I wanted to start this thread for along time so here goes. This thread has no real central theme (other than cognitive science and linguistics) I just wanted to post some rambling thoughts on language, representation and thought. (Yeah I'm so meta)
Propositions represent a state of affairs in the world which can be broken down into syntactical parts called words. Even these words can be reduced to more fundamental components called morphemes. Morphemes are the most fundamental, semantically meaningful units in words and are atomic and irreducible. All words are composed of one or more morphemes.
Note that morphemes are distinct from syllables because the latter refers to speech sounds not syntax and semantics like morphemes.
For example the word "tallest" is composed of two morphemes, "tall" and "est". "Tall" is a free morpheme because it is (semantically) irreducible yet it can convey meaning on its own. "Est" is a bound morpheme because it is semantically meaningless unless it is accompanied by a free morpheme.
What I am interested in is how free morphemes express meaning. (Or a more broad question of interest to linguistics and philosophy, is how words express meaning) We can ascertain the meaning of a proposition by reducing it into syntactical parts but morphemes cannot be broken down in this way so how do they express meaning?
The word "tall" does not refer to an object, it is an abstract conceptualization of objects. Neither does it refer to one thing or a state of affairs because the notion of height is relative to the frame of reference of the observer. How is the complexity of a concept like "tall" symbolized by such simple arrangements of words (which are seemingly arbitrary)?
When I say the word "tall" (even though it is complex and has semantic baggage as I suggested above) you instantaneously understand what I mean. How is it that the human mind can comprehend such abstract concepts (like tall or infinity or nothingness) through symbolic words? Is there an innate faculty that enables us to deal with abstraction that is absent from other animals?
What is the nature of the representation between language and thought? Does language act as a mirror to reality or is it arbitrary? <Same question applies to thought.
Feel free to answer some of my questions or add your own.
|
|
Bookmarks