If someone calls something by a wrong name, what are they actually referring to? [closed]
I was in an argument where an analogy was raised concerning animals often called by technically incorrect terms. Let's say the case in question was "panda bear".
It became clear we were using the analogy differently, so it actually confused the situation. We agreed on these statements:
I know a panda is not a true bear.
I expect that a person using the phrase "panda bear" probably doesn't know that.
So the question is, if someone says "panda bear", what are they referring to?
My interpretation: I don't care what family they think it's in. They're visualizing the same black and white bamboo-eating creature you and I am. They're referring to the giant panda.
His interpretation: They're using a phrase that means something that is both a panda and a bear. Since there is no such animal, they're referring to something that doesn't exist.
Is either of us wrong here, or is this a subjective question? (And is this actually an English question or a philosophy question?)
Solution 1:
We need to think about the speaker and listener in all communications, and bear in mind that all communication requires inference on the part of the listener, in order to correctly interpret what the speaker is trying to say. Communication requires pragmatism from both parties.
So, when someone says "panda bear", they could be talking about anything. It could be the nickname of one of their colleagues. You might decide that they are referring to Ailuropoda melanoleuca, better known as the Giant Panda. This interpretation doesn't depend on whether the species happens to be in the bear family or not. Imagine that they'd said Beary McBambooFace instead, and you happened to have that as a private joke for referring to Pandas. It's just your interpretation of what they mean.
If your interpretation of what they mean matches what they were actually trying to say, then that was a successful communication. If it doesn't, it was a failed communication. That's the important distinction.
If the communication failed, then you could go on to post-mortem it and decide who was mostly to blame for the mismatch between reference and interpretation.
If the listener decides that the entire communication is null and void because pandas are not bears (whether they actually are or not), then they are most likely to blame, since they did actually guess the right meaning, but refused to accept it.
In other words, one shouldn't be a robot: one should use common sense, which is essential for all communication. Using this as a guide, I think you are right and your friend is wrong.
Solution 2:
So the question is, if someone says "panda bear", what are they referring to?
Well, they are referring to either a panda or a bear, unless it is something else entirely.
The technical term for the object being referred to (whether concrete or abstract) is a referent:
referent noun [ C ] specialized
the person, thing, or idea that a word, phrase, or object refers to:
- The obvious textual referent in this movie is Shakespeare's "Hamlet".
Cambridge Dictionary
And the technical term for this kind of mistake is a misnomer:
misnomer noun [ C ]
a name that does not suit what it refers to, or the use of such a name:
- It was the scruffiest place I've ever stayed in, so "Grand Hotel" was a complete misnomer.
- It's something of a misnomer to refer to these inexperienced boys as soldiers.
Cambridge Dictionary
Solution 3:
"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet" except, perhaps, to a pedant.
The assignation of a name to anything, concrete or abstract, is a social contract. As educated elites, experts certainly have their input, but if enough people want to call a Douglas fir by that name, even though it's not really a fir tree, then so be it.
Solution 4:
To be neither pedantic or overly zoological, history has amply rewarded us with misnamed things but neither technological developments or conventions are likely to change these in the public perception. I'm thinking here about koala bears (a marsupial) and North American "Indians" (so called because when he encountered them, Columbus believe them to be inhabitants of India, considering that he had reached the eastern coast of Asia). However , the fact remains that unless you are a zoologist, historian or academic, a thing is often named incorrectly but English (or languages in general) is not solely the domain of academics (as we and they may use it differently and with different intentions), the act of referring to an object by a universally-accepted name, though technically incorrect) has the desired effect of aiding communications between people, while using the technically correct name, serves only to make communications more uncertain or inefficient, and to position the speaker as privileged, pedantic, superior or obtuse, EVEN if to continually use the correct name may result in a dual name being used and eventually, perhaps one becoming more dominant or publicly favoured (faucet/spigot/tap, highway/freeway, trainers/sneakers, etc., etc..). The question was asked: "is this in the area of etymology or philosophy?" Answer: Right now this is descending into Scotland's weirdest sword dance involving linguistics, sociology, psychology and history. (https://i.stack.imgur.com/mv2Av.jpg)