Breaking the Loop: How Language Escapes Circularity

In my other post, I argue that the self-identification definition of gender is not circular. However, there is a sense in which every definition of any word is circular. While most definitions do not directly contain the word they are defining, they do not avoid circularity; they simply operate within a larger circular loop. Consider these two definitions:

Just: based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair

Fair: impartial and just, without favoritism and discrimination

Here, the circularity loop is of size two. Although the definitions of these words do not contain themselves, they do contain each other. Ultimately, every definition will fall into one of these infinite circular loops. Pick up a dictionary, open it to a random page, and choose a word. It’s unlikely that the definition of that word will contain itself, but if you continue by looking up the definitions of the words used in the first definition, and so on, you will inevitably end up in a circular loop. For example, the definition of word A might contain word B, which leads to C -> D -> E -> F, and then back to a word from earlier in the sequence of A-E. This happens because a dictionary is an entirely self-referential book – it defines words using other words that are also defined within it! Look up the definitions of any cluster of closely related words (e.g., fair, just, moral, impartial, unbiased), and you will discover a web of interconnected definitions that reference each other. This is why, if you have no prior understanding of a language, a dictionary on its own will be useless for learning it – you also need some kind of Rosetta Stone to translate into a language you do know.

However, there is a way out of these infinite circularity loops. After all, how can language effectively communicate meaning if it is an entirely self-referential system? How do babies and toddlers acquire language, and how did language itself develop in the first place? In these cases, no Rosetta Stone exists, as no other language would even be known to them. Clearly, babies don’t learn language by consulting a dictionary. Instead, they infer the meanings of words through pattern recognition and context clues. A baby will notice that the words “Mama” and “Dada” are consistently used when near their mother and father, respectively. Through repetition, the baby naturally figures out what these words mean. Another method of learning – or even creating – meanings for words is through pointing at an object to associate it with the word. This is likely how the origin of language itself worked. Imagine an early caveman pointing at a giant beast traversing the plains and saying to his fellow hunter tribesmen, “mam-moth” – aww, our baby species’ first word! The others would make the obvious connection, begin to use the word themselves, and perhaps be inspired to invent new words for other useful concepts.

By using these methods, we can build a base vocabulary for which formal definitions are unnecessary. This simple lexicon can then serve as the foundation for constructing definitions of more complex concepts, effectively bypassing the problem of circularity.