LINGUISTIC CLOSURE
| Collection | International Encyclopedia of Systems and Cybernetics |
|---|---|
| Year | 2004 |
| Vol. (num.) | 2(1) |
| ID | ◀ 1924 ▶ |
| Object type | Discipline oriented, Epistemology, ontology or semantics, Methodology or model |
L. L FGREN emphasizes the closure character of our languages of all kinds, even mathematical or formal. He writes “The systemic wholeness , or the complementaristic nature, of the language implies a closure, or circumscription, of our linguistic abilities- be they ”pure thoughts“communicable in a formal mathematical language, or constructive directions for an experimental interpretation- domain of a physics language. The nature of this closure is not that of a classical boundary of a capacity, like describability, or interpretability. It is a tensioned and hereditary boundary of the systemic capacity of describability- and- interpretability”( 2000, p. 17-18)
He explains closure tension as the interactive complementarity between both capacities, where a better describability somehow limits interpretability.
As to the closure as hereditary, he observes that “…at each time we try to communicate… we are confined to a shared language”, i.e. the language that we received in its present state (as much as we did receive it) (p. 18)
An excellent example is this very Encyclopedia: Interpretability can be obtained only by multiple interconnections between description terms. This is why so many cross-references are introduced.
As to the “hereditary”aspects, the users of the 2nd . edition inherit still a closed linguistic system, but whose domain has been much widened.