Whoa that was long. You did fail in your promise, but I forgive you — mostly because I wish more people took time for critique such as this. You are obviously very smart (much smarter than I can keep up with), but you also know how to disagree and engage in dialogue well…for that, I am appreciative and am willing to oblige the length!
I’ll try to respond in order of your response:
- I would say that you can’t speak a word without a concept attached.
The Semantic Triangle is just a theory, but if we use it, the triangle assumes you always have a concept attached to whatever symbol you use (even if it is ridiculous or intentionally discrete, etc). The problem I’m arguing for is the lack of awareness that we communicate with in reference to the concept. This is where the phrase “Lost in translation” comes from.
Another theory in communication is the “Goal, Plan, Action” theory — every communicative act (even the non-verbal ones) have a goal. Often, though, we aren’t aware of the goal. This can be with very insignificant items, but also happens in more meaningful communicative acts.
Anyways, this can lead to over analyzing our communication and having that over-analysis lead to impeding any communication at all (analysis paralysis as I often hear it put). I get yelled at by my spouse for doing this too much. I do think that we could benefit from more awareness in connecting our goals with the communicative result (connecting our symbols more intentionally with our concepts & meanings). People need to decide what is significant enough for them to do this with, however, and different folks will assign different weights of value to how significant (and, therefore, worthwhile) any analysis would be or what situations it might be more practical for. For my spouse and I, we have found what works for us…other people will need to determine theirs…as culture, determining when this is significant enough will require even more agreement.
Some things will not have a benefit that outweighs the process of determining our concepts more effectively…I’m ok with that — I’d just push us to work a little more intentionally at it then we currently do.
2. Familiar words becoming unfamiliar.
An example I would try to give that would be as simple as a food item would be “barbeque sauce”. The usage of the word became so common that it became a bit ambiguous what it is. That, in turn, has led to a very drastic change in its cultural shared meaning, depending on where you are. It has also led to very different meanings for different sub-groups of people.
I would say this is why you see many people yearning for original etymology with words — they are trying to reclaim meaning that has been lost in unfamiliarity. You see this with how people argue about the constitution to how people try to re-engage very everyday sorts of symbols.
Another place this unfamiliarity happens regularly is in religious traditions — I’ve seen this in Christianity. Words that carry significant meaning (worship, salvation, gospel, etc) have become used with such frequency that a disconnect occurs between the word and the intended meaning.
Businesses or organizational cultures would use the phrase “curse of knowledge” for technical jargon or internal language that has become assumed in usage and has lost meaning over time.
3. Failure of Language / Complexity
I would argue that your comment on this is pointing to the failure of language (with love, for example) because the tool / technology can’t handle the complexity of the symbol.
In your example of the numeric conversation, having an awareness of the subjectivity of the symbols and their potential meaning , while a comprise of the ideal of completely understanding X, Y, or Z, is the best outcome for the communicative act. You can get close and work very hard to develop a completely verbatim shared meaning, but my perspective argues that that completeness is impossible — so just get as close as you can and navigate the ambiguity that remains.
It is the same problem with “complete empathy” — philosophically, complete empathy is a noble ideal that should be pursued (just like a healthy use of communication), but biologically, psychologically, and sociologically, it isn’t actually possible to have complete empathy with another person. I reference this in the original writing, but it is worth processing more.
So I would say — acceptance of the shortcoming of the technology is actually the means for the best communication realistically possible as opposed to trying to have all part of everyone’s semantics line up verbatim.
I agree that it is an unsolvable issue — though it is an issue embedded in the nature of words — so pursue the best clarity possible (which will happen most effectively in interpersonal interaction) while accepting its incompleteness as a tool. We would have to agree on the epistemology of the nature of words to have more agreement here, though.
4. Profanity
All of the examples yo listed are of words with negative meaning in the larger sociological context, right?
“Nigger”, though, is a word that has evolved since its negative connotation to have accepted usages in different contexts with different meanings. On a macro-culture level, there is an assumed meaning that is negative that fits with everything you said…but there are also other meanings and there are also other potential meanings (and I’m not saying that we have to pursue them, but they are always there).
All of the black families that I am connected to would not tell their children that you can’t say that word because it is a bad word or that it is only capable of expressing one connotation. They would articulate the common connotation (and its negative impact — especially in their experience of being dehumanized by that word), but there would also be an articulation of contextual uses of the word that can subvert that shared meaning or offer different uses of the word.
Many of the words you listed, while having a large scale shared meaning that is negative, aren’t limited to only a negative connotation. In that negative context of having a “bad” meaning, one of those words can be used properly with the negative connotation to express emotion, etc.
But you can also say, “Fuck” without being forceful. There seems to be an assumption that such a word only has one constituent use, but I would say would this word is the best example of a word being relegated to “bad” that has kept it from being used in other potential ways.
Words that have common civic negativity, though, ought to be used in cooperation with the shared civic meaning. This would also be an argument why they should have reason to evolve. You see this with oppressed groups using words of oppression and reversing their meaning as a sort of resistance. That process leads to an evolution that takes negative power away from a word. Or with words that evolved from very normal usage, you see culture reclaiming their etymology to take away their negative power or to emphasize the lack of innate or inherent “bad-ness” that they have.
Still, the point, at least in my immediate context, is to not use the word negatively. This is where the moral value comes into play — the word doesn’t have the moral value, the decision on how the word is used in cooperation with either public shared meaning or interpersonal shared meaning does. The interpretation leads to its moral impact. So in the subjectivity and in the ability to have multiple uses for these words, we need to then decide how to use them within our moral framework (which is also constructed and will be different for different people…meaning that we have the right to disagree with their moral use) for how it impacts others based on their interpretations (not simply based on our interpretations).
For my family, if the word leads to oppression or demeaning connotation or dehumanization the it would be an unacceptable defense by my children to use it. I’m framing the profanity conversation within my moral framework. I cannot force my kids to follow my moral framework and I also can’t force other folks to follow it. I can only hope that they subscribe to the same moral use as I do. Therefore, I have my understanding of the nature of words, but then I have my moral lens for how to then use the words within that philosophical lens. If words work in this way, then I have the added component of how I decide to act on that nature — for me, it is using language to produce as much health and flourishing as possible…but that will come down to how it is interpreted and the potential effect it will have on another being.
This also means (this profanity section is getting quite long…sorry) that it doesn’t matter how you define the word. You can say that you meant a “flowery summer dress”, but the meaning has to be shared. If, most likely in an interpersonal relationship that has processed a word in a particular way over time) you both agree that it means the dress, then that might be acceptable in that context. But the contextualization of the shared meaning in every situation ought to be considered. And, if you claim a definition while actually be insinuated by a negative shared meaning, then it probably would go against the moral usage articulated above.
This is why I tell my kids that they have to also be aware of that larger public meaning as well as individuals interpretive meaning. They can say “Fuck” within our moral framework, but if the shared meaning takes on a negative meaning for the other, then it now goes against our moral framework, too. The moral framework based on shared meanings can keep a legitimate usage based on the nature of the word from being acceptable.
At the same time, as you stated, “Fuck” might be used to go against their interpretation to make a point. There may be public consequences of this based on the shared interpretation civically, but it would be a proper use of the word’s nature. This is also how you can still insult someone (but you would have to take into account the moral decision of doing so when you use that technology).
5. Fragility
I agree with your comments on fragility and people not assuming that the letters are the actual thing. I would also agree that malleability is good (and that it is unavoidable based on my subscription to the nature of words — that leads to my point of using its strengths while working with its weaknesses). But if a familiar word, even tree, can become unfamiliar in the fluency of its use in language, then the use of that word does begin to stand in for the thing itself. We create a detachment, over time, between the symbol and the meaning or concept and, occasionally, need to retrieve some semblance of shared meaning.
Love would be my first example…you notice this process occurring within a short span of a romantic relationship (at least in my experience). In the religious context, the same can be said for the concept of “God” — the three letters begin to stand in for the concept itself, not intentionally, but because of the lack of observance of what the symbol is pointing to. The internet makes the dismissing of shared meaning and observance of concepts even more prevalent.
Online (and there is a whole theory that comes from Marshall McLuhan about the nature of online communication) there is an assumption that the people you are communicating with take on your meaning without having the reciprocal space of ensuring that your assumption is correct. The anonymity of the communication medium allows us to not have to take the real person into account. It is the same reason why people are more likely to have road-rage and be a bit violent and angry in the confines of a car than they are when they are standing in a room with a person who upsets them (there was a study done on this in the 90’s that was then translated to the online era with the same results). This is why the cordialness of your disagreements showcases your maturity and wisdom.
So yeah, I’d say that meaning is (often unintentionally) lost in any progression of communication or interaction, but especially online and that we need to be intentional on developing as much clarity as possible (without being paralyzed by the process as stated at the beginning) and accept that the medium of the symbol “tree” will always be a bit more fragile than we could prefer…even if it is just about a tree. Obviously, in more significant contexts, this becomes more of an issue.
6. Slow Evolution (almost done)
Absolutely. Now, remember, gentlemen was still used in that original civic understanding as a dominant definition even post-Englightenment in some places. Some people still use it in reference to that original macro-accepted meaning. Meat, too, is still used in that generic form in some cultures and languages. So even their slow evolution is not very clear cut.
Where I agree is that most words don’t change overnight on the macro level (Oxford wouldn’t change the definition until it meets their criteria for mass acceptance — the reactive approach). But in pop culture usage, in various sub-culture usage, and in interpersonal contexts words are capable of changing overnight.
Most words, again, won’t change on a macro level for hundreds of years — partly because it is easier to maintain standard definitions for effective communication and partly because getting the new meaning around to an entire population is incredibly difficult even in a global age. But it still will happen.
This can be with interpretations of the word (which can even change moment to moment because of our own instability and emotional decisions) or in developments where, because of shared experience, the word takes on additions and loses. Father would be an example where the word is very malleable. Above is a word that can take on new meanings and lose others. Its central understanding and its macro level usage might not change abruptly, but its nuances and its shared meaning in a more local environment seem to be normal.
Again, macro-level usage fits with what you are saying. This is helpful for our survival as a tribe (even if the tribe is quite huge…even global in some aspects with the common use of English around the world), but it doesn’t take into account the various contexts in which the languages malleability can be affected. Even in the global use of a common language, someone with a vastly different cultural lens, particularly if that lens has been shaped by a former language where word’s meanings are going to have unique nuances that won’t come across in translation, the word will not be able to be used in complete verbatim.
My response to this is to simply lean into the accepted definitions and take advantage of how we have clarified the technology (which is great…it is why you and I can have this dialogue), but then to be aware of the contextual and, especially, the subcultural changes and also recognize (as you point you about love) that the abstract will always cause difficulties.
I would also say that all languages (and, usually, the older they are, the more malleable they are in that culture — Hebrew is a great example of this) are inevitably malleable and, sometimes, abruptly malleable.
Also, being official in a language does not equal “meaning” — it just equals an attempt to make the general use of the words in the language easier (again, a good thing for the most part…unless it gets into government “newspeak”…that can be destructive or oppressive). Oxford’s dictionary doesn’t dictate language, but also the Academie Francaise doesn’t determine absolute value on a word (even if it is just for a year). Mainstream proper usage doesn’t mean a “right” definition — it is just a definition that they are forming some structure for shared meaning in. Which won’t translate to the entire population of France, especially in sub-cultures. There will still be people who use “old French” and there will still be transitions that happen with those words, even though they were laid out with a proper definition, that will cause the committee to meet again the next year.
- Last Retorts
In the philosophy of semantics, there is good news for all of this. It is a philosophy and the Semantic Triangle is still only a theory in that philosophy…which means nothing I’ve said is absolute — it is just my perspective on interpreting what this looks like.
When I present this information, there is always a perspective from various people that this is just making everything more complex and difficult and confusing. They prefer to focus on the macro-level and allow the variances to happen as long as they fit under the common usage that is present in society at that time. This is fine and I can’t argue with someone who prefers that.
I just decide to focus on the various layers occurring under the macro-level usage (sort of a grassroots approach) because I believe it will allow for more effective communication. Most communication scholars fall into this perspective as well, but it is just one perspective.
Because it is the messier perspective that seems to over-complicate rather simple ideas (like communicating), many people would prefer to accept that those elements exist (like we worked through above), but let the common sense be the common sense. I would rather bring awareness to these potential difficulties in the hopes of bringing more progress to how we communicate by making us aware of these realities. If you go macro, then everything you said is right and, quite frankly, it will all still work just fine.
I just think this approach brings forth the best possibility for making communication even better than it already is.
But it is just a perspective. The good thing is — this perspective also means that people can disagree because of the nature of words — differing perspectives is built right into its constructive nature.
I can’t promise that I’ll be able to engage this lengthily again, but I do appreciate the conversation. It seems like a shared meal and a drink would be enjoyable with you to really get into this more!
