<p>Quite certainly this is the case (even if you learn all words from a dictionary), but this is more of a philosophical debate. It is unclear what you are after when referring to 'pessimistic', 'optimistic', or 'abstract' outcomes, but I can point you in the right direction in case you want to read up more on this subject.</p>

<p>One concept that comes to mind from linguistics and philosophy of language is  <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indexicality"><strong>indexicality</strong></a>.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>... an indexical behavior or utterance points to (or indicates) some state
  of affairs. For example, <em>I</em> refers to whoever is speaking; <em>now</em> refers to the time at which that word is uttered; and <em>here</em> refers to the place of utterance.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>However, some argue the same holds true for almost any utterance. (Suchman, 1986)</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Among philosophers and linguists, the term <em>indexicality</em> typically is
  used to distinguish those classes of expressions whose meaning is
  conditional on the situation of their use in this way from those such
  as, for example, definite noun phrases whose meaning is claimed to be
  specifiable in objective, or context-independent terms. <strong>But the
  <em>communicative</em> significance of a linguistic expression is always dependent on the circumstances of its use.</strong> A formal statement not of
  what the language means in relation to any context, but of what the
  language-user means in relation to some particular context, requires a
  description of the context or situation of the utterance itself. And
  every utterance's situation comprises an indefinite range of possibly
  relevant features. Our practical solution to this theoretical problem
  is not to enumerate some subset of the relevant circumstances—we
  generally never mention our circumstances as such at all—but to "wave
  our hand" at the situation, as if we always included in our utterance
  an implicit ceteris paribus clause and closed with an implicit et
  cetera clause.</p>
</blockquote>

<p><sub>
Suchman, L. (1986). Plans and situated actions. New York, Cambridge University.
</sub></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-26T09:44:36.123Z
@nocomprende Yes, in case by 'absolute' you imply 'the full meaning'. However, it is possible to elaborate on meaning to such a degree so that the likelihood of misunderstanding due to different interpretations becomes minimal. In addition, this implies one should always be aware of (and thus ready to discuss) potential differences in interpretation of the topics discussed.
Steven Jeuris
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-02-08T13:32:56.193Z
Also related is within philosophy of science what is called the [Duhem-Quine thesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duhem%E2%80%93Quine_thesis): _"it is impossible to test a scientific hypothesis in isolation, because an empirical test of the hypothesis requires one or more background assumptions"_.
Steven Jeuris
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-09T11:46:40.533Z
2016-05-09T11:46:40.533Z
Steven Jeuris
<p>Much of what we perceive cannot be expressed by language. It's unspeakable. As a consequence, differences in interpretation are very common, especially when it involves complex abstract concepts or highly subjective emotional experiences.</p>

<p>To quote <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Krizan" rel="nofollow"><strong>Kim Krizan</strong></a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Creation seems to come out of imperfection. It seems to come out of a
  striving and a frustration. And this is where I think language came
  from.</p>
  
  <p>I mean, it came from our desire to transcend our isolation and have
  some sort of connection with one another. And it had to be easy when
  it was just simple survival. Like, you know, "water." We came up with
  a sound for that. Or "Saber-toothed tiger right behind you." We came
  up with a sound for that.</p>
  
  <p>But when it gets really interesting, I think, is when we use that same
  system of symbols to communicate all the abstract and intangible
  things that we're experiencing. What is, like, frustration? Or what is
  anger or love?</p>
  
  <p>When I say "love," the sound comes out of my mouth and it hits the
  other person's ear, travels through this Byzantine conduit in their
  brain, you know, through their memories of love or lack of love, and
  they register what I'm saying and they say yes, they understand.</p>
  
  <p>But how do I know they understand? Because words are inert. They're
  just symbols. They're dead, you know? And so much of our experience is
  intangible. So much of what we perceive cannot be expressed. It's
  unspeakable.</p>
  
  <p>And yet, when we communicate with one another, and we feel
  that we've connected, and we think that we're understood, I think we
  have a feeling of almost spiritual communion. And that feeling might
  be transient, but I think it's what we live for.</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-25T10:02:41.227Z
2016-05-25T10:02:41.227Z
John Slegers
<p>Let's think about it, we have all adopted to learn the meaning of words through experiences or emotions. We didn't learn each and every word from a dictionary. What if I understand a word slightly differently in my complex mind? Could it result in some sort of pessimistic or optimistic or abstract outcome? And how often is this case true in our society?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-25T10:27:58.313Z
It's not even "if", it does happen from my experience ;) My esperience is that it results in a discussion\conflict\fight, where the parts will hopefully manage to figure out why they have different opinions. Then they will figure out that some word has different meanings to each of them, and suddenly they are agreed.
Berit Larsen
<developmental-psychology><language>
What if people understand or interpret words differently in their mind?
dark silence
# What if people understand or interpret words differently in their mind?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2016-05-06)

Let's think about it, we have all adopted to learn the meaning of words through experiences or emotions. We didn't learn each and every word from a dictionary. What if I understand a word slightly differently in my complex mind? Could it result in some sort of pessimistic or optimistic or abstract outcome? And how often is this case true in our society?

**Tags:** developmental-psychology, language

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: It's not even "if", it does happen from my experience ;) My esperience is that it results in a discussion\conflict\fight, where the parts will hopefully manage to figure out why they have different opinions. Then they will figure out that some word has different meanings to each of them, and suddenly they are agreed.  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2016-05-09. Score: 4

Quite certainly this is the case (even if you learn all words from a dictionary), but this is more of a philosophical debate. It is unclear what you are after when referring to 'pessimistic', 'optimistic', or 'abstract' outcomes, but I can point you in the right direction in case you want to read up more on this subject.

One concept that comes to mind from linguistics and philosophy of language is [**indexicality**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indexicality).

> ... an indexical behavior or utterance points to (or indicates) some state
> of affairs. For example, *I* refers to whoever is speaking; *now* refers to the time at which that word is uttered; and *here* refers to the place of utterance.

However, some argue the same holds true for almost any utterance. (Suchman, 1986)

> Among philosophers and linguists, the term *indexicality* typically is
> used to distinguish those classes of expressions whose meaning is
> conditional on the situation of their use in this way from those such
> as, for example, definite noun phrases whose meaning is claimed to be
> specifiable in objective, or context-independent terms. **But the
> *communicative* significance of a linguistic expression is always dependent on the circumstances of its use.** A formal statement not of
> what the language means in relation to any context, but of what the
> language-user means in relation to some particular context, requires a
> description of the context or situation of the utterance itself. And
> every utterance's situation comprises an indefinite range of possibly
> relevant features. Our practical solution to this theoretical problem
> is not to enumerate some subset of the relevant circumstances—we
> generally never mention our circumstances as such at all—but to "wave
> our hand" at the situation, as if we always included in our utterance
> an implicit ceteris paribus clause and closed with an implicit et
> cetera clause.

Suchman, L. (1986). Plans and situated actions. New York, Cambridge University.

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: @nocomprende Yes, in case by 'absolute' you imply 'the full meaning'. However, it is possible to elaborate on meaning to such a degree so that the likelihood of misunderstanding due to different interpretations becomes minimal. In addition, this implies one should always be aware of (and thus ready to discuss) potential differences in interpretation of the topics discussed.  
> **username_2**: Also related is within philosophy of science what is called the [Duhem-Quine thesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duhem%E2%80%93Quine_thesis): _"it is impossible to test a scientific hypothesis in isolation, because an empirical test of the hypothesis requires one or more background assumptions"_.  

---

### Answer by username_3 on 2016-05-25. Score: 3

Much of what we perceive cannot be expressed by language. It's unspeakable. As a consequence, differences in interpretation are very common, especially when it involves complex abstract concepts or highly subjective emotional experiences.

To quote [**Kim Krizan**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Krizan):

> Creation seems to come out of imperfection. It seems to come out of a
> striving and a frustration. And this is where I think language came
> from.
>
> I mean, it came from our desire to transcend our isolation and have
> some sort of connection with one another. And it had to be easy when
> it was just simple survival. Like, you know, "water." We came up with
> a sound for that. Or "Saber-toothed tiger right behind you." We came
> up with a sound for that.
>
> But when it gets really interesting, I think, is when we use that same
> system of symbols to communicate all the abstract and intangible
> things that we're experiencing. What is, like, frustration? Or what is
> anger or love?
>
> When I say "love," the sound comes out of my mouth and it hits the
> other person's ear, travels through this Byzantine conduit in their
> brain, you know, through their memories of love or lack of love, and
> they register what I'm saying and they say yes, they understand.
>
> But how do I know they understand? Because words are inert. They're
> just symbols. They're dead, you know? And so much of our experience is
> intangible. So much of what we perceive cannot be expressed. It's
> unspeakable.
>
> And yet, when we communicate with one another, and we feel
> that we've connected, and we think that we're understood, I think we
> have a feeling of almost spiritual communion. And that feeling might
> be transient, but I think it's what we live for.


---

