“To examine the perfection or imperfection of words, it is necessary first to consider their use and end; for as they are more or less fitted to attain that, so they are more or less perfect” (Locke 817). In this way, Locke implies that words are more or less perfect based on how well they communicate an idea between a speaker and the hearer. Many times, words can stand for multiple things, making the process of communication difficult, and making these words with multiple meanings imperfect (818).
Locke gives four reasons a word is misunderstood and therefore, imperfect: The ideas are complex and numerous, the ideas lack a connection to nature, the signification is referred to a standard which is not known, and the signification is not the same as the actual essence of the word. This leaves quite a bit of room for misunderstanding. Locke states that simple words such as "triangle" or the number "three" leave less to be misunderstood (823). But are these words perfect? For me, the number three is my lucky number, meaning when I hear someone say there's three of something, I may subconsciously associate whatever is being said with luck, even if that isn't part of the message. Locke says that sounds are equally perfect and equally capable of conveying a message; the imperfection lies in the doubtfulness of a word’s signification as men imply it (817). But were not men the ones to come up with sounds in the first place? If we are imperfect and our designated meanings for words are imperfect, can any part of our speech ever be considered perfect?
Locke implies that perfection lies in consistency (817). When talking to oneself, we use the same types of words or ideas to represent certain things, and we usually use the same words over and over again. When we're talking to ourselves we may be consistent, and in that way Locke thinks that language is perfect. But if we are only talking to ourselves then we aren't reaching the ultimate end of communication, which would be delivering a coherent message from a speaker to a hearer.
I guess my argument is, more or less, is there even any need for an argument here in the first place? I understand Locke's point and can fully follow his process of coming to the conclusion that he came to. Words were created to facilitate communication but they often fall short, especially in more complex, philosophical discourse (817). But I can't and couldn't help but feel like I was reading something completely obvious. Of course discourse isn't perfect. The human race is far from perfect. We have trouble communicating in all facets of life. We go to war over issues instead of sitting down and discussing those issues. Words are obviously never perfect enough for those situations. If we are never perfect, words can never be perfect either.
I completely agree with your question and do believe that you present a valid argument. I also don't fully understand why he continues having the argument of the how language still remains imperfect. It is only necessary to note that language does evolve despite efforts to control and assign a more unified meaning. I wonder how would Locke view language today. Would he argue that there are still some perfect qualities to language if only spoken to oneself? How would he view the effect of technology on the creation or modification of meaning? With the advancement of technology, how has the ability to access information quickly changed the meaning of some words? I would definitely have liked to see Locke explore these ideas in the present. I liked the last line, "if we are never perfect, words can never be either," because I believe that summarizes the basis of the argument. Words can never be perfect, because they are continually changing and given new signs.
ReplyDeleteJordan,
ReplyDeleteI definitely understand your confusion because it does seem like Locke argues something kind of obvious. However, he does discuss that “the imperfection of words is the doubtfulness or ambiguity of their signification, which is caused by the sort of ideas they stand for” (817), and I almost feel like this essay is his way of creating less ambiguity and creating the signifiers and the language to talk about language. I know that sounded a bit meta, but it's like we inherently know that there are different types of words and those words bring about a different level of understanding and a different ability to communicate, but I think this is his way of providing the language of "Civil Use" vs "Philosophical Use" and "Mixed Modes" vs "Substances" as a way to create the language needed to further talk about these ideas (817, 818). That may have been a bit of a stretch, but I'm definitely interested in any further ideas on this concept!
Best,
Joelle Garcia