What is the language but its users?

"What is the language but its users?" elaborates on several obstacles involved in accurately defining words, and "capturing the essence of what a word 'is'". The definition of taste-sensations, for example, are notoriously difficult to capture, and are often defined by listing off things they are not, for example, sweet is defined as "not salty" and "not sour". And the prevalence of a word in everyday language does not facilitate definition. A great example is the word "time" and colors. A young child would easily understand the meaning of the word "play", however, in the Oxford English Dictionary it is defined 36 different ways. The article goes on the to describe the ways in which one dictionary entitled Johnson's dictionary goes about completing his definition by using illustration to complement the written definitions. Johnson's dictionary is based on the principle that:

"A dictionary of English commemorates the language as it has been written and spoken, rather than laid down and fixed by experts. Authority lies in practice." (What is the language but its users?)

This perspective language as something that can't be defined by authority, relates directly to the recent discord surrounding BBC's use of imprecise language. Some viewers are calling for BBC to install a language "watch dog" in order to prevent the misuse of words during broadcasts. From the perspective of the writer's of Johnson's dictionary, it could be argued that the reporters are in fact using words correctly, for it is common usage, not experts, who define words.

What I found most interesting about this article was that it leads you to the conclusion that one does not think only in words. When you imagine the sweet fragrance of flowers, you are not thinking in your head of a "not sour, not salty" scent. In introduction to psychology we recently learned about two cognitive models how meaning of words is organized in our minds. The first is the "definitional theory of word meaning", "which states that words are organized in our minds much as they are in standard dictionaries... as a bundle of meaning atoms, or semantic features" (Psychology). Each word can be stripped down to a set of necessary characteristics, and sufficient characteristics. The second theory is "prototype theory of word meaning" which hypothesizes that each word has a prototype that all meanings or examples of that concept can be compared to through a "family resemblance structure". An example of this is the definition of the word bird: we have a "prototypical" image of a bird in our minds and we relate other similar concepts to it. This article supports the second prototype theory of word meaning.

Furthermore, it would be interesting to look at what makes a word difficult to define. The article points out that commonly used words are often more difficult to describe verbally, however, this pattern is not very applicable in all situations are there are many examples of esoteric words which are also difficult to define. The answer to this question would be very telling of how cognition works, and the organization of the mind.

"What is the language but its users?":
http://thestar.com.my/lifestyle/story.asp?file=/2007/11/9/lifefocus/16367630&sec=lifefocus

BBC 'requires language watchdog':
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7067054.stm

My Intro to Psychology textbook