Zaini 1
Adam Zaini
ANTHRO R5B
26 September 2023
Language in Contrast: Precision in Mathematics and Science vs. Ambiguity in Poetry
There is a significant difference in how logical and expressive codes are used in math and
science and aesthetics and poetry in communication. Math and science value clarity and
precision, whereas poetry values ambiguity and multiple interpretations. The differences in
logical and expressive codes used in math, science, and poetry stem from their respective goals
and audiences. The former employs a more precise and objective language system to ensure its
meanings are accurate and can be universally interpreted. In contrast, the latter employs
symbolism, metaphor, and homonyms to enhance readers’ engagement by allowing room for
multiple interpretations.
The first noticeable distinction between mathematical or scientific communication and
aesthetics or poetry using logical and expressive codes is that the former emphasises precision
and clarity. Simultaneously, the latter employs expressive codes to create uncertainty and elicit
emotions. Well-defined symbols and rules in mathematics convey complicated mathematical
concepts and relationships. Discrete mathematics looks at the use of existential (∃) and
universal quantifiers (∀), which are essential tools in mathematical logic and formal reasoning
(Rosen 2019: 42). This shows how precise mathematical codes can be. For example, the
statement ∃x ∈ ℕ, ∀y ∈ ℕ, x > y, can be strictly understood as there exists a natural number x
(denoted by ∃x) such that x is bigger than y for all natural numbers y (denoted by ∀y) (denoted
by x > y). The expression breakdown demonstrates how the technique employed in mathematical
codes ensures that mathematical expressions are understood accurately and in no other way. As a
Zaini 2
result, it can be seen that the precise system of notations and symbols employed in mathematical
or scientific communication ensures that information is communicated accurately.
On the other hand, poetry employs expressive codes in metaphors, symbolisms, and
figurative language to convey profound and multiple meanings. "Time is a thief" is an example
of metaphorical language in which time is compared to a thief. In the context of the metaphor
employed in the phrase, numerous interpretations of the metaphor's true meaning may exist.
Certain readers may interpret this sentence as a metaphor for the passage of time and the ageing
process. On the other hand, some readers may interpret the phrase as a metaphor for the loss of
essential moments or experiences. Some may view the statement as a metaphor for regret,
implying that time "steals" opportunities or choices we wish we could have made differently. The
several different interpretations that resulted from the use of metaphor, which is widespread in
poetry, are closely tied to Peirce's semiotic triadic relation, in which he stated that a sign is a
representamen with a mental interpretant (Peirce 1902: 100). This indicates that a sign is a
physical or sensory entity (the representamen) that, when encountered, causes the observer or
interpreter to have a mental response or interpretation (the mental interpretant). As a result, many
meanings of the phrase "time is a thief" exist because different readers have different mental
responses (interpretations) to distinct indications. Thus, it is demonstrated in this situation that
expressive codes or languages used in poetry can convey numerous meanings, allowing for
ambiguity, in contrast to expressive codes or languages employed in mathematical or scientific
notions.
Secondly, mathematics and science are based on well-established rules and standardised
notation. Poetry, on the other hand, emphasises originality and defying convention. To prove this
point, consider algebraic expressions, which, according to Peirce, are an icon, a subcategory for a
Zaini 3
sign, rendered such by the principles of commutation, association, and distribution of the
symbols (Peirce 1902: 105). In the case of algebraic expressions, mathematicians worldwide
agree on established rules and standardised conceptions for expressing an algebraic expression.
For example, the algebraic phrase 3x+2y-5 can be translated as three times the value of x plus
two times the value of y plus five subtracted from the result. Because of the established norms
and standardised notation of how mathematicians write algebraic expressions, a mathematician
from the United States and a colleague from Malaysia would have the exact comprehension of
any algebraic statement. As a result, this lends credence to the claim that mathematics and
science rely on established norms and standardised notation of their concepts to ensure that
mathematical and scientific concepts are generally understood.
In its logical and expressive norms, poetry, on the other hand, encourages innovation and
unorthodox structures. Poets frequently innovate their language use by toying with words,
developing new words, or utilising words in unorthodox ways to transmit new thoughts and
feelings to readers and differentiate their works of art from others. For example, in E.E.
Cummings' poem "r-p-o-p-h-e-s-s-a-g-r," he deconstructs regular grammar and spelling to create
a visual and auditory feast in which words are shattered and scattered across the page in the
shape of a grasshopper. This poem exemplifies how poets are creative in conveying their work to
engage readers in an altogether different way and to urge them to embrace the beauty of
linguistic experimentation in poetry. As previously discussed, such cases where conventions are
broken are rare; algebraic expressions have been written similarly since modern mathematics,
and we rarely see mathematicians unconventionally expressing algebraic expressions to
encourage individuals who study mathematics to embrace mathematical expression
experimentation.
Zaini 4
Furthermore, mathematics and science have few to no unconventional mathematical or
scientific expressions because mathematics differs from poetry in that every symbol and sign
should be able to effectively convey a specific meaning so that readers universally have the same
understanding of its expressions, so that mathematical concepts can be practised in the way that
they were designed for, and that incorrect understanding of a mathematical expression can lead
to unfavourable outcomes. Poetry, on the other hand, encourages such experimentation and
innovation in the use of language because, at its core, it is a form of artistic expression that
thrives from its open-ended nature, defying the strict confines of prose and linear narrative in
order to invite readers to engage with the text actively. Poems in this setting employ layers of
meaning, symbolism, and metaphor to allow readers to bring their viewpoints, experiences, and
emotions to the poem. Incorporating readers' ideas and experiences with the poems brings the
poem to life and makes it fascinating. Because the meaning underlying each mathematical or
scientific representation must be accurate and conclusive, mathematics and scientific concepts
are more rigid in their experimentation and formulations. On the other hand, the meaning and
interpretation behind the words used in poetry are intended to be open-ended to make poems
more thrilling and alive.
Aside from that, mathematical or scientific communication employs more objective
logical and expressive codes, whereas poetry employs subjective logical and expressive codes. It
is helpful to think about Saussure's model, which says that signs are based on a binary system
and that a linguistic sign is a two-sided psychological entity made up of two main parts: the
concept (signified) and the sound pattern (signifier) (Saussure 1986: 66). This framework helps
us understand the differences in mathematical or scientific communication. In scientific
communication, for example, velocity is the speed of something moving in a specified direction.
Zaini 5
The signifier in this situation is a physical form or sound pattern representing a notion; in this
case, the letters are gathered and arranged to make the word "velocity." The signifier is the
spoken sound of "velocity," the standard English term for conveying the concept of "velocity."
The signified is the concept or idea that the signifier represents in this context; in this case, the
signified "velocity" is the physical quantity that represents the rate of change of an object's
position relative to time, which can also be interpreted as the abstract concept of speed or
swiftness. The concept of signifier associated with the signifier or sound pattern is clearly
defined for mathematical or scientific notions or terminology. For example, the speed of an item
without a vector direction is not a definition of velocity because it must be defined expressly as
the rate of change of an object's location with respect to time. As a result of the example, it is
demonstrated that signs that are commonly used in mathematical or scientific concepts adhere to
a binary sign system, where the signifier has an exact concept attached to it and where even a
minor difference in the explanation of a concept indicates that it has a different signifier. For
example, the idea of how rapidly an object moves in a specific direction is associated with the
signifier "velocity." In contrast, "speed" refers to how rapidly an object goes without regard to its
direction.
On the other hand, language used in poetry differs from language used in mathematics
and science, which employ a model similar to a binary system. Language in poetry, on the other
hand, employs a system akin to Peirce's triadic model, in which a third element, the interpretant,
defined as the mental response or interpretation in the mind of the observer or interpreter, plays
an essential role in the understanding of a notion (Peirce 1902: 100). To better grasp the
assertion, we can look at the notion of homonyms, which are two or more words that have the
exact spelling or sound but different meanings and origins. In poetry, for example, the term
Zaini 6
"right" can refer to both the concept of accuracy and the opposite direction of left. As a result,
the observer's mental response is necessary to determine which notion is indicated by the word
"correct" in a phrase. For example, in the line "Look to your right," the intended meaning of the
word "right" is the concept of the opposite direction of left, yet in the sentence "You are right!"
the meaning of right is the concept of being true or correct as a fact. As a result, the presented
case demonstrates that the interpretant is critical in deciding which intended concept is
associated with homonyms.
Compared to the linguistic systems used in mathematics and science, occurrences where
a term contains two or more separate meanings are rare because overlapping meanings are
purposefully avoided in the corresponding subject. As a result, mathematical language adheres
strictly to a binary model, which prioritises the final connection of concepts to its terminology.
At the same time, poetry gives wide latitude in determining the meaning of certain words.
One possible parallel between mathematical or scientific communication and poetry
using logical and expressive codes is that both are prone to ambiguity. In order to overcome the
ambiguity problem, more well-formulated definitions of corresponding concepts, ideas, or words
are produced. One could claim that mathematical or scientific concepts are not ambiguous. This
argument, however, can be contested by researching the evolution of the definition of the term
"atom," which was initially used by a Greek philosopher to refer to the smallest unit of matter
that could not be divided. However, there was no way to test the theory experimentally, resulting
in ambiguity, and it was not until the nineteenth century that Dalton's atomic theory provided the
first rudimentary modern definition of an atom by conceptualising that different elements have
different types of atoms based on their weight, which is a more precise definition of the concept.
As a result, even if the scientific or mathematical terminologies specified today are not
Zaini 7
ambiguous, new technology and new research findings may question the definitions of such
terms, thereby resulting in ambiguity. As a result, it has been demonstrated that mathematical or
scientific terminologies can also be confusing and that a more precise description of such
terminologies is required to address this.
The evolution of the term "broadcast" can be explored in the instance of words that might
be used in poetry that are not primarily tied to a scientific or mathematical concept. The term
"broadcast" comes from farming and refers to the exact distribution of seeds across a large field.
However, as radio technology advanced in the 1920s, the term "broadcast" came to denote
transmitting audio messages over radio waves. The new meaning of the word "broadcast" arose
from a metaphor, resulting in ambiguity because the general public is confused about what the
word "broadcast" implies. The term "broadcast" was refined to refer to radio transmissions to
address this difficulty. Through these two examples, it is clear that language can be vague when
talking about scientific and mathematical ideas and non-scientific ideas found in poetry. To fix
this problem, we must develop more precise and more complete definitions for these terms.
In conclusion, the distinction between how logical and expressive codes function in math
and science versus poetry emphasises their different objectives. Poetry thrives on ambiguity and
unique interpretation, whereas math and science prioritise precision and universality. Both
handle the ambiguity in their ways, adjusting their language to suit their goals. This verbal
exchange exemplifies the fluidity of human communication.
Zaini 8
Works Cited
Ferdinand de Saussure (1986). “Nature of the Linguistic Sign” in Course in General Linguistics,
Open Court, 65—70
C.S. Peirce (1902). “Logic as Semiotic: The Theory of Signs” in Philosophical Writings of
Peirce, edited by Justus Buchler, Dover Publications, 98—115.
Rosen, Kenneth H. Discrete Mathematics and Its Applications, 2018.