Meaning-as-use, grounding and rules

Meaning-as-use, grounding and rules

IPrA 2005

Staffan Larsson

Structuralism

• The sign relation, i.e. the connection between words (linguistic form) and concepts is arbitrary

• The way that linguistic material is dividied into words is arbitrary

• The way that the world is divided into concepts is arbitrary

• Focus on study of language as a structure (langue); the concrete use of language (parole) assumed too unruly for scientific study

Poststructuralism

• Langue is continously being affected by parole

• If or concepts determine how we understand the world...

• Concrete language use changes our understanding of the world

• Communication is not (just) transmission of information!

”Meaning is use”

• Wittgenstein 1953 – in opposition to ”language is a picture of the

world”

• Meaning is use– inspiration for speech act theory– but SAT keeps the ”language as a picture”

idea; speech acts have propositional content formalised in logical formalisms similar to that of Tractatus

Meaning-as-use and language change

• We know that languages change; words change their meanings etc. (intersubjective langue)

• We also know that people can learn language (subjective langue)

• How does this happen?• It must have something to do with parole, i.e.

actual concrete interactions (tokens)• How can we relate language change to

conversational interaction?

Meaning as a function of use

• The meaning of a linguistic construct c (type) is a function of the complete set S of situations where that c has been used (tokens; the "situational history" of c).– [c] = f(Sc), – where Sc = { s | c was used in situation s }

• c is a word, phrase, sentence, or proposition– I take propositions to be abstractions over spurious

differences between natural-language realisations, to the extent that such spurious differences indeed exist (an abstract type)

• I do not initally pose any limitations as to how situations are described and what they include

• For many constructus, the situation often will include the linguistic context of c, e.g.– the grammatical construct in which it appears.– the language game in which it appears

Subjective meaning

• Each individual A has a record ScA of the situations in which c has been used according to A– ScA = { s | c was perceived by A to be used in

situation s }

• This determines A's meaning of c, written as – [c]A = f(ScA),

Subjective and intersubjective

• Language is essentially a social phenomenon• Social groups (language communities) are the

relevant level of description. • However, each individual is limited to his own

experiences in taking part in the social world • The existence of social-linguistic communities

should, then, be explained by – the inter-subjectiveness of their experience and

behaviour ,– enabled by the sharing (i.e. each having a private

copies or sufficiently similar versions) of a common resource (language).

”Kripke’s Wittgenstein”

• Rule-following and the (im)possibility of a private language (Kripke 1982)– Rules only make sense in a social community– Language is public– Rules (conventions) guide the use of

language– Rules are essentially public; there can be no

private rules and thus no private languages– Replace truth conditions with assertability

conditions

Assertability conditions

• The general presupposition / assertability condition of an utterance U in situation s is this:– All constructs in U are (sufficiently)

appropriately used according to our shared norms (including our interpretation of s).

– (For language learners, this condition may be less strict)

Rules

• Rules governing the concrete use of a linguistic construct c in a specific situation s ("parole") have the general form – Given f(Sc) [previous situations where c was used],

– c is appropriate / inappropriate / indeterminate in s

• According to such a rule, a use of c can be– appropriate– indeterminate– inappropriate

• Success– > add s to Sc-

– no subtantial change

• Failure– > add s to Sc+

– less likely to use c in similar situations in the future

Speaker-appropriate (conservative use)

Speaker indeterminate(creative use)

• Hearer appropriate

Successful Default Case

SuccessfulUnnoticed creativity

Unsuccessful? Mischievous Rejection

Unsuccessful? Mischievous Rejection of Creative

use

Hearer indeterminate/

Inappropriate

SuccessfulAccommodated Conservative

Use

SuccessfulAccommodated Creative Use

UnsuccessfulUncovered Discrepancy

UnsuccessfulFailed Creative Use

• Several outcomes are possible, including the following:– A. c is appropriate in s given f(ScH)

• A1) H accepts c• A2) H rejects c

– B. appropriateness of c in s does not follow from f(ScH); indeterminate whether c is appropriate

• B1) H accepts c• B2) H rejects c

– C. c is inappropriate in s given f(ScH)• C1) H accepts c• C2) H rejects c

• [Acceptance w/o understanding; lack of understanding vs misunderstanding?]

• [Subjective acceptance vs social acceptance?]

Language use and language change

• If follows from the definition of meaning that– whenever a construct c is used, Sc will be

extended

– and so the meaning of c, f(Sc), may change.

• This is something that most (formal) theories of meaning have a very hard time covering

Changing the rules: A2 and B1

• In both of these cases, the meaning of c is likely be more substantially altered.

• An occurence of case A2 (rejection of a use previously regarded as appropriate) will weaken the case for using c in similar situations in the future

• Correspondingly, an occurence of B1 (acceptance of a use previously regarded as indeterminate) will strengthen the case for using c in similar situations.

Redundancy and learning• How does one, while learning a new language, pick up a new word?

• Typically, the learning process begins when one first notices the

word being used in some situation. – In this case, the set Sc is created with a single member.– Vygotsky: pseudo-concept

• The redundancy of language ensures that each such situation will provide more insight into the meaning of the new word.

• Eventually, the learner tries using the new construct and monitors the reaction to decide whether this was a successful (appropriate) use

• Macrogenesis and ontogenesis are governed by microgenesis• In a sense, we never stop learning language; if we stopped, our

language would soon become outdated and a social obstacle.

To do...• Empirical support, examples,...• What about compositionality?

– How are meanings of complex constructs put together from simpler constructs?– [c d] = f(Sc Sd) (but also ordering)– [after composition we get the rule for use; this is then compared to current

situation & meaning is embedded in current context]• What about reference? Truth? Contextual updates?• Can we say more about f?

– We can certainly come up with computational accounts that acn be implemented and used

• What about definitions?– If the definition of c includes d, the meaning of c may change if the meaning of d

changes– perturbation of changes through the conceptual system– [Vygotsy: zone of proximal development; pseudo-concept]

• Relation to ”meaning potientials”?

tankar internkonf• uppfattade vs. faktiska normer

– uppfattade: vad folk säger är rätt– faktiska (regler): beskriver hur folk beter sig– uppfattade normer kan påverka beteendet– langue = faktiska normer?

• makt & använding– är ingångar i SAOL exempel på språkanvänding? ”förekomst” =

användning? use vs. mention• mer om grounding

– vad händer vid rejection? förhandling– oense om sanning vs. oense om begrepp– rejection kan ofta ersättas av und*neg – ”vad menar du (med X)”

• förklara / berättiga använding –ev.-> förståelse• ordbehandlingsprogram med statisk ordlista kan konservera språket

– liksom skriftspråket som helhet

• ”The world” means the world that we live in in our everyday life, where everything has some meaning for us (or else we won’t notice it and hence it will not be part of our world)– not subjective– not independent of human beings– intersubjective, intra-cultural, intercultural

• Language changes are not value-neutral; they have effects on our daily life– Language change may be politically (in a wide sense) motivated– Groups may fight about the meaning of a word (c.f. science)– [Kos(s)eleck]