The term "Uncertainty principle" is borrowed from Quantum Mechanics: My quest is this: Is it possible to employ a similar uncertainty principle for language? By definition, language already has full of problematic concepts: The adaptation that I would like to try has nothing to do with Derrida style "deconstruction" of individual words and/or claims of the definition. Instead I will use the central theme of the Uncertainty Principle only by changing some of the words and play with the "meaning": "Meaning of a linguistic element (a word, a sentence, a paragraph etc.) cannot simultaneously be known both within and outside of the context. In other words, the more you know the individual identity of a linguistic element (its etymology, root and/or dictionary meaning) the less you can know about its role within a context, and the more you know about the position, function, role of a linguistic element, the less you can know about its individual, separate -or independent- position of it." What does this adaptation tell us other than good old "look at the context" rule? How would we establish a parallel reasoning similar to quantum uncertainty principle? Nothing, nothing and nothing. This only tell us one thing: There is no word without its context; even if we try to analyse it separately, we are actually employing a context: Being an entry in a specialized or a general dictionary itself is being within a context. Belonging to a certain language (English, Chinese, etc.), being represented by certain symbols, starting with a capital letter, written in a certain typing character, spoken with a certain accent or emphasise are all part of being within the context. I would prefer to summarize the "uncertainty principle for language" as "there is no linguistic element without its context". However, I suspect that would empty the importance of a subject element (word, group of words, etc.) as being an actor in making the language and/or context. "Everything is context" would be a type of generalization that is similar to "everything is energy". This might imply something about the overall nature (of universe or of language), but it doesn't say anything about the function(s). So, being "arbitrary" is not allowed for language, but being "absolute" is nonsense...
Oh, dear I had you on ignore, but this was such an interesting thread title I had to peek. Perhaps we can somehow work well together on this one. You do come up with interesting topics! Let's see how you approach it. And I do think it is, at the very least, a good metaphor. I am not sure one can know the meaning of a linguistic element outside its context period. (edit: I see you come to this later) I think I would change it to 'the more you focus on'. If you are trying to hold this information present you will lose the context. I am not sure if this is the same as the Heisenberg - or more of a metaphor - since in this case I think it has to do with the limited number of items one can hold in consciousness at a given time. Agreed. I agree with this also. I think this is a very interesting line and very creative and I don't want my objections above to be taken as hard. I am not sure we need the HP to get to your conclusions and I think there is something very fruitful about this. My QM is very layperson, but I'll give this a shot. In a brainstormy way. What I like about this analogy is that the process of observing certain elements can make it harder to observe (measure) others. I also think that there is something analogous to superposition with language. The words themselves are flexible, but not infinitely - my rewording of your conclusion. Once they are 'put in a context' they fall out of superposition and take on certain meanings. (meaning is use from Wittgenstein) So there is this movement from probabilities dictionary meanings + - superposition - to something more rigid, in the context. Interestingly I think immediatly of the literalists vs. the metaphorists. Those who see language as being literal - at least in bulk with metaphors as the exception - and those who see language as primarily metaphorical (and embodied: lakoff). I think the literalists tend to focus on meaning as something 'in' the word - note the metaphor - and metaphorists seeing the meaning as something dynamic between a specific kind of body and the world. I think the literalist - now I'm am trying to hook this up with the HP - decide to look at the words themselves in isolation to build up meaning - in some way autistically - and in this they miss out on, for example, interpersonal dynamics. How 'well I'd better go' could actually mean 'I like you a lot, but you seem disinterested, but maybe I am wrong please let me know NOW.' A particle physicist can on a single occasion decision to find the spin of a particle, and thus not be able to get information on velocity, direction, etc. To me certain approaches to thinking of language are chronic choices to go for one kind of information at the expense of others. I would also say that one thing in common between the HP with particles and the HP with language is that perception or 'the act of perceiving' is just that: an act with consequences. Look Baftan. Please see this all as in the spirit of exploration. I am mostly probing and not trying to say: this is true for sure. I think you have a juicy idea here and my intent was to contribute. If it seems out of place, I'll bow out without a struggle.
None of this makes much sense to me. I mean, your formulation of the principle is different than your first "in other words" version of the principle, which is in turn different than your final summary of the principle. So which one is the principle? The formulation, the "in other words" version, or the summary? Only after getting that clear does it make sense, in my opinion, to actually ask ourselves whether the principle is plausible.
Fair enough. Let's examine it step by step: In the first sentence of the formulation says: If you mean the above part is different than original first part of the "Heisenberg uncertainty principle" definition from Wikipedia; I believe I already warned that I was using the Heisenberg principle as an inspiration while saying this: If you mean the above part is different than what it comes later on (the part that starts with "in other words"), I will show the similarities and will ask you to show me your "differences": The introductory sentence (the one starts with "Meaning of a linguistic element...") claims that it is impossible to know the meaning of a word within and outside of the context at the same time (simultaneously). There is one implicit and one explicit meaning in here. Explicit meaning says that, if I check the meaning of the word, let's say, "ideology", I will get various information from different sources, different dictionaries. They will pile up and make a body of argument by themselves. However, when I leave this section and use the same "ideology" word within a sentence, paragraph; shortly in a "context", the effect or the signification of the dictionary meaning will erode, disappear. Because now the word "ideology" has some role, it's not "alone" any more; it's part of something and its "meaning" is necessarily shadowed by the other actors of the context, we can no longer isolate it even if we wanted to. If we try to isolate it, this time we can damage the context itself. If you necessarily insist upon matching this with quantum mechanics, you might be able to say "measurement problem"; but I wouldn't recommend to push this analogy that far; we are just using the sentence structure of the definition, not the ontological logic: language and quantum mechanics simply belong to different universes... There is also an implicit meaning in here; when you read the very phrase that you are trying to understand (let me remind you: "...cannot simultaneously be known both within and outside of the context."), you are already within a context, call this a philosophical discussion, call this a post in a SciForum, call this an analogy to Heisenberg principle, call this the concept of "uncertainty"... Now I will remind you the rest of the formulation starts with "in other words": Please show me the different parts using -or not using- my explanation above. (I must admit, it would have been better if I added "within a context" right after "role of a linguistic element" phrase; I assumed that it was already clear within the parameters of the first sentence). And your criticism follows as: Again, in order to prevent any confusion, you need to point out which "final summary of the principle". You have obviously have some problem with this "in other words" section. As I was trying to explain above, my adaptation of uncertainty principle is play of meaning using the skeleton of Heisenberg principle. And my adaptation (you call this "formulation" which is ok with me) starts with "Meaning of a linguistic element..." continues with explanatory part opening with already infamous "in other words,..." bit and ends with ...position of it". If your objection is within or outside of this passage, please let me know. Granted. But don't forget: Outside of the subject passage, I already mentioned this (which is also "the summary" you mentioned bit earlier): So don't expect to get additional information if you are after a straight answer for "what is this" question. However, if you are after dynamic meaning reproduction, importance of positional recruitment of words within a context, or "meaninglessness" of absolute solutions for linguistic attempts, you can also play with my offer, or come up with your own.
It seems that the use of the uncertainty principle, while interesting and possibly leading to interesting tangents, is ultimately doomed in a strict sense in regards to language. All concerned seem to have agreed on one crucial fact. Language is context. This seems to doom the thesis. This, of course, is another matter. "Linguistic element" opens up a whole 'nother can of worms.
