Amphiboles Research Papers - Academia.edu (original) (raw)

Structurally ambiguous sentences followed by two disambiguations and two exercises in alternative-constituent. EXAMPLE 1. Bernie Sanders can beat Donald Trump better than Hillary Clinton. Bernie Sanders can beat Donald Trump better than... more

Structurally ambiguous sentences followed by two disambiguations and two exercises in alternative-constituent.
EXAMPLE 1.

Bernie Sanders can beat Donald Trump better than Hillary Clinton.

Bernie Sanders can beat Donald Trump better than he can beat Hillary Clinton.

Bernie Sanders can beat Donald Trump better than Hillary Clinton can.

Bernie Sanders can beat Donald Trump better than (he can beat Hillary Clinton * Hillary Clinton can).

Bernie Sanders can beat Donald Trump better than (he can beat * ) Hillary Clinton ( * can).

EXAMPLE 2.

Three is closer to four than five.

Three is closer to four than to five. TRUE

Three is closer to four than five is. FALSE

Three is closer to four than (to five * five is).

Three is closer to four than (to * )five ( * is).

For the alternative-constituent format ACF, see the following 157/208:
https://www.academia.edu/11784901/New_formats_for_presenting_and_generating_language_data

https://www.academia.edu/12140473/Meanings_of_Form._Manuscrito_31_2008_223_266._P

JOHN CORCORAN, Ambiguity: lexical and structural. BSL 15 (2009) 235–6.

JOHN CORCORAN, Ambiguity: lexical and structural.
Philosophy, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260-4150, USA
E-mail: corcoran@buffalo.edu

An expression with more than one normal sense or meaning is ambiguous. To demonstrate ambiguity it is sufficient to indicate two senses. In the broad sense of ‘animal’, every human is an animal; in the narrow sense, no human is an animal. In the nonexclusive sense of ‘or’, every human is human or human; in the exclusive sense, not even one human is human or human. A human that is human or human, in the exclusive sense, is not both human and human, thus not human. An ambiguous non-compound expression is lexically ambiguous in the narrow sense. A compound expression containing a lexically ambiguous constituent is lexically ambiguous in the broad sense. Consider ‘every animal is not a human’. Reading ‘not’ with broad scope and ‘animal’ in the broad sense, it expresses the true negative proposition “not every animal is a human”. Reading ‘not’ with narrow scope and ‘animal’ again in the broad sense, it expresses the false universal proposition “every animal is a non-human”—which is logically equivalent to “no animal is a human”. A compound expression is structurally ambiguous in the narrow sense if none of its non-compound constituents are ambiguous but it expresses senses having different logical structures or forms. The broad sense drops the restriction to non-ambiguous constituents. The last example is structurally and lexically ambiguous in the broad senses. Lexical ambiguity of constituents is sometimes essential to structural ambiguity of compounds. Consider ‘every number but one is positive’. Reading ‘one’ denotationally can yield a false proposition implying that one is not positive. Reading ‘one’ quantificationally can yield a true proposition implying that there is only one number that is not positive—taking ‘number’ to refer to non-negative integers.

Structurally ambiguous sentences followed by two disambiguations and two exercises in alternative-constituent.
EXAMPLE 1.

Bernie Sanders can beat Donald Trump better than Hillary Clinton.

Bernie Sanders can beat Donald Trump better than he can beat Hillary Clinton.

Bernie Sanders can beat Donald Trump better than Hillary Clinton can.

Bernie Sanders can beat Donald Trump better than (he can beat Hillary Clinton * Hillary Clinton can).

Bernie Sanders can beat Donald Trump better than (he can beat * ) Hillary Clinton ( * can).

EXAMPLE 2.

Three is closer to four than five.

Three is closer to four than to five. TRUE

Three is closer to four than five is. FALSE

Three is closer to four than (to five * five is).

Three is closer to four than (to * )five ( * is).

For the alternative-constituent format ACF, see the following 157/208:
https://www.academia.edu/11784901/New_formats_for_presenting_and_generating_language_data

https://www.academia.edu/12140473/Meanings_of_Form._Manuscrito_31_2008_223_266._P

JOHN CORCORAN, Ambiguity: lexical and structural. BSL 15 (2009) 235–6.

JOHN CORCORAN, Ambiguity: lexical and structural.
Philosophy, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260-4150, USA
E-mail: corcoran@buffalo.edu

An expression with more than one normal sense or meaning is ambiguous. To demonstrate ambiguity it is sufficient to indicate two senses. In the broad sense of ‘animal’, every human is an animal; in the narrow sense, no human is an animal. In the nonexclusive sense of ‘or’, every human is human or human; in the exclusive sense, not even one human is human or human. A human that is human or human, in the exclusive sense, is not both human and human, thus not human. An ambiguous non-compound expression is lexically ambiguous in the narrow sense. A compound expression containing a lexically ambiguous constituent is lexically ambiguous in the broad sense. Consider ‘every animal is not a human’. Reading ‘not’ with broad scope and ‘animal’ in the broad sense, it expresses the true negative proposition “not every animal is a human”. Reading ‘not’ with narrow scope and ‘animal’ again in the broad sense, it expresses the false universal proposition “every animal is a non-human”—which is logically equivalent to “no animal is a human”. A compound expression is structurally ambiguous in the narrow sense if none of its non-compound constituents are ambiguous but it expresses senses having different logical structures or forms. The broad sense drops the restriction to non-ambiguous constituents. The last example is structurally and lexically ambiguous in the broad senses. Lexical ambiguity of constituents is sometimes essential to structural ambiguity of compounds. Consider ‘every number but one is positive’. Reading ‘one’ denotationally can yield a false proposition implying that one is not positive. Reading ‘one’ quantificationally can yield a true proposition implying that there is only one number that is not positive—taking ‘number’ to refer to non-negative integers.