Understanding The Meaning Of Words

No matter what your age, where you are from, or what level of education you possess, the vast majority of our population uses language to communicate everything from the mundanities of daily life to the most extraordinary accomplishments. And yet, we often struggle to recognize language for what it is: one of the most influential evolutionary achievements of our species. Despite the tremendous significance communication has had in the development of our species, people generally treat language as something that is inevitable and invariable; therefore, when we talk about language many misconceptions about how and why we use it emerge. Words and their function in language are an excellent example of these underlying problems with how language is viewed as well as the intricacies of even the most simple components. The function of words is to act as a vehicle to transfer information between people in conversation. With the addition and analysis of my original criteria in the writings of Crystal, Dawson, Phelan, Enfield, and Dingemanse et al. , I have concluded the most important criterion to consider when determining whether or not something is a word is the presence of meaning. In How Language Works, David Crystal argues that identifying the physical structure of words is a necessary component in defining the concept of a word. While this is not particularly difficult in written languages, this task becomes much more challenging in light of the fact that nearly half of the world’s languages do not have a written form (Ethnologue). In speech, words can often be delineated by directing the speaker to add natural pauses or to repeat the phrase with additional words. This can be a valuable start in determining what counts as a word in that language, but this strategy comes with two major limitations: first, the speaker might naturally consider pauses between syllables rather than between the words themselves (Crystal 241) and second, the complex construction of polysynthetic languages does not lend itself to separation on these terms (240). An alternative approach is to examine the phonetic boundaries indicated in speech, but this works best with languages such as Welsh and Turkish that have predictable phonetic variation in the beginnings and endings of words (241).

Dawson and Phelan introduced a different view of categorizing words and non-words in The Language Files. They argue that the foremost determinant for distinguishing words and non-words is not based on how it is used in context, but rather what function it serves in a more general sense. By this criterion, words differ from non-words in that they can be described in terms of their pre-established lexical category, which includes verbs, nouns, adjectives, adverbs, pronouns, determiners, prepositions, and conjunctions (Dawson and Phelan 156). This definition is imperfect; however, due to its elimination of words without formal applications, including some slang, emojis, and physical expressions such as a high five or thumbs up. Unlike Crystal, Dawson or Phelan, N. J. Enfield establishes natural conversation as the most authentic form of language (Enfield 4) and as a result, his conclusions regarding the defining characteristics of words are somewhat dissimilar. Due to his different view of how language is appropriately used, Enfield’s criteria greatly expand the definitions established by his predecessors. In chapters seven and eight of his book How We Talk, Enfield describes the function of repair and uses his research with Dingemanse et al to justify the admittance of non-traditional words such as ‘Huh?’ to the category of words (145-188). By his criteria, words are defined by a combination of their semantics and applications in real life rather than how they are used in a strictly formal sense. Although initially my personal criteria for distinguishing words from non-words were similar in approach to those of Crystal and Dawson and Phelan, after examining Enfield’s book How We Talk as well as his research in Dingemanse et al.

I have altered my view of what qualifies as a word to be similarly inclusive. My initial criteria for defining words was dependant on the exclusion of terms I did not deem to meet the formal standards a word seemed to require. I excluded onomatopoeic terms, slang, and terms without a standard written form because they were either “unacceptable” in or could not even be used in formal writing. After reflecting on the evidence provided by Enfield in particular, I realize that these limiting criteria do not accurately depict the way people use and interact with language every day. These artificial limitations do not reflect the wide range and capacity of language because “[the majority of] languages do not have a written form at all,” (Enfield 3) and even when they do the vast majorities of our interactions with language do not occur in a formal, written setting (Enfield 3). My new criteria have therefore followed by Enfield’s advice, and examine how the term is used in communication, versus any specific form or function. The function of a word is to transfer information or thought between people. In this basic definition, there are two components to what makes a word a word: exchange and the presence of meaning. These criteria, while very general, serve to eliminate a nearly infinite range of random gestures, sounds, and scribbles from the category of words because they do not fulfill a basic function of meaning. Additionally, bound morphemes such as prefixes and suffixes are excluded because they do not carry significance aside from when they are in the context of other words (Crystal 238). There are some apparent exceptions to this rule, namely in the existence of function words such as of, the, and in (Words and Non-Words 09/04/2018). These words are free morphemes in that they are able to exist independent of other words though they do not have a clearly defined meaning even within context. Still, they contribute to the overall understanding of the meaning in a way that content words do not. This distinction can be represented by the different applications of two function words ‘the’ and ‘a’ when determining a choice.

For example, if a child says I want the cookie the category of cookie is reduced to a single object, whereas if they say I want a cookie a much broader group of objects is potentially applicable. Therefore, it follows that if the child says they want the cookie, any other cookie will probably not suffice. This demonstrates the utility of function words and how they can prescribe meaning to a sentence or phrase. The use of such a broad criterion is useful in considering other languages in relation to your own. Due to the lack of constraints on the size of the group that must recognize the meaning for something to be a word, it is possible that something could be considered a word by some people but not recognizable by all. This can be represented in slang, where only people of a certain region or dialect may understand the meaning in communication or as an inside joke between friends. This allows the definition to be much more inclusive beyond individual perspectives and backgrounds and establishes that ultimately the speakers are the ultimate authorities on language. Over the past several weeks, the research presented by the authors as well as qualities debated in class has greatly expanded my perspective of language. My initial hesitation to consider terms such as “Huh?,” “;),” and slang as words stemmed not from any inherent disqualifications, but rather from the arbitrary rules of language construction taught by the majorities in education rather than a personal investigation.

Our educational system, while undoubtedly transitioning from a system of memorization and recall in general, still teaches language as a tool that can be used properly or improperly based on a set of rules mainly based on aesthetics rather than the fulfillment of a social transaction between people. It is by these standards that we define words by what we have learned in school is “correct,” excluding as a consequence any gestures, vocalizations, or images that do not fit in this perception. It is important to study language and complete the research necessary to make these conclusions, it is unscientific and inaccurate to rely on gut instincts to tell us about language because too often we are incorrect.