Confusion About Meaning
September 29, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton
Pardon me while I force upon you some of the reading I have
to do for school…
Why can’t we agree on a definition for one word with only
four letters in it? The reason is simple: Words by themselves don’t really mean
anything for certain. They only have a definite meaning when you put them in a
context…. Words get their meaning from the sentences surrounding them. In turn,
sentences become understandable within their paragraphs, and paragraphs make
sense within the larger context of the complete document. The important word
here is ‘context.’ Meaning is derived from context, and without we have only
confusion. So what? How do meaning and context relate to research? Exactly like
this: All data comes within a context. Without context the data cannot tell us
what we need to know. (Research Strategies by William B. Badke, 40-41)
The difficulty with this passage is that there is some truth
mixed in with some real confusion. Without context there is certainly
confusion, but it does not follow from that fact that “meaning is derived from
context” or that words “only have a definite meaning when you put them in a
context.”
Words are social constructions. The problem Badke poses is
that some words can mean different things, and we only know what they mean when
there’s a context. This is a problem because we use words that have multiple
meanings. Badke offers “rock” as an example. It may be a heavy object on the
ground, a style of music, or a back and forth movement. The problem isn’t lack of
context, however. It’s that the language we’ve constructed refers to several
different things.
They key here is that language refers. Language does not
create reality or meaning, it refers to it. When I say “rock” I do mean
something specific, even if my reader doesn’t understand it. For the reader to
not understand what I’m referring to does not negate the fact that I’m
referring to (or meaning) something. The meaning exists regardless of who
understands it.
Context does help the reader understand, and in almost every
case it is necessary for understanding. Many, if not most, book titles utilize
this property. Take Research Strategies for example. The author meant
something specific when he put that title across the cover of his book. We
understand what he meant by it (what the title refers to) via the subtitle (the
context). It could be a history of research strategies in general, a plea for
military officers to study combat strategies, etc. The subtitle, Finding
Your Way Through the Information Fog, tells us that the author meant he’s
going to guide us on how to conduct research… even if he’s confused about where
meaning comes from.
Related posts:
- More Than One True Meaning?: A Case For 'Multi-Objectivism'
- Book Review: A Generous Orthodoxy by Brian McLaren
- Confusion About Science and Religion - Part Two
- Book Review: Deceived on Purpose by Warren Smith
- Confusion About Science and Religion - Part One
- Are Wrong Beliefs Sinful?
Posted in Main Page, Philosophy, Roger's Posts
content rss
September 29th, 2005 at 6:48 am
I'm not clear on where you think Badke erred. You say that our language, which refers to things, includes some words that refer to multiple things. He seems to be saying that to understand the meaning of a word (especially one that refers to multiple things, like rock), one must read that word in the context of a sentence, paragraph, etc.
That seems to me to fit. I'm not sure what you are saying Badke got wrong if you state words often refer to more than one thing and that context helps you identify the meaning in a particular instance.
September 29th, 2005 at 9:40 am
I think I was pretty clear, “but it does not follow from that fact that
September 30th, 2005 at 1:54 am
I dunno, Rog. I agree with you, but I think you're understanding Badke differently because I agree with him as well.
Reading the passage you quoted, I understood Badke's meaning of what he is saying, especially in keeping within the context of what he is trying to teach. I don't think Badke would disagree with you concerning words having meaning(s), but within the context of Badke's subject matter, he's basically saying the same things as you are…he's just worded it badly. For example:
“Words by themselves don't really mean anything for certain.” He's not saying that words don't have meaning. He's just saying you cannot be certain of it's use/meaning without the context surrounding it.
“They only have a definite meaning when you put them in a context.” If trying to understand a word within a context, then he probably should have said something to the effect that you would get the correct use/meaning of a word when viewed within its context.
So, he's not saying words have no meaning. But when doing research, and you are having to sift through papers and recordings, the correct meaning of the words being used are found within the context.
Anyway, hope you're doing well in seminary!
In Christ,
Victor
November 3rd, 2005 at 8:52 pm
As the author of the source of this controversy, William Badke himself, I thought I'd weigh in. To say that there is inherent meaning in the words we use even if no one else grasps that meaning is, of course, true. Words do refer. If I say to myself, “Look at that gjrao,” but I'm looking at a rock, I have used a word (gjrao) to which I have given meaning, and that meaning is certain in my mind.
The fallacy in this kind of thinking, however, is that no one else knows what gjrao means unless you put it into a context, which could be as simple as pointing at the rock. Words are not simply a means for internal dialogue and internal meaning but for communication. The moment a word leaves me to make a connection with you, the inherent meaning it had in my own brain is lost or at least confused. You may know what “gjrao” means, but I don't until you give me a context. Which comes down to may main point - that all information is by nature contextual, because the understanding demanded in communication makes context a requirement.
November 10th, 2005 at 1:46 am
Thank you for the clarification Mr. Badke. Looking back on this now, especially in light of your recent comment, I agree with you and I was simply confused about what you meant (how's that for irony). If nothing else, your comment cleared things up for me.