Linguistic Shared Understanding

The linguistic domain consists of signs (words) which consist of the signifier (the written or spoken word) and the signified (the thing the word means). In context, the signified is often a specific thing or action in the real world that can be pointed to and said to directly correspond to the signifier (e.g. “that tree” spoken while pointing to a specific tree). But out of context, the signified becomes intangible. It no longer represents a real thing or action, but the idea of a thing or action, or a grouping/category of possible things or actions (e.g. this written word right here: “tree”).

We, as participants of linguistic communities, develop a shared understanding of what comprises these categories through the process of language acquisition (a process in which a learner is exposed to specific things and actions being repeatedly signified by spoken and written signifiers, through existing native speakers). People acquire an understanding of the general categories instinctively and subconsciously by observing many of these specific signs.

These categories can be thought of as a kind of “melding of minds” - a shared understanding that transcends the linguistic domain. It is evidently outside of the linguistic domain because any attempts at pulling these shared understandings into the linguistic domain (i.e. “definitions”) prove to be incomplete, and often circular. All definitions, especially the circular ones, rely on an preexisting understanding of the signified category, or of a similar signified category to which comparisons can be drawn.

“A woman is anyone who identifies as a woman” - how would one identify as a woman if one does not know what a woman is? This definition relies on a world in which a complete understanding of what a “woman” is exists. And I believe that reliance holds true - we do live in a world in which one or more complete understandings of “woman” exist. But if those understandings exist, and the point of the definition is to describe those understandings, yet the definition’s existence relies on a preexisting understanding, then there is no need for the definition - it is self defeating.

This blog is run by a nonbinary person. I understand that the above paragraph is a bit dense, and could be appropriated by TERFs. It is my opinion that a TERF interpretation of the above is an interpretation that has misunderstood what it is saying. So for any TERFs with poor reading comprehension, allow me to clarify: I think that the “a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman” definition approaches the truest possible definition of “woman” precisely because it is circular. The more a definition leans on a preexisting understanding, the closer it is to describing the concept accurately (and ironically, the further it is from being “useful” to a person who does not already understand the word). I think an even more accurate definition of “woman” would be “a woman is a woman”.

The above is a particularly poignant example, but the same logic can be applied to any word. Fish, sandwich, vegetable, table, love, run, slay. These are all examples of words. Try applying the same logic to them! You may do this to any word you like: this post is full of words; you may use any of them, even this one.

One practical application of this idea is to realise that this is why it is essential to second language acquisition that words are learned in context, rather than learned from dictionary definitions. You cannot derive the specific from the general. The human mind is tuned to operate in the opposite way - observe many examples, and see a pattern “automatically” emerge.