Post A1xgA2FlMgk4hGNRB2 by twsh@scholar.social
(DIR) More posts by twsh@scholar.social
(DIR) Post #A1xgA14NlW2p1g2pnc by twsh@scholar.social
2020-12-06T14:58:13Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
I'm going to try to articulate a philosophical position that I care about and some of its consequences. I'm interested in what people think.We produce and consume sentences of natural languages, such as English. These sentences have meanings, as do the words in them.We are not always in control of what those meanings are. They are not fixed by our intentions, and we might be wrong about what they are.#philosophy #language
(DIR) Post #A1xgA1IYunO3jeg9tw by twsh@scholar.social
2020-12-06T14:58:44Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
This can be illustrated by thinking about names, and about predicates for kinds.A name means the object named; typically, names are acquired without any independent relation to the object.A predicate means the kind; typically, predicates are acquired without any independent relation to the kind.'Independent relation' means direct contact with the object/kind, or possession of some description which picks out the object or kind.
(DIR) Post #A1xgA1adpZqgdj8b56 by twsh@scholar.social
2020-12-06T14:59:09Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
In both cases, the expression means whatever it means, and this is not determined by the speaker who acquires it.
(DIR) Post #A1xgA1xgRuHRnBuzzs by twsh@scholar.social
2020-12-06T14:59:51Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
This view has consequences.Some names/predicates are not linked to an object/kind. I might use such a name/predicate, not knowing that it is empty. I think that I thereby said something, but I didn't.It is not obvious when one is in the good case as opposed to the bad.This is a specific case of a more general point: I might say things that are not what I intended to say. There is no way to guarantee that this doesn't happen.
(DIR) Post #A1xgA2FlMgk4hGNRB2 by twsh@scholar.social
2020-12-06T15:00:15Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
This view is heavily influenced by 'anti-descriptivist' and 'externalist/anti-individualist' lines of thought in 20th century philosophy of language. I get the impression that it is not something widely believed outside of that niche in academia, but I might be wrong.I think that some people react to it with something like horror; they think that we must have more control over what we say than that.
(DIR) Post #A1xgA2VMQhDdTdftUO by drbjork@scholar.social
2020-12-06T16:40:59Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@twsh So, what you're suggesting, basically, is that I do not wholly own the meanings of the words I use?
(DIR) Post #A1xgA2kxUhhCG0yLnk by twsh@scholar.social
2020-12-06T17:13:31Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@drbjork Yes, that sounds like a fair summary.
(DIR) Post #A1xgA30uXOSL3UR5fM by drbjork@scholar.social
2020-12-06T17:48:30Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@twsh And people generally claim otherwise? Because from my point of view, it seems fairly obvious and utterly uncontroversial. Makes me think of 'horizons' as for example Gadamer used the term.
(DIR) Post #A1xgA3GVbOvtprjXyi by twsh@scholar.social
2020-12-06T18:01:12Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@drbjork I think that there are people who don't find it obvious. At least not the strong version I described.
(DIR) Post #A1xgA3ZITXxgm8WYGO by drbjork@scholar.social
2020-12-06T18:03:36Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@twsh So I guess I'm missing something here with that 'strong version' you propose. 😉
(DIR) Post #A1xgA3lLkjbRNWAB3A by EdS@mastodon.sdf.org
2020-12-07T15:15:09Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
I'm only a user of language, and not any kind of philosopher. But it seems to me that a speaker has a meaning in mind, and utters a sentence, and a listener hears a sentence, and renders it into a meaning.That is, sentences don't have meanings, in a singular and definitive sense.Anyone who has struggled to be understood using a language they are not skilled in should see this. A generous listener will help; a hostile listener will not.(People should travel more!)@drbjork @twsh
(DIR) Post #A1xxZwZcnpWbpcbhgG by twsh@scholar.social
2020-12-07T18:30:23Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@EdS @drbjork I think it's right that we often care (more) about what the speaker meant than what they said. But I don't think that what the speaker said is necessarily identical to what they meant.In your example, it seems to me that the struggling speaker is failing to say what they mean. Even if it's obvious what they mean to the audience, I wouldn't want to say that they managed to say it.
(DIR) Post #A1yFR1OvHe3bN8Uqyu by EdS@mastodon.sdf.org
2020-12-07T21:50:29Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
As ever, ignore bad examples!Indeed, I intended to illustrate that the meaning the listener constructs for the sentence they hear is only culturally connected to the meaning that the speaker had in mind.We commonly have differences in dialect, which the parties may or may not be aware of. It's common enough for a speaker to be misunderstood. So I think it's not a good model to think that a sentence has a meaning. A speaker intends to convey some meaning, and might succeed.@twsh @drbjork
(DIR) Post #A1yGIgHW1NydVbcPq4 by EdS@mastodon.sdf.org
2020-12-07T22:00:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Which is to say, perhaps, that we shouldn't ask 'what is the meaning of this sentence' but rather 'what do you make of this sentence' or 'what meaning do you take from this sentence' or similar.Most sentences, I would think, are unproblematic and unambiguous. But we learn more when we consider the others.@twsh @drbjork
(DIR) Post #A1zKv8Y1yCCD9ctcVU by twsh@scholar.social
2020-12-08T10:26:39Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@EdS @drbjork It seems to me that we can reasonably ask all three of the those questions, and they are different. To be clear, I don't think that studying communication is a bad idea.I think ambiguity can provide some support for the view that sentences have meanings. The starting point for investigating, e.g., 'The doctor called the lawyer from London' is that it has two (rather than one or three) 'readings', i.e., meanings.
(DIR) Post #A21TxUZyJhUVxwvDN2 by EdS@mastodon.sdf.org
2020-12-09T11:17:20Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Hmm, if a sentence may have 0, 1 or 2 meanings, that says to me that "sentences have meanings" is a usually-convenient shorthand. The reality is more subtle.What might the meaning be of "I am not a crook"?I can think of at least three. For me, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and we might wonder what any given listener (or reader) made of the sentence. Or we might ask what the speaker (or writer) intended. We'd get a variety of answers.We're some way from your thesis.@twsh @drbjork
(DIR) Post #A21UFDgLsWbKlzMKOW by EdS@mastodon.sdf.org
2020-12-09T11:20:33Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
"We are not always in control of what those meanings are. They are not fixed by our intentions, and we might be wrong about what they are."We don't control what our listeners understand by our utterances - yes, I agree! We can hope. Perhaps we can clarify. Perhaps we can engage in conversation: sentences do not live alone."I did not have sex with that woman""My brother did not break the vase"(But "we might be wrong about what they are" isn't how I'd say it.)@twsh @drbjork
(DIR) Post #A21dOpyDnBMjiQNW7c by twsh@scholar.social
2020-12-09T13:03:05Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@EdS One clarification: I mean that disambiguated sentences have meanings, once the context is fixed. I think of the disambiguations as different sentences.What I said is compatible with everything you say, I think. So, would I be right in thinking that your idea is that we don't need to go beyond what you say and also attribute meanings to sentences?@drbjork
(DIR) Post #A21dtTe2qcAnS3YESW by twsh@scholar.social
2020-12-09T13:08:40Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@EdS Here is a quick argument. Typically, when a speaker A utters a sentence S, it is acceptable to make a report of the form 'A said that S'. (Focus on the case where S is not ambiguous or context sensitive.) I'm tempted to conclude from this that uttering a sentence is sufficient for saying something, which is the meaning of that sentence. At least, I think that's some reason in favour of thinking that sentences have meanings which are things that we can say.@drbjork
(DIR) Post #A21dyM2GZAzVIdCq8m by EdS@mastodon.sdf.org
2020-12-09T13:09:34Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Thanks, yes, I think that's where I've ended up: that it's unnecessary, and perhaps unwise, to say that sentences have meanings - except in an informal, generous sense.Another nearby idea is sentences in dead languages.Or a sentence like我妈妈太老了，不能走很远的距离which might or might not carry the meaning I had in mind. (It's a machine translation.)One might speak in such a way that some listeners will take one meaning, others another, by intent.Meaning is taken, not given!@twsh @drbjork
(DIR) Post #A21eH3xlz2eGkc1dBY by EdS@mastodon.sdf.org
2020-12-09T13:12:57Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Quite so - 'typically' we can do this, and it matches our usual practice. But in a stricter sense, it's an approximation, and I think perhaps not a safe one.And perhaps it removes some interesting possibilities, such as deceptive or misunderstood sentences.I feel it's important that language itself is very fluid, in time and space. There is no single "English" for us to use. Most of the time, in practice, we get by, but the deep truth is that we each have our own.@twsh @drbjork