Hmmm. Doesn't Austin point out that when the judge says, "Guilty," he has done something with words besides mean something?

More to the point of the thread, if meaning is something we can do by various means, language among them, then doesn't that suggest that meaning is "prior" to language? I'm not wild about "prior" talk, but it seems your position would lead you to agree with him.

'ello, Meta.

Do we do this again? So, if as you say meaning is a relation between things, what sort of things is it a relation between? Words and...?

I'm not wild about "prior" talk, but it seems your position would lead you to agree with him. — Srap Tasmaner

Indeed; it depends entirely on what "prior" might mean...

Indeed; it depends entirely on what "prior" might mean... — Banno

I guess I'm okay with it as indicating what's being explained in terms of what. If A is explained in terms of B, then B is prior to A. That could be conceptually prior, metaphysically prior, who knows. If we've ruled out circularity, or mutual dependence, etc.

If there's no way to explain what language is, how it works, how it's used, whatever, without talking about meaning, then I guess that would make meaning prior to language.

Not to be a broken record, but, as I mentioned in my first post in this thread, the fact that the meanings of words change over time is key in this discussion, I think. A word carries a different meaning depending on what historical moment it's used in. Words are the husk in which the seed of meaning is carried.

If there's no way to explain what language is, how it works, how it's used, whatever, without talking about meaning, then I guess that would make meaning prior to language. — Srap Tasmaner

Sure; only we can pretty much drop "meaning" in favour of "use"... Look at what we do with words rather than mean with them.

If language is a tool we mean things with, then it's conceivable we could mean things with something else. If you're saying there's nothing else we can mean things with, you'd need to argue for that.

Unless it turns out you were defining the word "meaning" here as "what we do with language." Then you could save the tool talk, I guess: "meaning" would mean "using the tool language." On the other hand, how informative would such a definition be? — Srap Tasmaner

This is fairly well what I was arguing, Banno.



Agreed.

...unless you can tell us what 'meaning' means...?

What does "...unless" reference in that sentence? Are you assuming that my argument is invalid "...unless"?

As far as what meaning means, that's the beauty of meaning. It's self-referencial. It's not a metaphysical concept to be defined by reason, but rather the basis of metaphysics in general. Everything needs a referent. We can't use the English language on this internet forum without meaning. If we can't define meaning, as you so coyly suggest, then we can't debate. It's really not complicated.

So I point towards their common basis:symbolism — creativesoul

A symbol represents...

But we do more with words than just represent.

Hence, the analysis of symbols is inadequate to explain language.

Sure; only we can pretty much drop "meaning' in favour of "use"... Look at what we do with words rather than mean with them. — Banno

Change of vocabulary is no help, as they suffer from almost exactly the same ambiguity.

There's what words mean, as used in sentences, and then there's what we mean by them, as used in, you know, life. There's the use of words in sentences, and the use of words to tell people stuff, ask them questions, pronounce them guilty, etc.

We have good reasons for distinguishing between these sorts of things, but they are intimately linked, so it's no surprise that the same words end up smeared across the whole domain. Word-meaning and sentence-meaning are pretty different, but they're far from unrelated. And they're different again from what we mean by uttering a sentence in a particular context, but the meaning of the sentence, and hence of the words of which it is composed, is usually far from irrelevant.

As far as what meaning means, that's the beauty of meaning. It's self-referencial. It's not a metaphysical concept to be defined by reason, but rather the basis of metaphysics in general. Everything needs a referent. We can't use the English language on this internet forum without meaning. If we can't define meaning, as you so coyly suggest, then we can't debate. It's really not complicated. — Noble Dust

Take a look at this paragraph again, but see if you can see it as I do.

It looks to ma as if you have assumed that every word (you say thing, but that would be very odd...) has a referent; and then when you cannot find the referent of "meaning" you propose that it refers to itself.

That is special pleading. Drop the assumption that all words refer, and you do not need the rather convolute conclusion that meaning refers to itself.

I think I can see it from your view. But I still disagree. Do you disagree that every word has a referent? If a word has no referent, it tends to die off. That, to me, suggests that meaning carries the "lives" of words; meaning is what gives words life. When meaning ends, a word dies. It's referent is no longer relevant.

As far as special pleading, I don't think it applies to meaning. I'm not avoiding the fact that the word meaning doesn't have a concrete definition, I'm underlining the fact that meaning as a concept is the metaphysical basis for language, if language is to have any use at all.

We ought pay more attention to the distinction between foundational and semantic in the OP.

The best account of semantic meaning I am aware of is found in Davidson. But it has been around for forty-odd years and nit had much success.

Another curious approach is found in those who see language as information transfer; but I'm not able to see much depth in that.

Hence the need to reflect on the foundation; which I take to be the difference between showing and telling. One does not show that one understands a rule by stating it; but by following it.

meaning is what gives words life. — Noble Dust

Why not say that use is what gives words life? Obviously, the words that die are those that are no longer used.

If all words have a referent, to what does "Hello" refer?

Some of the issue here may be terminological, because it's perfectly clear that not every sort of word has anything to do with things: the logical constants, syncategorematic words, the list goes on.

In general, it's only names that carry the reference to some thing with them; other words can be combined to form expressions that refer, such as "my truck."

That's not to say that words that don't refer don't mean anything, only that there's more to meaning than referring to things.

Why not say that use is what gives words life? Obviously, the words that die are those that are no longer used. — Banno

Again, I'm not un-fond of Wittgenstein. But I don't fully buy his ideas. But I'm probably less educated than you on language. I'm working through my ideas. Are you saying "use" and "meaning" are synonymous, or are you saying that "use" is more accurate than "meaning"? For instance, I think that use is determined by meaning. The concept of use doesn't supersede the concept of meaning. I can argue, for instance, that use is situational in relation to meaning. The use of the word "together" could refer to a romantic couple, a sandwich (bread and cheese together), a family reunion, sexual intercourse...use of the word "together" varies, but it's meaning is a broad concept that connects it's separate uses. We see connections across the disparate uses.

to what does "Hello" refer? — Banno

It refers to the acknowledgement of another human being.

"Hello" just is the greeting; it doesn't refer to it.

Yep.

Yep, yep.

That's not to say that words that don't refer don't mean anything, only that there's more to meaning than referring to things. — Srap Tasmaner

Right, I don't think I was saying that meaning equals reference. It seems that you and Banno might be moving the goal posts here? My main argument is about meaning. I brought in referents as part of my argument; maybe that part of my argument isn't as strong. I take your criticisms in stride. But that's not the thrust of my argument.

I'm working through my ideas. — Noble Dust

Me, too.

I'm repeating Wittgenstein's point that we can get further by looking to the use to which an utterance is put, than we can by an analysis of the meaning involved.

"Hello". Look at what is going on here, not at what you expect. It does not refer to greeting; it is a greeting.

"Hello". Look at what is going on here, not at what you expect. It does not refer to greeting; it is a greeting. — Banno

Ok, yes, I agree with you here, but again, I never meant to say that referent equals meaning. Maybe I phrased something badly? (If I did, what is that? Is it a case of bad use, or incorrect meaning? :P )

Just nailing down the terminology.

I would say this: the meaning of a word is the contribution it makes to the meaning of a sentence in which it is used. (That's more or less Dummett's version of Frege, and I'm happy with it at the moment.) The key word there is "used": in distinction from "mentioned" of course, but also in the sense that the sentence is the unit of doing something linguistically--making a statement, placing a bet, asking a question, etc.

That said, "Hello" also refers in a context of culture. So, in a way, all language refers within it's expected context. The only way a word wouldn't refer was if it was foreign, or a specialized word that can only be recognized by specialists (Srap's reference to syncategorematic words)

Is it a case of bad use, or incorrect meaning? — Noble Dust

Yes; exactly. 8-)

the meaning of a word is the contribution it makes to the meaning of a sentence in which it is used. ( — Srap Tasmaner

This is what Davidson tried to bring out by translating natural languages into first order language. It didn't quite work. But it was fun.

"Hello" also refers in a context of culture — Noble Dust

What to?

the meaning of a word is the contribution it makes to the meaning of a sentence in which it is used. — Srap Tasmaner

Fine, I can go with that (tentatively), but then the question of the OP becomes: "Is the meaning of sentences prior to language?" We still haven't properly dealt with meaning if we just assign it to sentences. The meanings of individual words assign to sentences, but the meanings of individual sentences assign to what? Broader paragraphs or conversations, but what do those assign to? It brings up, again, the context of language itself, and we're back to square one.

Yes; exactly. 8-) — Banno

Eh? (Use your words! As my mother used to say).

What to? — Banno

To acknowledgement of another person, as I already said.