Duality of symbol and concept - a thought experiment

The genuine inseparability of the ``signifier'' and the ``signified'' of a sign invites us to suspect that there is some sort of duality or complementary property of the ``signifier'' - symbol and the ``signified'' - concept. This is rather similar to the particle-wave duality in quantum mechanics. (Duality can be seen as two aspects of an entity.)

Now, for the sake of argument, let us think of a linguistic symbol as a particle that has a well-defined position. In an observation of physics, a particle sits stationary at a particular reference point (a grid-point in a Cartesian-like coordinate). Similarly in language, a symbol sits squarely at a particular place of a vocabulary set.

For example, a symbol ``ouch'' is the symbol ``ouch'', nothing less, nothing more. It sits stationary at the reference coordinate of one's set of English vocabulary, ordered alphabetically. To understand the concept represented by this symbol, one needs other symbols to define its content. For instance: ```ouch' is an utterance showing pain;'' ```ouch' is a sound to express dismay,'' ```ouch' is a word usually not used in a scientific paper,'' etc. The more symbols (with their inseparable concepts as vehicles of definition) one employs, the better one can define ``the'' concept represented by this symbol. In an ideal case one should travel through all the symbols and their combinations in one's vocabulary in order to completely define the meaning of any one symbol. This said, we can understand that a concept is in fact a highly dynamic and holistic property. In this sense, concept has the properties of a wave (which is dynamic and holistic as well). In quantum theory, a wave is not a physically real object and therefore can not be grasped physically. A particle, on the other hand, is a classical object. It is well defined and stationary (in the sense that it has a well-defined trajectory in classical space-time).

The stationaryness of symbols may be better appreciated when we consider an example in science. For instance, when we say the trajectory of the moon is

$$\vec x(t)$$

where $t$ is time, we have to treat the symbol ``$t$'' (not the referent of ``$t$,'' which is time itself) as stationary. If ``$t$'' can suddenly change to another symbol, say ``$u$,'' in the next lines of calculation without our noticing it, a discourse on the moon's trajectory may become completely illegible. In fact, the whole science may tumble down this way.

Now consider the following example in language. ``Love,'' (or its sound /l$\wedge$v/, for that matter) as a symbol, exists synchronically.<sup>4.1</sup> The concept the symbol ``love'' represents is, however, largely diachronic. The concept, for example, depends on the experience a speaker might have, which is, again roughly speaking, ontogenetic. The concept also depends on the socio-historical environment, which is, roughly speaking, phylogenetic. Without understanding this, one would be surprised by where English people in the 18th / 19th century ``made love'' in the novels of Jane Austin.

The sound /l$\wedge$v/ is after all only a symbol: its phonetics are supposed to be exactly the same no matter the word is pronounced by an English lady in 18th century; by a three-year-old girl today; or by a computer speech synthesizer; for what matters is the frequency-characteristics^4.2. The concept the sound represents (or may represent) is nevertheless something in time domain. This leads us to consider the duality of symbol and concept in another way.