Understanding Language: The Challenges of Idiosyncrasy and Precision
This essay explores how our personal interpretations of language make clear thinking, writing, and communication difficult.
Note: I used ChatGPT extensively to research the topic and write coherently. While the content was informed by AI, I retained editorial control to shape the essay's final structure and themes.
Author’s Preface
In this essay, I explore the challenges we face when using language to communicate and think clearly. Above all, I focus on how idiosyncratic our understanding of words is—how each person interprets language through the lens of their own experiences, biases, and knowledge. This variability leads to imprecision, which affects our ability to think logically, write clearly, communicate effectively, and listen with genuine understanding.
The essay covers a range of topics, including how language mutates over time, how words acquire multiple meanings, and how our productive and receptive language skills differ. I also touch on how abstract concepts—those hardest to define—are often the most susceptible to misinterpretation. Whether we're thinking through problems, trying to express ideas in writing, or engaging in conversations with others, the inherent imprecision in language complicates each of these processes.
Through this exploration, I hope to illuminate how the fluidity and ambiguity in language shape our thoughts and interactions, and to encourage reflection on how we might improve clarity in our use of words.
Note that while I have self-studied this material over the course of a quite a few decades, I am not a scholar in this field. I have never approached it with the intensity or dedication required for formal study or testing. As such, this is not an in-depth examination, but it aims to highlight some key themes for further investigation by those whose curiosity is sparked.
Introduction
Language, as a tool for communication, thought, and self-expression, is a core aspect of human life. Yet, despite its central role, language is fraught with challenges. The complexities of language manifest not only in its everyday use but also in the way meanings shift over time, the way individuals understand and use words differently, and the inherent limitations of words to fully encapsulate abstract concepts. This essay explores the idiosyncrasies of language, focusing on how meanings are often unclear, how language mutates, and how the distinction between productive and receptive language further complicates our grasp of meaning (Chomsky, 1965; Hayakawa, 1990).
Language Mutates – A Polyglot World, Geographical and Epochal
Language is not a static system; it constantly evolves and changes based on geography, culture, and time. These changes often occur so subtly that speakers of a language may not even notice them happening. However, the mutations in language can lead to drastic shifts in meaning. What once meant one thing may take on a completely different connotation centuries or even decades later (Crystal, 1997; Polanyi, 1966). For example, in the 18th century, the word "silly" meant "happy" or "blessed." Today, it means "foolish" or "lacking common sense."
In a polyglot world, where hundreds of languages coexist, the mutation of language is accelerated by cross-cultural interactions (Churchland & Churchland, 1998). Borrowed words take on new meanings in different linguistic contexts, and the resulting hybrid terms can cause confusion. The geographical and epochal dimensions of language mutation remind us that there is no single, permanent version of a language—its fluidity is both its strength and its weakness (Chomsky, 1986).
My Influences and Scholarship
Although I am not a formal scholar of language, my exposure to a variety of disciplines has shaped my understanding of linguistic evolution and usage. Reading developmental psychology, introductory philosophy, and the works of scholars like S.I. Hayakawa (1990), Noam Chomsky (1965), and others has given me a foundation to explore the nebulous nature of language. The study of language, especially in the context of thought and communication, has shown me that no singular viewpoint provides all the answers (Polanyi, 1966).
My reading of these scholars has helped me realize that language is a deeply personal and subjective experience. What is clear to one person may be utterly opaque to another (Crystal, 1997). This idiosyncratic nature of language means that my understanding of a concept or word might not align with yours, regardless of how much we try to clarify our thoughts (Churchland & Churchland, 1998).
We are the Language-Using Animal Par Excellence, but We Suck
Humans are often lauded as the "language-using animal par excellence," but the reality is that we often fail at using language effectively. While language is central to human thought and communication, its limitations are readily apparent. Fuzzy boundaries between words, inappropriate classifications, and the abstract nature of many concepts make language an imperfect tool for conveying meaning (Chomsky, 1965; Hayakawa, 1990).
For instance, words like "omnipotence" or "omniscience" are used in philosophical and theological discussions but are so abstract that they may not make any real sense when scrutinized (Polanyi, 1966). These words attempt to describe absolute concepts, yet their application in human language often leads to confusion or misinterpretation. In this way, we excel at creating language but often fall short in using it to capture the nuances of reality (Crystal, 1997).
Language as a Vehicle for Communication
Communication is arguably the primary purpose of language. We use language to share thoughts, ideas, and emotions with others (Chomsky, 1986). Yet, communication is not as straightforward as it seems. Misunderstandings are rampant, even when both the speaker and the listener are fluent in the same language (Churchland & Churchland, 1998). This is largely because words carry different meanings for different people, and the context in which they are used adds another layer of complexity.
The issue is further compounded when we attempt to communicate abstract ideas. Words that work well for concrete objects—such as "chair" or "apple"—do not work as well for abstract concepts like "justice" or "freedom" (Crystal, 1997). These words carry cultural, personal, and philosophical baggage, and their meanings can vary drastically depending on the context (Polanyi, 1966).
Language as a Vehicle for Thought
While language is used to communicate with others, it is also a vehicle for our own internal thought processes (Hayakawa, 1990). Many scholars argue that thought itself is structured by language, that we think in words. This concept, known as linguistic determinism, suggests that the limits of our language are the limits of our thought (Chomsky, 1965). While this may be true in many cases, it is not the only mechanism of thought. Visual imagery, emotions, and intuition also play a role in how we think (Churchland & Churchland, 1998).
Nonetheless, internal dialogue often takes the form of language, and we use words to organize and clarify our thoughts. However, the ambiguities and imprecisions of language can sometimes hinder rather than help this process (Polanyi, 1966). As we think through complex ideas, we may find that the words available to us are insufficient to fully capture what we mean (Crystal, 1997).
Language is in Many Respects Inadequate to Explain the World
Language is a flawed tool when it comes to explaining the complexities of the world (Chomsky, 1986). Words can be imprecise, vague, and at times, completely wrong-headed. For example, words like "omniscience" and "omnipotence" try to describe concepts that may not exist or may be fundamentally incomprehensible to the human mind (Polanyi, 1966).
Even words that refer to concrete objects, such as "chair," are inadequate in fully capturing the range of things that could be considered chairs (Crystal, 1997). A chair can be made of wood, metal, or plastic; it can be carved by hand or mass-produced in a factory. The word "chair" fails to encompass the full spectrum of what a chair can be, revealing the limitations of language in describing even the simplest objects (Churchland & Churchland, 1998).
Productive Language and Receptive Language
Language is not just about what we say (productive language); it is also about how we understand what others say (receptive language). These two aspects of language are often treated as separate skills, and it is entirely possible for someone to excel in one area while struggling in the other (Hayakawa, 1990).
For instance, someone might be a great orator (high in productive language) but have difficulty comprehending what others are saying (low in receptive language). Alternatively, someone might be a great listener (high in receptive language) but struggle to articulate their own thoughts (low in productive language). The interplay between these two forms of language use is crucial to understanding how communication breaks down and how meaning is lost or misunderstood. This dichotomy between productive and receptive language will be explored in more depth in Appendix B (Chomsky, 1965).
Our Idiosyncratic Grasp of Meanings
Each person has their own unique, idiosyncratic grasp of language, shaped by their life experiences, cultural background, and personal biases. This idiosyncrasy means that no two people understand words in exactly the same way, even if they speak the same language fluently (Crystal, 1997). This can lead to significant misunderstandings, as each individual's interpretation of a word may differ based on their unique perspective (Churchland & Churchland, 1998).
For example, the word "freedom" might evoke different ideas for someone living in a democratic society compared to someone living under an authoritarian regime. These idiosyncratic understandings make communication a challenging process, as we constantly negotiate the meaning of words with those we interact with (Chomsky, 1986).
Your Understanding is Not My Understanding
Because of the idiosyncratic nature of language, it is almost guaranteed that my understanding of a word or concept will differ from yours. This difference in understanding is one of the primary reasons why communication often goes astray (Hayakawa, 1990). We may think we are communicating clearly, but the person receiving the message interprets it through their own lens, leading to potential misunderstandings.
Even simple words can cause confusion. Take the word "love," for instance. For one person, it might evoke romantic feelings, while for another, it might refer to a deep sense of friendship or familial affection. These subtle differences in interpretation can lead to significant miscommunication (Chomsky, 1986; Polanyi, 1966).
Meanings, Meanings, Meanings
Not only do meanings differ between individuals, but they also change over time within a language (Crystal, 1997). Cultural shifts, technological advancements, and changes in societal norms all contribute to the evolution of meaning. Words that once had one meaning can take on entirely new connotations as the language evolves (Chomsky, 1986).
Young people often play a significant role in this process, as they misunderstand words, introduce new slang and repurpose old words to fit new contexts. Technology also accelerates this process, as new inventions require new words or new meanings for existing words (Churchland & Churchland, 1998). For example, the word "cloud" once referred only to the meteorological phenomenon but now also refers to a system of data storage in computing (Crystal, 1997).
Meanings Multiply
Meanings don’t just shift over time—they also multiply. A single word can have multiple meanings depending on the context in which it is used (Polanyi, 1966). This multiplicity of meaning is a double-edged sword: it allows for flexibility and creativity in language, but it also opens the door to confusion and miscommunication.
Consider the word "set." It has dozens of meanings in English, ranging from "to place something down" to "a group of items" to "a series of repetitions in exercise." The context in which the word is used determines its meaning, but this reliance on context can also lead to ambiguity (Hayakawa, 1990).
Multiple Meanings
As discussed, words often have multiple meanings, and it is up to the speaker or writer to ensure that their intended meaning is clear (Chomsky, 1965). However, this is not always an easy task, especially when dealing with abstract concepts. Words like "justice" or "truth" can mean different things to different people, depending on their philosophical, cultural, or personal background (Crystal, 1997).
The multiplicity of meanings is both a strength and a weakness of language. It allows for nuance and subtlety but also makes clear communication a challenge. The speaker must be aware of the potential for multiple interpretations and strive to use language as precisely as possible to convey their intended meaning (Polanyi, 1966).
Connotation and Denotation
Connotation and denotation are two key aspects of meaning in language.
Denotation refers to the literal, dictionary definition of a word—the objective, straightforward meaning that most people agree on. For example, the denotation of the word "home" is a place where one lives, a physical structure or dwelling.
Connotation, on the other hand, refers to the emotional, cultural, or associative meanings that a word carries beyond its literal definition. These are the subjective nuances or feelings a word evokes. In the case of "home," the connotation might include feelings of warmth, security, family, or belonging, depending on the individual or cultural context.
While denotation provides a clear reference, connotation often adds complexity and depth to language. Words with the same denotation can have very different connotations, which can lead to misunderstandings in communication. For example, "slim" and "skinny" both denote being thin, but "slim" often has a positive connotation, whereas "skinny" can imply frailty or unattractiveness.
Understanding both denotation and connotation is crucial for effective communication, as it helps in choosing words that not only convey the intended meaning but also the right tone or emotional context.
Dictionary Definitions
Dictionaries attempt to capture the various meanings of words, offering multiple definitions to account for the different ways a word can be used. However, even dictionaries cannot fully encapsulate the fluidity of meaning (Crystal, 1997). The definitions provided are snapshots of a word's meaning at a particular point in time, but language continues to evolve beyond what the dictionary can capture (Hayakawa, 1990).
Furthermore, dictionary definitions are often limited by the need for conciseness. They may fail to capture the full range of nuances that a word can have in different contexts. For instance, the word "justice" might be defined as "fairness in the protection of rights," but this definition hardly scratches the surface of the philosophical debates surrounding the concept of justice (Chomsky, 1965).
Imprecision and Vagueness of Language
Language is inherently imprecise and vague, especially when dealing with abstract concepts (Polanyi, 1966). Words often fail to fully capture the complexity of the ideas they represent, leading to misunderstandings and confusion. This imprecision is especially evident in everyday conversation, where people use words without fully understanding their meanings.
For instance, people might use the word "quantum" in casual conversation to refer to something mysterious or complex, even though the scientific meaning of "quantum" is much more specific (Churchland & Churchland, 1998). This kind of vague usage contributes to the imprecision of language and makes it difficult to have clear, productive discussions about complex topics (Crystal, 1997).
Idiosyncratic Understanding
As previously mentioned, each person has their own idiosyncratic understanding of language, shaped by their personal experiences, beliefs, and biases (Hayakawa, 1990). This leads to significant differences in how words are understood and used, which can cause miscommunication.
For example, someone who grew up in a religious household might have a different understanding of words like "faith" or "salvation" compared to someone who grew up in a secular environment. These idiosyncratic understandings of language complicate communication and make it difficult to ensure that the intended meaning is conveyed accurately (Polanyi, 1966).
Language as Described by Dictionary Compilers and Cultural Meanings
Dictionary compilers attempt to codify language, offering standardized definitions for words. However, these definitions are often rooted in cultural understandings of language, which can vary widely across different linguistic communities (Crystal, 1997). As such, the dictionary definition of a word may not fully capture its meaning in a particular cultural context.
For example, the word "honor" might be defined as "a sense of ethical conduct" in a dictionary, but in some cultures, it might carry connotations of familial duty, reputation, or social standing. These cultural meanings add another layer of complexity to the already difficult task of understanding language (Chomsky, 1986).
Meanings: Vague versus Ambiguous
Vagueness and ambiguity are often confused, but they are distinct concepts (Polanyi, 1966). Vagueness occurs when the meaning of a word is unclear or imprecise, while ambiguity arises when a word or phrase can have multiple interpretations.
For example, the word "bank" is ambiguous because it can refer to both a financial institution and the side of a river. Vagueness, on the other hand, might occur when someone uses a word like "frequently" without specifying what they mean by it—does "frequently" mean once a week or once a day?
Both vagueness and ambiguity complicate communication, making it difficult for speakers and listeners to fully understand each other. These issues are particularly problematic when dealing with abstract concepts, where the boundaries of meaning are often fuzzy and ill-defined (Chomsky, 1986).
Nonsensical Assertions Due to Nonsensical Words
Sometimes, words are used in ways that make no sense, leading to nonsensical assertions (Polanyi, 1966). This can happen when people use words without fully understanding their meanings or when they use words to describe concepts that are fundamentally incoherent.
For example, the concept of "omnipotence" is often debated in philosophy and theology, but some scholars argue that the word itself is nonsensical. If omnipotence means the ability to do anything, then it leads to paradoxes like the famous "Can God create a stone so heavy that even He cannot lift it?" This kind of nonsensical assertion arises from the use of words that are not fully grounded in reality (Hayakawa, 1990).
Scholarly Research on Meaning and Understanding
Scholarly research on meaning and understanding spans multiple disciplines, including linguistics, philosophy, psychology, and cognitive science (Crystal, 1997). Despite the vast amount of research, the nature of meaning and understanding remains elusive.
One of the key challenges in this area is the relationship between language and thought. Some scholars argue that language shapes thought, while others believe that thought exists independently of language (Churchland & Churchland, 1998). Additionally, there is ongoing debate about how meaning is constructed—whether it is derived from the words themselves, the context in which they are used, or the mental representations of the speaker and listener.
Regardless of the approach, it is clear that meaning and understanding are complex processes that are not fully captured by any single theory or framework (Chomsky, 1986). Miscommunication is inevitable, and even the most precise language is subject to interpretation and misunderstanding.
Summary
In conclusion, language is a powerful but deeply flawed tool for communication and thought. Its fluidity and capacity for change allow it to adapt to new contexts and ideas, but these same qualities also make it prone to miscommunication and misunderstanding. The idiosyncratic nature of individual understanding, combined with the multiple meanings and ambiguities inherent in language, means that we often fail to communicate as clearly as we think we do. Ultimately, while language is indispensable for human interaction, its limitations remind us that true understanding is always an ongoing process, shaped by both the words we use and the contexts in which we use them.
References
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. MIT Press. https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262530071/aspects-of-the-theory-of-syntax/
Chomsky’s influential work on syntax offers an in-depth analysis of linguistic structure, showing how innate grammatical frameworks shape language use.
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. Praeger. https://sites.pitt.edu/~perfetti/PDF/Chomsky.pdf
This book explores the nature of linguistic knowledge and the ways in which it develops across individuals and societies, emphasizing the role of innate cognitive structures.
Churchland, P. S., & Churchland, P. M. (1998). On the Contrary: Critical Essays, 1987–1997. MIT Press. https://direct.mit.edu/books/book/3918/On-the-ContraryCritical-Essays-1987-1997
The Churchlands discuss the interface between neuroscience and philosophy, with a focus on the implications for language, thought, and meaning.
Crystal, D. (1997). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://www.amazon.ca/Cambridge-Encyclopedia-Language-David-Crystal/dp/0521559677
A comprehensive overview of language, its evolution, and its societal implications, with insights into how language changes over time.
Hayakawa, S. I. (1990). Language in Thought and Action (5th ed.). Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. https://www.amazon.ca/Language-Thought-Action-S-I-Hayakawa/dp/0156482401
Hayakawa’s classic work focuses on the role of language in shaping thought and action, emphasizing the importance of semantic precision in avoiding misunderstandings.
Polanyi, M. (1966). The Tacit Dimension. Doubleday. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/T/bo6035368.html
Polanyi explores how personal knowledge and tacit understanding influence language use and comprehension, arguing that meaning often transcends explicit articulation.
Memory updated
[Appendix A] – Words Where Idiosyncratic Misunderstandings Abound
In this appendix, I will list 30 examples of words where the dictionary may offer a singular or straightforward definition, but the idiosyncratic understanding of the word can lead to subtle differences in meaning between individuals. These differences often arise from personal experience, cultural background, or emotional associations, and can lead to miscommunication even when the word seems clear.
Character – Often thought of as moral or ethical strength, but for others, it may simply refer to personality traits without any ethical connotations.
Respect – Some understand this as being earned through behavior, while others see it as an inherent right everyone deserves.
Honesty – While usually defined as truthfulness, some interpret it as bluntness or tactlessness, which may not always align with social norms.
Commitment – For some, this means emotional or long-term dedication, while for others, it might only imply a temporary obligation or task.
Professionalism – While one might view this as adherence to a formal code of conduct, another might interpret it as simply being competent or efficient at a job.
Loyalty – Some see loyalty as unwavering support, even when wrong, while others believe loyalty involves constructive criticism when necessary.
Generosity – Commonly associated with giving, but one person’s idea of generosity could range from material gifts to giving time or emotional support.
Confidence – For some, confidence means self-assurance, but for others, it can come across as arrogance or overconfidence.
Success – Different interpretations abound, ranging from financial achievement to personal happiness or fulfillment.
Independence – Some may see it as self-sufficiency, while others interpret it as the ability to make decisions without external influence, even if help is needed.
Intelligence – While traditionally linked to cognitive ability or IQ, others may see it as emotional intelligence or social skills.
Trust – Some view trust as complete reliance, while others see it as a cautious, conditional state that can be revoked easily.
Creativity – For some, it refers to artistic ability, while others see it as problem-solving or thinking outside the box, even in non-artistic fields.
Ambition – A positive drive for success to some, while others may see it as selfishness or greed, depending on the context.
Fairness – Some interpret fairness as equality, while others think of it as equity, where people get what they need rather than the same treatment.
Freedom – A classic example, with some interpreting it as personal liberty to do as one pleases, while others see it as freedom from societal constraints or oppression.
Love – While often thought of as romantic or familial, love can mean different things depending on cultural, spiritual, or emotional contexts.
Discipline – Some see discipline as self-control and routine, while others interpret it as strictness or punishment.
Hope – A sense of optimism for some, but for others, it’s viewed as unrealistic or wishful thinking with little basis in reality.
Justice – Defined broadly as fairness or moral rightness, but individual views can differ based on social, cultural, or personal beliefs about what is fair.
Compassion – One person’s compassion could be another’s enabling, where too much sympathy is seen as weakening someone's resilience.
Patriotism – For some, it’s love for one's country, while for others, it might be seen as blind allegiance to nationalistic ideals.
Integrity – Most see it as moral uprightness, but others may interpret it more narrowly as consistency of action, regardless of the morality.
Open-mindedness – While usually associated with being receptive to new ideas, some see it as weakness or lack of conviction.
Diversity – Often associated with inclusion, but different interpretations can emphasize variety, tokenism, or a requirement for representation.
Power – For some, it represents control or leadership, while others see it as the ability to influence or motivate others.
Leadership – Viewed by some as directive authority, while others see it as the ability to inspire or facilitate without overt control.
Privilege – Commonly understood as unearned advantages, but to some, it might represent earned status or opportunity based on merit.
Kindness – Some interpret it as small, everyday gestures of care, while others believe it requires significant acts of sacrifice or empathy.
Ambiguity – While it generally refers to a lack of clarity, one person might see ambiguity as a chance for open interpretation, while another sees it as confusion or uncertainty.
These examples highlight how subtle differences in understanding can complicate communication, particularly in abstract or emotionally charged discussions. Even when a word seems to have a clear denotation, its connotations may vary widely among different people, leading to unintended interpretations or miscommunication.
[Appendix B] – Receptive Language and Productive Language
Receptive language and productive language are terms often used by speech and language pathologists to describe different aspects of linguistic competence. While I had studied developmental psychology, I had not encountered these terms in depth until recently, and their distinction is important when discussing how language is used and understood.
Receptive language refers to the ability to understand words, sentences, and communication from others. It involves processing incoming information, understanding vocabulary, and grasping the nuances of spoken or written language. A person with strong receptive language skills can comprehend complex ideas, follow conversations, and interpret meanings from context. However, having strong receptive skills does not necessarily mean one can express ideas equally well.
Productive language, on the other hand, involves the ability to produce and convey information through speech or writing. This includes formulating thoughts, choosing appropriate vocabulary, and structuring sentences in a way that others can understand. A person may have well-developed productive language skills, being able to speak eloquently or write clearly, but they may struggle to comprehend equally complex language when it’s presented to them.
The distinction between these two facets of language becomes crucial in understanding communication breakdowns. For example, someone may excel at speaking (productive language) but might not fully understand complex speech from others (receptive language). Similarly, an individual might be an excellent listener or reader but may struggle to articulate their thoughts clearly when asked to express themselves.
In terms of speech and language pathology, therapy often focuses on identifying and improving weaknesses in either receptive or productive language to help individuals communicate more effectively. Miscommunication, particularly in abstract topics or emotionally charged conversations, can arise when there is a disconnect between a person’s receptive and productive language skills.