I'm enjoying this thread, — Dawnstorm

Cheers. That's an excellent post. It brings up a nagging doubt that has been sitting gat the back of my mind - in order for a malaprop to undermine a convention, mustn't there already be a convention?

So it's not that there are no conventions in language, surely...

Is it more that one cannot rely solely on convention?

Is it more that one cannot rely solely on convention? — Banno

I'd say so.

I'm enjoying this thread, but am a bit shy to respond because I'm not very familiar with the philosophy of language. — Dawnstorm

Seem to be doing just fine to me. I am certainly one who is not familiar with it, at least not a conventional understanding...

:wink:

So, you'll always be adjusting the passing theory with me.

That is a very good question.

Pick a word, any word, and present its correct meaning. Let's see where that leads. — Banno

Triangle = A three-sided geometric figure

Or perhaps that using it correctly shows that one knows what it means.

When someone goes to a store and asks for five red apples, receives five red apples, and goes on their way, it seems that that person knows how to use the words. Ask such a person what the meaning of "five red apples" is, and they may or may not know how to answer. — creativesoul

The failure to define is not concrete proof of the absence of a definition. Wittgenstein believed so according to Wikipedia.

I'm of the opinion that all semantics is just a superstructure built on top of ostensive definitions. Wittgenstein denies ostensive definitions are possible using the example "paper". Pointing to a piece of paper and saying "paper" is, as per Wittgenstein, open to multiple interpretations. Does it mean the shape, the color, the texture, the anything except paper? However, this is incorrect. I can ensure that when I say "paper" I'm not referring to the color by using differently colored paper and I can prevent someone from thinking "paper" refers to shape by using paper with all kinds of shapes. The same technique can be used to eliminate other attributes that we're not interested in until we get to the meaning we wish to convey with the word "paper".

Are you making the french press or what?
— creativesoul

Turkish. — Banno

You made a Turkish press?

Updating the passing theory.

You totally missed the point. Using "five red apples" to acquire five red apples shows that the user knows the correct use/meaning of "five red apples".

You totally missed the point. Using "five red apples" to acquire five red apples shows that the user knows the correct use/meaning of "five red apples". — creativesoul

:ok:

Triangle = A three-sided geometric figure — TheMadFool

Remember what we are after:

How is it possible to know whether we're using the word correctly without knowing what the correct meaning is? — TheMadFool

How do we know we are using "A", "Three", "Side", "Geometric" and "Figure" correctly in that definition? So that is incomplete. If you are going to give a complete meaning, you need also to give the meaning of "A", "Three", "Side", "Geometric" and "Figure".

Triangle = A three-sided geometric figure — TheMadFool

At the risk of getting into another "trite" side-track...where are the sides in a love-triangle?

At the risk of getting into another "trite" side-track...where are the sides in a love-triangle? — Isaac

Each person represents a point. The shortest distance between two points is a straight line. You have your love triangle.

Each person represents a point. The shortest distance between two points is a straight line. You have your triangle. — TheMadFool

They could do. What necessitates that I imagine this when I use the term to communicate?

They could do. What necessitates that I imagine this when I use the term to communicate? — Isaac

I don't understand you. You asked where's the triangle and I obliged.

I don't understand you. You asked where's the triangle and I obliged. — TheMadFool

You answered where the sides could be, I asked where they were.

You answered where the sides could be, I asked where they were. — Isaac

I only have to answer where they could be, right?

I only have to answer where they could be, right? — TheMadFool

If I say to someone "She's involved in a love-triangle" and do not bring to mind your 'each person represents a point. The shortest distance between two points is a straight line' mental image, but rather just imagine the three people co-involved, then I've used the word 'triangle' to communicate perfectly effectively absent of any 'sides' or 'geometric figures'. The fact that I could draw imaginary sides between the actors is irrelevant. If I do not choose to do so and yet still communicate effectively, then the triangle I'm referring to has no sides. Likewise my interlocutor might not imagine any sides either and yet perfectly well understand what I'm saying. How is this possible if the meaning of 'triangle' involves sides? I just used the word, was perfectly well understood, and yet no sides ever entered into the process. Did we communicate effectively by accident?

See for yourself

I'm not sure what you're trying to show here. I'm in no doubt that it is possible to draw three imaginary line between the actors. I'm asking about the necessity of doing so. If two people communicate effectively using the term 'love-triangle' simply on the grounds that there are three people involved, then how is it they've communicated. Are you suggesting that the 'meaning' of a word is some reified thing divorced from that which might be understood during it's use?

How do we know we are using "A", "Three", "Side", "Geometric" and "Figure" correctly in that definition? So that is incomplete. If you are going to give a complete meaning, you need also to give the meaning of "A", "Three", "Side", "Geometric" and "Figure". — Banno

The entire process will trace back to ostensive definitions.

I'm not sure what you're trying to show here. I'm in no doubt that it is possible to draw three imaginary line between the actors. I'm asking about the necessity of doing so. If two people communicate effectively using the term 'love-triangle' simply on the grounds that there are three people involved, then how is it they've communicated. Are you suggesting that the 'meaning' of a word is some reified thing divorced from that which might be understood during it's use? — Isaac

I'm only showing you what a love-triangle is. Since a triangle is a geometric concept, it's best to do it with pictures and that I've done.

I'm only showing you what a love-triangle is. Since a triangle is a geometric concept, it's best to do it with pictures and that I've done. — TheMadFool

I didn't ask what it is, I asked where the sides are in my use of the term. I imagine three people, co-involved, one of whom is the subject of my expression "She's involved in a love-triangle". My interlocutor, on hearing this also imagines three people, co-involved one of whom is the subject of the expression he just heard. He may now proceed to ask relevant questions about the nature of this co-involvement, treat each actor (should he meet them) in a manner consistent with them being co-involved, etc... In other words, I've successfully achieved what I wanted to achieve by using the word 'love triangle' without any sides or geometric shapes being involved in the process at all.

Have I misused the word? Has my success been mere accident? If the 'meaning' of the word is 'a geometric shape with three sides', then what's just happened in my successful use of it absent of any of those features?

The entire process will trace back to ostensive definitions. — TheMadFool

But - how? In each case you replace one set of word with another, not with an ostension.

Again, remember what we are after:

How is it possible to know whether we're using the word correctly without knowing what the correct meaning is? — TheMadFool

And again, how is it possible to know that someone has understood the act of ostension correctly, without first knowing the correct meaning?

I didn't ask what it is, I asked where the sides are in my use of the term. I imagine three people, co-involved, on of whom is the subject of my expression "She's involved in a love-triangle". My interlocutor, on hearing this also imagines three people, co-involved one of whom is the subject of the expression he just heard. He may no proceed to ask relevant questions about the nature of this co-involvement, treat each actor (should he meet them) in a manner consistent with them being co-involved, etc... In other words, I've successfully achieved what I wanted to achieve by using the word 'love triangle' without any sides or geometric shapes being involved in the process at all.

Have I misused the word? Has my success been mere accident? If the 'meaning' of the word is 'a geometric shape with three sides', then what's just happened in my successful use of it absent of any of those features? — Isaac

Well, "three people" are three points and the only shape possible with three points is a triangle.

Well, "three people" are three points and the only shape possible with three points is a triangle. — TheMadFool

First, a straight line is possible. Second, why must I even imagine a shape at all? The expression seems to get its job done without my needing to.

codification would be inadequate — Banno

Whilst conventions internal and external to an utterance have the potential to be studied and codified, I agree that any codification of such conventions would be inadequate to result in single and fixed interpretations, but, however, would be adequate to result in reasonable interpretations.

Therefore, I still disagree with Davidson's conclusion that "we should give up the attempt to illuminate how we communicate by appeal to conventions" (p. 265), as even conventions
that may only enable reasonable interpretations are better than no conventions at all.

Basically, with Gricean non-natural meanings, you need conventions to fix truth values, or else you have just unstructured conflict. — Dawnstorm

Yes, when I hear someone say something like "I dance the flamingo", in order to understand what they mean I need some knowledge of social context, some knowledge of the social conventions that have to do with language. Accepting also that in practice social conventions aren't absolute but dependent on lasting consensus and without conventions to fix truth values you have just unstructured conflict.

Following on from this, I don't agree with Davidson's conclusion that "we should give up the attempt to illuminate how we communicate by appeal to conventions" (p. 265), as although he may illustrate why conventions cannot give absolute interpretations, he doesn't show that conventions are not able to illuminate communication.

Of course, all of this discussion took place years ago, and in the intervening time those bright young things at Google simply ignored all this and smashed the problem of translation using the ball pin hammer of an enormous statistical base, with some neurla refinement...

Independent Article...

I wonder what it makes of malapropism...

Typing "ball pin hammer" into google translates correctly...

Typing "ball pin hammer" into google translates correctly... — creativesoul

AH, but how do you know?? :lol:

Convention.

So I suppose I am committed to not bending "convention". — Banno

That's unfortunate. I still think that this line is among the most consequential in the paper:

"These remarks do not depend on supposing Mrs Malaprop will always make this ‘mistake’; once is enough to summon up a passing theory assigning a new role to ‘epitaph’."

A single use is enough to 'summon up a passing theory' - I think this speaks a great deal to how convention can be single-use.