The Power of Words

Collin

In an other thread there was a discussion about words and the meaning of words. One view was that words have a fixed universal meaning.

I don't agree with that notion but I'd be interested to hear your ideas.

I think words don't have a fixed meaning, but are largely dependent on context and intention.

Take for example the word love, it generates an idea, a notion of a state in which two people care deeply about each other etc. (I guess I don't have to explain love, you all know it )

If you go by the theory that words have fixed universal meanings, I assume this goes for all words. Otherwise, for the people who subscribe to such a theory, I'd be interested to know how you make a distinction between which words have a fixed universal meaning and which words don't.

Let's take the word 'love' and put it in two different context:

1) I love you forever and ever and I could not live without you, you mean more to me than the world, will you marry me?

2) I love your new dress.

Here, the context determines the meaning of love. Likewise, intention is crucial to determine the meaning of a word. One could use the word love to express his feelings towards someone, but one could also use it sarcastically. By using it sarcastically, the meaning of the word love becomes the opposite of the meaning in the first example.

It is important, though, to remember that language users must understand each other's intentions and also the context that they're in otherwise they will have a communication problem.

A non-native speaker of English might not grasp the casual use of 'love' and when the girl he works with says 'oh, I love you, thanks' because he did a chore she was supposed to do and because of that she can leave work two hours earlier and go party, he might think she actually loves him.

So in conclusion, I think words don't have an absolute meaning but are dependent on context and intention.

Any ideas?

he still stands

Collin wrote:

In an other thread there was a discussion about words and the meaning of words. One view was that words have a fixed universal meaning.

I don't agree with that notion but I'd be interested to hear your ideas.

I think words don't have a fixed meaning, but are largely dependent on context and intention.

Take for example the word love, it generates an idea, a notion of a state in which two people care deeply about each other etc. (I guess I don't have to explain love, you all know it )

If you go by the theory that words have fixed universal meanings, I assume this goes for all words. Otherwise, for the people who subscribe to such a theory, I'd be interested to know how you make a distinction between which words have a fixed universal meaning and which words don't.

Let's take the word 'love' and put it in two different context:

1) I love you forever and ever and I could not live without you, you mean more to me than the world, will you marry me?

2) I love your new dress.

Here, the context determines the meaning of love. Likewise, intention is crucial to determine the meaning of a word. One could use the word love to express his feelings towards someone, but one could also use it sarcastically. By using it sarcastically, the meaning of the word love becomes the opposite of the meaning in the first example.

It is important, though, to remember that language users must understand each other's intentions and also the context that they're in otherwise they will have a communication problem.

A non-native speaker of English might not grasp the casual use of 'love' and when the girl he works with says 'oh, I love you, thanks' because he did a chore she was supposed to do and because of that she can leave work two hours earlier and go party, he might think she actually loves him.

So in conclusion, I think words don't have an absolute meaning but are dependent on context and intention.

Any ideas?

Words are most definitely not concrete, finite, or absolute. Languages and words are malleable and change over time, much faster than any of us actually recognize. Obviously there are some words that are more easily understood over time and across national boundaries, like love, hate, life, death, black, white, etc., but like you say intention (context) is what gives the word it's ultimate meaning within the sentence. Also remember that non-verbals make up 50%-65% of communication.

I think the underlying theme here is speaking and communicating truthfully. When there isn't any agenda behind your words, and when you communicate honestly and openly, your meaning will be universally understood (assuming language can be translated).

Like "Puff" says in the movie Human Nature, "Words are evil!" Words indeed are many times because humans often use language to manipulate, instead of speaking honestly and openly.

decides2dream

he still stands wrote:

Words are most definitely not concrete, finite, or absolute. Languages and words are malleable and change over time, much faster than any of us actually recognize. Obviously there are some words that are more easily understood over time and across national boundaries, like love, hate, life, death, black, white, etc., but like you say intention (context) is what gives the word it's ultimate meaning within the sentence. Also remember that non-verbals make up 50%-65% of communication.

I think the underlying theme here is speaking and communicating truthfully. When there isn't any agenda behind your words, and when you communicate honestly and openly, your meaning will be universally understood (assuming language can be translated).

.

very well said!

i think CONTEXT is everything, and take words OUT of context, and they can and oftentimes DO, change considerably. it's VERY noticable even on this very board. people will 'selectively quote' just a portion of one person's complete thoughts in a post, and it can truly alter the intent/meaning when taken out of it's proper and complete context.


beyond that....words, intent AND inference REALLY vary greatly. one can say/write something, in their minds, SO clearly and so concise....and yet it still can be misconstrued b/c the listener/reader will infer so much more 'meaning' at times, history, a backstory...or their own personal bias of the speaker/writer....or merely the words themselves.

inference can change all...no matter the context/intent. that subjective listener/reader is who interprets and assigns meaning, rightly or wrongly....

farfromglorified

Collin wrote:

In an other thread there was a discussion about words and the meaning of words. One view was that words have a fixed universal meaning.

I don't agree with that notion but I'd be interested to hear your ideas.

I think words don't have a fixed meaning, but are largely dependent on context and intention.

Take for example the word love, it generates an idea, a notion of a state in which two people care deeply about each other etc. (I guess I don't have to explain love, you all know it )

If you go by the theory that words have fixed universal meanings, I assume this goes for all words. Otherwise, for the people who subscribe to such a theory, I'd be interested to know how you make a distinction between which words have a fixed universal meaning and which words don't.

Let's take the word 'love' and put it in two different context:

1) I love you forever and ever and I could not live without you, you mean more to me than the world, will you marry me?

2) I love your new dress.

Here, the context determines the meaning of love. Likewise, intention is crucial to determine the meaning of a word. One could use the word love to express his feelings towards someone, but one could also use it sarcastically. By using it sarcastically, the meaning of the word love becomes the opposite of the meaning in the first example.

It is important, though, to remember that language users must understand each other's intentions and also the context that they're in otherwise they will have a communication problem.

A non-native speaker of English might not grasp the casual use of 'love' and when the girl he works with says 'oh, I love you, thanks' because he did a chore she was supposed to do and because of that she can leave work two hours earlier and go party, he might think she actually loves him.

So in conclusion, I think words don't have an absolute meaning but are dependent on context and intention.

Any ideas?

Febsliak,

Bartow colmorn hoy rosta camplince, youp wost cutyp porchmon pinta ka maycart hoyu flipyut ho trian mog.

cornnifer

Collin wrote:

In an other thread there was a discussion about words and the meaning of words. One view was that words have a fixed universal meaning.

I don't agree with that notion but I'd be interested to hear your ideas.

I think words don't have a fixed meaning, but are largely dependent on context and intention.

Take for example the word love, it generates an idea, a notion of a state in which two people care deeply about each other etc. (I guess I don't have to explain love, you all know it )

If you go by the theory that words have fixed universal meanings, I assume this goes for all words. Otherwise, for the people who subscribe to such a theory, I'd be interested to know how you make a distinction between which words have a fixed universal meaning and which words don't.

Let's take the word 'love' and put it in two different context:

1) I love you forever and ever and I could not live without you, you mean more to me than the world, will you marry me?

2) I love your new dress.

Here, the context determines the meaning of love. Likewise, intention is crucial to determine the meaning of a word. One could use the word love to express his feelings towards someone, but one could also use it sarcastically. By using it sarcastically, the meaning of the word love becomes the opposite of the meaning in the first example.

It is important, though, to remember that language users must understand each other's intentions and also the context that they're in otherwise they will have a communication problem.

A non-native speaker of English might not grasp the casual use of 'love' and when the girl he works with says 'oh, I love you, thanks' because he did a chore she was supposed to do and because of that she can leave work two hours earlier and go party, he might think she actually loves him.

So in conclusion, I think words don't have an absolute meaning but are dependent on context and intention.

Any ideas?

It depends on the word, really. Words are very powerful and some are not to be used lightly.
I'll try to explain what i mean. Water, for example (first thing that came to mind, i must be thirsty), has more or less a universal meaning. Not alot of wiggle room with that one. Though there are varieties (fresh water, salt water, tap, bottled, etc.), the word water doesn't require alot of context or connotation. Its pretty basic.
With other words, however, context and connotation are very important. Certainly your example of "love" and its opposite "hate" are huge examples of this. Another one that comes to mind, just as an example, is "starve". My kids often say to me (several times a day actually), "I'm starving"! i usually explain to them "No, you are not starving. You may be hungry, but you are not 'staving'. Starvation is life threating. There are people in the world who are starving. You, however, are not". i sound like the connotation police, i know, but i sometimes can't help it.

Collin

he still stands wrote:

Words are most definitely not concrete, finite, or absolute. Languages and words are malleable and change over time, much faster than any of us actually recognize. Obviously there are some words that are more easily understood over time and across national boundaries, like love, hate, life, death, black, white, etc., but like you say intention (context) is what gives the word it's ultimate meaning within the sentence. Also remember that non-verbals make up 50%-65% of communication.

I think the underlying theme here is speaking and communicating truthfully. When there isn't any agenda behind your words, and when you communicate honestly and openly, your meaning will be universally understood (assuming language can be translated).

Like "Puff" says in the movie Human Nature, "Words are evil!" Words indeed are many times because humans often use language to manipulate, instead of speaking honestly and openly.

I agree with a lot of this. Although I struggle with the part in bold. What exactly do you mean with speaking honestly and openly?

I think human communication and language is more complex than the terms 'open' and 'honest', there are so many possibilities.

If a mother asks her daughter to help her clean the house and the daughter points out that the weather is lovely and all her friends are going to the beach to swim, the mother knows her daughter is saying 'I'd rather not help, I'd rather be with my friends.' We automatically understand this, even though was not open or honest, she only implied something.

But I guess that's a different discussion, really.

angelica

I'd like to add that in the other thread, I'm not sure anyone was saying that words have a universal meaning across the board. What I understand was being said is that in certain contexts certain words hold a certain degrading power over certain groups of people, and to choose such words that are known to have such power, one gives such negative power direction and life. One then activates that wounding power of that context. Even if one may not fully intend to do so.

Collin

cornnifer wrote:

It depends on the word, really. Words are very powerful and some are not to be used lightly.
I'll try to explain what i mean. Water, for example (first thing that came to mind, i must be thirsty), has more or less a universal meaning. Not alot of wiggle room with that one. Though there are varieties (fresh water, salt water, tap, bottled, etc.), the word water doesn't require alot of context or connotation. Its pretty basic.
With other words, however, context and connotation are very important. Certainly your example of "love" and its opposite "hate" are huge examples of this. Another one that comes to mind, just as an example, is "starve". My kids often say to me (several times a day actually), "I'm starving"! i usually explain to them "No, you are not starving. You may be hungry, but you are not 'staving'. Starvation is life threating. There are people in the world who are starving. You, however, are not". i sound like the connotation police, i know, but i sometimes can't help it.

About your water example, 'water' itself can in different contexts means several things. Water can mean the swimming pool, the sea, drinking water... it can be used as a verb, I water the plants and just looking at those raspberries makes my mouth water. They are all connected to a certain concept, however.

he still stands

And only 7% of communication comes from spoken words... that is why it is so difficult to communicate here and why so many "verbal scuffles" happen here. Miscommunication!!! If we were all sitting in a room talking about these things we would infer from other's tone of voice and body language that we are all on the same plane, just with a slightly different perspective.

angelica

he still stands wrote:

And only 7% of communication comes from spoken words... that is why it is so difficult to communicate here and why so many "verbal scuffles" happen here. Miscommunication!!! If we were all sitting in a room talking about these things we would infer from other's tone of voice and body language that we are all on the same plane, just with a slightly different perspective.

So true!

Each person from this board whom I've talked to on the phone...I was caught off guard by how differently they came across. Particularly those who I felt were somewhat argumentative here...on the phone their personal warmth and humanitarian vibe completely caught me off guard.

Collin

angelica wrote:

I'd like to add that in the other thread, I'm not sure anyone was saying that words have a universal meaning across the board. What I understand was being said is that in certain contexts certain words hold a certain degrading power over certain groups of people, and to choose such words that are known to have such power, one gives such negative power direction and life. One then activates that wounding power of that context. Even if one may not fully intend to do so.

Well, plenty of people were saying it. I said from in the beginning it depended on context as you are saying here.

By using that word one doesn't necessarily active that negative connotation in people, Helen is the living proof of that

And that's what bugged me, I repeated it several times that I believed it all depended on context. People told me that if such a word is used it is automatically offensive to every member of that group, regardless of context or personal interpretation i.e. that it is a universal truth that that word has that fixed meaning.

Collin

farfromglorified wrote:

Febsliak,

Bartow colmorn hoy rosta camplince, youp wost cutyp porchmon pinta ka maycart hoyu flipyut ho trian mog.

Your point...

farfromglorified

Collin wrote:

Your point...

What do you mean? I was being very clear and explicit.

angelica

Collin wrote:

Well, plenty of people were saying it. I said from in the beginning it depended on context as you are saying here.

By using that word one doesn't necessarily active that negative connotation in people, Helen is the living proof of that

And that's what bugged me, I repeated it several times that I believed it all depended on context. People told me that if such a word is used it is automatically offensive to every member of that group, regardless of context or personal interpretation i.e. that it is a universal truth that that word has that fixed meaning.

At one point I told you I felt it was universal... what I meant was in the context we were talking about. Which meant referring to women, who generally hold certain wounds due to being women. And at the same time, I'm fairly certain you are aware of both those wounds women have, and the power that specific word has with women in general. In that context, I believe that for someon to use that word...there is something up...at the very least, an insensitivity towards women in that moment. And it shows. That is what I feel is universal...given the circumstances to use that word like that...one is entering territory where the risk to offend on that level is well-known, and that choice is made freely, knowing and accepting that risk. That says something. Myself and others were fairly adamant, and yet I thought everyone understood that it was contextual.

Collin

farfromglorified wrote:

What do you mean? I was being very clear and explicit.

Well express yourself clearly and explicitly in English.

Collin

angelica wrote:

At one point I told you I felt it was universal... what I meant was in the context we were talking about. Which meant referring to women, who generally hold certain wounds due to being women. And at the same time, I'm fairly certain you are aware of both those wounds women have, and the power that specific word has with women in general. In that context, I believe that for someon to use that word...there is something up...at the very least, an insensitivity towards women in that moment. And it shows. That is what I feel is universal...given the circumstances to use that word like that...one is entering territory where the risk to offend on that level is well-known, and that choice is made freely, knowing and accepting that risk. That says something. Myself and others were fairly adamant, and yet I thought everyone understood that it was contextual.

I beg to differ or I just don't understand what you're saying

I clearly stated which scenorios and contexts I was talking about. People gave that word a label and said that label was always true, regardless of intention or interpretation or context.

he still stands

I don't think anyone here was talking about words being universal across language barriers. I believe we all assumed a Babel Fish was in play...

farfromglorified

Collin wrote:

Well express yourself clearly and explicitly in English.

What is "English"?

Collin

farfromglorified wrote:

What is "English"?

Dude, I'm not interested in games. Just state your point. I have a few guesses what it could be but I don't want to play this game in order to find out.

he still stands

Collin wrote:

Dude, I'm not interested in games. Just state your point. I have a few guesses what it could be but I don't want to play this game in order to find out.

LOL this is ironic. We're arguing about the power of words, whether or not a word has the same meaning across cultural and national boundaries, and yet two people who speak the same language can't clearly communicate.

Why? Because one of them (Farfromglorified) isn't speaking openly and honestly, and as I clearly stated before "I think the underlying theme here is speaking and communicating truthfully. When there isn't any agenda behind your words, and when you communicate honestly and openly, your meaning will be universally understood..."

Say what you mean. Don't use language in a round-about way.

You understand these words, right?

farfromglorified

he still stands wrote:

LOL this is ironic. We're arguing about the power of words, whether or not a word has the same meaning across cultural and national boundaries, and yet two people who speak the same language can't clearly communicate.

Why? Because one of them (Farfromglorified) isn't speaking openly and honestly, and as I clearly stated before "I think the underlying theme here is speaking and communicating truthfully. When there isn't any agenda behind your words, and when you communicate honestly and openly, your meaning will be universally understood..."

Say what you mean. Don't use language in a round-about way.

You understand these words, right?

I'm speaking very openly and honestly. I've meant everything I said in my posts, and I've made my statements and questions quite direct.

he still stands

farfromglorified wrote:

I'm speaking very openly and honestly. I've meant everything I said in my posts, and I've made my statements and questions quite direct.

Let us test this claim...

farfromglorified wrote:

What is "English"?

Really, you don't know? Okay, since you were being direct, here is an answer to your question:

English is an Indo-European, West Germanic language originating in England, and is the first language for most people in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, and the Anglophone Caribbean. It is used extensively as a second language and as an official language throughout the world, especially in Commonwealth countries and in many international organizations. (Wikipedia)

farfromglorified wrote:

Febsliak, Bartow colmorn hoy rosta camplince, youp wost cutyp porchmon pinta ka maycart hoyu flipyut ho trian mog. .

You honestly thought the readers of this statement could understand it?

You weren't trying to make a "witty," indirect, round-a-bout point here?

farfromglorified

he still stands wrote:

Really, you don't know?

Of course I know. That doesn't mean I can't ask the question when I'm interested in hearing the response, however.

English is an Indo-European, West Germanic language originating in England, and is the first language for most people in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, and the Anglophone Caribbean. It is used extensively as a second language and as an official language throughout the world, especially in Commonwealth countries and in many international organizations. (Wikipedia)

Absolutely. Now, why would a bunch of individuals within a given geographic location speak the same language?

You honestly thought the readers of this statement could understand it?

Of course not. The reason they couldn't understand it, however, demonstrates the fallacy of the original point.

You weren't trying to make a "witty," indirect, round-a-bout point here?

Of course I was (at least the round-a-bout part)! What's wrong with that?

Collin

farfromglorified wrote:

Of course not. The reason they couldn't understand it, however, demonstrates the fallacy of the original point.

Really? I'd say it doesn't demonstrate a thing or even better it proves my original point was correct.

Also, dude, why don't just give your opinion on the matter instead of breaking everthing down without giving an alternative.

he still stands

farfromglorified wrote:

Of course I was (at least the round-a-bout part)! What's wrong with that?

There is nothing "wrong" with it. I am not here to judge you or anyone else. However, do you not see how these previous comments were not truthfully direct statements?

The result of using language in a round-a-bout way, in an indirect and obtuse manner, is a feeling of ire (because of the intent) or outright dismissal of the comment.

We are all brothers and sisters who are just on this wild ride, who are all confused, but at least we have the gift of language. Let's not let this gift become our sword's grindstone.

farfromglorified

Collin wrote:

Really? I'd say it doesn't demonstrate a thing or even better it proves my original point was correct.

It demostrates that a requirement of language is shared definition which in turn implies objective meanings and definitions.

Also, dude, why don't just give your opinion on the matter instead of breaking everthing down without giving an alternative.

LOL...

I'd much rather get people to think about things as opposed to simply throwing points over each other's heads. If you dislike Socratic approaches, you're certainly under no obligation to play along -- feel free to disregard my posts. I certainly won't be offended.

farfromglorified

he still stands wrote:

There is nothing "wrong" with it. I am not here to judge you or anyone else. However, do you not see how these previous comments were not truthfully direct statements?

"Truthful" and "direct" are not the same thing. My posts are certainly indirect in that I'm not simply stating an opinion and leaving it at that. What I am trying to do, is get someone to actually think about an issue instead of being reactive.

The result of using language in a round-a-bout way, in an indirect and obtuse manner, is a feeling of ire (because of the intent) or outright dismissal of the comment.

LOL...sometimes, yes. The result of using direct, acute language can also be a feeling of ire or outright dismissal. It all depends on the psychology of the participants.

We are all brothers and sisters who are just on this wild ride

Not really. You're neither my brother nor my sister.

who are all confused

I'm not that confused, at least on this issue.

but at least we have the gift of language.

Absolutely!

Let's not let this gift become our sword's grindstone.

And let's not destroy that gift by pretending that words only have meanings when its convenient.

he still stands

"Puff" from the movie "Human Nature" was right... Words are Evil!

he still stands

And only that in you which is me can hear what I'm saying...

Since you claim not to be my brother or sister, or more accurately, dismiss the meaning of that statement, I'll end here.

farfromglorified

he still stands wrote:

And only that in you which is me can hear what I'm saying...

Again, not really. Only that in me which understands your applications of words can hear what you're saying. "Only that in you which is me" is a contradiction of terms.

Since you claim not to be my brother or sister, or more accurately, dismiss the meaning of that statement, I'll end here.

We may certainly be brothers or sisters in the relatively meaningless sense that we're both human beings. However, since "brother" and "sister" are sub-set terms, your usage is not appropriate.

Collin

farfromglorified wrote:

It demostrates that a requirement of language is shared definition which in turn implies objective meanings and definitions.

Words in a language indeed have objective meanings and definitions, they can be found in the dictionary, for instance. Otherwise any word could be interpreted differently by different people, thus making communication impossible. (true, I should have included that in my original post, I just thought everyone would get this, apparently some of us don't )

I believe these words can be used in different contexts to means different things. So I think words do not have a "fixed" meaning (even though they have a objective definition).

How would you explain sarcasm?

LOL...

I'd much rather get people to think about things as opposed to simply throwing points over each other's heads. If you dislike Socratic approaches, you're certainly under no obligation to play along -- feel free to disregard my posts. I certainly won't be offended

Ah, so you're here to help me?

Anyway, it's a bit silly to assume that if you just gave me your theory or opinion I would not think about it.