ambiguity, understanding its nature and framing arguments to resolve it. This is
more so the case given that some forms of ambiguity, for example ambiguity
of implication, are not always obvious to an untrained eye.
Caution
While identifying ambiguity is fine in principle, there is a problem in practice.
In some cases it is easy for identification of ambiguity to become enmeshed
with arguments to support it.
163
By letting ambiguity bleed into arguments that
support it an interpreter risks two failures –
not properly identifying the
ambiguity and not being completely sensitive to the nature and force of the
particular argument. Therefore, the better approach is to see ambiguity on the
basis that the word or phrase could conceivably, whether in present context or
another, have two or more meanings. This sharpens attention both to the
identity of the meanings and arguments that can support or oppose them. In
the case where there is an ambiguity, but it is a far fetched possibility in the
particular context, the interpreter will quickly realise that this is the case. In the
alternative case, though, where ambiguity and argument coalesce, an interpreter
risks the twin failures described above – not properly identifying the ambiguity
and not being completely sensitive to the nature and force of the particular
argument.
163
Ambiguity of implication is a prime example – see Chapter 10 Classifying
Meanings.
 |
 |
 |