I think that perhaps the more important take away is the single(novel) use aspect.

What do you mean?

What counts as "convention" could be altered ad hoc, I suppose, and doing so may save the standard description of linguistic competence under consideration(by definitional fiat). But as it pertains to what successful communication(interpretation) requires, the success of the single novel use shows us that rigid strict rules are necessary but need not be followed. In the case of malapropisms, convention is necessary as a base for what Davidson calls a prior theory only to be modified at the time of utterance.

Edited to strike out something that I've realized isn't quite right. I realize that it results in difficulty of translating the rest, but hopefully you understand. I meant just malapropisms, and not single novel use, per se. Those, I think are a much different animal then malapropisms.

I think it(the single novel use) speaks to how convention gets started. The three principles in question seem inadequate for that task as well as malapropisms.

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. — StreetlightX

Worth considering. But it looks a lot like bending "convention" until it breaks. How could a once-used convention serve as a justification?

I'm sure there is a bit about this in the Holy Word of Wittgenstein. Might have a look for it. Something about following a rule once being the same as not following a rule...

How could a once-used convention serve as a justification? — Banno

Justification? For what? (I think I missed a convo somewhere).

Might have a look for it. Something about following a rule once being the same as not following a rule... — Banno

Ah, but in Witty, it's quite the opposite: we can find a rule for any use we want to... Quss and all. What is necessary is 'agreement in judgements'...

I've just noticed something about Davidson's notion of first meaning.

The concept applies to words and sentences as uttered by a particular speaker on a particular occasion. But if the occasion, the speaker, and the audience are ‘normal’ or ‘standard’ (in a sense not to be further explained here), then the first meaning of an utterance will be what should be found by consulting a dictionary based on actual usage (such as Webster’s Third). Roughly speaking, first meaning comes first in the order of interpretation...

[snip]

...Because a speaker necessarily intends first meaning to be grasped by his audience, and it is grasped if communication succeeds, we lose nothing in the investigation of first meaning if we concentrate on the knowledge or ability a hearer must have if he is to interpret a speaker. What the speaker knows must correspond to something the interpreter knows if the speaker is to be understood, since if the speaker is understood he has been interpreted as he intended to be interpreted...


[snip]


...Nothing said so far limits first meaning to language; what has been characterised is (roughly) Grice’s non-natural meaning, which applies to any sign or signal with an intended interpretation. What should be added if we want to restrict first meaning to linguistic meaning?

The first part of the first sentence in the last paragraph above ends with a semi-colon and amounts to an obvious falsehood. This is more readily understood when we look at the first paragraph above. That paragraph sets out a clear case of language use replete with words, sentences, speaker intentions, audience interpretations, a standard bearer(convention), along with all that dictionaries(the standard bearer) themselves require. Clearly, that entire example describes a situation that cannot happen, be realized, be instantiated, and/or otherwise take place(etc.) unless language use has long since been.

It also sets up the following question...

What should be added if we want to restrict first meaning to linguistic meaning?

This question only makes sense if first meaning has not already been limited to language by Davidson himself. But it has.

While malapropisms may question the conventional understanding of what counts as a language as set out by the three principles, and constitute ground for rejecting the third outright, it seems that novel first time successful communication and the convention that results from repetition is ground for rejecting all three as first meanings, although the notion of prior theory remains undisturbed.

What the speaker knows must correspond to something the interpreter knows if the speaker is to be understood, since if the speaker is understood he has been interpreted as he intended to be interpreted...

When language use is already being practiced, the above is a fine thing to say...

However, with the creation of convention and hence, the very beginnings/origen of language use, as well as all successful communication involving language thereafter...

The speaker and the listener need only draw correlations between the same(or similar enough) things; one of which are the actual expressions of the speaker, and another would be <roughly> what the speaker aimed to do and/or achieve by virtue of expression.

That honors looking to use to 'find' meaning...

How could a once-used convention serve as a justification?
— Banno

Justification? For what? (I think I missed a convo somewhere). — StreetlightX

I could be wrong, but I'm thinking that that comment related to Davidson'a suggestion regarding the need for dropping appeals to convention as a means to illuminate how we communicate. If one time use counts, there would be no need to drop such appeals. For we could appeal to convention each and every time if a one-time use counted.

Malapropism would not be problematic for such a definition of "convention". It would be an ad hoc correction though, and basically be contrary to convention at the time...

Wouldn't it?

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 — Isaac

Sorry, got caught up in some other things. Your view on the issue is that people can use the phrase "love triangle" without accurately knowing what "triangle" means.

Firstly how do you know that people are using the phrase "love triangle" accurately without there being an accurate geometric description of the phrase "love triangle"?

Secondly, I must admit that people needn't necessarily know the geometric concept of a triangle as it appears to be dispensable insofar as the meaning of a romance involving three people is concerned. What I mean is the essence of a love triangle consists of romance and three people and if people habitually refer to such instances as "love triangles" without actually going into the math of triangles then the concept of triangles is no longer necessary to understand what love triangles are.

Where do you want to go with this?

...the concept of triangles is no longer necessary to understand what love triangles are. — TheMadFool

Only if love triangles can be existentially dependent upon the mathematical notion of triangles and the latter not be necessary for the former. The meaning of "love triangle" is derived from the meaning of "triangle". The latter is necessary for the very existence of the former, which is in turn necessary for any understanding thereof.

A "love triangle" picks out three people involved in sexual relations. While that notion is itself existentially dependent upon the mathematical notion of a triangle, it does not represent a misuse or incorrect use of the term "triangle". There is more than one accepted use/sense of the term "triangle", and each is correct if and when used in the appropriate circumstances.

That ought tell you something here about how the circumstances themselves are pivotal to what determines "correct" use/meaning.

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. — StreetlightX

"Summoning up a passing theory" facilitates understanding, not necessarily agreement, not even necessarily provisory acting-as-if. And classifying the usage as a "malapropism" actively prevents consensus: a malapropism not a permissible variant. "Flamingo" can't be both a malapropism of and a synonym for "flamenco" (not in the same mind, at least). In this sense, the concept of "malapropism" hinders passing theories from undermining convention.

What sort of situation would you describe as a single-use convention:

A makes a malapropism; B parses it as such:

a) B corrects A.
b) B lets it slide.
c) B uses the malapropism repeatedly to make fun of A.
d) B decides to play along
e) B doubts his judgment, and passes over the topic.

And so on.

I've just noticed something about Davidson's notion of first meaning. — creativesoul

I have trouble understanding Davidson notion of first meaning in the first place. This is one of the places where I wonder whether I'd have better understanding if I was more knowledgable about the philosophy of language. But I come from linguistics, and this feels like a mess. What you've been pointing out is part of it, but I don't necessarily think he's being inconsistent. I just don't get that entire part.

Only if love triangles can be existentially dependent upon the mathematical notion of triangles and the latter not be necessary for the former. The meaning of love triangle is derived from the meaning of triangle. The latter is necessary for the very existence of the former, which is in turn necessary for any understanding thereof. — creativesoul

Read below:

A "love triangle" picks out three people involved in sexual relations — creativesoul

Where's triangle in your definition of love triangle?

Where's triangle in your definition of love triangle? — TheMadFool

The same place triangle is in your definition of triangle.

The same place triangle is in your definition of triangle. — creativesoul

Love triangle = romance between three people.

No triangle.

To tell you the truth, in my discussion with @Isaac I was basically on the same side as you - maintaining that the concept of triangles is essential to understanding what love triangles are but it isn't as your and my definitions clearly indicate.

However, this doesn't seem to imply that people use words without knowing definitions as Isaac belives because "love triangle" is a different kettle of fish. Although it's made up of the words "love" and "triangle" each having its own definition, it's actually describing the situation in which three people are in a romantic relationship. The concept of triangles is of no conequence at all to the meaning of love triangles. When people use the phrase "love triangle" they have to know what it means in the sense it's defined (romance involving 3 people) even though they don't know what triangles mean.

I have trouble understanding Davidson notion of first meaning in the first place. This is one of the places where I wonder whether I'd have better understanding if I was more knowledgable about the philosophy of language. But I come from linguistics, and this feels like a mess. What you've been pointing out is part of it, but I don't necessarily think he's being inconsistent. I just don't get that entire part. — Dawnstorm

Interesting that you're from a linguistics background. I'm curious to know what you think about the adequacy and/or sufficiency of the three principles proposed for successful communication/interpretation.



I've no letters at all after my name, nor do I have any academic training(officially anyway). I do, however, have a persistent interest in the subject matter, because of my strong interest in thought and belief itself and the role that meaning plays.

I do not necessarily think Davidson's being inconsistent either. I do think that he's mistaken about some basics of all meaning though as is shown by his being wrong about his notion of first meaning not being limited to linguistic meaning.

The same place triangle is in your definition of triangle.
— creativesoul

Love triangle = romance between three people.

No triangle. — TheMadFool

Look on the left side at the second word. There it is! Hence, my reply.

Look on the left side at the second word. There it is! Hence, my reply. — creativesoul

A "love triangle" picks out three people involved in sexual relations — creativesoul

A love triangle (also called a romantic love triangle or a romance triangle or an eternal triangle) is usually a romantic relationship involving three or more people — Wikipedia

No triangle in the definition.

You've lost me here. I see it there as well. Again, on the left, "triangle" is the third term in the definition.

What are you looking at?

"Triangle" is in every one of those definitions!

You've lost me here. I see it there as well. Again, on the left, "triangle" is the third term in the definition.

What are you looking at?

"Triangle" is in every one of those definitions! — creativesoul

Let me be specific, triangle is not in the definiens

Cambridge.Org

I've nothing further to say about this...

I've nothing further to say about this... — creativesoul

Sorry to hear that but it actually doesn't prove Wittgenstein right - that people use words without knowing their definitions. "Love Triangle" is a single semantic unit and although it's made up of two words that have some connection to the concept of a three-way love affair, the precise mathematical concept of a triangle isn't an essential part of the juicy tale of love triangles.

There are other phrases like this e.g. "feather weight". The word "feather" here doesn't mean that a feather is involved in the meaning; only the lightness of feathers is incoporated into the meaning of feather weight. The same goes for love triangles - the threeness of triangles is all that's co-opted into the meaning of love triangles.

In any case, the definition of words or phrases must be known before they can be used properly.

...the precise mathematical concept of a triangle isn't an essential part of the juicy tale of love triangles... — TheMadFool

Never said it was, nor would I. I direct you back to the first reply I offered you. Love triangle is a deviation of the mathematical concept. The latter is necessary for the former. The former is existentially dependent upon the latter.

Think oil and plastic. The relationship(existential dependency) is very similar to triangle and love triangle.

...the definition of words or phrases must be known before they can be used properly. — TheMadFool

Not true. Use determines definitions(accepted senses).

The problem is that in order to use words, there has to be a commonly understood meaning with two or more people. Communication is what you use words for and It takes two or more individuals to communicate. If the listener or reader doesn't understand then you didnt communicate and you didn't use words. You just made noises or scribbles.

Now, when two people are failing to understand each other who is at fault? Who is the one that is using words properly or not? To find the answer you look in a dictionary.

Never said it was, nor would I. I direct you back to the first reply I offered you. Love triangle is a deviation of the mathematical concept. The latter is necessary for the former. The former is existentially dependent upon the latter.

Think oil and plastic. The relationship(existential dependency) is very similar to triangle and love triangle. — creativesoul

Well, we would need some real people to decide the matter. Are there/were there people who know/knew what love triangles are before the advent of mathematics and geometry? Before you answer this question don't forget that polygamy was a more common form of sexual relationship than monogamy in the animal and the plant worlds. Mathematics is relatively a very recent development. In other words, the concept of love triangles precedes the concept of triangles - our ancestor hominids probably were neck deep in not one but many love triangles ergo, fully in the know about love triangles before Euclid came up with a formal definition of triangles. What do you make of that?

In other words, the concept of love triangles precedes the concept of triangles - our ancestor hominids probably were probably neck deep in not one but many love triangles ergo, fully in the know about love triangles before Euclid came up with a formal definition of triangles. What do you make of that? — TheMadFool

Shows that we've very different taxonomies at work.

A love triangle is not a concept, it is three people involved in sexual relations. We named those circumstances "love triangle" as a result of the similarity with the mathematical notion of a triangle.

A love triangle is not a concept — creativesoul

What is it then?

Read the next line...

Sigh.

it is three people involved in sexual relations. — creativesoul

This is a concept.

Is it? I thought sex was physical. You mean to tell me that I've been having conceptual sex with my wife and not physical sex this whole time? Does that mean that my offspring are conceptual outcomes of my conceptual sex as well? I thought that they are physical outcomes of physical processes. Im really confused now.