Implicit in the theoretical chemical writings of Antoine Laurent Lavoisier is a theory of language that is not in complete harmony with the philosopher of language whom he takes as his explicit authority, Condillac. Lavoisier's reform of the nomenclature of chemistry leads to his dividing scientific language into two sets with different properties: a denotative artificial nomenclature and connotative natural language. This division supposedly permits knowledge to be stored in the nomenclature while the natural language retains the rhetorical tools necessary for creative thought and argument. The consequences of this reform of scientific language are, however, the opposite of what Lavoisier had intended.How does a word mean? Let us begin with a metaphor: it is like an electron cloud. The sound of a word is an arbitrary marker whose referent is an idea without a single, absolute, fixed value. It is better described using the statistical model that describes an electron not as a distinct particle, but as a probability cloud which is densest where the charge is most likely to be. The value of a word would be the constantlychanging locus of the most widely-shared meanings, and in order to get a feeling for where it is located, one has to play words off each other: the juxtaposition of words metaphorically or syntactically causes new meanings to be suggested, whereas the nonsense of other possible constructions causes limits to be placed on what a word can mean. The array of possible meanings is verified and given statistical weight through usage, through every experience of writing or attempting to speak with other people sharing the same language. In such a situation, a total definition, a stable or fixed definition, in other words a meaning understood as a denotation, is not possible. Words are defined by their network of relations to and differences from each other. They are nodes in a connotative field, a medium of implicit, non-integral definitions. The view of language as a grid of interlocking but distinct denotations is therefore only an idealized version of this nebulous dynamic connotative field. Hence the contingency of any idea-referent becomes visible. Moreover, it becomes obvious that there are two levels of arbitrariness in the architecture of a sign, visible only as a result of this experience of working with the fabric of the language. Topoi4 (1985), 165-169. 0167-7411/85.15. ~) 1985 by D. Reidel Publishing Company.
