Donald Davidson’s concept of triangulation proposes that understanding meaning requires the interaction of two interpreters and the world. Language, thought, and reality are mutually implicated in a triangular relation, allowing the development of shared understanding.
Classical interpretations, however, often misrepresent the nature of meaning, treating it as coordination between objects and minds. Relational ontology reframes Davidson’s insight: meaning arises from construal, not from coordination with “objects” in a representational sense.
1. The Classical Interpretation and Its Limits
Davidson’s triangulation is often summarised as:
-
Interpersonal interaction + world reference → shared meaning.
-
Misunderstandings arise when one or more points of the triangle is misaligned.
Representational readings treat this as a coordination problem: minds must “match” objects in the world to share meaning. This frame embeds a category mistake: it treats meaning as something to be transmitted, rather than as first-order construal.
2. System, Instance, and Construal in Triangulation
From a relational perspective:
-
System: the structured potential of linguistic, cognitive, and social resources.
-
Instance: the actualised utterance or interpretive act in context.
-
Construal: the first-order phenomenon of understanding or interpreting the utterance.
Triangulation is not about “matching mental representations to objects.” It is the relational actualisation of potential across multiple perspectives, producing shared meaning as a lived phenomenon.
3. Why Misinterpretation Arises
Misunderstandings occur when:
-
Systemic potential is constrained differently across interpreters.
-
Instances diverge in their actualisation of that potential.
-
Construals fail to align perspectivally.
Notice: the “world” is not an external object to be matched; it is part of the systemic potential that shapes construal. The triangle is relational, not representational.
4. Dissolving the Triangulation Problem
Relational ontology dissolves classic puzzles:
-
Shared understanding is not achieved by mapping minds to objects; it is enacted through relational cuts actualising systemic potential.
-
Miscommunication is not a failure of reference but a divergence in actualisation and construal.
-
The “world” functions as a structured potential, not a repository of objects awaiting naming.
Davidson’s triangle is fully compatible with relational ontology, once it is read through system-instance-construal rather than representationalism.
5. Construal in Practice
Consider two people discussing a sunset:
-
System: the semiotic, cultural, and perceptual potential for talking about sunsets.
-
Instance: each person’s utterances in conversation.
-
Construal: each individual’s lived experience of the discussion and perception.
Meaning emerges in the relational actualisation, not as a property of the words, the minds, or the world in isolation. Triangulation is relational, dynamic, and perspectival.
6. Conclusion
Davidson’s triangulation is clarified and strengthened by relational ontology:
-
Meaning is not coordination with objects; it is the lived phenomenon of construal.
-
Shared understanding is relationally enacted, not transmitted.
-
Divergence is expected and informative, revealing the perspectival nature of interpretation.
Triangulation, like reference and symbol grounding, is system-instance-construal in action, illuminating how meaning is made relationally.
No comments:
Post a Comment