Editing Ambiguity (section)

== Linguistic forms ==
Lexical ambiguity is contrasted with [[semantic ambiguity]].{{cn|date=February 2025}} The former represents a choice between a finite number of known and meaningful [[context (language use)|context]]-dependent interpretations. The latter represents a choice between any number of possible interpretations, none of which may have a standard agreed-upon meaning. This form of ambiguity is closely related to [[vagueness]].

Ambiguity in human language is argued to reflect principles of efficient communication.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Piantadosi |first1=Steven |last2=Tily |first2=Hal |last3=Gibson |first3=Edward |title=The communicative function of ambiguity in language |journal=Cognition |date=2012 |volume=122 |issue=3 |pages=280–291 |doi=10.1016/j.cognition.2011.10.004  |pmid=22192697 |hdl=1721.1/102465 |s2cid=13726095 |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0010027711002496|hdl-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Finn |first1=Emily |title=The advantage of ambiguity |url=https://news.mit.edu/2012/ambiguity-in-language-0119 |agency=MIT Press |date=January 19, 2012}}</ref> Languages that communicate efficiently will avoid sending information that is redundant with information provided in the context. This can be shown mathematically to result in a system that is ambiguous when context is neglected. In this way, ambiguity is viewed as a generally useful feature of a linguistic system. 

Linguistic ambiguity [[Ambiguity (law)|can be a problem in law]], because the interpretation of written documents and oral agreements is often of paramount importance.[[File:Structural analysis of an ambiguous spanish sentence.svg|thumb|Structural analysis of an ambiguous Spanish sentence:<br /> '''Pepe vio a Pablo enfurecido.'''<br />Interpretation 1: When Pepe was angry, then he saw Pablo.<br />Interpretation 2: Pepe saw that Pablo was angry.<br />Here, the syntactic tree in figure represents interpretation 2.]]

=== Lexical ambiguity ===
The [[Polysemy|lexical ambiguity]] of a word or phrase applies to it having more than one meaning in the language to which the word belongs.<ref name="SmallCottrell2013">{{cite book|author1=Steven L. Small|author2=Garrison W Cottrell|author3=Michael K Tanenhaus|title=Lexical Ambiguity Resolution: Perspective from Psycholinguistics, Neuropsychology and Artificial Intelligence|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-J-fAgAAQBAJ|date=22 October 2013|publisher=Elsevier Science|isbn=978-0-08-051013-2}}</ref> "Meaning" here refers to whatever should be represented by a good dictionary. For instance, the word "bank" has several distinct lexical definitions, including "[[Bank|financial institution]]" and "[[Bank (geography)|edge of a river]]". Or consider "[[apothecary]]". One could say "I bought herbs from the apothecary". This could mean one actually spoke to the apothecary ([[pharmacist]]) or went to the apothecary ([[pharmacy]]).

The context in which an ambiguous word is used often makes it clearer which of the meanings is intended. If, for instance, someone says "I put $100 in the bank", most people would not think someone used a shovel to dig in the mud. However, some linguistic contexts do not provide sufficient information to make a used word clearer.

Lexical ambiguity can be addressed by [[algorithm]]ic methods that automatically associate the appropriate meaning with a word in context, a task referred to as [[word-sense disambiguation]].

The use of multi-defined words requires the author or speaker to clarify their context, and sometimes elaborate on their specific intended meaning (in which case, a less ambiguous term should have been used). The goal of clear concise communication is that the receiver(s) have no misunderstanding about what was meant to be conveyed. An exception to this could include a politician whose "[[weasel word]]s" and [[obfuscation]] are necessary to gain support from multiple [[Electoral district|constituents]] with [[mutually exclusive]] conflicting desires from his or her candidate of choice. Ambiguity is a powerful tool of [[political science]].

More problematic are words whose multiple meanings express closely related concepts. "Good", for example, can mean "useful" or "functional" (''That's a good hammer''), "exemplary" (''She's a good student''), "pleasing" (''This is good soup''), "moral" (''a good person'' versus ''the lesson to be learned from a story''), "[[righteous]]", etc. "I have a good daughter" is not clear about which sense is intended. The various ways to apply [[prefix]]es and [[suffix]]es can also create ambiguity ("unlockable" can mean "capable of being opened" or "impossible to lock").

=== Semantic and syntactic ambiguity ===
[[File:Comedic Wet Cat Food sign in an ASDA supermarket.jpg|thumb|Which is wet: the food, or the cat?]]
[[Semantic ambiguity]] occurs when a word, phrase or sentence, taken out of context, has more than one interpretation. In "We saw her duck" (example due to Richard Nordquist), the words "her duck" can refer either
# to the person's bird (the noun "duck", modified by the possessive pronoun "her"), or
# to a motion she made (the verb "duck", the subject of which is the objective pronoun "her", object of the verb "saw").<ref name="ReferenceA" />

[[Syntactic ambiguity]] arises when a sentence can have two (or more) different meanings because of the structure of the sentence—its syntax. This is often due to a modifying expression, such as a prepositional phrase, the application of which is unclear. "He ate the cookies on the couch", for example, could mean that he ate those cookies that were on the couch (as opposed to those that were on the table), or it could mean that he was sitting on the couch when he ate the cookies. "To get in, you will need an entrance fee of $10 or your voucher and your drivers' license." This could mean that you need EITHER ten dollars OR BOTH your voucher and your license. Or it could mean that you need your license AND you need EITHER ten dollars OR a voucher. Only rewriting the sentence, or placing appropriate punctuation can resolve a syntactic ambiguity.<ref name="ReferenceA">Critical Thinking, 10th ed., Ch 3, Moore, Brooke N. and Parker, Richard. McGraw-Hill, 2012</ref>
For the notion of, and theoretic results about, syntactic ambiguity in artificial, [[formal languages]] (such as computer [[programming language]]s), see [[Ambiguous grammar]].

Usually, semantic and syntactic ambiguity go hand in hand. The sentence "We saw her duck" is also syntactically ambiguous. Conversely, a sentence like "He ate the cookies on the couch" is also semantically ambiguous. Rarely, but occasionally, the different parsings of a syntactically ambiguous phrase result in the same meaning. For example, the command "Cook, cook!" can be parsed as "Cook (noun used as [[vocative expression|vocative]]), cook (imperative verb form)!", but also as "Cook (imperative verb form), cook (noun used as vocative)!". It is more common that a syntactically unambiguous phrase has a semantic ambiguity; for example, the lexical ambiguity in "Your boss is a funny man" is purely semantic, leading to the response "Funny ha-ha or funny peculiar?"

[[Spoken language]] can contain many more types of ambiguities that are called phonological ambiguities, where there is more than one way to compose a set of sounds into words. For example, "ice cream" and "I scream". Such ambiguity is generally resolved according to the context. A mishearing of such, based on incorrectly resolved ambiguity, is called a [[mondegreen]].