Ambiguity is a fascinating area of study: a couple of examples of this arise from some of the responses to the original question in this thread:
Another interpretation of “Tom didn't marry Sally because she is a waitress” could be that Tom’s a woman and a waitress.
And “UN peacekeepers are currently forbidden to take offensive military actions” could be taken to mean they the UN peacekeepers can take military actions as long as those actions don’t offend anyone.
Isn’t it the elusive clarity of language that delights those of us who love to study it?
Richard Grant
Washington Adventist University
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Turner, Tildon L.
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2014 6:39 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Universal or particular category?
Agreed. However, therein lies the vast difference between linguistic and extralinguistic meaning. Pragmatics can always raise its head and alter meaning or create ambiguity. This is why I stated that there was no "structural" ambiguity to the sentence. For instance, I can say, "Tom didn't marry Sally because she is a waitress." In this case there is structural and pragmatic ambiguity. Structurally, "not" can have narrow or wide scope, which could mean Tom didn't marry Sally, or he married her for a different reason. Pragmatically, there could be negative connotations with "waitress" that could persuade some to interpret only the narrow scope interpretation, which would be that Tom didn't marry Sally.
Ambiguity is a fascinating area of study.
Til Turner
Languages and Literature
Northern Virginia Community College
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Dick Veit [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2014 5:49 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Universal or particular category?
Context is everything, and a question like this isn't answerable without reference outside a strictly linguistic realm. In the real world, we know that,UN peacekeepers are currently forbidden to take offensive military actions. As a result, they have sometimes been forced to stand by as helpless people have been raped and slaughtered. In the face of atrocities, should they be allowed to fight the perpetrators?
In a strictly linguistic context, there are other interpretations. When, however, we add information from the actual world, we can discern an intended interpretation.
By the way, if we ignore context, we could also debate whether "power" meant "firepower" or "authority." With context, we understand the latter.
Dick Veit
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Scott Woods <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Dear List,
In the following sentence, would you interpret the term "peacekeepers" as meaning "all peacekeepers" or "some peacekeepers"?
United Nations peacekeepers should have the power to engage in offensive operations.
This is a current debate topic in high school debate. The affirmative side would like to limit the scope of the resolution to "some," while the negative would like to force the affirmative to argue for "all."
How could each side support their claim? What linguistic theories or arguments could be brought into play to support each side?
Thanks,
Scott Woods
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
_____
This email has been scanned by WAU 3-Tier Anti-Virus/Anti-Spam System.
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/