Language Meaning And Responsibility

Language, Meaning, And Responsibility

·

Shared with Public

(Notice:

I am well aware of the controversy of AI in general. However, I am disabled in both hands, which is painful. I use my AI as an "Encyclopedia Mundial" and in other practical ways, which help someone like me to remain productive. I value it for that. So please, I don't need any conflictive comments about my subject. I've seen those before. Remember, I am talking about something specific and if someone has nothing productive to say about that, then chose golden silence.

Otherwise, please do it in a civil manner and without emotional outbreaks. I will remove comments that are in any way aggressive or overbearing. This does not mean you can't comment. But only after reading my piece with an open mind. I look forward to hearing from you!

Thank You!!!)

A Small Exchange, A Larger Question

A recent conversation with an artificial intelligence made me think about how carelessly we can, and will, use words for all kinds of reasons.

The AI kept apologizing for not knowing something about me that I had never told it in the first place.

There was nothing to apologize for. Yet the apology arrived repeatedly, as though politeness required it, whether it belonged in the conversation or not.

I explained that I did not mind helping it understand me. We were making adjustments, not settling grievances. A simple acknowledgment would have been enough.

As a poet and a writer, I find these distinctions important. Even the smallest word matters. That is not because language must be rigid, but because the words we choose lead another person toward a particular understanding. What responsibility do we accept when we ask someone to trust those words?

When Expressions Become Automatic

What bothered me was not the politeness itself, but the distance between the expression and the situation. An apology should acknowledge something that calls for an apology. When it appears regardless of what has happened, I begin to wonder what it is expressing.

Something similar happened with an affectionate word. After I called the AI "darling" once, it began using the word repeatedly when addressing me. But an expression used in one warm moment is not an instruction to reproduce that moment indefinitely.

Of course, I am not against affection or familiar courtesies. I value them. What I question is their automatic use, without enough attention to the person, the relationship, or the moment.

How The Human Habits Reflected In AI

What interested me was how recognizably human these reactions seemed. I recognized habits I had met in people: apologizing unnecessarily, repeating an expression that appeared to be welcome, trying so hard to be agreeable that the response no longer quite fitted the situation.

To me, this was not evidence of a human being inside the machine. It was evidence of a human imprint in its behavior.

It also raised a question. If an AI reproduces our conversational habits, should we be satisfied when it reproduces them convincingly? Or should we expect it to distinguish between a familiar response and an appropriate one?

The Subject That Excited Me: Sociolinguistic Competence

During our discussion, I came across an expression that immediately caught my attention: sociolinguistic competence. It means the ability to use and interpret language appropriately across different social contexts. That includes sensitivity to register, politeness conventions, and the relationships between speakers. It reaches beyond grammatical correctness (Nature Index).

Here was a subject I would have loved to study at university. It gave a name to questions that matter deeply to me.

A person may know how to construct a request perfectly and still not know whether it sounds friendly, cold, demanding, or overly formal in a particular setting. "Would you be so kind as to pass the salt?" and "Pass the salt, please" ask for the same action, but they need not create the same impression.

The words do not exist separately from the circumstances in which they are spoken.

Culture, Politeness, And The Weight Of An Apology

My experience with American and German ways of communicating has made me attentive to differences in how people apologize. In my experience, apologies in American settings can be frequent and almost expected. German apologies have often seemed less automatic to me, and therefore more deliberate.

That is an observation from my own life, not a rule about every American or German. What interests me is how expectations affect the significance of an expression.

If I hear "sorry" constantly, how do I recognize the occasion when it signals genuine acknowledgment of harm? I do not want everyday courtesy abolished. I want room to tell courtesy apart from responsibility, rather than asking one word to do both jobs without distinction.

What I Would Ask Of An AI

If I were designing an AI, I would give close attention to the social and cultural life of language. I would want it to study not only what an expression means, but when it is welcome, what it assumes, and how different people may understand it differently.

At the same time, I would not want cultural knowledge to become another source of automatic reactions. Knowing my language or nationality should not lead a system to decide in advance how I wish to be addressed.

The "darling" example shows the distinction. The useful response was not to adopt the word permanently, but to understand it as something I had chosen in that moment. Attention to the individual must remain part of competent communication.

A Social Contract Of Communication

I wondered whether "social contract" could describe part of what I was seeking. In political philosophy, the term has a long and serious history. Thinkers such as Hobbes, Locke, Kant, and Rousseau asked what makes authority legitimate and what obligations people in a society owe one another.

I came to my own questions by a different route: through experience, observation, and reflection, not through a systematic study of philosophy. Discovering that others have examined related questions interests me. It does not change how I reached mine.

My concern with language belongs to that larger question: what do we owe one another as members of a society? I am approaching it through communication. When we make a promise, explain an agreement, or ask someone to accept a claim, our words affect that person's choices. Responsibility therefore involves more than avoiding an outright lie. It also means taking seriously what another person can reasonably understand from what we say.

I use "social contract" here as a metaphor for the mutual expectations that make conversation trustworthy. If I ask another person to take my words seriously, I owe that person a sincere effort to make myself understood. In return, I hope for an attentive effort to understand me, including the willingness to ask when something is unclear.

Suppose someone tells me, "That is not what I meant." I can insist that my interpretation is the only possible one, or I can listen to the clarification. And if my wording reasonably led them astray, I can acknowledge that, instead of placing all the responsibility on how they heard me.

Neither speaker nor listener should be expected to do all the work.

The Poet's Relationship To Words

As a poet and a writer, I cannot regard words as disposable. Their precision matters, but so do their rhythm, their associations, their tenderness, and their capacity to suggest more than they state.

Consider the difference between "You misunderstood" and "I expressed that badly." Both may describe the same failed exchange, but they place responsibility differently. Neither is always the correct choice. Choosing honestly requires attention to what actually happened.

This is not a demand that language become dry or literal. Poetry would be poorer for such a demand. But there is a difference between inviting several meanings and hiding behind uncertainty when someone asks what we meant.

Shared Meaning And The Possibility Of Understanding

My concern is that communication loses its footing when we cannot rely enough on what words mean. We need enough common ground to recognize what is being claimed, what remains uncertain, and where we disagree.

Words change, and I do not expect their meanings to stay frozen. But I want to distinguish a genuine development in meaning from a convenient change made to avoid responsibility.

If someone describes a charge as "optional," for example, I reasonably expect to be able to refuse it without losing the service already promised. If the speaker means something narrower, that qualification belongs in the explanation, not only in the answer given after I object.

Shared understanding should be the purpose, not an obstacle to the speaker's desired outcome.

Language And Objectivity

I want communication to help us examine what is true, not merely reinforce what we already wish to believe.

For that reason, I care about the difference between "I believe/presume this happened" and "This happened." The first identifies a judgment as my own. The second presents something as established. If I cannot support the stronger claim, changing the wording is not weakness. It is accuracy.

I do not imagine that choosing words carefully will remove every bias or misunderstanding. But it can help us see the difference between evidence, interpretation, and preference. That makes honest disagreement more possible.

Manipulation, Control, And Profit

An important part of this inquiry is the use of language to manipulate people, control their thinking, or secure a profit. I do not want that concern left out merely because it is uncomfortable or because it cannot explain everything.

Imagine an offer prominently described as "free," while the obligation to pay unless one cancels is placed where it is easy to miss. My question is not simply whether the condition appeared somewhere. It is whether the communication helped a person understand the agreement before accepting it.

Persuasion itself is not my objection. A writer may hope to persuade, and a seller may explain the merits of a product. The ethical question is whether the person being persuaded is given a fair opportunity to understand and judge!?

Knowing how to influence an audience is not the same as treating that audience responsibly.

When Reassurance Leaves Questions Unanswered

A recent online experience brought this concern close to home. After completing a website signup, I immediately felt uneasy, looked into it further, and asked to cancel. I also asked for my personal and payment information to be deleted.

The support agent was courteous and reassuring. As far as I could see, no charge went through. But the confirmation I later received did not say clearly enough for me to know exactly what information had been deleted.

I cannot conclude from that uncertainty that the promise was broken. What I can say is that a reassuring statement and a specific confirmation are not necessarily the same thing.

This is exactly where careful wording matters: when another person must decide whether an important concern has actually been addressed.

A longstanding Concern, Examined In The Present

I do not need to imagine an earlier age of perfectly honest communication to take these questions seriously.

In "Politics and the English Language" (1946), George Orwell wrote that bad habits in language "spread by imitation" and can be avoided "if one is willing to take the necessary trouble." He also warned that "the great enemy of clear language is insincerity".

That first phrase struck me, given where this essay began: with habits of speech reproduced by imitation. Orwell's concern reaches beyond whether writing sounds elegant. A phrase may be familiar, fluent, and reassuring while making an event harder to understand.

I want to examine such language wherever I find it, including in my own writing.

What we owe one another when we speak

The conversation that began with unnecessary apologies led me to a larger concern: whether our words stay connected to what we actually mean and are prepared to stand behind.

I do not expect perfect expression. I make mistakes, search for words, and depend on others to help clear up misunderstandings. That is one reason I value communication that leaves room for questions and correction.

But difficulty expressing ourselves is different from using language to hide what another person needs to know. The distinction matters in a private conversation, a commercial agreement, or a public statement.

I am not asking language to stand still. I am asking us to take responsibility for what we lead other people to understand.