Attenuation in language is related to degeneracy. As we have mentioned, the process of attenuation in vocables involves a widening in the extension of a relation. Like degeneracy, attenuation is a process in which specific features are lost, features that allow vocables to be described as semantically easy that is, features that are perceptually bound. As we project forward in time these features will eventually disappear and so will specific vocables. But in the process, attenuation has for effect the structural transformation of some types of vocables that become semantically difficult - perceptually emancipated.
The relations associated with lexical vocabulary are bound to perceptual cues that are relatively restricted in their extension. Lexical instances of a vocable relate objects of similar type because lexical vocabulary rely on perceptual cues to be used. That is, the environment defined by perceptual cues also defines the instance of lexical vocabulary. Similarities in the perceptual cues of various environments define the kind of relations all instances of a lexical vocable will have in its extension. For example; have in a relation of ownership is defined by the perceptual cues that are available for that relation. I have a dog, I have money, I have a book, are all example of a relation of possession that rely on perceptual cues. Once all the instances of such a relation can be accounted for, or if the extension of a relation can be accounted for by a rule, then the extension of a relation of a lexical vocable is maximally extended.
Attenuation can also be considered in terms of energy level. In Chapter Three we have described lexical vocabulary as more efficient because of its dependence on perceptual cues. The effects generated by lexical vocabulary require less energy because it is environment bound. That dependence also defines the level of energy to be preserved as new objects are included in a relation. Therefore, the similarity relationship between instances that will be included in the extension of the relation of a lexical vocable will tend to be restricted to a certain type such as nominals and nothing else. Therefore the only configuration allowed for a lexical vocable is one that includes only one type of vocable in its relation, confining the extension of the relation to one category.
We should mention that this is also true of kinds of attenuated vocabulary, such as true, indeed, mind, belief, and so on, cases in which uses cannot be described as lexical but also not as functional either. This type of vocabulary may not be as efficient as lexical vocabulary but it has not crossed over into a new syntactic role.
Relations, in functionalized vocabulary are far less restricted because of the absence of perceptual constraints. In some cases, some occurences of vocables will emerge that seem related to some lexical vocabulary but have in fact become structurally changed and are now used functionally. The extension of the relation of a functionalized vocable is different from the one for its lexical ancestor. Moreover the objects that a functionalized vocable connects are potentially infinite in type because a functionalized vocable can be attenuated to a point at which the perceptual cues that were associated to its early uses, have mostly disappeared. As a consequence of the loss of perceptual features, its new function is to coordinate syntactically other vocables such as verbs and adverbs, prepositions and sentences, etc. The instances in the extension of a relation that define a particular functionalized vocable may include many categories of syntactic constructs, unlike the extension of the relation of a lexical vocable.
We consider these instances to be in statistical equivalent states because the energy level feature associated with the effects produced with the use of specific functional vocabulary is similar whether it involves a relationship connecting adverbs, prepositions or sentences. Because of this, functional instances of a particular vocable are more likely to occur than its lexical ancestor. One example of this phenomenon, described in Chapter Three, is the dynamics of scope evasion. It is the relative similarity between the use of certain instances of specific functional vocabulary that leads to the unnoticed scope evasion of this vocabulary. The consequence is the widening of its extension to include many different categories of syntactic constructs. But the effects produced by functional vocabulary are equivalent across most of its functional instances. We do not think this is true for lexical vocabulary. The extension of lexical vocabulary will include instances that produce different effects which will be associated to different levels of energy.
As we have mentioned, not all vocables become functionalized. The deciding factor is in the frequency of use of a vocable. Vocables must reach a certain level of attenuation before they can become functionalized. The level of attenuation is a function of the number of instances that the extension of a vocable can hold and that is determined by the number of environments in which a vocable can find itself. So we can assume that vocables that are frequently used across many different environment have a greater potential to become functionalized as compared to vocables that are seldom in use, such as proper nouns. Based on this fact, we say that attenuation levels are unevenly distributed across vocables. In comparison, this is a somewhat unusual case for degenerate states in a physical system. Degeneracy levels are usually even for all constituents, however there are some cases, such as defects in a crystalline structure, that could be compared to uneven degeneracy levels in a physical system.