Basically, the problem is this: words in natural languages often cover more than one abstract concept, or cover only some aspects of a complex concept. Unfortunately, these boundaries are usually completely arbitrary, as there is no single logical mapping between words and concepts. Therefore, languages frequently differ in how they map words to meanings.
An example: the German adjective "scharf" covers several concepts:
This effect plays hell on machine translation, because the correct translation must be derived from context, but the context isn't really available yet - you are still in the stage of parsing individual words, and other words in the vicinity may also have meaning ambiguities.
A similar effect occurs with idioms and standard phrases, such as sumimasen or itte kimasu in Japanese, which have complex meanings that do not directly correspond to any English phrase, but phrasebooks often only give the most common meanings, since saying that "sumimasen" means both "I'm sorry / Excuse me" and "Thank you" would beg an explanation beyond the scope of a phrasebook. The result is that the phrases are often misapplied or misunderstood.
To summarize: words and phrases in languages other than your own will often not have a single, direct translation to your native tongue; correct usage can often be learned only from observing native speakers a lot. Don't let this phenomenon surprise you - expect it.
There can be no "single logical mappings between words and concepts" - not even within a single language - simply because words are nothing more than words; generally-agreed symbols one after another - creating a generally-agreed "meaningful" combination. In actuality, words are just empty placeholders or pointers, if you want to put it that way - without any intrinsic or implicit content or value. It is us humans, as unique individuals, who fill those placeholders/pointers with subjective meanings that are unique to each and everyone and are entirely based on emotions.
Since there are and can never be two individuals exactly alike, there is no way a single word could have the exact same content for any two persons, unless explicitly agreed on, between those individuals. Thus, dictionary words aren't "true" or "right", they are just meanings intersubjectively agreed on by a group of people. Then again, the purpose of a dictionary is not to enforce meanings to words but, to explain - reflect, if you want - generally agreed meanings of those words at the time.
Media sells products with advertisements filled with images "giving meaning" to those empty words (words criticized by Richard Rorty) as if those words in themselves meant something and, you had to buy the product in order to become what the images are trying to associate you with. "Buy product X and you will become beautiful. Naturally, because you're worth it". See how it goes? Is it really me who is worth the product? Is it really owning the product that makes me worth something? At least, that is what many advertisements want to imply. What these advertisements also imply (but leave unsaid) is the image of what happens if you don't buy the product advertised; from that viewpoint the advertisement reads: Not buying this product makes you less worthy, less beautiful and less desirable.
No wonder people are confused and anxious.
--- Edit: May 21, 2003 Come to think of it, the Most Questionable Title for a Profession that I can think of would go somewhere along the lines of: Marketing Psychologist. O' fear ye mortal ones. --- End of edit
printable version chaos
Everything2 Help
cooled by ideath
