Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Ambiguity plays a more central and widespread role in sen... — Carmelics
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Ambiguity plays a more central and widespread role in sentence, utterance, and discourse interpretation than previously assumed.

    Philosophy of Language
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Lepore and Stone (2016) deploy disambiguation systematically across a range of interpretive phenomena.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If disambiguation is operative in many cases thought to involve context sensitivity or implicature, then ambiguity is more pervasive than standard accounts acknowledge.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Grice's Razor (a parsimony principle) favors positing pragmatic inference over lexical ambiguity when a unified semantic entry suffices.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Sperber and Wilson's relevance theory demonstrates that a single literal meaning plus contextual inference explains the same data Lepore and Stone attribute to disambiguation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Multiplying lexical ambiguities to explain interpretive variation violates the methodological constraint that semantic theory should minimize unmotivated homonymy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Stanley and Szabó's (2000) framework shows that apparent ambiguity often reflects context-sensitive variable saturation within a stable, univocal logical form.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If syntactically covert variables rather than multiple lexical entries account for interpretive flexibility, then the scope of genuine ambiguity does not expand but remains narrow.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Philosophy of Language

    Related

    Grice's Razor (a parsimony principle) favors positing pragmatic inference over l...If disambiguation is operative in many cases thought to involve context sensitiv...If syntactically covert variables rather than multiple lexical entries account f...Lepore and Stone (2016) deploy disambiguation systematically across a range of i...
    +3 moreShow less
    Multiplying lexical ambiguities to explain interpretive variation violates the m...Sperber and Wilson's relevance theory demonstrates that a single literal meaning...Stanley and Szabó's (2000) framework shows that apparent ambiguity often reflect...

    Similar

    In Charmides and Lysis, Socrates appears to play a more active role in...80%Q8 is a cornerstone for the area of discourse about perceivable things...79%Contextualism dissolves the puzzle by saying that sentences express di...78%Meaning has to do with the role that a word's cognition plays within a...78%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: ambiguity
    View source passageHide passage
    Of course, given what has been discussed, this looks to be more like a case of under-specificity, or simply ignorance of a word’s meaning (in 1787), not ambiguity. As the distinction has no real legal relevance in this case, it is ignored as it generally is in common parlance. 6. Ambiguity and Indexicality: Are They Easily Told Apart? In section 2 we looked at phenomena that were not the same as ambiguity; in this section, we look at a few cases in which we might have been wrong to tear them
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit