During the interpretation process, we have talked about previously, in which agent B deduces P' from sentence F' (= F) ambiguities of various nature can born. This is due to the fact that the natural language is not a formal language. We are used to distinguish such ambiguities in four classes: lexical ambiguities, syntactic ambiguities, semantic ambiguities and pragmatic ambiguities. Such distinction is not exhaustive but it is useful to focus on the problem and for practical purposes.
Lexical Ambiguity.
We will omit the problem of words written or
pronounced not correctly. This kind of errors are simply solvable through
the comparison with the expressions contained in a dictionary (like
your word process application probably does). What I want to evidence now, is
that a same word can assume various meanings. In this case the
that ambiguity is generated from the fact that the intelligent agent could not be able to chose the right meant.
As an example we consider the "cold" adjective in the following sentences:
Syntactic ambiguities.
Do you remember the logical analysis you probably learn at school? Well
that one is just the first step. Through the syntactic analysis our
program would have to be in a position to isolating subject, verbs
and various complements... Sure it can be done, but it is already rather complex.
I would not want you to discover yourself "ignorant", but try to open a book and begin to
make logical analysis... let me know after how many lines you give up!
An example in order to clarify the problem:
I do not know about you, but I am not able to solve the problem... and, on the other hand,
I would not know how to explain it to my computer! Stop Joking,
I mean that developing a good syntactic analyzer is very difficult and however it couldn't
completely solve our problems! Let's consider the
following phrase as an example:
It can be interpreted like: " While I was at the
university, I have seen Mario. " or " I have seen Mario, who was
to the university. ". This is what we are used to call
syntactic ambiguity. It is due to the fact that the sentence has two
derivation trees (both syntactically corrected) each one carrying
to a different result.
Semantic ambiguities.
To analyze a phrase from the semantic point of view means
to give it a meaning. This should let you understand we
arrived to a crucial point. Semantic ambiguities born from
the fact that generally a computer is not in a position to
distinguishing what is logical from what is not. As an
example if a friend says to you:
All of us would surely interpret the phrase like " The car, while
moving, hit the pole. ", while nobody would be
dreamed to attribute to the sentence the meant "the car hit the pole while the pole was moving
". Why the first interpretation is preferred to the
second one? Because we have a model of the world that helps us to
distinguish what is logical (or possible) from what is not. In the last example the fact
"the car is moving" is logical, while "the pole was moving" is not. To supply to
a computer a model of the world is not so easy!
Pragmatic ambiguities.
Pragmatic ambiguities born when the communication
happens between two agents who do not share the same context. We
imagine to receive a telephone call from a friend far away, even
than living in a different continent: