Dear tmetz001,
Syntax is the structure of a sentence, while semantics is the meaning
of its words. If the form of a sentence can be interpreted in several
grammatically correct ways, we say it is syntactically ambiguous. For
example, in the sentence
I saw a thief with my telescope.
the syntax is ambiguous, since it is not clear whether the clause
"with my telescope" modifies the predicate "saw" or the object
"thief". Thus, we are dealing with a syntactic ambiguity.
Now suppose someone was reported to have said the following.
I love it when I stub my toe.
Here, the structure of the sentence is clear, There is no question as
to what the subject, object, and predicate are. There is no syntactic
ambiguity. However, it is difficult -- indeed impossible without
further context -- to say what sentiment it expresses. Since stubbing
one's toe is generally acknowledged as an unpleasant experience, we
might assume that this sentence was spoken in jest, but then it might
have been voiced in earnest by a masochist. What we have here is a
semantic ambiguity.
In the particular case you mention --
If George Washington and Benjamin Franklin were the father of our
country, they certainly must have had many children!
-- the sentence has a straightforward structure and is therefore not
syntactically ambiguous. However, it is not clear whether it is spoken
with humorous intent or out of naivete, so it is semantically
ambiguous. The metaphorical expression to which it refers, "the father
of our country", is not itself ambiguous, for this is an established
figure of speech. What we don't know upon reading this sentence is
whether the speaker is a backward child who has no comprehension of
metaphor, or an adult who is attempting a feeble joke.
So, you see, semantic ambiguity depends entirely on the context within
which a sentence occurs and on the knowledge of whomever hears it or
reads it, whereas syntactic ambiguity is an independent notion. Even
if you knew that the person who said, "I saw a thief with my
telescope," had in fact seen someone stealing his telescope, making it
clear to you what he meant with the sentence, it would still be a
syntactically ambiguous sentence because of the dual structural
interpretation. But if you knew that the person who said, "I love it
when I stub my toe," was given to irony, you would not find it
semantically ambiguous. Your sentence about the fathers of the country
is semantically ambiguous if we are unfamiliar with the speaker. On
the other hand, if it takes place in a conversation with known
participants, we gain additional information that may allow us to
eliminate the semantic ambiguity.
Regards,
leapinglizard |
