Nothing Is Broken
This series began by refusing a familiar diagnosis. The dominant story says that language is an imprecise instrument attempting, with mixed success, to represent a world already structured independently of it. On this view, ambiguity, vagueness, context-dependence, and metaphor are pathologies—symptoms of a system that falls short of the standards set by logic, mathematics, or formal semantics.
Across these posts, we have inverted that diagnosis. Nothing is broken. Nothing needs repair.
Language does not fail to be formal enough. It succeeds at something else entirely.
Language Is Not One System Among Others
A recurring temptation is to treat language as one symbolic system among many: logic, mathematics, programming languages, diagrammatic formalisms. On this picture, natural language is simply the oldest, messiest, and least disciplined member of a broader family.
But this picture quietly presupposes what it cannot justify.
Formal systems do not arise alongside language; they arise within it. They are not parallel ecologies but specialised habitats carved out of linguistic possibility. Their symbols, rules, domains, and interpretations are introduced, stabilised, and coordinated through the grammatical resources of natural language.
Language is not a competitor in this space. It is the space.
Meaning, Relation, and Construal
What language makes possible is not the transmission of pre-formed meanings, nor the representation of pre-given structures. It makes possible construal: the bringing-into-relation of experience under shared, negotiable, revisable orientations.
Meaning, in this sense, is not a thing attached to expressions. It is the patterned effect of construal under grammatical constraint. Reference, truth, and stability are not foundations but achievements—local, situated, and always dependent on how relations are drawn.
This is why attempts to ground meaning in truth conditions, reference relations, or formal models repeatedly encounter remainders. The remainder is not an embarrassment. It is the trace of the ecological field in which those achievements were made possible.
Why Formal Systems Work
Once this ecological perspective is adopted, the success of formal systems becomes easier—not harder—to explain.
Logic and mathematics work precisely because they do less. They restrict construal, stabilise distinctions, and hold variables fixed long enough for specific kinds of work to be done. Their power lies in their discipline, not in their completeness.
But that discipline is parasitic in the best sense. It depends on the prior availability of linguistic resources that can introduce domains, specify constraints, repair breakdowns, and reinterpret results. Formal systems do not float free of language; they are continuously re-anchored within it.
Their limits, therefore, are not signs of failure. They mark the edges of a locally successful practice.
Ambiguity Revisited
Seen from here, ambiguity is no longer a problem to be managed but a condition to be preserved.
Ambiguity keeps language open to new relations. It allows construals to shift without collapse. It enables coordination in the absence of full specification and makes novelty possible without requiring rupture.
A language without ambiguity would not be clearer; it would be brittle. It would lack the ecological depth required for meaning to evolve.
The Grammar of Possibility
The unifying claim of this series has been simple, though its consequences are not: grammar is not a structure that mirrors reality but a constraint that shapes possibility.
Language provides a grammar of possible relations—what can be brought together, distinguished, stabilised, or revised. Within that grammar, formal systems emerge as disciplined modes of action. Outside it, nothing symbolic could appear at all.
This is not an argument for linguistic idealism, nor for the supremacy of everyday talk over formal reasoning. It is an argument for ecological priority.
Language is the native ecology of meaning.
Everything else is a specialised adaptation.
Nothing Needs Repair
If there is a temptation left to resist, it is the urge to fix language—to purify it, formalise it completely, or replace it with something cleaner.
That urge mistakes partial success for global mandate.
Language already does what it needs to do. It sustains meaning by sustaining relations. It accommodates precision without demanding it everywhere. It tolerates breakdowns because breakdowns are how its boundaries become visible.
Nothing is broken.
The task is not repair, but understanding.
No comments:
Post a Comment