Same words, different language: Philosophy Forums

Calendar

Quick Links open

New Posts Member List

Help

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Language » Same words, different language » Same words, different language

Same words, different language
Variations of meaning between social groups

Same words, different language

jaoman
On the Road...

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 13, 2004
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 1312

Posted 03/10/08 - 11:22 AM: Subject: Same words, different language	#1
When we talk to another English speaker, we expect that, if she hears the words, she understands the meaning of the phrase said. For example, if I were to say, “It's raining outside my windows,” I'm expecting her to understand that if she looks out of my windows she will see rain. This is language. Sounds have agreed upon meanings. However, a study of philosophy shows something vastly different. Much philosophical discussion has to do with a disagreement of the definition of a term or an array of terms or what a prominent philosopher meant by a term. Language, it appears, is a very loose thing. One can use the same dictionary and still speak a different language. This is fine when, as in philosophy, debate is the best part of the fun, but what about situations where consensus needs to be reached. Let's say American politics. The debates over global warming or evolution sound like they are suffering from this problem. The parties of the debate are using different linguistic and metaphysical systems. The right associates the words used with religious and mythological concepts whereas the left with scientific ones. Any conversation has both sides saying their fill and going home wondering why the other is so closed minded that they can't understand the simplest explanations. Wherein, in fact, the other side might as well by talking in Chinese. I would like to argue that language varies between social groups. Do you accept this? If so, would you say that policy dialogue requires social translation in order to be effective?
_____________________ "With no relation to class or social background, whether it suits them or not, people yearn for a dream. Sustained by a dream, hurt by a dream, revived by a dream, killed by a dream. And even after being abandoned by a dream, it continues to smolder from the bottom of one's heart... probably until the verge of death. A man should envision such a lifetime once. A life spent as a martyr to the god named "dream." - Kentaro Miura

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 1380

Posted 03/10/08 - 11:56 PM:	#2
English is ambiguous, and emotional, (calling someone a "fascist" may be factual, but you have to worry about offending). You could use language that isn't ambiguous, (Loglan/Lojban, Basic English, etc), but the cost is to have everyone learn a new language or constrain the way they naturally use language. Language varies across cultures, (it is hard to claim that there is just one species of language called "English" any more -- eventually we'll have to admit that "American" is no longer just a dialect). It varies across political and social groups. The only terms you can rely on are terms that refer to a specific group and which that group uses to define themselves -- that is somehow part of their definition. There have been attempts to codify semantics that are very interesting -- but seem about as daunting as the human genome project. I remember the "OWL" project, (to create a universal database of semantic meaning, as fairly promising. I think politics and marketing would suffer from such clarity. Who wants to belong to the "raise your taxes and bomb foreign countries in order to keep people employed" party?
_____________________ A software developer is someone who, when you tell them to "go to hell", they are more worried about the "goto".

Lewisbricktop
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 09, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 5

Posted 03/14/08 - 08:32 PM:	#3
The term "freedom" is a very prominent example evidencing this very problem. Often times, the question of freedom is divided into two types, freedom from and freedom to. Many liberals would argue that "freedom to" is the correct interpretation, that government is supposed to assist its citizens in acquiring their inherent rights. Many conservatives would argue for the freedom from definition, that a person is free when they are left to realize those rights by their own faculties. Each group's respective definition of freedom depends upon their political beliefs and their subjective interpretation of ways in which the world actually functions. Definitions of words are shared between groups of individuals because they have agreed upon the fundamental assumptions of life. In the U.S. before the civil war, there was disagreement as to the humanity of black people; the predicates for humanity were not agreed upon, and so blacks were often treated as inhuman. Through force, the U.S. coerced the dissenting south to change their assumptions about humanity and accept the new definitions and subsequent socio-political practices. Beginning with the creation of the book and continuing to the present with things such as the internet, people have been able to communicate their beliefs beyond the ability of an individual to have personal contact with as many others as possible, and so are better abled to share and discuss such assumptions and definitions.

RedPhoenix
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 28, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 14

Posted 03/26/08 - 02:02 AM:	#4
The only people who would argue against the OP's main claim would be individuals who have no formal knowledge of socio-linguistics or individuals who completely reject any information they've taken in regarding modern socio-linguistics. Here are a few of my Linguistics Professor's favorite ideas that he harps on at least once a week. - Language is a form of social behavior This concept of socio-linguistics actually is a relatively new idea in that it differs from the traditional structuralist view that dominated linguistics previously. William Labov is considered by many to be the father of socio-linguistics. - Language is in a constant state of flux People experience new things every day. Any word that you hear in a new context or metaphoric fashion will have changed your perception of or range of ideas encompassed in that term. Even a new experience that didn't necessarily involve words may change your interpretations. For example, if you have a terrible injury of some sort, you may find a whole new definition of pain. - Isolation is the main cause for variation in language Both geographic and social isolation need to be considered. If two individuals spend the majority of their lives together, such as family members or best friends, one can assume they are well able to understand one another. The less alike people's lives are, the harder it is for them to understand each other. As my professor is a big supporter of socio-linguistics, I'm not terribly familiar with structuralist linguistic theory. I'd be interested in seeing someone make an argument for it. Going back to your second question about public policy. It's my understanding that there has been a "plain language law" movement for some time now. I'm not sure who is leading this crusade, but I do know that the main argument against such reform is that so many legal terms have been given such specific definitions. This type of reform would create too much ambiguity in meaning and set back our legal system with years of reestablishing exact legal definitions of layman terms. In a sense it would eventually lead back to a similar situation but we would either have even more terms for the same meaning or more overlapping terms to create even more confusion. Perhaps this is just lawyers just arguing to protect their job security as interpreters of legalese. edit: added response to second part of the question Edited by RedPhoenix on 03/26/08 - 02:17 AM. Reason: forgot to respond to the second part of the questoin

jleemcmahan
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 27, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 10

Posted 03/27/08 - 09:13 PM:	#5
Well, yes. Burge used his Arthritis example to establish that in fact, the denotation of a word can change given changes in social setting; when a person has a pain in his thigh, "arthritis" may be used to denote that pain. When said person gets the doctor's office, "arthritis" means something afflicting only the joints. As for public policy, I don't think this has a tremendous amount to do with it. Basically, the right is appealing to fundamentalists and oil men. That's got very little to do with any sort of mistranslation from left to right, or anything like that.

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.