Philosophy Dictionary of ArgumentsHome
| |||
|
| |||
| Ambiguity: Ambiguity is the property of a word, phrase, or sentence that has more than one possible meaning._____________Annotation: The above characterizations of concepts are neither definitions nor exhausting presentations of problems related to them. Instead, they are intended to give a short introduction to the contributions below. – Lexicon of Arguments. | |||
| Author | Concept | Summary/Quotes | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
|
John Lyons on Ambiguity - Dictionary of Arguments
I 252 Ambiguity/transformational/grammar/Lyons: there are many more types here, in addition to the various parentheses. E.g. amor dei: the love of God: a) from God, b) to God. Subjective or objective genitive. I 253 Chomsky: famous example: Flying planes can be dangerous a) Planes can be dangerous b) Flying can be dangerous Tradition: would explain this by the difference between participle and gerund: Def Participle/Lyons: is a word derived from a verb and used as an adjective. Def Gerund/Lyons: is a word derived from a verb and used as a noun. Solution: a) Flying planes are dangerous. b) Flying planes is dangerous. I 254 Lexeme/Lyons: a certain word (here in the abstract sense) can be verbal in a sentence and nominal in a transformationally related sentence. (Participle/Gerund). >Lexeme, >Words, >Terminology/Lyons. Solution/Transformation/Lyons: then we can say that for example the syntagma Flying planes is derived by a rule that transforms the structure underlying the sentence Flying planes can be dangerous. >Transformational grammar. I 255 Ambiguity/grammatical/Lyons: new: here we are dealing with ambiguity, which is no longer only semantic but also grammatical. Chomsky: Example the shooting of the hunters. Subject/object/Chomsky/Lyons: the difference becomes clear here by the fact that "of" i, subject-case possessive pronoun, is a preposition in the object-case. Solution: by convention: we introduce indices: NP1, NP2 ((s) Instead of subject/object). >Subject, >Object. ing-form: is often grammatically ambiguous, i.e. a syntagma of the form the V + ing of NP, but not necessarily also semantically ambiguous. I 256 Solution: the grammar should provide the following forms: (5) NP1 V tr NP2 (6) NP1 V intr and further, that a) the V of the V + ing of NP is identical with an element of V tr in (5) and an element of V intr in (6), and b) the NP of the V + ing of NP can occur both as NP2 in (5) and as NP1 in (6). >Cf. >Unambiguity, >Grammar, >Generative Grammar, >Universal grammar, >Categorial grammar, >Transformational grammar._____________Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution. Translations: Dictionary of Arguments The note [Concept/Author], [Author1]Vs[Author2] or [Author]Vs[term] resp. "problem:"/"solution:", "old:"/"new:" and "thesis:" is an addition from the Dictionary of Arguments. If a German edition is specified, the page numbers refer to this edition. |
Ly II John Lyons Semantics Cambridge, MA 1977 Lyons I John Lyons Introduction to Theoretical Lingustics, Cambridge/MA 1968 German Edition: Einführung in die moderne Linguistik München 1995 |
||
Ed. Martin Schulz, access date 2024-04-19