A naming ceremony is when a name is connected to an object. The object to be named must either by present or it must be ‘had in mind’ by those doing the naming. When new things are invented, discovered, or made, there is a naming ceremony to determine a name for them. Many languages use loan words in place of coming up with a new name for a word. Sometimes these words are later replaced by a new word but they are usually just changed slightly in pronunciation to sound more like their own language. One example is the word radio. It was originally coined by the French from the word radiate. The US Navy began using the word in 1907 and it is the same word in German, Italian, French, English, Portuguese, Swedish, Dutch, and others. The naming ceremony for the word radio spread to many different languages so they can all point to the physical object of a radio and say “radio†and mean the same thing. This is why naming conventions are important. Without naming conventions, people would not know what to call things. In order to communicate effectively, people need to refer to something by the same name. Most words are different in most languages with only a few exceptions like radio. This is why it is difficult to communicate with someone who doesn’t know any language that you know. There were different naming ceremonies in the different languages so when someone who speaks English says apple they are referring to the same object as someone who speaks French is when they say pomme. Putnam says that the theory of meaning consists of two unchallenged assumptions. These are that knowing a term’s meaning requires that someone be in a certain psychological state consisting of memory and belief and that the meaning of a term defines its extension. Putnam says that nobody had the idea that knowledge of the meaning of a word may come from a continuous state of consciousness rather than memory and belief. He thinks that these two ideas are falsely assumed and so the traditional concept of meaning is invalid. In order to argue his point, Putnam creates an example where there is a Twin Earth somewhere. This Twin Earth is identical to Earth except for a few differences that Putnam outlines. One difference is that water is not H2O but is instead a different liquid with a very long and complicated chemical formula. He refers to this formula as XYZ. XYZ is said to be indistinguishable from water at normal pressure and temperature. The oceans on Twin Earth are filled with XYZ and it rains XYZ. If a ship from Earth went to Twin Earth then the first impression after discovering that water on Twin Earth was XYZ is that water means XYZ on Twin Earth and if a ship from Twin Earth went to Earth then the first impression after discovering that water on Earth is H2O is that water means H2O on Earth. The problem that arises is that water now has two extensions. There are two separate meanings for water; the one for Earth and the one for Twin Earth. What people on Earth call water is not what people on Twin Earth call water. In 1750 on Earth, it was not know that water was H2O. Also, in that year, people on Twin Earth did not know that water was XYZ. One person on Earth would have an understanding of water and his counterpart on Twin Earth who is exactly the same as him in every way would have the same understanding of water. However, until their molecular formulas were discovered, they would have the same understanding of two different things. So, Putnam says that the meaning of the word is not just part of the psychological state of the speaker. At first glance Putnam’s argument seems to be pretty solid. However, closer inspection reveals that Putnam is using two different types of meaning where he should only be using one. This inconsistency in his use of meaning makes his argument invalid in its present form. One of the types of meaning he uses is the meaning of the speaker. The other meaning he uses is the definitional meaning. These are two completely separate types of meaning and should be treated as such. Putnam tries to refer to these two things as the same thing which causes the problem which he uses to come to his conclusion about meaning. In his example about H2O and XYZ, the speakers meaning of water is he same on Twin Earth and Earth in 1750. Since the person from Earth does not know the difference between Earth water and Twin Earth water, they will refer to both of them as the same thing. When someone from Earth talks about what is in Earth Atlantic Ocean, he will mean water. When he talks about what is in Twin Earth Atlantic Ocean, he will mean water. The same is true for the opposite situation. When someone from Twin Earth talks about what is in Twin Earth Atlantic Ocean, he will mean water. When he talks about what is in Earth Atlantic Ocean, he will mean water. In their mind they mean the same thing. So, the psychological state of someone determines their speaker meaning. Going forward one hundred years, the fact that water on Earth is H2O and that water on Twin Earth is XYZ has been discovered. Now when someone from Earth talks about what is in the Earth Atlantic Ocean, he will mean water. When he talks about what is in the Twin Earth Atlantic Ocean, he will mean a liquid almost completely identical to water but not what he considers water. In contrast, when someone from Twin Earth talks about what is in the Twin Earth Atlantic Ocean, he will mean water. When he talks about what is in the Earth Atlantic Ocean, he will mean a liquid almost completely identical to water but not what he considers water. The speaker meaning still only exists in their mind. The fact that what they call water is different shows that the meaning of something does not depend on the extension of it. To the person from Earth, water is H2O and to the person on Twin Earth, water is XYZ. This does not create a contradiction to speaker’s meaning because they just have different ideas of water in their psychological states. The other type of meaning is the definitional meaning. On Earth a definition of water is H2O. On Twin Earth, a definition of water is XYZ. The definitional meaning of water seems to contradict because Twin Earth water is not Earth water. However, the previous sentence solves the problem. One of the waters is Twin Earth water while the other is Earth water. Saying water is just shorthand for the longer terms. So, Twin Earth water is XYZ and Earth water is H2O. Before, the sentence water is not water would not make sense. However, speaker meaning slips into the sentence with the speaker meaning Earth water for one and Twin Earth water for the other. With this distinction, Twin Earth water is not Earth water lines up with the fact that XYZ is not H2O. So, there are two different types of meaning. Speaker meaning is a psychological state and deals purely with what the speaker means based on their memory, beliefs, conscious thoughts, and so on. Definitional meaning only refers to the relationship of a word with what it means in dictionaries, encyclopedias, and so on. Sometimes definitional meaning and speaker meaning line up and sometimes they do not.
hmmm.... interesting info........ ask for noustrodamus's opinion.......... LOL, but nice info....... ill ponder apoun this
So what you are saying is that speaker meaning is what is observed individually, without a greater analysis of what is being observed, while definitional meaning is a conscient observation agreed upon by a group, after studying and pondering over the object?
