The word 'short' is short ('performative' adjectives)

[Alexey86]

There are so-called performative verbs in English: to apologize, to declare, to demand, to order and several others. In speech these verbs carry out the acts/actions they mean: when we say I apologize we in fact make an apology; by saying I declare we make a declaration.

There are also adjectives that are what they mean:
- the word short is quite short (long isn't long)
- the word understandable is understandable
- the word old is old (new isn't new)
- the word inanimate is inanimate

What would you call these adjectives? Can you give more examples?

There are also adjectives that could be what they mean depending on context. The word interesting could be interesting to someone, but to be interesting is not an inherent feature of this word.

 

[jutfrank]

There are also adjectives that are what they mean:
- the word short is quite short (long isn't long)
- the word understandable is understandable
- the word old is old (new isn't new)
- the word inanimate is inanimate

What would you call these adjectives? Can you give more examples?

The word I use is homologous, the opposite being heterologous, where the word means the opposite of what it is. For example, the words monosyllabic and long are heterologous.

There is a logical paradox that concerns this: Is the word heterologous heterologous?


Note: The word 'performative' should not be used in this sense, since it is reserved to be used in speech act theory. The vast majority of speech acts involve performative verbs because it tends to be verbs that express a sense of performative action.

 

[Alexey86]

There is a logical paradox that concerns this: Is the word heterologous heterologous?

The word means different in origin, structure or function. It can't differ from itself in these respects. So, it must be homologous, which, then, inevitably leads us to the conclusion that it's... heterologous. But it can't differ...:-|

There are also homologous nouns:
- the word word is a word
- the word thing is a thing (in a broad sense)

But the word nothing is also a thing. So, it's heterologous.

 

[jutfrank]

And verb is a noun.

 

[Alexey86]

What would the semiotic triangle look like in the case of word? And in particular, would there be any difference between symbol and referent or, would they merge into one?

 

[jutfrank]

I don't go with your triangle for the word 'tree'. The referent is not the tree itself but the concept of the tree itself in your mind. The further relation (if there is one) between the concept of the tree in your mind and the 'real' tree is an entirely different area.

In the same way, the word word (a 'signifier', in Saussurean terms) refers to the concept of a word (the 'signified') in your mind.

 

[Alexey86]

The further relation (if there is one) between the concept of the tree in your mind and the 'real' tree is an entirely different area.

I'm asking about the relation between the symbol/sign and the real thing. It's quite clear what is the real thing in the tree triangle and how it differs from the word tree (symbol). What is the real thing in the case of word? Is it a unique case where the symbol and the thing are the same?

 

[emsr2d2]

This doesn't quite fit the topic because it doesn't relate to definition, but I've always liked this:

The word 'hyphenated' is non-hyphenated but the word 'non-hyphenated' is hyphenated.

 

[jutfrank]

I'm asking about the relation between the symbol/sign and the real thing.

Let's agree on some terminology before we get desperately lost. In semiotics, you can think of an utterance of the word 'house' as a signifier (not a symbol and not a sign). The thing that it signifies is the idea (this is likely to be a visual structure) of whichever house is being referred to in the hearer's mind. This idea is the signified. The relation between signifier and signified is the sign. A symbol is a kind of sign (we don't need to discuss that right now).

It's quite clear what is the real thing in the tree triangle and how it differs from the word tree (symbol). What is the real thing in the case of word?

I don't believe there's anything unique about the case of word. Words are real in the same way as trees are—they have form. In the case of words, the form is purely phonological, produced by compressions of air. In written language on the page, they take the form of a sequence of alphabetical characters.

Is it a unique case where the symbol and the thing are the same?

I hope my explanation above will tempt you to retract this question.

 

[Alexey86]

I don't believe there's anything unique about the case of word. Words are real in the same way as trees are—they have form. In the case of words, the form is purely phonological, produced by compressions of air. In written language on the page, they take the form of a sequence of alphabetical characters.

First, I want to clarify: I'm only talking about the word 'word', not about words in general.

Saussure's scheme only describes the structure of a sign and doesn't show its relation to the object the sign refers to. 'Word' as a sign consists of signified and a signifier/physical representation. My question is about the relationship between its signifiers (phonological and written representations) and the word 'word' as an object.

For example, an apple as an object is never equal to the word 'apple' (in both written and uttered forms) or a picture of an apple. A sign as a physical object representing an apple and an apple as a physical object are always of different nature. It's obvious.


(The picture isn't mine)

But when it comes to 'word', it seems to me the sign's audio-visual forms (signifiers) and 'word' as an object (by analogy with a real apple as an object) merge into one. Is it clear what I'm talking about?

 

[Alexey86]

I think this thread belongs in the Linguistics rather than in the Ask a Teacher forum, mods.

That's exactly why I started it here, in the Linguistics.;-)

 

[jutfrank]

First, I want to clarify: I'm only talking about the word 'word', not about words in general.

Yes, that's clear.

Saussure's scheme only describes the structure of a sign and doesn't show its relation to the object the sign refers to.

Yes, exactly. That's an important point to remember.

'Word'as a sign consists of signified and a signifier/physical representation. My question is about the relationship between its signifiers (phonological and written representations) and the word 'word' as an object.

What do you mean by the word word as an object? Are you talking about the phonological form? If so, then the form is the signifier, yes.

For example, an apple as an object is never equal to the word 'apple' (in both written and uttered forms) or a picture of an apple.

... As Magritte showed us so effectively, yes.

... But when it comes to 'word', it seems to me the sign's audio-visual forms (signifiers) and 'word' as an object (by analogy with a real apple as an object) merges into one. Is it clear what I'm talking about?

If I understand correctly (I think I do), then yes, you're right—in my words, the form (what you're calling the 'object') is the signifier.

What's interesting about the case of the word word, as opposed to the word apple gets to one of the deep issues concerning meaning. Words can be seen as belonging to a special class of things in the world, in that they exist purely to express meaning.

The general theme of this thread concerns the notion of self-reference, which engenders all kinds of problems when it comes to meaning, leading us down logical rabbit holes and up paradoxical trees. It has been the bane of philosophers, mathematicians and logicians for centuries. The fact that the word word is self-referential is what we're playing with in this thread.

 

[Alexey86]

What do you mean by the word word as an object? Are you talking about the phonological form? If so, then the form is the signifier, yes.

Within this discussion I distinguish two types of objects:

1) things existing outside the sign-signified-signifer scheme and including both physical and non-material objects (love)
2) things within the scheme: non-material concepts and physical signifiers/forms that can be perceived.

The difference between an apple as a first-type object and apple as a second-type object (signifier) is obvious. So we can't say apple is an apple. Maybe we could say that word in both phonological and written forms (second-type objects) is actually a word, which would mean there is no first-type word at all, and the two types don't even 'merge into one' because the word word is only a second-type object. But...

On the other hand, the material substance of both forms, i.e. air waves and ballpoint pen ink (pencil lead, computer graphics, etc.) are first-type objects and definitely not words. So, it seems, eventually, the word word is not unique and can be analyzed the same way as apple.

But... Are there any more buts in this case? I'm not sure.;-)