Philosophy Now Forum

Context is needed to give full meaning to words. For example, are emoticons effective at communicating context?

PhilX

An emoticon is not a word. The reason words require a context is that the word itself has no systematic connection with what it refers to. So for example the sound "fish" or the typewritten word "fish" don't resemble a fish. But the smiling emoticon does resemble a smiling face.

Words don't have a "full" meaning, but that's a different subject.

In the case of words (rather than emoticons) I'm not sure you do communicate context. Your listeners or readers have to see your words against the background of the context. It is there in front of them (or to put it another way, it's in their minds) you don't need to communicate it.

What are your thoughts?

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Context is needed to give full meaning to words. For example, are emoticons effective at communicating context?

PhilX

While emoticons are supposed to express emotions, a full understanding of the causals of those emotions or other reflections on those emotions require additional dialog, sure! such that there is a difference between:

Today I got my wisdom teeth pulled
and
Today I got my wisdom teeth pulled

In each example they provide context as to ones emotions relative to the event, but other words might be required to further understand the fullest meaning one might be trying to convey.

Blueswing wrote:An emoticon is not a word. The reason words require a context is that the word itself has no systematic connection with what it refers to. So for example the sound "fish" or the typewritten word "fish" don't resemble a fish. But the smiling emoticon does resemble a smiling face.

Words don't have a "full" meaning, but that's a different subject.

In the case of words (rather than emoticons) I'm not sure you do communicate context. Your listeners or readers have to see your words against the background of the context. It is there in front of them (or to put it another way, it's in their minds) you don't need to communicate it.

What are your thoughts?

An emoticon is an non-verbal expression. As such, it can either hinder or help understanding between participating parties. That is the important 'Why' of Context. Communication is a process; full understanding of meaning sometimes needs a whole lot of work involving questions and responses.
Why do you think that it is a different subject when you say 'words don't have a 'full' meaning?

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Context is needed to give full meaning to words. For example, are emoticons effective at communicating context?

PhilX

While emoticons are supposed to express emotions, a full understanding of the causals of those emotions or other reflections on those emotions require additional dialog, sure! such that there is a difference between:

Today I got my wisdom teeth pulled
and
Today I got my wisdom teeth pulled

In each example they provide context as to ones emotions relative to the event, but other words might be required to further understand the fullest meaning one might be trying to convey.

I think this is a great response
Today I got my wisdom teeth pulled, afterwards I felt no more pain so, I'm off to sunny Spain
Today I got my wisdom teeth pulled, and it hurt like mad There is no way I'm going to that b*****d of a vet again

Some purists might poo-poo emoticon use; not taking anyone who relies on them to communicate emotion very seriously...at all.
Now and again, they are useful in online messages to convey intent - no harm, just kidding

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Context is needed to give full meaning to words. For example, are emoticons effective at communicating context?

PhilX

The way you communicate context depends on the context.

If all you do is start a one line thread and run, you have not communicated any context and shown a woeful lack of intelligence.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Context is needed to give full meaning to words. For example, are emoticons effective at communicating context?

PhilX

The way you communicate context depends on the context.

If all you do is start a one line thread and run, you have not communicated any context and shown a woeful lack of intelligence.

In your opinion.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Context is needed to give full meaning to words. For example, are emoticons effective at communicating context?

PhilX

The way you communicate context depends on the context.

If all you do is start a one line thread and run, you have not communicated any context and shown a woeful lack of intelligence.

In your opinion.

PhilX

Duh, yeah.

wazoo
crocodile
chalice

Nope.
You don't communicate the context of a word; you communicate by using words in context. Preferably the words that actually mean what you think they mean in sentences that provide accurate and appropriate context.

One good solution is to add more description, more words, but also precisely so.