Frank asked:

What are the Seven Categories of Ambiguity? Who is it that created the construct, and when? Does
the concept still have validity today?

============

I take it that you are talking about ambiguity in the sense of ambiguous strings of words. In this sense,
ambiguity is where a given string can be understood as a meaningful one in more than one way. I
have never come across the seven categories of ambiguity, but Wilfred Hodges sets out three types
of ambiguity which might interest you and which sum up the issue:

*
Lexical ambiguities — where a single word in a sentence can be understood in more than one way
(as in the tailor who boasted that his suits would always give you a fit).

*
Structural ambiguities are said to occur when words in a sentence can be differently grouped (as in
"the chap I heard about at Oriel College" — i.e. did I hear about him while I was at Oriel or did I hear
about him when he was at Oriel?).

*
The Ambiguity of Cross Reference occurs when a word or phrase in a sentence refers back to
something mentioned earlier in the sentence (or somewhere else for that matter), but where it is
unclear exactly what it refers back to. (e.g. "As he uttered the crucial word, he lowered his voice, but I
just managed to catch it").

It is worth adding to Hodges that there can be combinations of the above types of ambiguity (e.g. the
electrical store which claimed its microwave prices were very low and that they were guaranteed to
give you a shock).

Note that one can talk about ambiguity in different ways: in the sense that a string of words
represents two different sentencesor in the sense that one sentence has two different meanings.

A. Gatward

I believe that this is a reference to Sir William Empson's Seven Types of Ambiguity(London, 1930).
Together with I. A. Richards's Practical Criticism(London, 1929), this is one of the defining works of
the so-called 'New Criticism'. The New Criticism differed from earlier approaches in placing less
emphasis on the historical or biographical context of a work's composition, and more on the
elucidation of its thematic structure through a close reading.

For Empson an ambiguity is 'any verbal nuance, however slight, which gives room for alternative
reactions to the same piece of language'. His seven types are to be understood as 'stages of
advancing logical [or grammatical] disorder' that may be exhibited in a text.

*
The first type arises when a
passage may be understood in more than one way, as in the Hodges examples above. Actually,
Hodges's attention is restricted to differences in what words mean, whereas Empson is concerned
with differences in what their author meant. Moreover, Empson includes in this type a greater
diversity of sources of ambiguity, including matters which transcend simple logical analysis, such as
metaphor and rhythm.

*
In second-type ambiguities the
different meanings work together, and the reader may resolve them into a single sense.

*
Third-type ambiguities simultaneously convey two or more apparently unconnected meanings, as in
puns or, to a more protracted extent, allegory.

*
Fourth-type ambiguities work at a less superficial, and less conscious level: the distinct meanings
exhibit a complexity in the author's state of mind.

*
In the fifth type the ambiguity arises because the author has changed his mind or developed his ideas
in the course of composing the passage.

*
Sixth-type ambiguities appear to be meaningless, because contradictory, tautologous or irrelevant,
and the reader is left to deduce what must have been intended. The ambiguity, such as it is, is
between the different possible meanings which the reader may attribute to the passage.

*
Finally, the seventh type is also contradictory, carrying opposite meanings simultaneously, both of
which are in some respect intended by the author.

Is the concept still valid? Well, paperback editions of Seven Typesare in print on both sides of the
Atlantic, so somebody is still reading (or at least buying) the book. My understanding is that while the
techniques of close reading which Richards and Empson pioneered have stood the test of time,
Empson's attempt to work his method up into a full aesthetics of poetry has little contemporary
support. As a philosopher, I'm disposed to be suspicious of subtle distinctions which rely heavily on
readers' interpretive sensibilities, although I'm also reluctant to second-guess the opinions of literature
departments. Is there an 'Ask a Literary Critic' site?

Andrew Aberdein
Dept of Logic and Metaphysics
St Andrews University, Scotland