In 'Autonomous Syntax & RT', R. A. Hudson writes:
>[S]yntactic structure can be determined (by a parsing
>mechanism, human or not) without paying attention to meaning.
>(Presumably nobody would argue that it could be determined
>without attention to phonology!!)
I'm never sure. In the traditional trichotomy of Semiotic, it's Pragmatics,
Semantics, and Syntactics. Usually, a formal language design -- as Grice's
"System Q" (to honour Quine) in 'Vacuous Names' -- listed in the
Publications of H. P. Grice in PGRICE, Grandy/Warner) or G. Myro's System G
(to honour Grice), phonology is like a bette noire posing all sorts of
metaphysical problems ('realisation of a morpheme', etc.). (But of course I
see Hudson's point (since a reference to phonology (or something like it)
seems to be however implicitly made in even the most formal of systems.)
>Speaking as a syntactician I think [...] indeed that
>something like RT is precisely what's needed in
>ambiguity-resolution in parsing.
A la Sperber/Wilson's example in _Relevance_:
Ambiguity #1
(1) I saw that gasoline can explode.
(a) I saw that it is possible for gasoline to explode.
(b) I saw that can of gasoline explode.
Reading examples like that I often wonder, qua someone with a philosophical
background, how much ambiguity, shall I say, there is in ambiguity herself.
Indeed, and for the record, I once concocted a revised version of Grice's
"Modified Occam's Razor", which went:
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
| |
| Senses-a should-b not-c be-c |
| multiplied-d beyond-e necessity-f |
|_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _|
-- where each subscript indicates a denominated sub-sense for each item. (A
teaser).
Ambiguity #2
I view (1) as being of a different type from Chomsky's example
(2) Flying planes can be dangerous.
Unlike (1), (2) does not involve _word_ homophony ("can" as modal and can =
tin), but then it's homophony that Sperber and Wilson are discussing when
bringing in _that_ example. Both examples do involve a reference to a
contrasting pair of Logical Forms, though, admittedly.
Ambiguity #3
(3) Intelligent women and men.
(a) (Intelligent women) and men.
(b) Intelligent (women and men).
-- Or "Thomas Tayler saw William Tyler dronke", as in Cite #2 from the OED
for 'ambiguous' -- as in ps below.
Ambiguity #4
Still a _different_ case is in Grice's maxim (WOW, p.27) "Avoid ambiguity".
Is this the 'ambiguity' of Wilson/Sperber's 'disambiguation' (as in 'On
Grice's theory of conversation', now in Kasher, _Implicature_)? I don't
think so. The type of 'ambiguity' meant by Grice on p. 27 of WOW seems to
be, m-intended ambiguity (A. Weiser's good ol' 'intentional ambiguity'). --
All maxims are formulated in terms of 'speaker-meaning' so-called). In this
respect Grice's examples for 'floutings' of the maxim are here revelatory.
Not so much 'Peccavi' ('I have Scinde') but the Blake poem (Grice WOW, p. 26):
(4) Never seek to tell thy love,
Love that never told can be.
Since she [nature] pricked thee out
For women's pleasure,
Mine be thy love,
& thy love's use their treasure
-- the critical issue being the relative clause on line #2:
a. love that cannot be told.
b. love that if told cannot continue to exist.
Ambiguity #5
Then there's 'focal ambiguity' and 'ambiguity' in context, as discussed by
Grice in 'Aristotle and the multiplicity of being' (and perhaps akin to
Horn's idea of 'pragmatic ambiguity' which, he keeps in the face of
Searle's criticism -- from Donnellan). Grice's example being 'French' -- as
in 'French poem' -- but the notion applies perfectly to the Blake example
under discussion. Grice allows for talk of 'ambiguity' not just in terms of
syntactical parsing re the relative clause but in that
"_[...] _love_ may refer to either a state
of emotion or an _object_ of emotion."
WOW, p. 35.
And there was W. Empson thinking that there were only _seven_ types of
ambiguity. Perhaps he was even right... since I append some further usages
of 'ambiguity' in the ps. (And enough to make you a 'monoguist'
['uniguist'] of the Wertheimer-Horn type).
Cheers,
JL
Refs.
Donnellan KS. Pragmatic ambiguity.
Empson W. Seven types of ambiguity.
Grice HP. Studies in the Way of Words.
Grice HP. Aristotle on the multplicity of being.
Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 69. Section on
'Focal unification'.
Horn LR. In defense of privative ambiguity.
Oxford English Dictionary. 'Ambiguous'.
Sadock JD & AM Zwicky. Ambiguity tests and how to fail them.
Searle JR. Against pragmatic ambiguity.
Weiser A. Intentional ambiguity
==
From the OED (edited JLS).
ambiguous. From 'ambi': two-ways, + 'agere', to drive.
"Of words or other significant indications:
admitting more than one interpretation, or
explanation; of double meaning, or of several
possible meanings; equivocal.
(The commonest use.)"
(Parenthetically, one wonders why "aequi-", in 'aequivocal', is thought of
as the antonym of 'uni-', as in 'univocal', since surely 'aequi-' is Latin
for 'same' -- cfr. 'equity' -- _not_ 'not-one' or 'many').
Cites in the OED.
Cite #1
1532 More Confut. Tindale Wks.
"This English word "knowledge" is ambiguous
and doubtful."
Indeed it is, and I often think that it would be a good idea, incidentally,
to list specific lexemes ("them tricky ones") as they have been treated by
Gricean theorists. For 'know' (if not 'knowledge') I'd recommend R. M.
Harnish's analysis in terms of Grice's square-bracket device in 'Logical
form & implicature'.
Cite #2
1589 Puttenham Eng. Poesie
"The ambiguous, or figure of sense
incertain, as if one should say
"Thomas Tayler saw William Tyler dronke",
it is indifferent to thinke either th'one or th'other
dronke."
Cite #3
1671 Milton P.R.
"Answers [...] dark,
Ambiguous, and with double sense deluding."
Cite #4
1752 Johnson Rambl.
"The gentlemen irritated me with ambiguous insults."
Cite #5
1853 Maurice Proph. & Kings
"I do not rest anything upon tenses.
Every reader of the prophets must feel
how ambiguous they are."
Cite #7
1867 A. J. Ellis Early English Pronunciation, p. 25
"The Welsh alphabet [...] having only
one ambiguous letter, y."
==
J L Speranza, Esq
Country Town
St Michael's Hall Suite 5/8
Calle 58, No 611 Calle Arenales 2021
La Plata CP 1900 Recoleta CP 1124
Tel 00541148241050 Tel 00542214257817
BUENOS AIRES, Argentina
Telefax 00542214259205
http://www.netverk.com.ar/~jls/
jls@netverk.com.ar
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 10 2002 - 17:53:19 GMT