One Word and Multiple Senses: John Locke’s Philosophy of Abuse of Language
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper aims at examining the impotence of language or what is famously referred to as the phenomenon of inconsistency of language through the philosophy of John Locke on the abuse of language and with specific reference to the Eighth Edition of the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary authored by Hornby (2010). Locke as well stated that adequate signs which he also referred to as words are lost or corrupted especially when a word is given many meanings. By discussing selected entries of the dictionary, the present research intends to demonstrate how polysemanticity and the use or a word in different contexts can cause what Locke called language misuse. Illustrating in the case of particular examples, the study shows the potential consequence of this process for the language learners and users, stressing on the necessity to enhance the meticulousness of the language one will opt to use. The research concludes that there is need to resolve discrepancies that grow from these ambiguities for language teachers and lexicographers to improve meaning and communication, an idea supported by Locke’s goal of enforcing the correct usage of language among English speakers. Results imply that teachers should draw students’ attention to the fact that words’ meanings cannot be understood separately from their contexts. Language educators are advised to introduce the students to the different meanings of words and contexts of their use.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".