>
> the opposite of what? that words are defined by their reference to
> other words? how would you define a word without using other words?
Ostensive definition. You ask "what does the word "car" mean?" I answer by pointing to a car. There are some words that cannot be defined by reference to other words. Some theorists argue that all definitions must stop at bedrock i.e. ostensive defn. As John Locke said "For if the terms of one definition, were still to be defined by another. Where at last do we stop?" Essay Concerning Human Understanding III, ii,10.
>
>
> no. it's not clear at all that language is a distortion and reality is
> undistorted.
Not saying that language is always misreprensentative of reality, only in its ideological forms. The statement " the World Bank everywhere and always acts in the best interests of the majority" is at best a distortion of reality i.e. a half truth. Not sure what it means to say that reality is itself distorted. This seems to assume idealism where reality exists only by being perceived. Do you think that language can ever give an accurate and true description of reality?
> aren't they both distorted? and, isn't it only possible
> to arrive at this definition of reality and language if you distort
> the character of both: ie., that language is not real and that reality
> does not include language?
Language is a part of the natural world and can be studied naturalistically as people like Chomsky do. I don't think this is controversial.
There are no fixed and frozen definitions. Definitions are always open to contestation. But we have to agree on what words mean in order to communicate right?
Bill: Not sure how much Chomsky would disagree with what I'm saying here. He is a strong realist and I think believes that extra-linguistic facts are involved in fixing meaning to words and concepts. Language and Responsibility is one of my favorite Chom books, I'll have to have a look at it again.
Sam Pawlett