Do words only have meaning in a sense of falsifaction? That is we only know what a word means once we know what it does NOT mean?
Or is Derrida correct that a word only has meaning by referring it yet another word, which itself only has meaning by referring to yet another word, unto infinity rendering the concept of meaning shallow.
Or is Wittgenstein correct in his Philosophical investigation?
What is the correct linguistic theory about how words come come to have meaning (if they do at all)?
What a stupid thread.
Words have meaning through association and function.
That is, either a word represents something tangible, or it conjoins/distinguishes words that represent something tangible, or it is in some way related to words that represent something tangible.
You should do gender studies, even that's more valuable to the world than philosophy of language.
>>755555
>That is, either a word represents something tangible
So "word" "philosophy" "value" "way" must have no meaning than, since they are not tangeable.
Your explanation is self-contradicting.
>>755530
>how words come come to have meaning
>come come
the subconscious maybe
>>755555
What tengible thing does the word horse represent?
Can you point at it?
Think before you answer.
>>755780
Even more fun. What tangible thing does the word "intangible" refer to?
>>755530
>Do words only have meaning in a sense of falsifaction? That is we only know what a word means once we know what it does NOT mean?
No
>Or is Derrida correct that a word only has meaning by referring it yet another word, which itself only has meaning by referring to yet another word, unto infinity rendering the concept of meaning shallow.
No
>Or is Wittgenstein correct in his Philosophical investigation?
Partially
In initial acquisition language is learned noun first - that means that people learn labels for physical objects. After nouns comes verbs, and grammar comes while learning verbs.
Language is nothing magical. Language is a biological function. Language can be understood by the function it serves between people and by the way people use it. Essentially, an experimental approach with a focus on data.
Words = symbols
these symbols = ideas
The system is not perfect by any means, but there is no 'infinity philosophical circle jerk' going on.
Functionalism and Physicalism synthesis are correct.
>>755806
Haha long boy
>>755780
>What tengible thing does the word horse represent?
The group of physical things we agreed to label as a horse.
Can you point at it?
Yes. Stop playing semantic games and read up on psycho-linguistics.
>>755826
>The group of physical things
Exactly. You never point to the group.
Doing that would be gathering up every horse in the world in one place and saying "this is the group of horses"
The concept of the group is abstract concept that exists independent of the actual animal, you did not need to point to a horse to explain this, especially because humans can parse abstract concepts....and abstract concepts are definitely intangiable (the word intangible is btw intangible)
>>755530
People are too quick to dismiss Derrida. He's one of those philosophers who just trigger people on virtue of what he's saying, but not based on his arguments. People fucking HATE the idea that there's no inherent truth to our statements.
>>755826
>The group of physical things we agreed to label as a horse.
LOL
If this were true, then we could never add anything to the category of horses. Then every new horse, being different from all other horses in significant ways, CANNOT be a horse.
>>755845
That's not the only problem of that definition, it wouldn't allow any new horses to be horses, or for the category to change. It means all categories are "final" and nothing new can be learned.
>>755845
>The concept of the group is abstract concept that exists independent of the actual animal
The abstract concept is only learned from the physical label.
>Exactly. You never point to the group.
The human race could physically gather every horse in the world in one location if it wanted and then say 'behold, this is the concept of a horse', and be correct.
>>755860
So does that mean things cannot have fixed definitions?
I remember hearing a linguist saying even something as concrete as numbers have their meaning subject to change (for instance 4 is a number that would mean profound mystical ideas in certain cultures).
How do we end up having some similar notion of what the words mean even after they are revised?
>>755856
>If this were true, then we could never add anything to the category of horses.
We made up 'horse', we can add or take away anything we want as long as everyone agreed to it.
>Then every new horse, being different from all other horses in significant ways, CANNOT be a horse.
What does that even mean? Take a step back and ask yourself if there is any meaning in that statement, or if it is sophistry.
>>755860
In what way does that definition stop new horses from being horses or the categories to be final? In what way does the definition do literally ANY of that?
>>755530
>rendering the concept of meaning shallow
more like giving it dynamics
>>755869
>The human race could physically gather every horse in the world in one location if it wanted and then say 'behold, this is the concept of a horse', and be correct.
So that means all the dead horses would not be in that concept right. Since they are not physically in that place?
And what about horses that do not have a physical state: for the horse that Lancelot rode? Is that not a horse sicne it cannot and never did exist tangiable?
>The abstract concept is only learned from the physical label.
If I tell you that a gleeb is a cow with 3 heads that is depressed. Does that mean you cannot understand what a Gleeb is. You cannot relate a physical concept of a 3 headed cow and probably have never even seen depressed cow.
>>755530
These questions make more sense applied to signs in semiotics. Once you take pragmatics and the variety of what counts as a 'word' in different languages into account, you realize how silly the concept of 'endless reference' in relation to words is.
>>755909
>You cannot relate a physical concept of a 3 headed cow
Why not? We can point to cows, to three heads, and to depression. Animals have occasional physical deformities and all social animals can exhibit emotions. All of these are concrete things that exist in the real world, and are merely re-arranged in a special way.
"Lancelot's horse" would be an abstraction, but it points both to actual knights who rode actual horses, which were tangible things.
>>755909
>So that means all the dead horses would not be in that concept right. Since they are not physically in that place?
No, all dead horses would be physically put into this place - all things which could not be put into the place would be degenerated to the point that they are not horses anymore
>And what about horses that do not have a physical state: for the horse that Lancelot rode? Is that not a horse sicne it cannot and never did exist tangiable?
The idea of the horse ridden by Lancelot does have a physical state - it exists physically in the minds of the people that think about it. Of course, this could physically be up in the physical space with all the other horses.
>>755877
Because that's how all things are. All things are in flux.
>>755891
Because the definition is literally the set of horses = {a,b,c,...} where a,b,c,... are a specific set of objects. Thus if a new horse is born, it's not in horses. IOW you need to have an abstract definition for horse, that may change and is literally impossible to actually put in words.
>>755821
>>Language is nothing magical.
it is magical since without it, wild children are beasts who do not know that they are beasts.
>>756240
The definition is indeed literally the set of horses, of physical horses, or horses that exist in physical form. Explain how this definition is inherently incapable in increasing or decreasing.
If the word 'horse' is defined as a label derived from physical things, why can the quantity of physical things not increase or decrease accordingly?
A horse is no more or less of a horse depending upon the number of horses which exist.
There is no need for an abstract definition at all for a physical thing.
>>755850
where is deconstruction best illustrated ?
>>756268
that definition is circular and gives absolutely no meaning. What is the set of horses? All of the horses. What are all of the horses? They're in the set of horses!
>>756271
Derrida's works on the ancient Greeks are fantastic. He was actually a good scholar and understood ancient Greek very well. So he basically would spend his time translating Greek works with totally valid and plausible methods to get absolutely crazy understandings. One of his translations is based on Socrates drinking the hemlock; the word for "poison" in Greek is indistinguishable from cure. It's perfectly valid to read that Socrates was being "cured", and even Nietzsche in his scholarship has attributed a quote to Socrates as saying he was being cured as he drank it.
But that drives western, analytic scholars up a fucking tree. They love rigidity. They love thinking that our stories about the ancient Greeks have definite and absolute meaning. But, they don't, in translating we're always imposing what we believe they were like. That's closer to Derrida's message more than anything: every reading is an interpretation, there is no "true" interpretation of a text. It's a minor point but it triggers people really hard.
>>755955
can you detail what you are saying ?
Structuralism + Hermeneutics
Not even once.
>>756300
>that definition is circular and gives absolutely no meaning
My definition is the group of physical things which are horses. There is just no way for me to give you the physical group of all these horses over the internet. The definition is not circular, as the horses from which the label of the word horse comes from existed before the word.
The word 'horse' is a symbol for a physical thing. That is what it is. The word 'horse' is defined as that thing. No abstraction necessary
discourse does all kinds of things, I think in terms of the op I'd pick philosophical invest
think of language like a family of 'games', games in the broadest sense from chess to ringaringaposie to monopoly to call of duty, very broad
we use words to point, to ask questions, to command, to apologize, to greet, to warn
take a word like fire. asking what does it mean? the answer is, it depends on how it's being used. someone screams fire in a movie theater it means get out, someone says fire in a game of pictionary it means an answer, child asks "what's that called" fire is used as a name, and on and on and on all different types of uses
so if you want to know what words mean, you got to look at the context it's being used in
an answer like "the oxidation of fuel ba bla" is the language game of definitions, just one of many many games we play
>>756327
mother: baa
child: sheep
mother: moo
child: cow
mother: neigh
child: horse
does the child mean "the physical things which are called horses" when she says it...
>>756300
>It's perfectly valid to read that Socrates was being "cured",
Yes, and Socrates makes a joke about it by asking a friend to make a sacrifice to Asclepius. But the joke only works by trading on the ambiguity of "poison" vs "cure", which means the two meanings must exist in the first place for there to be ambiguity. The fact that the words are the same is itself a product of the fact that many medicines are derrived from poisons (anti-venom from venom, vaccines from viruses etc) which points directly to physical reality.
Derrida is essentially engaging in a long campaign of pretending to be retarded. Wow, as it turns out if you drive a car using your ass and don't follow the road signs, you crash! Don't you get it, man, the rules of the road are, like, totally arbitrary, man! How depressing people take him seriously.
>>756351
If the mother is teaching the child about the noises animals make, they are both referring to the set of animals whose noise can be simplified to "neigh" in their shared cultural context. In both cases, it is pointing to a physical set of animals belonging to a particular species. The name is arbitrary but a label has been assigned to it by that same aforementioned cultural context.
>>756351
Yes, the child does. What else could the child mean? Children learn nouns LITERALLY before they can abstract concepts you dip.
>>756412
The only thing I can guess at him saying is that the child can learn the "moo:cow" relationship from their mother and later apply it to a "neigh:horse" relationship without ever having learned what a horse is through picture books or explanations. However, if learned within the context of "noise:animal" then the child's definition of "unknown animal that made the sound my mother is asking me to identify" is congruent with the mother's definition of "all animals belonging to the set with this label", so the objection is irrelevant.
>>756327
>My definition is the group of physical things which are horses.
"Horses are physical things which are horses".
Stupid.
>There is just no way for me to give you the physical group of all these horses over the internet.
You CANNOT accurately describe all horses with your description. Show me all of the horses. Okay, then a horse is born. That new horse ISN'T A HORSE THEN. You have to have some form of ABSTRACTION that allows me to decide what new horses are. Otherwise your definition is worthless and absurd.
> The definition is not circular, as the horses from which the label of the word horse comes from existed before the word.
Then it's a worthless definition and I will not use it. What if a horse mutates slightly? I mean new genetic material, but in all other senses a horse?
Worthless, useless, unapplicable definition.
>The word 'horse' is a symbol for a physical thing.
No, it's a symbol for an abstract ideal.
>That is what it is. The word 'horse' is defined as that thing. No abstraction necessary
Literally retarded.
>>756356
Go read him instead of shitposting.
>>756460
"Horse" is a label applied to all animals belonging to a specific cladistic level that includes interbreeding to produce viable offspring.
>You CANNOT accurately describe all horses with your description. Show me all of the horses.
It is viable for the instant it is uttered. When a new object is introduced, it may or may not fit the definition of "horse". Of it does, it would be added to this set the moment it fits the definition.
>What if a horse mutates slightly?
Can it interbreed to produce viable offspring with the current set of objects defined as horses? If so, yes. If not, the reason must be determined. If no because of a physical deformity, then its germ cells could still produce viable offspring, and thus is still a horse. If it's germ cells do not produce offspring, then it is at best a "mutant horse" which is a separate set of objects. Of course, for non-mammals the definition of species changes.
>>756460
putting things IN CAPS doesn't make them logical.
There is nowhere in that definition that expresses a time or quantity constraint. What definition would, and why would you expect them too or believe them to?
I can tell you are mad. Perhaps in your anger you are not thinking clearly. I would recommend getting some space and then re-reading what you posted. It is just a flurry of insults with no substance. Then, I recommend re-reading the whole thread if you are still interested in the topic.
Linguist here. You guys are great.
>>756540
So what does actual linguistics think of Derrida?
>>756543
I thought Speech and Phenomena was alright but he hasn't impacted on linguistics per se that much.
>>756546
What about Wittgenstein, what's your take?
>>756484
>"Horse" is a label applied to all animals belonging to a specific cladistic level that includes interbreeding to produce viable offspring.
There's your layers of abstraction. Congratulations, you just admitted "horse" is an ideal.
>It is viable for the instant it is uttered. When a new object is introduced, it may or may not fit the definition of "horse". Of it does, it would be added to this set the moment it fits the definition.
I'm glad you agree that horse is thus an abstract ideal.
>>756501
>There is nowhere in that definition that expresses a time or quantity constraint. What definition would, and why would you expect them too or believe them to?
Horses are physical objects which aren't physical objects because they don't exist because they're also in the future.
Do you comprehend how fucking retarded this sounds?
>>756607
>physical characteristics are abstractions
>>756616
That's literally what you're saying, whether you recognize it or not.
>>756628
Arbitrary != abstract
>>756631
You're confused.
>>756636
What is the definition of "confused"? As far as I can see, you don't actually have a real definition of "confused," therefore I can reinterpret your post as saying I am unconfused, and thus correct.
>>756643
Meaning can't be derived from definition, I'm only here to throw bricks at your dumbass ideas.
>>756680
Definition is a summary of meaning.
>>756683
I agree.
You're confused because you're using words against any commonly accepted definition and your ideas contradict each other, but you don't recognize it.
Now stop being a tool and use your brain. It's easy to want to maintain stasis, but you have the opportunity to lean and that should be exciting.
>>756707
>against any commonly accepted definition
No, I am actually using words given their plain meaning and rejecting insane interpretations of them born out of a desire to be contrarian. Completely different.
>>756556
Some linguists have applied 'language games' to discourse and pragmatics, but in the process usually misunderstand what he was getting at when he talked about language games. His point, if I understand it correctly, was that one can't essentialise language, but whenever I see studies operationalising Wittgensteinian themes they usually essentialise 'communication' or language in some way.
His notion of family resemblances, however, has been productive in linguistics and cognitive science generally. If you look up Labov's prototype theory, that's basically family resemblances employed as an explanation of sociolinguistic encoding.
What I find interesting is that although Deleuze hated Witty, there are interesting correspondences between Deleuze's linguistics or anti-linguistics in A Thousand Plateaux and the view of Philosophical Investigations.
Wittgenstein was actually a big influence on me when I first started in linguistics, but as time has gone on I've found his work increasingly vacuous whenever I've returned to it. I'm still not sure whether he's a road to nowhere.
I will say however that I found his lecture on Freud extremely useful.
>>756717
Stop being a tool and try.
>>756540
Where did you earn your PhD?
>tfw you just want a nice linguistics thread and it devolves into irresolvable nominalist vs realist shitposting
Try some Chomsky guys. It's not bad, I promise.
>>756741
I'm in the process of earning it, University of Melbourne.
>>756733
>stop disagreeing with me and put in effort, because clearly any genuine attempt at understanding corresponds fairly directly with my position
Thanks for the heads up.
>>756742
Then make a linguistics thread instead of baiting replies. Linguistics is a field with actual examinations that produce real results, you shouldn't need to involve sophists who would deny your research.
>>756758
Eh, plenty of sophists there too. As with the other social sciences, linguistics is handicapped by political correctness and careerism.
>>756749
You said stupid-ass things. I pointed that out. Then you've been vomiting diarrhea everywhere like a shitbaby,
>>756783
>shitbaby
You should have just said "pissbaby" so everyone knew you were a tumblr from the beginning. Of course you don't believe that words have definitions, when you need them to change at a moment's notice.
>>756301
In Saussurean semiology, signs only hold meaning in opposition to other signs. You can't apply this to words in general because not every word has its own semantic content. I.e. prepositions, conjunctions, auxiliary verbs, contribute grammatical information rather than semantic content.
The other point is that theories like the ones in the OP are really only dealing with Indo-European languages. It's not clear that they would make any sense applied to polysynthetic languages (i.e. Salishan languages)
Why do people have problems with sophists? Wouldn't many 20th century philosophers be considered as sophists, because how much they dabbled in the relationship between languages and truths?
>>756848
"Language is contextual" != "truth does not exist."
Modern sophists are exactly the same as their ancient counterparts, in that they charge ridiculous amounts to teach nothing.
>>756540
I feel you m8
>>756746
what's your subfield?
>>755530
>What is the correct linguistic theory about how words come come to have meaning
morphology
>>756460
At the end of the day you will be calling a horse a "horse", whatever dudes.
>>756643
Not the anon but I define confused as go suck a bag of dicks
PS: interpret it as you want
>>755850
>If I shot you in the head, you would die
>Define "die" lmao protip: YOU CAN'T HEH
Truth completely subverted, the world has no meaning
>>758614
kek
>>757749
Comparative syntax, but I suspect you're just asking as a way to passive-aggressively imply that you don't believe me.
>>759544
But you've never experienced death before. Your understanding of death is only related to other concepts, and varies from individual to individual. Some liken death to sleep, others see fire and brimstone, or angels and paradise. The fact of the matter is you as a conscious being, lack an understanding of the experience of death.
>>761303
You don't seem to realise that you're inappropriately construing death as an experience.
