Who determines linguistic meaning?

Folks

My view of conceptual analysis is as concerned with the meanings of terms (i.e. their reference conditions, i.e. the conditions that would have to be satisfied for them to refer successfully). This is because I’ve never seen, or been able to come up with, a convincing account of how conceptual questions differ from semantic ones.

It’s against this backdrop that I ask the following question. Is the meaning of a term determined by

a) its originator,
b) a group of authority figures, or
c) the majority of speakers who use it?

I want to be specific about the question I’m asking here. I’m not asking about technical terms such as ‘energy’ and ‘atom’ (in their scientific uses); I’m asking about everyday terms of philosophical interest, such as ‘knowledge’, ‘mind’, ‘freedom’ and ‘right’. And I’m not asking how a term’s meaning is originally fixed; I’m asking how its meaning is sustained or changed after it has been originally fixed.

Suppose, for example, that the term ‘water’ was introduced into the language to rigidly designate H₂O. Suppose further that nowadays the vast majority of people who use the term intend it to refer to any substance that has the familiar empirical properties of H₂O, regardless of its chemical composition. In this situation, does ‘water’ refer only to H₂O or also to any other substance that has H₂O’s familiar empirical properties?

It would be very helpful to me to hear what, if anything, is the orthodox view in this area.

Thanks

Remster

Remster,

Although I'm not a linguist, I have done coursework in linguistics, love the subject, and my brother is a linguist of some repute, with whom I've had hundreds of fascinating conversations on language.

Language in its actual usage is a completely relative phenomenon, even within the community of speakers of a single language. The meaning of a word like "water" (to use your example) is entirely contextual. For example, the sentence "I must dispose of this night water," is going to mean something different to two listeners; one who knows that "night water" is an old euphemism for urine; the other not knowing this.

Regarding what is orthodox, A hypothetical, rather pedantic philologist might argue that the meaning of night water is fixed and that those who don't know that it means urine are simply ignorant. Personally, I find such a viewpoint merely academic and of little value to understanding language. To my mind, language is how language is used. The "meaning" of water exists within its usage, which encompasses both the intent of the speaker, the understanding/expectation/bias of the listeners, and the practical consequences which follow.

So, of your offerings, #3 comes closest, although I don't see where any "majority" is needed, and it leaves out the situational context of the utterance, which is a critical ingredient for determining meaning.

A Poster He or I

Thanks for your reply. I've taken on board everything you've written (I think) but just want to pick up on a couple of points.

To my mind, language is how language is used. The "meaning" of water exists within its usage, which encompasses both the intent of the speaker, the understanding/expectation/bias of the listeners, and the practical consequences which follow.

I agree. Looking again at my original post, I can see I didn't make it at all clear that what I'm interested in is a term's reference (or, as I prefer to say, reference conditions).

So, of your offerings, #3 comes closest, although I don't see where any "majority" is needed, and it leaves out the situational context of the utterance, which is a critical ingredient for determining meaning.

Well, I assume you wouldn't want to say, like Humpty Dumpty, that you can make words mean whatever you want them to mean whenever you use them (if, that is, you intend to speak English, a public language, and not some private language of your own). The idea behind my #3 is that there's some critical mass of English speakers whose usage determines what a term refers to in English. This seems to be the assumption behind a lot of usage guides, for example.

Remster

It is precisely because meaning is relative, that it becomes so important for speakers of a language to be "acculturated" into the community of a given language's usage. It is folly, for example, for the community of 60-year-old homemakers who never finished high school to assume they'll understand a group of software engineers' shop-talk around the water-cooler, just because both communities speak English. In short, words can NOT mean anything you want them to: they have to mean what your listeners think they mean or else communication becomes problematic. (This does not preclude manipulation of meaning by "playing against" the expected meanings your listeners hold. Rhetoric, for example, relies on such manipulation to one degree or another. The first stanza of Lewis Carrol's poem Jabberwocky--with hardly any meaningful nouns & verbs--still harbors lots of quasi-recognizable reference conditions; otherwise it wouldn't be so entertaining).

The idea of a "critical mass" of speakers holding common referents must first consider the scope of the community of speakers one is considering. The software engineers understand each other just fine, but in terms of the planet's entire community of English speakers, they are a just a subculture. It is no surpise, then, that the usage guides you refer to avoid specialized language usage. Perhaps, the idea of "lowest common denominator" is more useful here than critical mass.

EDIT: Bringing this back to your statement that you've never found a significant difference between conceptual questions and semantic questions, I feel compelled to point out that concepts do not exist in one-to-one correspondence with words (more specifically, with morphemes). Though comprised of morphemes, concepts display significant emergent meaning far beyond the mere summation of the morphemes, most obviously because syntax (i.e., grammar) is an equal or even more important component of conceptual expression than semantics (again, aptly demonstrated by the first stanza of Jabberwocky).

I am basing this answer on the Meyers-Briggs Personality Test (Please Undertand me II David Kersey), and I have the full reference for anyone interested. About 80% of the population have a problem with conceptualization and the abstract. In my humble opinion, this 80% have developed sophisticated mental protection processes that allow them to bypass the need to "understand" the abstract. These words are kept in abeyance. So from this perspective 80% really don't feel the need for these abstract words to really mean anything. In my view your question is really directed at the other 20%. Now, what about the other 20%? I really don't know, maybe other posters can help us out.

This isn't related to the topic, but I feel the above statements are at risk for being misinterpreted. I am in no way saying that 80% of the population is stupid. The 80% excel at other forms of intelligence, such as visualization, increased ability to maintain short term memory, and logistical use of detailed lists. These types of intelligence are typically at a deficit in the 20%.

I would like to add. People hear what they want to hear.

I'm sure everyone has this problem trying to exchange ideas with other people. They come to a different conclusion then where you were trying to direct them. They jump ahead of your words filling in what they want you to say by talking over you. They are in "LaLa Land" thinking of something not even related to what the conversation your trying to have with them is about. They have their defenses up, only thinking of how they will shoot down what your trying to say...

Then you have the way women and men communicate. Guys, when they talk, are trying to fix things. Women, when they talk, is how they fix things.

In a word, everyone has their own meaning. The farther they are removed from their network of fellow communicators the less they will be understood.

Deron.

A Poster He or I

I feel compelled to point out that concepts do not exist in one-to-one correspondence with words (more specifically, with morphemes). ...

Agreed. I was just tying to make my initial post as brief as possible.

The idea of a "critical mass" of speakers holding common referents must first consider the scope of the community of speakers one is considering. ...

Absolutely. Again, for the sake of brevity, I omitted to say in my original post that I'm talking about everyday terms like 'water', and not technical or dialectal terms.

In short, words can NOT mean anything you want them to: they have to mean what your listeners think they mean or else communication becomes problematic.

Okay, consider this situation. In a conversation with two friends in the pub, I use the word 'water' and want it to refer to beer, while my two friends think it refers to lemonade. I assume you'd agree with me that it still refers to H₂O as long as I'm intending to speak English, and this is due to how a sufficient proportion of English speakers habitually use it. Right? In other words, meaning within a particular language is indeed relative, but it's relative to the habitual usage of all speakers of that language and not to the usage of each speaker on each occasion of use.

Remster

Edit: Substitute 'I assume you'd agree with me that it still refers to water' for 'I assume you'd agree with me that it still refers to H₂O' in my last paragraph.

Hi Remster,
It is awfully difficult to understand what you mean to ask here.

I mean, a term can be uniquely developed by an individual. The word he uses can be an approximation to a similar verbal sound. For instance if a philosopher like Plato wants to develop a concept he might take a whole book devloping it. This is achieved by the interaction between propositions and the concept. but the reference word is only a sound (or the written expression of the sound). Philosophers write in private languages. So you could say the originator defines the word eg (Plato' s concept of) "state" in a private language: one has to assimilate the language "Plato" to understand Plato. So I would say the everyday language of philosophy knowledge, mind, freedom, right does not exist and as matter of fact I would say "freedom" is a very rare word indeed ethnic English. If any English person heard you using the word he would give you a very foreign look because it is a foreign word. typical English uses of the other three are restricted to "to my mind", "to the best of my knowledge" and "I think that would be right". In English "wrong" (qua foreign) is far more common than right because the English can be assumed to be right: as the first great pope averred "non Angli sed Angeli"

A group of linguistic authority figures can preserve (the communicate benefits of) a language but they would be betraying their own function in actually determining meanings. I mean their function is no different from the red-inkers in a maths class. Arguably contemporary experience proves their societal necessity.

H20 in English is distilled water: a type of water. I mean a certain degree of impurity is assumed; surely it refers to natural fresh water. If one means natural fresh water one can omit the "fresh" and "natural" but not in "sea" water or "distilled" water.

Is wasser the same"term" as water to you?

Hilda

Thanks for your reply.

I mean, a term can be uniquely developed by an individual. ...

True, but I'm interested in terms as used in ordinary language, which is what I take conceptual analysis to be about.

So I would say the everyday language of philosophy knowledge, mind, freedom, right does not exist and as matter of fact I would say "freedom" is a very rare word indeed ethnic English. ... typical English uses of the other three are restricted to "to my mind", "to the best of my knowledge" and "I think that would be right".

Yeah, I think you're right – up to a point. Perhaps 'knowledge' and 'freedom' don't feature in everyday language, but 'know' and 'free' do. I'm not sure about 'mind', but related terms like 'think' and 'thought' are common enough. And I completely disagree about 'right' (except in so far as it's rarer than 'wrong').

H20 in English is distilled water: a type of water. I mean a certain degree of impurity is assumed; surely it refers to natural fresh water. If one means natural fresh water one can omit the "fresh" and "natural" but not in "sea" water or "distilled" water.

I don't know. I was only providing a hypothetical example for discussion (unless you're alluding to my last post, which I've just amended to bypass this problem).

Is wasser the same"term" as water to you?

No.

Remster

Who determines linguistic meaning?

Hi, Remster. I'll be happy to offer a Perspective on your question.
Rather than simply focusing on 'linguistic' meaning, I'll expand the answer to include all 'meaning'!
All 'meaning' exists as 'thought'!
In a Zen (thoughtless) state of awareness, there is no 'meaning' to perceive, no 'thoughts' to perceive.
All 'meaning' is in the eye of the beholder; Perspectivally perceived. All Perspectives are unique, every moment of existence!
And;
The First Law of Soul Dynamics;
"For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!"
All Real and True!

Ok, so Now! we have all sorts and flavors of 'meaning'. This was once considered a 'problem'. We needed a 'right' meaning (meaning right at this moment), and billions and trillions and gazillions of, by implication, 'wrong' meanings. Fight wars...
There is the particular 'meaning' that works for 'you' Now!, one Perspective, and others for otthers. All are true meanings at the same moment!
If you seek some (magical *__-) Universal meaning, to anything and everything, then something that I have found might be of assistance;

"The complete Universe (Reality/Truth/God/'Self!'/Tao/Brahman... or any feature herein...) can be defined/described as the synchronous sum-total of all Perspectives!" - Book of Fudd
ALL INCLUSIVE!!!

By our inherent limitations (of Perspective), we all perceive unique features of the same One ineffable Reality (at once).
All 'definitions' are True!
All 'meaning' is true!
All Perspectives are True!
Everything is True!
The Whole is unimaginably greater than the particular feature perceived at any moment.
Consciousness is One!

tat tvam asi ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tat_Tvam_As… )

Addendum (for A Poster He or I): Here’s a better example. Suppose again that I’m in the pub but this time I’m at the bar. I say to the landlord, ‘Can I have a glass of lemonade please?’ I want ‘lemonade’ to refer to beer, while the landlord thinks it refers to water. Assuming I’m intending to speak English, what does it actually refer to here: lemonade, beer or water?

Remster,

I'm happy to consider your hypothetical scenario but frankly I don't understand it. To my mind, the whole scenario arbitrarily dismisses the fact that language is culture, not just words. So the short answer is that lemonade doesn't refer to anything. You may as well have asked, "Can I have a glass of blbrorcque please?"

It is "lemonade's" status as a cultural icon that gives it meaning. The issue is not the word but rather which cultures and subcultures come to bear in this bar setting. If you and the landlord belong to a common culture whose cultural manifestations concur or at least overlap, then you will both have a common meaning for lemonade, assuming no outside cultural element is introduced. If, however, lemonade is a code word for water in the secret society the landlord belongs to, and he has mistaken you for a contact, lemonade will refer to water so you will be served water. The meaning of the word lemonade, therefore, is completely relative for how it depends on (1) which cultural interpretations come to bear here and (2) which culture's perspective is being used for analysis of the situation.

A Poster He or I

You can take the scenario at face value. The pub is an ordinary British (or American) pub, where most English-speakers would expect to get (and would normally get) lemonade if they asked for lemonade. If you need the rest of the scenario filled out, let’s say I want ‘lemonade’ to refer to beer because I think I might be charged less; and the landlord thinks ‘lemonade’ refers to water because he’s just had a knock on the head. It really doesn't matter: the point is simply that words don’t ‘have to mean what your listeners think they mean’ any more than they have to mean what you want them to mean. Their meaning is determined by everyone who, if you want to put it that way, belongs to the culture and not just those involved in the conversation.

If you and the landlord belong to a common culture whose cultural manifestations concur or at least overlap, then you will both have a common meaning for lemonade, assuming no outside cultural element is introduced.

Presumably by ‘common meaning’ you don’t mean ‘common understanding’, or else it would follow (by modus tollens) that any two people who understand any one term differently belong to different cultures.

Remster

-- Updated Fri Oct 21, 2011 2:34 pm to add the following --

As a postscript to that last post, let me ask you something. Are there ever situations where you hear someone use a word in a certain way and say (or think, if you’re too polite to say anything) ‘That word doesn’t mean that in [standard] English’?

...the point is simply that words don’t ‘have to mean what your listeners think they mean’ any more than they have to mean what you want them to mean. Their meaning is determined by everyone who, if you want to put it that way, belongs to the culture and not just those involved in the conversation.

Yes, that I can agree with.

Presumably by ‘common meaning’ you don’t mean ‘common understanding’, or else it would follow (by modus tollens) that any two people who understand any one term differently belong to different cultures.

Correct. Understanding is subjective. Meaning must have some objective component (culturally circumscribed) to bridge the subjectivity of understanding.

Are there ever situations where you hear someone use a word in a certain way and say (or think, if you’re too polite to say anything) ‘That word doesn’t mean that in [standard] English’?

Sure, lots of times. I remember the first time I ever encountered the term "wetware," I made a guess at its meaning but I was wrong and found myself getting confused until contextual clues made me guess more correctly what it meant. I had to "acculturate" myself to the culture of speakers who would use this term; in this case that entailed accommodating their greater knowledge into my own pre-existing experience and knowledge, broadening my own cultural experience to accommodate theirs.

I once dated a woman who was describing an "ascetic experience" until I realized her trouble pronouncing "th" was causing me to misinterpret her aesthetic experience. A mere adjustment to my mind's standard "phonological mapping" so-to-speak was all that was needed to yield common meaning.

It seems that many of the references here are being made of words that belong to the macro-physical world. The last post that I made above isn't really relevant until you are talking about abstract words. I have an interesting hypothesis to present, but at this point, just not relevant. Its when we look at the meanings of words like "spirit", "angel", "demon" that it gets interesting.