If You Take my Meaning

[joigus]

7 hours ago, TheVat said:

I suspect one way we come to understand meaning is when isolated sentences present as ambiguous, like "The bark was painful." Someone rubbed against a rough tree, or a dog's vocalization conveyed its distress?  To find meaning we seek a context that we share with the speaker.

This would be the first level at which meaning could be hard to find.

7 hours ago, TheVat said:

When we read a story, we tend to be fascinated by ambiguity.  Like the conclusion of The Lady or the Tiger.  The short story ends at this point when a man has either chosen a door behind which waits a tiger or a beautiful woman. His lover, the princess, has indicated which door he should choose, but it’s up to the reader to decide if she wants him alive and married to another woman, or is jealous enough to prefer his death.  Meaning, for humans, is interesting when we are made uncertain as to what a word or gesture signifies in another person's mind - what was the true motivation of the princess's gesture towards one of the doors?

This is the aspect that interests me most.

Another extreme example is --taking up @Genady on their suggestion of pragmatics: An intimate couple talking to each other can have a conversation like,

--Really?

--Nah

There aren't many identifyable pieces of information there. Only they know what they're talking about.

I suppose we interpret messages in some kind of optimisation strategy. There must be something like a critical time until you find the best match.

An interesting example, perhaps. Consider the same couple who are very intimate. One of them, suddenly utters:

"Every moon of every planet goes round and round"

It's OK as to meaning, I suppose, but the other one would probably say, "what do you mean?"

So meaning is --perhaps-- not exactly, or necessarily, about parsing a sentence and going, OK, I see no syntax mistakes, semantic mistakes, and so on.

[studiot]

For over 90% of my time in school we included a subject about the English language.

(Note that opening statement is more difficult than you might think to make it unambiguous)

This included study of what are known as 'figures of speech'.
These are really expressions where the meaning conveyed differs from the literal statement in language.

So we studied statements such as

"Now he has nailed his colours to the mast"

and

"It was cold enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey"

In the first of these the meaning may fairly readily be deduced.

The second one is less clear by a long way.

Both derive from former naval practice.

 

Yet again we studied expressions where only part of the expression is actually stated.

Most would understand the imperative Halt!

But again extra material is required to understand the simple one word phrase or sentence.

Yes.

This is the second point for this post.

Context may be required for meaning to be conveyed.

Edited January 26, 2022 by studiot

[joigus]

Interesting reflections, Studiot. Thank you.

It seems that we need several levels of context to ascertain meaning to the point we think we understand what the other means.

Another one is historical (idioms.)

10 hours ago, OldChemE said:

Oh my!! Definitely.  I'm glad to find out I am not the only one.

When I drive on US highways I am constantly reminded of the question of meaning because of the road sign that says "lane ends merge left."  I cannot decide if this means that the lane I am in is ending and I am instructed to merge to the left, or if it simply means that the two lanes are merging in a leftward direction.  This bothers me!

More significantly, I once had a job of helping my boss prepare for quarterly meetings with a very volatile leader.  I would spend days struggling to 'spin' the presentation in a way that would assure that the volatile leader would receive the meaning we wished to convey.

Aha! Nice examples. I suppose your first problem would be solved with a comma:

"lane ends, merge left"

versus,

"lane ends merge, left"

You can suggest that with your voice, but you can't with written language, unless you use punctuation!

1 hour ago, studiot said:

"It was cold enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey"

 

Interesting...

Edited January 26, 2022 by joigus
minor correction

[studiot]

13 minutes ago, joigus said:

Another one is historical (idioms.)

Idioms are a sub division of 'figures of speech', which I believe to be the general term.

My two naval examples are both idioms.

But you do not necessarily need context for idioms; context is necessary for the first but not the second.

Other figures of speech include

Antiphrasis, sarcasm, Irony (saying the opposite of what you mean)

Hyperbole offering an exaggerated version of the meaning.

Edited January 26, 2022 by studiot

[dimreepr]

20 hours ago, joigus said:

Could you, please, elaborate? I'm prepared to accept that until we commit what we think to either paper, screen, or air --speech--, we're still not in the realm of meaning. It's only when there are at least two thinking agents that the question of meaning really arises. Is that anything like what you mean?

I suppose I mean language is more than just word's, it's cultural and the meaning is contextual; commit a thought to paper and it's trapped in the moment you wrote it, but if you commit a thought to a friend/peer they are not only more likely to understand the meaning, but that thought is free to be refined in a rich language that can deliver bad news with a smile.

[Genady]

15 hours ago, Peterkin said:

By 'we', you mean those familiar with the concept and practice of assisted temporary automobile storage. 

That was what I meant, as I've replied earlier. But now I see that this interpretation does not necessarily require a real life knowledge. This is a conclusion of my little experiment:

I gave the sentence, "Heated attendant parking" to the Google Translate and it interpreted it correctly in both Russian and Hebrew ("Обогреваемая охраняемая парковка" and "חניית מלווה מחוממת", respectively). 

Of course, it probably is just a probabilistic outcome.

[joigus]

2 hours ago, studiot said:

But you do not necessarily need context for idioms; context is necessary for the first but not the second.

 

I agree. Unless you expand "context" to contemplate what your predecessors meant when they said that. Let's call it "tradition", if you want. Some idioms are still in use long after most speakers have forgotten the historical context.

By the way, Wolfram Alpha didn't recognise your naval idiom:

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=cold+enough+to+freeze+the+balls+off+a+brass+monkey

It didn't recognise "cold enough to freeze your winnebago" either:

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=cold+enough+to+freeze+your+winnebago

Although it does recognise "winnebago":

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=winnebago

But I was able to check your naval idiom on the web:

https://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,5753,-16960,00.html#:~:text=NOOKS AND CRANNIES-,The expression%3A "It is cold enough to freeze the balls,iron balls to fall out.

[Genady]

54 minutes ago, Genady said:

That was what I meant, as I've replied earlier. But now I see that this interpretation does not necessarily require a real life knowledge. This is a conclusion of my little experiment:

I gave the sentence, "Heated attendant parking" to the Google Translate and it interpreted it correctly in both Russian and Hebrew ("Обогреваемая охраняемая парковка" and "חניית מלווה מחוממת", respectively). 

Of course, it probably is just a probabilistic outcome.

On the other hand, Google Translate has failed to interpret correctly another example from an earlier post:

"Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana."

 

Here is its Russian interpretation:

"Время летит как стрела. Плодовые мушки, как банан." It means, "Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies [do / are] like a banana."

 

The same in Hebrew:

".הזמן טס כמו חץ. זבובי פירות כמו בננה"

 

[Peterkin]

47 minutes ago, Genady said:

But now I see that this interpretation does not necessarily require a real life knowledge.

It can be from movies, I suppose. But the word 'park' is ambiguous in itself. In how many languages is it a verb? In how many languages can it be passive?  In how many languages is it associated with vehicular traffic? So is 'attend' - that's a verb, so 'attendant' might be an adjective as easily as a person. 'Heated' is all right, translated literally, but which of the other things is being warmed, and why? 

 

3 hours ago, studiot said:

My two naval examples are both idioms.

They are also both metaphors. Neither is commonly used in my part of the world, where the second would be understood more readily than the first. Canadians have an appreciation of cold, but we're not particularly naval.  Metaphors, either from the language of a specialized field, or from popular literature, enter idiomatic communication all the time and become an accepted part of the cultural medium of exchange. Then they don't need context or background, because everybody knows what they mean. Some are place-specific and relate to the history and lifestyle of a people, while others, like Biblical and Shakespearean quotations, are widely used. 

Of course, lately, broadcast journalist coin words and phrases that may be entirely devoid of meaning (Snowmageddon? Perfect storm of doubt?) yet instantly become familiar parlance through endless repetition.    

[Genady]

25 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

It can be from movies, I suppose. But the word 'park' is ambiguous in itself. In how many languages is it a verb? In how many languages can it be passive?  In how many languages is it associated with vehicular traffic? So is 'attend' - that's a verb, so 'attendant' might be an adjective as easily as a person. 'Heated' is all right, translated literally, but which of the other things is being warmed, and why? 

I don't think Google "sees" a word 'park' in this text, only 'parking'. The latter is a noun and is associated with vehicular traffic in all three languages unambiguously, based on the entire list of its optional translations Google offers.

Equally, it doesn't deal with 'attend', only with 'attendant'. And it offers nouns and adjectives for its options in the other two languages.

[Peterkin]

36 minutes ago, Genady said:

I don't think Google "sees" a word 'park' in this text, only 'parking'.

But Google isn't on the street, reading the sign. A tourist with a cellphone would read the google version; one with a pocket dictionary would not. In the making of signs, there are cultural and economic assumptions, just as there are in idiomatic speech. In the case of the lanes merging, the driver has no options: whatever it means, he has to squeeze into that one lane. In the case where someone is looking for a green space to have his lunch, he's found the wrong venue.  

Edited January 26, 2022 by Peterkin

[Genady]

18 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

In the case where someone is looking for a green space to have his lunch, he's found the wrong venue.  

It could've been worse  

 

 

[Peterkin]

That's what happens when you put unpaid interns in the collating room! (Though it's hard to imagine poor Hungarian eel-fishers in hovercrafts to begin with.)  

[Genady]

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

(Though it's hard to imagine poor Hungarian eel-fishers in hovercrafts to begin with.)  

How about Russian farmers on Mars?

 

[cladking]

This is really remarkably simple but difficult to see. Modern language always has an ephemeral meaning because words are defined.  Not only does the specific intended definition have to be parsed from context but connotations can affect how the sentence is parsed.  If this isn't problematic enough most people have unique definitions of many words and whether that unique definition belongs to the speaker or the parser is irrelevant and will affect meaning in ways neither the speaker nor listener can possibly predict.  But here is where Wittenstein comes in; the way our brains process information and experience is driven by language so even our intended meaning as well As the taken meaning is dependent on language as much as author intent.   

The long and short of it is that every listener always takes a different meaning of every utterance.   We assume these are merely shades of meaning but in actuality they can be polar opposites.  But we don't notice this.  Two people can actually have two different conversations and walk away thinking they had just communicated with someone where there was actually no communication whatsoever; no exchange of ideas or knowledge.  

This is all exceedingly important because among the problems of programmed thought is the belief that we are intelligent and that this "intelligence" can be imparted to machines if they merely have a sufficient number of diodes or processors.  We can teach language to a machine and it might well mimic intelligence but it will still be susceptible to the same inability to accurately communicate or to consistently come up with a correct answer except in mathematical questions.   This is because no modern language is logical and meaning must be relayed as tautologies to have a fair chance at correct interpretation.  

 

There are simple steps that can be taken to mitigate or eliminate all these problems but they are not recognized so their is no will to do so.   The message to the general should simply have said "attack at day break and I'll follow immediately, do not proceed without me".  Generally a better solution is to limit the number of generals.  

[Peterkin]

23 minutes ago, cladking said:

Two people can actually have two different conversations and walk away thinking they had just communicated with someone where there was actually no communication whatsoever; no exchange of ideas or knowledge.  

That may happen sometimes, but it can't be the norm, or society would break down and cease to function. More likely, it could never been established in the first place.

25 minutes ago, cladking said:

But we don't notice this.

We do when the other guy shows up an hour late at the wrong meeting-place, or all the walls of a building lean outward. When a bridge or tunnel started at two end fails to match up in the middle as planned, the discrepancy is not due to verbal misunderstanding but mathematical miscalculation. Most of the time, in most transactions and social interactions, people understand one another quite well - in fact, much meaning is communicated indirectly, in oblique or coded language, coupled with intonation, facial expression, gesture and context.  

[cladking]

5 hours ago, Peterkin said:

That may happen sometimes, but it can't be the norm, or society would break down and cease to function. More likely, it could never been established in the first place.

We do when the other guy shows up an hour late at the wrong meeting-place, or all the walls of a building lean outward. When a bridge or tunnel started at two end fails to match up in the middle as planned, the discrepancy is not due to verbal misunderstanding but mathematical miscalculation. Most of the time, in most transactions and social interactions, people understand one another quite well - in fact, much meaning is communicated indirectly, in oblique or coded language, coupled with intonation, facial expression, gesture and context.  

Yes.  Two people engaging in different conversations is rare.   The longest I ever heard was about twelve sentences.  

Usually it's just a very few sentences but neither notices.   

 

Hundreds of marines were killed in Normandy when their gear to scale the cliffs was insufficient for overhanging cliffs there was and is no standard means to depict these.   Many times when people are supposed to meet at "midnight tuesday" they show up on different days because this is not defined.   "Midnight occurs between two days and neither it nor noon is AM or PM.   

Nobody seems to notice these things until a walkway collapses with  dozens of people and then nothing changes.  

 

Language is "confused".   It works after a fashion for thought but not so well for communication.  

[studiot]

9 hours ago, Peterkin said:

When a bridge or tunnel started at two end fails to match up in the middle as planned, the discrepancy is not due to verbal misunderstanding but mathematical miscalculation.

But then you get two tunnels or bridges for the price of one !

 

Joking aside, the mathematics may not have been wrong, but the communications may have been blocked by someone not listening.

There is a story about a viaduct I built where something like that happened.

[Peterkin]

5 hours ago, studiot said:

But then you get two tunnels or bridges for the price of one !

Unfortunately, no. You get one reconstructed and delayed tunnel or bridge for the price of two.

Some errors may be doe to poor communication.... or miscalculation. https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/18407/embarrassing-moments-engineering-and-what-they-taught-us

[studiot]

17 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Unfortunately, no. You get one reconstructed and delayed tunnel or bridge for the price of two.

Some errors may be doe to poor communication.... or miscalculation. https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/18407/embarrassing-moments-engineering-and-what-they-taught-us

I see we have a clear example of miscommunication in action.

[OldChemE]

On 2/7/2022 at 3:25 PM, Peterkin said:

When a bridge or tunnel started at two end fails to match up in the middle as planned, the discrepancy is not due to verbal misunderstanding but mathematical miscalculation.

Mostly-- but I know of a minor overpass (over the railroad) in rural Pennsylvania that was mis-aligned because the two construction companies building the road from two opposite directions both agreed that the left edge of the road should be on the reference line for the overpass.

[studiot]

2 minutes ago, OldChemE said:

Mostly-- but I know of a minor overpass (over the railroad) in rural Pennsylvania that was mis-aligned because the two construction companies building the road from two opposite directions both agreed that the left edge of the road should be on the reference line for the overpass.

🤣

+1

[joigus]

11 minutes ago, OldChemE said:

Mostly-- but I know of a minor overpass (over the railroad) in rural Pennsylvania that was mis-aligned because the two construction companies building the road from two opposite directions both agreed that the left edge of the road should be on the reference line for the overpass.

🤣

[Peterkin]

36 minutes ago, OldChemE said:

two construction companies

There's your error!