Editing Pragmatics (section)

==Ambiguity==
{{main article|Ambiguity}}
Ambiguity refers to when it is difficult to infer meaning without knowing the context, the identity of the speaker or the speaker's intent. For example, the sentence "You have a green light" is ambiguous, as without knowing the context, one could reasonably interpret it as meaning:
* the space that belongs to you has green ambient lighting;
* you are driving through a green traffic signal;
* you no longer have to wait to continue driving;
* you are permitted to proceed in a non-driving context;
* your body is cast in a greenish glow;
* you possess a light source which radiates green; or
* you possess a light with a green surface.

Another example of an ambiguous sentence is, "I went to the bank." This is an example of lexical ambiguity, as the word bank can either be in reference to a place where money is kept, or the edge of a river. To understand what the speaker is truly saying, it is a matter of context, which is why it is pragmatically ambiguous as well.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://all-about-linguistics.group.shef.ac.uk/branches-of-linguistics/pragmatics/what-is-pragmatics/|title=What is pragmatics? – All About Linguistics|language=en-US|access-date=2020-02-10|archive-date=2020-02-17|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200217033725/http://all-about-linguistics.group.shef.ac.uk/branches-of-linguistics/pragmatics/what-is-pragmatics/|url-status=dead}}</ref>

Similarly, the sentence "Sherlock saw the man with binoculars" could mean that Sherlock observed the man by using binoculars, or it could mean that Sherlock observed a man who was holding binoculars (''[[syntactic ambiguity]]'').<ref>{{cite web | url= http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Linguistics-and-Philosophy/24-903Spring-2005/CourseHome/ | last=von Fintel | first=Kai | title= 24.903 / 24.933 Language and its Structure III: Semantics and Pragmatics | website= MIT [[OpenCourseWare]]| publisher=[[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]] | date=2004 | access-date=October 17, 2017 | url-status=dead | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100409033734/http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Linguistics-and-Philosophy/24-903Spring-2005/CourseHome/ | archive-date=April 9, 2010}}</ref> The meaning of the sentence depends on an understanding of the context and the speaker's intent. As defined in linguistics, a sentence is an abstract entity: a string of words divorced from non-linguistic context, as opposed to an [[utterance]], which is a concrete example of a [[speech act]] in a specific context. The more closely conscious subjects stick to common words, idioms, phrasings, and topics, the more easily others can surmise their meaning; the further they stray from common expressions and topics, the wider the variations in interpretations. That suggests that sentences do not have intrinsic meaning, that there is no meaning associated with a sentence or word, and that either can represent an idea only symbolically. ''The cat sat on the mat'' is a sentence in English. If someone were to say to someone else, "The cat sat on the mat", the act is itself an utterance. That implies that a sentence, term, expression or word cannot symbolically represent a single true meaning; such meaning is underspecified (which cat sat on which mat?) and potentially ambiguous. By contrast, the meaning of an utterance can be inferred through knowledge of both its linguistic and non-linguistic contexts (which may or may not be sufficient to resolve ambiguity). In mathematics, with [[Berry's paradox]], there arises a similar systematic ambiguity with the word "definable".