Aboutness of language
How can mere words be about anything? For example, when I say, "the cat is on the mat", I'm talking about the cat being on the mat. The statement is about a state of affairs.
In general, saying 'statement Y is about state of affairs X' is the same thing as 'saying statement Y refers to state of affairs X'. Hence they are equivalent. Therefore, in language 'about' and 'refers' are equivalent.
How do words refer? I would say solely on the virtue of being true. 'The cat is on the mat' refers to the cat being on the mat because the statement that 'the cat is on the mat', is true. Take any statement and ask yourself does it refer to anything? If it's true, then it refers. If it isn't true, then it doesn't. Now, if only we understood what truth was...
Do you agree with this analysis of aboutness of language?
What do you think? How can words be about anything?
In general, saying 'statement Y is about state of affairs X' is the same thing as 'saying statement Y refers to state of affairs X'. Hence they are equivalent. Therefore, in language 'about' and 'refers' are equivalent.
How do words refer? I would say solely on the virtue of being true. 'The cat is on the mat' refers to the cat being on the mat because the statement that 'the cat is on the mat', is true. Take any statement and ask yourself does it refer to anything? If it's true, then it refers. If it isn't true, then it doesn't. Now, if only we understood what truth was...
Do you agree with this analysis of aboutness of language?
What do you think? How can words be about anything?
Comments (81)
This is not true. When you state "the cat is on the mat" here, you are posting that phrase up as an example. I really don't believe that you are saying anything about any cat on any mat.
You could read your observation the opposite way.
Why does it is take so little to refer to something?
Whether a description is true or not is a function of what one is trying to keep in view.
Maybe the capacity for us to talk past each other is greater than any narrative that forces us to accept the same starting places.
Because that's what we do with them.
How does a screwdriver fit so neatly into the head of a screw?
OK, but it's an example which you posted for some purpose. So the point is, the phrase you posted "the cat is on the mat", is not really about any cat or any mat at all, it's about some sort of demonstration you're trying to make.
In any case, the statement "The rat has a hat." might be true, or it might be false. How would I know from the context of that one sentence? The cat/mat nexus is valid only if the cat actually is on the mat.
As to cats and mats, words refer by triggering memories in a brain. My adult learners who did not know how to read did not register the sentence as meaningful--hence the line drawings... cats sitting on mats, rats with hats, ants without pants. You see or hear the words, the auditory/visual/speech system processes them, and voila! a cat is on the mat. If you see the words "??? ?? ?????" the words will refer to nothing. Unless you speak Russian.
The statement is about some hypothetical cat on a mat. But the point was to make a demonstration about words being about things. There's a difference between a statement and a point.
So if words are about things, what sort of a thing is a hypothetical cat?
That's to prevent dolts from going in there and doing irreparable damage. (I'll advocate for you too -- for a fee.)
Yes - like jargon, marking who is in and who is out, with those who are out unable to look after themselves.
I found one of those special ten-inch long hex keys that was needed to reach the screws on the original macintosh case the other day. It's really just a bent bit of coat hanger wire with some bits filed off it. Think I paid $10 for it, in the early 90's.
Back to @Purple Pond's Aboutness of language...
The question is too obvious. As you said, it's like supposing there is a mystery to a screw driver.
What about nonsense? Nonsensical sentences don't refer hence the name ''nonsense''.
I don't think language is about truth per se. It's about expression - truth, falsehood and nonsense.
Yes, remember when the OS and MS Word would fit on an 512kb floppy?
It's a mental activity. Aboutness/reference are a way that we think. So in other words it's something that brains can do. It's a set of processual properties that brains can perform.
At that, it's not the case that everyone performs these mental activities in the same ways for the same words, sentences, etc.
You can talk about common ways that it works, but you can't make correct universal statements about it (about reference, meaning, etc.)
If a statement refers to a fictitious event, then it's true. If I say 'harry potter wears glasses', what I say is true. The problem is, the perpetrator of a lie isn't referring to a fictitious event, that is to say, he isn't telling the truth about a fictitious event. He's telling falsehoods about supposedly real events.
Quoting TheMadFool
Nonsensical statements aren't true.
We do not only refer to objects, we also refer to subjects (matters to be discussed). When it is a subject which is referred to, truth or fiction is irrelevant to the reference.
[I]''Harry Potter has a glass eye''[/i] isn't a true statement but it's about/refers to Harry Potter. So, reference/aboutness can occur without truth.
My guess is that it would be a hypothetical cat.
But take care not to make the mistake of thinking brains can do this by themselves. Using words requires a community.
Of course Harry Potter wears glasses. And "Harry Potter wears glasses" is true if and only if Harry Potter wears glasses.
Therefore it is true that Harry Potter wears glasses.
So this reference does involve truth.
So, reference is impossible without truth according to you?
Then ''about'' and ''refer'' aren't equivalent.
[I]''Jesus was Chinese''[/i] is about Jesus but, according to you, fails to refer to Jesus since it's a falsehood.
Also, we can make sense of ''Jesus was a Chinese'' can't we? If yes, and I think yes, then how is that possible without the statement referring to something?
What about nonsense? [I]''square root of Tuesday''[/i] is nonsense because it doesn't refer to anything and so is incomprehensible.
At a minimum there must be some difference between 1. Truth, 2. Falsehood and 3. Nonsense
I think:
1. Truth: True reference
2. False: False reference
3. Nonsense: No reference
According to the theory in the OP, yes. However, I'm not obliged to stick to the thesis in the OP. I can change my mind.
Quoting TheMadFool
Jesus was Chinese is a falsehood about Jesus. According to the OP that sentence has no referent because it isn't true, but I'm not sure anymore. It may well refer to Jesus, and ascribe false properties to him.
Quoting TheMadFool
I think you are conflating meaning with reference. What is the justification that they are the same?
Quoting TheMadFool
I don't think it has any meaning, but not because it doesn't refer.
Not I.
Well, unless you can show me how that follows from what I have said...
This truth value evaluation can only occur if the referring is complete beforehand. The process of referring, must occur earlier than truth value evaluation. Without the referring first we can't know the truth value of propositions.
So, reference can occur without truth. In fact it must occur before we can come to the truth.
It's a mistake to think they can't, rather. Wittgenstein was wrong (about most things).
And re meaning, it's a mental phenomenon only. Language isn't normally a mental or individual phenomenon only, but It's not impossible for it to be.
Quoting TheMadFool
How do you point to "is Chinese"? Predicates are are descriptions of subjects we already referred to.
When you say Jesus is Chinese, you are not referring to a Chinese person, rather you are ascribing Chineseness to the referent Jesus.
Quoting TheMadFool
I think this is false and is based on the assumption that you also refer to the predicates in the sentence, besides the subject. There's a difference between referring to and ascribing.
Taken in parts, the only part of the sentence refers is the subject. Taken as a whole, the sentence refers to a state of affairs, only if true.
Quoting TheMadFool
I agree.that reference can occur without truth. The last sentence I'm not convinced of yet.
Wittgenstein made the therapeutic suggestion to include percepts and actions in the definition of "language", because concepts such as linguistic reference can only be made sense of within the broader concept of a language-game. Whereas if "Language" is used to only refer to the verbal part of the language-game, your philosophical puzzlement arises.
How do you point to the predicate "...is a jew"?
I think we're not on the same page. What exactly do you mean by "refer"?
Isn't language symbolic in that we words and everything we can do with it is the act of a symbol or string of symbols pointing or referring to something else?
Subject-predicate statements point to both what is the subject and the predicate and the relationship between them. Am I wrong?
Also, how does one judge truth?
First meaning of a propsition must be be understood and only then can we evaluate truth.
To understand meaning the process of referring must be completed right?
No. Not all words are names.
Quoting TheMadFool
You have to face the problem of what it is that a predicate points to. You might take an extensional approach and say that it points to every thing that satisfies the predicate - so "red" points to all the things that are red. But then you have the issue of working out which things are red and which are not.
And then there is the problem of pointing to the relation between a name and a predicate.
All very complex stuff. And when t gets that complex, it's a good indication that one is looking at it wrong.
Quoting TheMadFool
This is the same as "what should one believe". There is not going to be one answer.
Quoting TheMadFool
Or do you first see what is true and then learn to break it into a thing and a predicate?
Quoting TheMadFool
Meaning? What's that?
But if your claim is that in order to talk to people, we must be able to talk about things, well, I guess so.
How do we know whether a proposition is true or not? Is meaning not involved? Truth is about semantics isn't it?
And how do we get to the semantics of a proposition without it's reference being completed?
The proposition must complete the reference to a state of affairs, after which only can we determine truth/falsity.
A pretty pickle.
You seem to think I agree with Purple. I don't.
I think it means the same thing as 'about', but only in the context of language.
Quoting TheMadFool
Like Banno said, not everything is a name. I would add that not every sentence is a proposition.
Quoting TheMadFool
Only the subject part of the sentence refers. You can't disconnect the predicate from a sentence and say that it refers to anything.
Quoting TheMadFool
Only if you conflate meaning and reference.
Can we judge the truth of a sentence without understanding it?
No.
Can we understand a sentence without the referring in a sentence being completed?
No.
Referring is independent of truth. Truth depends on referring being complete.
Yes.
I don't think this conversation is going anywhere.
An example to help me...
Statements like: It is raining. It's my birthday. It's 20 miles to New Jersey. These are all possibly true statements without a reference.
Aren't you referring to "it" in these statements? "It" in this case is an unnamed subject. In many cases "it" refers to an already named subject. That "it" refers to an unnamed subject here just means that you can refer to something without naming it. "It" substitutes for a name even when the thing referred to has no name.
Not all words do. Names can.
All successful reference is picking out an individual entity to the exclusion of all others solely by virtue of shared meaning. What is referred to is the referent. The method of referring is language. Naming practices start it all.
Not sure what you mean by "without a reference"...
"It's raining" refers to what is happening at the time. It's talking about actual events. It's what we say when water is falling from the sky in a particular form.
"It's my birthday" refers to a particular calendar day(the day of year that the speaker was born). Typically, when said it is referring to the day when it is being spoken. One could be talking about that particular day on another.
"It's twenty miles to New Jersey" refers to the distance between New Jersey and something else. Typically, one when something like that is said, the speaker is talking about the distance from where they are when speaking to New Jersey.
I would concur up until the last claim, but find issues with it regarding two different senses of "truth".
One need not understand a propositional truth(true proposition) in order for it to be true.
A rudimentary thought/belief can be both meaningful and true without ever being spoken and/or otherwise uttered. Successful reference is existentially dependent upon language. Either truth and meaning are not or true thought/belief is not existentially dependent upon either truth or meaning.
If language does not necessarily refer, then how is that you can use language to refer to the fact that language doesn't refer? You end of contradicting yourself with this type of argument. Even when you say what isnt the case you are stating what is the case. Is it the case that words don't refer, or not?
There's no reference for the subject "it" in the sentence.
Quoting creativesoul
I don't think 'What's happening at this time' is a subject that you can refer to because a subject is one word.
I no longer think that statements refer to states of affairs. Statements only refer to the subjects where predicates can be ascribed.
I think you are correct here.
Yes, only then can we ascertain it's truth.
Why not? I already gave an example of and understandable sentence where no reference is completed. "it's raining". What does the "it" refer to? Nothing.
Surely we can't isolate the sentence in a vacuum. It must have a context right? In ''it's raining'' the ''it'' refers to a particular time ''now'' or something else.
And what does 'is raining' mean?
Quoting TheMadFool Can you name a context that it is so obvious?
Quoting TheMadFool Funny thing is the reference is still missing even when you add those words.
'It' références the sky
Actual events aren't. That is what is being referred to.
:roll:
If someone tells me ''it's raining'' then I would take it as ''at this time it's raining''. The speaker, because it's obvious, doesn't mention ''at this time''. This is how I understand the phrase ''it's raining''. The reference is there.
If I go outside, or look out the window, I will see rain.
Quoting TheMadFool
But we already get the "at this time" from "is", which makes it redundant. So "time" would be your reference in "at this time it's raining"?
A: Earth.
B: Planet Earth being blue.
C: Other.
How can something be understandable without reference? What does it mean to "understand" in your book?
"It" refers to the state of affairs - the conditions outside - the weather. What else would it be referring to? What do you mean when you say, "It is raining"? What information are you trying to relay? If I were to look out the window and see that it is raining and you tell me that it is raining - wouldn't that be redundant since I already see that it is raining? How can the statement, "it is raining" be redundant if the statement doesn't refer to anything?
Also, when translating languages, what is it that you are translating? What the words refer to.
Quoting Purple Pond
Exactly. Why would you look out the window, or go outside, instead of look in the refrigerator or pour a glass of water? Because the state of affairs that the sentence refers to is outside and not in the kitchen.
The analogy was made between the use of words and that of a rabbit snare; neither are needed for what they are frequently directly perceived as, but rather what their existence implies the obtaining of.
For instance, with the use of the rabbit snare, you catch the meat of the rabbit for future nourishment or whatever other purpose. Similarly, we use words to encapsulate a desired state of affairs and establish them as so, and once this state of affairs has been communicated, we are no longer in need of the words, for their purpose has been fulfilled.
Why must something have a reference for it to be understandable? All that requires for something to be understandable is for it to have meaning.
Quoting Harry Hindu
No it doesn't. The weather or "the states of affairs", is the rain. It cannot perform the raining.
Quoting Harry Hindu
How about nothing?
Quoting Harry Hindu
It depends on the context. Most of the time the speaker means that you'll need an umbrella to go outside or you will get wet.
Quoting Harry Hindu
The information is redundant because I already know that it is raining, not the sentence. The sentence is fine.
Quoting Harry Hindu
No you're not. You're translating the meaning of the sentence.
Quoting Harry Hindu
So the "it" in "it's raining" refers to outside?
:worry:
When talking about the statement "It is raining", the term "it" refers to the current events/state of affairs/what's happening/etc. We all know this to be true. That's why we look outside to check to see if it is the case...
That question is based upon a misunderstanding of what and how reference works...
You're conflating a few things here. "Planet Earth" refers to a particular celestial body that we've named "Earth". "Blue" refers to a particular visible wavelength that we've named "blue".
"Planet Earth is blue" doesn't refer to anything. It uses pre-existing names and their referents to say something about the one.
Why are you answering a question with a question? What do you mean by "understand" and "meaning"?
Understanding is knowing. Knowing is having a set of rules for interpreting sensory data. Words, either spoken or written, are in the form of sensory data (sounds and scribbles). To understand words is to have a set of rules for converting those sounds and scribbles into what they refer to in the world. This is how you learned what words mean. You were shown pictures or people would point and name the object pictured or referenced. What words mean is what they refer to. Words that refer have meaning and are understandable. "Words" that don't refer are just sounds with no reference. Your not really using language if you aren't referring to anything. You're just making sounds, or writing scribbles, that don't mean anything. Exclamations refer to the speaker's emotional state and their intent to express it.
Quoting Purple PondThe rain is a type of weather.
"It" could also refer to the conditions, or what is the case. It is the case that it is raining. When people use this sentence, they are informing another of a state of affairs, or the conditions somewhere.
Quoting Purple PondWhat is the information? You keep using these words without the slightest idea about what they mean and how they all relate together. I think you need to define, "understand", "know", "meaning", and "information" and see where we stand once you do that.
Not even on the same planet as how I define those two terms.
But meaning exists only in context, and it seems to be this context that's giving you problems?
I don't know if I noticed that comment from Purple Pond. I'd wonder what Purple Pond would have in mind with meaning that doesn't involve reference in any manner.
Me too. :smile:
One can understand that touching fire causes pain even if the one in question is language less. Meaning is attributed within the experience. The creature draws a correlation between it's behaviour and what happened immediately afterwards, The creature learned something, and by doing so, attributed meaning to the act and the fire. The fire became meaningful and/or significant to the creature after the connection was made between touching it and the pain that ensued. The creature attributed/recognized causality.
So, not all meaning involves reference, and not all understanding is of something that is already meaningful.
Re: your “Reference is language use. Meaning is prior to language.”
What do you think of Fodor (1975) where the thesis is that mental acts are actual language structures?
I’m of the mind that mental acts are images, and meaning is prior to language, insofar as meaning is merely a judgement on conceptual referents presented to it by reason.
On the other hand, if Fodor is right, meaning won’t be prior to language, at least of the mental variety. Then we’d have to determine if the mental variety is different than the overall objective variety, such that meaning could still be prior to one but simultaneous with or a consequence of the other.
I'd say that the meaning they're performing re fire and pain includes a reference to pain. But I don't think of reference as necessarily linguistic in the sense of having to utter a word.
I'm not familiar with Fodor. I would readily agree that some mental acts are structured by language. I would also say that some mental acts are prior to language acquisition, and therefore cannot be language structures. Language acquisition itself is existentially dependent upon mental acts, so...
In order for that to be true, judgment on conceptual referents, and reason would all need to exist prior to language. I may agree with a nuanced version of this line of thinking, but it would require redefining judgment and reason. On my view, neither is even possible prior to language.
Some mental acts are images. Not all. Blind people think.
Quoting Mww
May I suggest dispensing with the very idea of objective meaning? The subjective/objective dichotomy is utterly incapable of being used to take proper account of that which is both.
I can't make much sense of the idea of performing meaning.
Does the burn victim need an audience?
Performing = something an individual does. It's a process they have to engage in on a particular occasion.