we resolve the following sentences in
order to clarify the vague term(s)?
1. He promised not to significantly raise taxes on the
wealthy
2. That is a really expensive car even for a fancy
person like you

3. She was arrested for driving too fast

4. It's better not to go outside yet, it's too cold
Ambiguity



Like Vagueness, ambiguity can also cause
translation problems
We said that ambiguous sentences were sentences
with two or more possible meanings
We also made a distinction between two kinds of
ambiguity

Semantic

Syntactic
Semantic Ambiguity





We said that the best way to resolve semantic
ambiguity was to re-phrase a sentence so that the
intended meaning was clearer
How might we resolve the following semantic
ambiguities?
1. Jessica is cold
2. The Raider tackle threw a block at the Giants
linebacker
3. You have to get to the right bank before sundown
Fallacies




We ended class by looking at two different fallacies
(mistakes in reasoning) that we can be led to make
as a result of semantic ambiguity
Fallacy of division – assuming that what is true of a
group is true of all its members
Fallacy of composition – assuming that what is true
of all of the members of a group is true of the group
itself
Can you give me any examples of these fallacies?
Syntactic Ambiguity



Syntactic ambiguity, unlike semantic ambiguity,
derives its ambiguity as a result of the structure of a
sentence
“How Therapy Can Help Torture Victims”
This sentence is ambiguous even though the
meaning of each word is fairly clear

What are the two possible readings of this sentence?

The ambiguity here is the result of poor syntax
Syntactic Ambiguity


As with semantic ambiguities the best way to
resolve these problems is to translate the sentence so
that the ambiguity is settled
The Principle of Charity can often help us figure out
the clearest or 'intended' reading


Susan saw the farmer with binoculars
With some ambiguities this can be very difficult

People who protest often get arrested
Syntactic Ambiguity: Pronouns





Pronouns are words that stand in for nouns in a sentence
“He,” “she,” “it,” “you,” “they,” “I,” and “we” are all
examples of pronouns and their use is normally not a
cause for concern
Erick buys coffee in the morning. He drinks it quickly.
The second sentence has replaced the nouns with
pronouns in a way that is not ambiguous and is not
problematic
But, in a carelessly constructed sentence, pronoun use can
be a source of syntactic ambiguity
Pronoun Ambiguity




Pronouns become ambiguous when there is more than
one potential noun in a sentence that they could be
standing in for
Example: “Paul agreed that, once Gary removed the
motor from the car, he could have it.”
In this sentence there are two potential nouns (motor
and car) that “it” could be replacing but the sentence
leaves it unclear which one it is meant to replace
Whenever this happens we get an ambiguous pronoun
reference
Pronoun Ambiguity Examples





What do you think is the best way to resolve the
following ambiguities?
Identify the pronoun and the possible nouncandidates
The dog ate the bird and it died
We gave the bananas to the monkeys because they
were here
The couple watched a child kick the ball and it made
them happy
What to do?



If you are writing these sentences then you should
take care to leave only one noun for each pronoun to
replace
If you are reading these sentences then the best you
can do is appeal to the Principle of Charity to help
pick out the strongest interpretation of each sentence:
When all else fails see if one of the two interpretations
makes an argument valid, sound, or strong and go
with that translation of the ambiguous claim
Definitions and why the matter




Definitions, as we said on Monday, are often critical
components of arguments
The definitions of person and murder are critical to
debates about abortion, suicide, and euthanasia (both
voluntary and involuntary)
If the terms in question are neither vague nor
ambiguous then definitions are easy
In other cases (person), definitions can be much
harder to agree on
Types of Definitions




Defining terms is the best way to resolve ambiguity. When we do
this we are giving a precising definition.
There are other reasons why we might need a definition
1. We might need to know a word's standard (dictionary) meaning.
This is a lexical definition
2. We might instead want to use a word to mean something in a
more specific context. This is a stipulation definition.


Argument, Vagueness, claim, etc
3. We might not care about either the standard or technical
definitions of a term but instead want to convince others. This is to
rhetorical definition.
What kind of definition is this?


Watch the following video and decide what kind of
definition is being given
Pay attention to how the word is being defined
Truthiness




What is the definition of this term?
Do you think it is intended as a lexical, a stipulative,
a rhetorical definition or some combination of these?
Did you notice any other potential factors meant to
make the definition more rhetorically (or
argumentatively) persuasive? What were they?
How was the word defined? Using examples or
synonyms?
Definitions




If definitions are serving a good role in an argument
then they should not:
Beg the Question: an argument or definition begs the
question when it already assumes the truth of its
conclusion before having proved it
Trigger cognitive biases: definitions can be used to
evoke cognitive biases like framing effects (meat is
murder) and negativity biases
A good definition avoids these practices
For Next Time


For next time: Comprehensive Ch. 3 HW: (3-1)
1,3,5; (3-2) 1,5,10; (3-7) 1,12,27; (3-9) 3,7,10
Quiz!!! Don't be late!