Understanding Language: Just What Did You Mean by That Anyway?
A New Series on Language, Meaning, and Understanding
Note: ChatGPT 4.0 was used extensively in preparing this series of essays, since the topic is huge, and I only have a superficial understanding of these areas. Lots of unsupported opinion though. As usual, caveat lector1.
Author's Preface
I embark on a new series of essays, this time on language, meaning, and understanding. I tried to get some insight into these mysteries using ChatGPT LLM AI. The conversations became long, convoluted, and multifaceted. There was much more material than I could fit into one essay. So, hence, I am starting a series. I had some fascinating chats concerning theories of meaning and language, evolution of language, language translation, and more.
I will note that my background in this area is minimal —read a bit, studied a bit— but the issues seem central to understanding the world, and quite relevant to epistemology, psychology, consciousness itself, large language model artificial intelligence, and any other number of disciplines. Everything is interconnected, and it is only our human limitations which require us to study the various aspects of the world in isolation. Even a true polymath (and I ain't one) can only grasp a few aspects of the world.
Oh, yeah, it occurred to me the other day, in the context of another essay, just what language would an omniscient one use, or need to use? Hmm — Ephektikoi: Guerrilla Epistemologist, Cracker Barrel Philosopher, Cheap Seats Polymath, Smart-ass.
Introduction
Language is at once a tool for communication and a puzzle of immense complexity. Each of us carries within our mind an idiosyncratic understanding of the meaning of every word we use. This personal lexicon, often shaped by individual experience and culture, may or may not correspond well with the meanings held by others. Despite our best efforts to be clear, language frequently fails us, leading to miscommunication and misunderstanding.
Scholars have long debated the nature of linguistic meaning. For centuries, philosophers have grappled with the idea that words, as arbitrary symbols, derive their meaning not from any inherent quality but from the relationships they hold within a linguistic system. Ferdinand de Saussure, one of the founding figures of modern linguistics, emphasized the arbitrary nature of the signifier (the word) and the signified (the concept) (Saussure, 1916). According to Saussure, meaning arises from the differences between signs rather than any intrinsic connection to the world they describe.
Building on this, theorists such as Ludwig Wittgenstein argued that the meaning of a word is defined by its use in language (Wittgenstein, 1953). This view, often referred to as the use theory of meaning, suggests that understanding a word's meaning involves looking at how it functions in everyday language. Wittgenstein famously likened language to a set of games, where words acquire meaning from their role in specific contexts.
More recently, cognitive science has explored the relationship between language, thought, and meaning. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, also known as linguistic relativity, posits that the language we speak shapes how we think and perceive the world (Whorf, 1956). According to this theory, speakers of different languages experience reality differently because the structure of their language directs their attention to particular aspects of their environment.
However, the problem of meaning is more than just a linguistic or cognitive puzzle; it shares a kinship with the problem of consciousness. Just as we struggle to explain how subjective experience arises from neural processes, we find it equally challenging to define how meaning arises from words. This parallel has led some philosophers to consider the study of linguistic meaning as one of the hardest problems in both philosophy and cognitive science (Chomsky, 2006).
While linguistic theories abound, the personal and subjective nature of meaning complicates things further. What a word means to one person might not fully correspond to what it means to someone else, leading to inevitable gaps in communication. This is particularly true when considering abstract terms like "freedom" or "justice," where cultural, historical, and personal factors play an outsized role in shaping individual interpretations (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980).
Theories about meaning suggest that language, though indispensable, is also limited. Each time we use words, we engage in an act of translation—translating the abstract, multifaceted realm of thought into a linear and structured system of symbols. Whether we realize it or not, every conversation is a negotiation of meaning, shaped by personal experiences, cultural norms, and, most importantly, the words we have at our disposal.
Summary
In this exploration of linguistic meaning, we find that each person’s understanding of words is idiosyncratic, shaped by personal and cultural experiences. Theories from Saussure, Wittgenstein, and Whorf demonstrate that the problem of meaning is as complex as that of consciousness. The use of language reflects not only individual cognition but also the collective, social nature of communication. Despite our best efforts, the variability in word meaning and interpretation remains a central challenge in understanding how we convey and grasp meaning.
References
Each of these references contributes to the broader discussion of how we understand language and meaning, grounding the essay in established scholarly perspectives while acknowledging the complexities and personal variability inherent in linguistic communication.
Chomsky, N. (2006). Language and mind. Cambridge University Press. https://www.cambridge.org/9780521858199
This book provides a deep dive into Noam Chomsky’s theory of generative grammar and explores how language and cognition are intertwined. Chomsky discusses the nature of linguistic meaning and its connection to human consciousness.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press. https://www.amazon.ca/Metaphors-We-Live-George-Lakoff/dp/0226468011
Lakoff and Johnson’s book examines how metaphors shape our understanding of reality and how linguistic meaning is constructed through metaphorical thinking. They argue that many abstract concepts in language are understood through bodily experience and metaphors.
Saussure, F. de. (1916). Course in general linguistics. http://cup.columbia.edu/book/course-in-general-linguistics/9780231157261
In this foundational work, Saussure lays out his theory of structural linguistics, which emphasizes the arbitrary nature of signs and how meaning is derived from the relationships between words in a language system.
Whorf, B. L. (1956). Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. MIT Press. https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262730068/language-thought-and-reality/
This collection of Whorf’s writings presents the linguistic relativity hypothesis, arguing that the structure of a language influences its speakers' worldview and cognitive processes.
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. Blackwell Publishing. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54889e73e4b0a2c1f9891289/t/564b61a4e4b04eca59c4d232/1447780772744/Ludwig.Wittgenstein.-.Philosophical.Investigations.pdf
In this work, Wittgenstein develops his later philosophy of language, in which he argues that the meaning of words is rooted in their use within particular "language games," emphasizing the contextual and functional nature of meaning.
Caveat lector translates to "let the reader beware." In this essay series, it signals that both the author’s interpretations and the assertions generated by ChatGPT should be taken with caution. While the author acknowledges a superficial understanding of the topics, it's also important to recognize that AI-generated content, while informative, may lack the depth and nuance required for more intricate analyses, i.e. LLM AI can routinely mislead. The reader should approach both with a measure of salt.
http://thebridgelifeinthemix.info/