My Problems With Language

A thought has kept me uneasy for quite some time. It deals with the complexity of language. I think few people take into consideration what is actually expressed with their choice of words. The example I am specifically referring to is a common expression.

"My name is X" versus "I am X"

They appear to be two equivalent statements (propositions), but they are far from it. While both denote a name (a word) that references an object (a person), the referential claims are distinct. To say 'my name is X' is to devoid the expression of any meaning. A name is a name; a word. That is all. To say 'I am X' is to bridge the gap between the word and its actual object.

"My name is X" = [X --> W --> X] or [W --> X --> W] (self-referential)

"I am X" = [X --> W --> O]

Now, of course, let us address the issue of 'symbolic' names. There can be names that fuse with their objects. If someone were to say 'my name is George W. Bush', one would not merely take the name as a word. That particular name, as a mere example, will forever denote a single object.

We can conclude that external factors, outside the limits of language, affect how language references itself. There are several volumes of philosophy, I'm sure, that address these issues ad nauseum. For now, these are the thoughts that occupy my mind.