====== Equivocation ======

Use of a term in multiple different meanings. Equivocations are a possible source of [[ambiguity:index|fallacies of ambiguity]], as well as misunderstandings and a rhetorical device of confusion.

See, for example, the following example:

> Gandalf: //Have you been <u ambiguous "meaning: secretly listening to a conversation">eavesdropping</u>?//
> Sam: //I haven’t <u ambiguous "meaning: letting the eaves of a house fall">dropped no eaves</u>, Sir, honestly!//

In this movie quote, Sam is trying to using the term “[[wp>Eavesdropping|eavesdropping]]” (or “dropping [[wp>Eaves|eaves]]”) with a very different meaning than Gandalf. Indeed, it appears as if he is deliberately confusing the meaning in order to talk himself out of an unpleasant situation.

An example of an //equivocation// in logical statements could be the following<span noprint> ([[app>#celarent|Open in Syllogism-Finder App]])</span>:

> Nothing //<u ambiguous"equivocation">light</u>// can ever be //dark//.
> All //feathers// are //<u ambiguous"equivocation">light</u>//.
> <s conclusio invalid>Therefore, no //feather// can ever be //dark//.</s>

The term "light" is used in two different meanings here: in the //major// (first) premise is stands for the opposite of "dark", but for the opposite of "heavy" in the //minor// (second) one. By equivocation of the term, this [[glossary:syllogism|syllogism]] specifically commits the fallacy of the [[logic:formal_fallacies:four-term_fallacy:ambiguous_middle|ambiguous middle term]].

===== Equivocation of abstract terms =====

While such ambiguities are usually easily identified as [[glossary:synonym|synonyms]] when they refer to actually existing things or perceivable properties, this distiction can be rather difficult for //abstract// terms 

use of synonyms for terms that stand for real life objects is usually quite easy to understand, the distinction for abstract concepts can sometimes be quite difficult, as the following example (loosely based on [[wp>Thomas Aquinas]]) shows:

> <u questionable "refers to the species">Humans</u> are a //species//.
> //Socrates// is a <u questionable "refers to individuals of that species">human</u>.
> <span conclusio>Therefore: <s invalid "invalid">Socrates is a species</s>.</span>

Here, the term “human” in the //major// (first) clause is used as a //generic// term, i.e. it refers to the genus “human” as a whole, while the same term in the //minor// (second) clause refers specifically to the //individuals// of that genus. One could thus rephrase the latter as: "Socrates is an individual of the human genus" (see also: <span maniculus "go to:">[[abstraction:semiotic_fallacy|semiotic fallacy]]</span>). 

Since these two meanings have different [[glossary:extension|extensions]], this is a case of //equivocation// and thus it commits the fallacy of the [[logic:formal_fallacies:four-term_fallacy:ambiguous_middle|ambiguous middle term]]. 

In principle, such [[ambiguity:index|fallacies of ambiguity]] are easiest to commit if the terms used are rather complex, abstract, vague – and possibly even contradictory defined (<span maniculus "see:">[[glossary/equivocation:weakly_defined_terms|weakly defined terms]]</span>). 

==== Ambiguities in concepts and positions ====

Not only individual words or terms can be confounded due to ambiguities, but also complex concepts or positions can be affected by this. It is also valid that the more abstract and complicated they are, the more difficult it can be to recognise ambiguities.

A type of fallacy of both reasoning and argumentation that is based on vague or ambiguous definitions of terms is the [[ambiguity:motte-and-bailey|Motte-and-Bailey fallacy]]: this is the name given to conflating two or more related, but clearly distinguishable positions, of which only one is argumentatively easy to defend. These are also often based on //equivocations// or even [[rhetoric:unfair_discussion_tactics:redefinition|redefinitions]] of the terms used.

==== Copula and conjunctions ====

Not only the actual terms can be ambiguous, but also the often-overseen parts of the grammatical structure. 

In particular, this concerns the //verbs// that define the relationship between subject and object – and especially in natural language phrases, which often do not meet the same requirements of precision as would be needed for formal logical expressions.

Consider the following example:

> 1 //is// a number.
> 2 //is// a number.
> <span conclusio>Therefore: <s invalid>1 //is// 2</s>.</span>

Here the copula verb “is” is used in the two premises in the sense of "is an //element// of", while in the conclusion it is used as "is //equivalent// to". These are of course not the same

Incidentally, the above [[glossary:syllogism|syllogism]] also commits the error of the [[logic:formal_fallacies:fallacies_of_distribution:undistributed_middle|undistributed middle term]].

A similar problem concerns the [[glossary:disjunction|disjunction]] (denoted by the junctor "and"), where a distinction must be made between an //inclusive// ([[glossary:adjunction|adjunction]]) and an //exclusive// ([[glossary:contravalence|contravalence]]) variant.

===== Sources of ambiguity =====
==== Word ambiguities ====

Words can be ambiguous in several ways; this is explained in more detail in the article on [[glossary:equivocation:homonymy|homonymy]]. Here are just a few examples of the different types of //homonyms//:

  * **Polysemy:** FIXME
  * **Homographs:** FIXME
  * **Homophone:** FIXME

Furthermore, equivocations can arise from the fact that a term has been used in a figurative sense (see: [[glossary:equivocation:metonymy|metonymy]]).

==== Grammatical and phonetic ambiguities ====

If the ambiguity is due to the grammatical structure, this is called an [[glossary:equivocation:amphiboly|amphiboly]].

In many cases, //amphiboles// are linked to intonation or a specific melody of the phrase. In these cases, they are called [[glossary:equivocation:prosody|prosodies]].

==== Intensional ambiguities ====

If an ambiguity results from the way in which the terms are refered to, we speak of an [[glossary:equivocation:intensional|intensional equivocation]].

===== Subpages =====

FIXME **The sub-pages of this article are still under development.**

  * [[glossary:equivocation:amphiboly|Amphiboly]]
  * [[glossary:equivocation:homonymy|Homonymy]]
  * [[glossary:equivocation:intensional|Intensional equivocation]]
  * [[glossary:equivocation:metonymy|Metonymy]]
  * [[glossary:equivocation:prosody|Prosody]]
  * [[glossary:equivocation:weakly_defined_terms|Weakly defined terms]]

===== See also =====

  * [[ambiguity:index|(Fallacies of) ambiguity]]
    * [[ambiguity:syntactic:generic_generalization|Generic generalisation]]
    * [[ambiguity:motte-and-bailey|Motte-and-Bailey fallacy]]
  * [[glossary:extension|Extension]]
  * [[glossary:intension|Intension]]
  * [[abstraction:semiotic_fallacy|Semiotic fallacy]]
  * [[logic:formal_fallacies:four-term_fallacy:index|Four-term fallacy]]

===== More information =====

  * [[wp>Equivocation]] on //Wikipedia//
  * [[https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Equivocation|Equivocation]] on //RationalWiki//
  * [[http://www.fallacyfiles.org/equivoqu.html|Equivocation]] on //Fallacy Files//

{{page>templates:banner#Short-BG-Article&noheader&nofooter}}