We have already described functional vocabulary but now we look at its dynamics in the context of our newly coined physics idiom.
Functional vocabulary is the type of vocabulary most attenuated. This is because its instances multiply rapidly over time. Functional vocabulary is not immune from further attenuation, in fact, because of its already attenuated nature. Functional vocabulary can give rise to different principles of generalization that lead to mutations in the scope arrangements of some syntax, as R.E. Jennings has demonstrated in his research. We assume that the level of attenuation of functional vocabulary is such that its syntactic role can be easily misinterpreted by users. The error can go unnoticed or it can be identified as belonging to a different class of generalization.
For instance; but is dualized through scope evasion; that is, as a connective but can be found in a connective role or a disjunctive role. Often these distinctions will come about in the presence of negation, most often because it is difficult to perceptually entertain negative states.
I won't go for a while is usually understood as
it is not true that I will go for a while rather than
I will be a state of not going for a while, hence changing the scope of while in the environment of a negation. For is another puzzling case that give rise to different principles of generalization.
I'm doing this for you(because),
this hasn't worked for the longest time(duration) and
this gift is for you(belonging) are examples of the use of for in which it is very difficult to give a semantic theory, moreover it is very difficult to ascertain how for could have gained so many uses.
Relational vocabulary tends to become functionalized because of its pervasiveness. Once a vocable is functionalized, its instances can potentially find an infinite number of environments because it is no longer restricted to relating nominals. Its extension has been widened to include verbs, adjectives, adverbs, prepositions, propositions, even whole sentences. The additional connectival roles are not discriminated between. Equivalent instances of but are used interchangeably whether it connects adverbs or sentences. The features that differentiated early instances of but have been lost. In some rare cases such as or and and, both can be applied interchangeably without much difference, within certain constructions. In
you can have tea or you can have coffee and
you can have tea and you can have coffee, both entail that the two choices are available. It is only in the resolution of the statement
I will have coffee or no thanks or I will have both, that or will be defined. If the answer is I will have both we cannot assert that or is playing a disjunctive role. In this case, and and or can yield equivalent effects. That is, users will hardly differentiate between the use of or and the use of and in many constructions. The connectival role of functionalized vocabulary is somewhat indifferent to early lexical use and will tolerate several different vocables for a connective role in a given syntactic construction. So or can be found in several connectival environments in which other vocables could also be found such as and and would occasion similar effects in users. We can say that or has lost the features that differentiate it from the uses of and in some of its connectival roles.
Statistical physics describes this phenomenon as degenerate states of a system.