Amphibology

This article is about the ambiguous grammatical construction. For the logical fallacy, see equivocation. For the mineral, see amphibole. For the study of amphibians (amphibiology), see amphibian.

Amphibology or amphiboly (from the Greek ἀμφιβολία, amphibolia) is an ambiguous grammatical structure in a sentence^{[citation needed]} or within a very short discourse, such as two sentences.

Examples

• Teenagers shouldn't be allowed to drive. It's getting too dangerous on the streets.

These sentences could be taken to mean the teenagers will be in danger, or that they are causing the danger.

• The duke yet lives that Henry shall depose. — Henry VI (1.4.30), by Shakespeare

Amphiboly occurs frequently in poetry, owing to the alteration of the natural order of words for metrical reasons. The sentence could be taken to mean that Henry will depose the duke, or that the duke will depose Henry.

• Eduardum occidere nolite timere bonum est. — Edward II by Marlowe

According to legend, Isabella of France and Roger Mortimer, 1st Earl of March, famously plotted to murder Edward II of England in such a way as not to draw blame on themselves, sending a famous order in Latin which, depending on where the comma was inserted, could mean either "Do not be afraid to kill Edward; it is good" or "Do not kill Edward; it is good to fear":

Fear not to kill the king, 'tis good he die. / Kill not the king, 'tis good to fear the worst. (5.4.8-11)

• (Professor to student, on receiving a fifty-page term paper): "I shall waste no time reading it." (Moses Hadas)

Implies either that the professor will read it as soon as he possibly can, or that he will not misspend his time by reading it.

• No food is better than our food.

Implies that ours is best, or that ours is so poor that having none is the better choice.

Outside formal logic

Apart from its use as a technical term in logic, equivocation can also mean the use of language that is ambiguous, i.e. equally susceptible of being understood in two different ways. There is usually a strong connotation that the ambiguity is being used with intention to deceive.

This type of equivocation was famously mocked in the porter's speech in Shakespeare's Macbeth, in which the porter directly alludes to the practice of deceiving under oath by means of equivocation.

Faith, here's an equivocator, that could swear in both the scales against either scale; who committed treason enough for God's sake, yet could not equivocate to heaven. (Macbeth, Act 2, Scene 3)

See, for example Robert Southwell and Henry Garnet, author of A Treatise of Equivocation (published secretly c. 1595)—to whom, it is supposed, Shakespeare was specifically referring.^{[citation needed]} Shakespeare made the reference to priests because the religious use of equivocation was well known in those periods of early modern England (e.g. under James VI/I) when it was a capital offence for a Roman Catholic priest to enter England. A Jesuit priest would equivocate in order to protect himself from the secular authorities without (in his eyes) committing the sin of lying. For example, he could use the ambiguity of the word "a" (meaning "any" or "one") to say "I swear I am not a priest", because he could have a particular priest in mind who he was not. That is, in his mind, he was saying "I swear I am not one priest" (e.g. "I am not Father Brown".) This was theorized by casuists as the doctrine of mental reservation.

According to Malloch and Huntley (1966), this doctrine of permissible "equivocation" did not originate with the Jesuits. They cite a short treatise, in cap. Humanae aures, that had been written by Martin Azpilcueta (also known as Doctor Navarrus), an Augustinian who was serving as a consultant to the Apostolic Penitentiary. It was published in Rome in 1584. The first Jesuit influence upon this doctrine was not until 1609, "when Suarez rejected Azpilcueta's basic proof and supplied another" (speaking of Francisco Suárez).

See also

• "On the Amphiboly of Concepts of Reflection" – a chapter in Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason
• Syntactic ambiguity

References

• Malloch, A. E.; Huntley, Frank L. (Mar 1966). "Some Notes on Equivocation". PMLA 81 (1): 145–6. doi:10.2307/461317.