Living systems enact worlds through viability. Physics enacts worlds through disciplined constraint. Language does something different again. It does not primarily open new worlds. It narrows and stabilises existing ones.
This narrowing is often mistaken for expansion. Language feels like the medium through which the world becomes fully articulated. But its distinctive power lies elsewhere: in its ability to compress, transport, and coordinate constraints across time, space, and participants.
What language adds
Language does not introduce meaning into an otherwise meaningless world. As earlier posts have shown, meaning is already present wherever constraints make a difference. What language adds is portability.
A linguistic form allows a constraint to be lifted out of immediate coupling and reapplied elsewhere. A distinction that mattered here can be made to matter there. A way of cutting possibility can be preserved, shared, and enforced beyond the situation that first gave rise to it.
This is an extraordinary amplification — but it comes at a cost.
Narrowing as stabilisation
To stabilise a constraint linguistically is to reduce its degrees of freedom. Words, grammatical patterns, and discourse structures limit how a phenomenon can be taken up. They select some construals and suppress others.
This narrowing is not accidental. Without it, language could not coordinate action or sustain shared worlds. A linguistic world feels solid precisely because it excludes so much.
What is gained in coordination is lost in openness.
Grammar as world-architecture
Grammar is not a code for representing reality. It is an architecture for organising constraint. It specifies what can be treated as a thing, an action, a relation, a cause. It determines what can be foregrounded, backgrounded, or left unsayable.
Through grammar, a linguistic community comes to inhabit a particular kind of world — one in which certain distinctions are habitual, certain questions natural, certain answers available.
This is why different languages and registers do not merely label the same world differently. They hold different worlds in place.
Why linguistic worlds feel total
Because linguistic constraints are learned early, reinforced constantly, and shared socially, the worlds they sustain can feel complete. Alternatives do not merely seem wrong; they seem nonsensical.
This is the source of language’s epistemic authority — and its danger. When a linguistic world is mistaken for the world itself, disagreement becomes error, and difference becomes ignorance.
Language does not merely describe worlds. It can police them.
Language among worlds
Placing language among other world-making practices dissolves its mystique. It is neither the origin of meaning nor the final arbiter of reality. It is a powerful specialisation that trades existential urgency for reach.
Living systems must act now. Physics must constrain tightly. Language must coordinate widely.
Each makes worlds differently. None has the last word.
What follows
With physics, life, and language now situated as distinct world-making practices, the remaining question is what happens when worlds meet. The next instalment examines disagreement, conflict, and incommensurability — not as failures of representation, but as failures of coupling.
Language gives us worlds we can share.
It also makes it harder to see beyond them.
No comments:
Post a Comment