 One important question regarding ambiguity is how we ought to represent ambiguities. With structural ambiguities there is no independent issue but with lexical ambiguities there is a real issue. It’s tempting to see this as a question we could answer in any number of equally good ways. For example, we may choose to represent the meaning of ‘bank’ disjunctively or we may choose to individuate ‘bank’ as multiple lexical items that simply sound and look alike, perhaps using subscripts. Both are potentially problematic if taken as analyses: disjunctive meanings are not unique to ambiguity (I can introduce any term I like with a single disjunctive meaning), and representation using subscripts simply masks the question of what the subscripts represent. This suggests that the issue is more like a problem than a nuisance or a trivial choice and actually has serious ramifications for how to pursue truth conditional semantics. (See Davidson 1967, Gillon 1990, and Saka 2007 (Ch. 6) for an interesting account of the problem regarding representing ambiguity.) I’ll proceed as though lexical ambiguities are properly represented as two separate words/lexical items that overlap with respect to some significant feature (phonologically, graphemically, pictorially…).