Philosophy:Trouser-word
In John Langshaw Austin's philosophy of language and the book Sense and Sensibilia, a trouser-word is a term that is not itself defined in terms of content, but only gains meaning through the contrast to its negation. The negative use "wears the trousers in the relationship."[1][2][3][4] According to Austin, terms are usually defined by their own criteria. To know what it means that something is X (or is an X), one has to know the criteria for it. Only with this knowledge can one say when something is not X (or not X). With trouser-words, the opposite is true: something is Y if it doesn't meet any of the criteria for not being Y. Typical examples are for Austin real, same, and directly . Only in contrast to e. g. a fake duck, say a toy duck or a picture of a duck, does the predicate real have any meaning in the phrase "a real duck."[5]
References
- ↑ "WEAR THE PANTS definition | Cambridge English Dictionary". https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/wear-the-pants.
- ↑ Sense and Sensibilia, Austin, p. 63-77
- ↑ "'Trouser - Word Piece', Keith Arnatt, 1972, printed 1989". https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/arnatt-trouser-word-piece-t07649.
- ↑ Boellstorff, Tom (2016). "Theorizing the Digital Real". Current Anthropology 57 (4): 387–407. doi:10.1086/687362. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26545518.
- ↑ Coval, S.; Forrest, Terry (1967). "Which Word Wears the Trousers?". Mind 76 (301): 73–82. doi:10.1093/mind/LXXVI.301.73. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2252028.
 |  |
