PHILOSOPHY OF LANGUAGE
( For the Students Use Only, 1998-99: 1Sem. )
INTRODUCTION:
Recently, language has been the focus of interest by Philosophers. This is often called the "linguistic turn" in philosophical discourse. Of course, for so long now the wonders of language have been studied by linguists and anthropologists. As Susanne K. Langer puts it, language is "the most momentous and at the same time the most mysterious product of the human mind." In fact, most of the linguistic philosophers and linguists now agree that, strictly speaking, it is only the human being who can really create language, who can really speak. All other animals don’t. All the races of human beings - even the scattered, primitive denizens of the deep jungle, and the brutish cannibals who have lived for centuries on world-removed islands - have their complete and articulate language.
Several reasons are put forward for studying language. First reason, if language is the proper characteristic of the human being, then our investigation of language would give us something about being human. What is in the human that impels him/her to create language? And how does language as a human creation affects the human being? Second reason, if some philosophical problems emerge from a misunderstanding of the structure of language, then proper understanding of language may solve some of these problems. Third reason, if language mirrors reality, then our investigation of language would lead us to a better understanding of the structure of reality. And the final reason is to study language for its own sake.
In general, language has been studied in three areas: syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. Syntax, mainly, refers to the arrangement of words in a sentence. It deals with the grammatical rules. So, the focus is not the meaning of words but its arrangement in the sentence based on the grammatical rules of a particular language. Semantics is the study of the meaning of words. The focus is not the arrangement but the meaning of the linguistic term. What is the meaning of meaning? What makes a word meaningful? This will be discussed later in the course. Pragmatics is the study of what speakers do with language. Here, the focus is not on the arrangement, not on the meaning, but on the use of language. It deals with the different functions of language in our life. This will also be discussed later in detail.
1. The Scope.
To determine the scope of Philosophy of Language, we have to make what most philosophers of language call the distinction between use ( using a language ), and mention ( mentioning a language). In use, words are used to point beyond themselves to other things. In this case, words are not the focus of the investigation, but the objects or reality they refer. Such use of language is what we call object language, which is used by Sciences and Philosophy. In mention, words are used to mention or talk about themselves. In this case, words are the focus of the investigation. This is what we call metalanguage, which is used by linguistics and philosophy of language.
Our course in Philosophy of Language is mainly in the sense of linguistic analysis. We philosophically analyze the linguistic phenomenon in order to determine its systematic finality.
The different interests in and the diverse understanding of this phenomenon language is greatly diversified. And this diversification indicates already the beginning of specific directions as shown in the diversity of approaches to language: between Plato and Augustine in one part, and Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas on the other part.
2. What is Philosophy of Language?
Language can be defined solely as a communication system, i.e. solely oriented towards communicative-intention. Language is born because of man’s desire to communicate. Secondly, the structure of language can not studied independently from its function, thus language is defined in terms of its use and the meaning of a word is determined by the functions it performs. ( cf. Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigation )
( N.B. A structure is a framework, and the respective functions are understood in relation to or as the background of a particular structure. The meaning of a function is intrinsically related to its structure. )
Ones understanding of philosophy of language would depend on the principle he/she holds with regard to language. The following principles are:
|
Principle 1 |
If "philosophy of language" is supposed to "ground" philosophy in general, then it is thereby supposed to be a "first philosophy". |
Comment:
Philosophy of Language (PHL) as a "first philosophy" would ground all of philosophy. In the sense, this another form of a "theory of knowledge", i.e. putting "language" in the place of the "ideas" in post-Cartesian philosophy. In this case "epistemology" as a "first philosophy" would take an exclusively linguistic form. Phrased differently again, PHL would not change the Cartesian-Kantian model of "first philosophy". One, then, would have to decide if one wants such a philosophy.
|
Principle 2 |
If "PHL" reflects more general philosophical views applied to language as one could also apply such views to culture, politics, nature, and so forth, then PHL would be just one branch of philosophy by the side of other branches. |
Comment:
Every branch of philosophy could take account of what has become empirically known about the field concerned. Thus, e.g. philosophical anthropology would have to take account of psychology, cultural anthropology, sociology, etc.; political philosophy, of political science; philosophy of nature, of physics; etc. Similarly, PHL would have to take account of linguistics as an empirical science ( more especially of semantics as done in linguistics and of grammatical topology).
|
Principle 3 |
If "PHL" is associated with logic, then the issue is raised of the logic of natural language, as distinct from formal logic as an ideal language. |
Comment:
By common consent of philosophers, natural language is "vague", or "imprecise" thus some philosophers (e.g. Carnap) have been tempted to create an "ideal language", which would be invariably unambiguous and precise. In contrast, other philosophers ( e.g. the Oxford School) have claimed that "ordinary language" is "all right", although sometimes clarifications are needed ( which can also be given in ordinary language). Both schools deal with language (ideal or natural ) as an instrument to talk about something.
Differently, logicians see formal (or symbolic) logic as self-contained, without any "referential" dimension, with relations between propositions as purely "deductive". Logic is about the kind of language which is about nothing. Logicians never claim to be "philosophers" in a wider sense, and in fact many of them see no difference in principle between logic and mathematics.
|
Principle 4 |
If PHL is associated with culture and indeed considered as part of culture, then the issue is of how culture affects human nature, and PHL may thus have an ancillary function in philosophical anthropology. |
Comment:
Philosophical anthropology raises questions of man as distinct from the "world" and yet living in it, in communities which define themselves (and the "world") along cultural lines. PHL in this sense is intertwined with philosophy of culture in multifarious ways.
By functions of language, it means the different roles that language play in our lives. So far, interdisciplinary agreement has proposed three main functions: the "representation function", the "expression function", and the "action function". (a)The "representation" function of language as "representing" the "world" (or "reality", or whatever expression some philosopher would prefer) would philosophically fit a "correspondence" theory of truth (rather than, say, a "coherence" view of truth, or a "pragmatic" view of truth). If "representation" means "representative" (not of the world but of the "mind"), then the implied philosophy is likely too idealistic. (b) the "expression function" makes language as expressive. This would fit literature rather than philosophy. Richard Rorty suggests the complimentary role of philosophy and literature in culture. (c) the "action function" views language as performative. This presupposes the view of reality as dynamic and not static. This view is articulated in "pragmatics" or in "process" philosophy.
Prominent in all these functions is the "communicative function" of language. Modern "functional" linguistics considers communication as foundational, at least for the purposes of research. In difference to this is the position of Noam Chomsky which we will discussed later in detail.
(3) The Different Functions of Language.
During the 60’s "mentalism" (in reaction to "behaviorism") saw language as a function of the "mind" ( lets call that the "mental" function). (M)
There has also been the "criteriological" (C) function (e.g. Cassirer ), the "logical" (L) function, and the "cultural" (U) function, and the Freudian "psychological" (P) function.
Philosophers need to include all of those in their work. In the present course we will concentrate on what linguistics has to offer to philosophy for this type of research. Here, we deal with these functions from the philosophical perspective.
(a) The C - function.
This is language as seen from a cognitive or epistemological point of view. How this function is analysed depends on what kind of epistemology one holds. For example, from a Kantian point of view ( though not to any extent for Kant himself), language is "transcendental". From a Linguistic Analysis point of view, language is seen as not reflecting a "world", but as a kind of (practical) behaviour (e.g. the "language games" of the later Wittgenstein, and in its wake the Oxford type of analysis). "Mentalism" (of the Chomskian type) considers linguistic as a branch of (cognitive) psychology.
(b) The L - function.
Language is here seen as containing a kind of "logic" – the logic of natural language. For example, in language having double negation logical negation is simple. Another example: language-dependently negation can be an external operator as in propositional logic (as in He is not tired, he is exhausted), or and internal negator.
(c) The M - function.
Utterances, rather than reflecting the "word-world" relation, have also been seen as reflecting the word-mind relation. This has been a traditional the Cartesian-based approach, with "mind" as "Cogito" (not yet as "consciousness", as in Locke and later, differently, in Husserlian phenomenology).
The M - function is the focus of attention in the approach pioneered by Noam Chomsky, since the 60’s of this century. To Chomsky, the essence of the human "mind" is that it is "abstract" (even an "abstract" representation of the human brain would do, neutral in regard to materialism).
Linguistically, Chomskian consider "syntax" as "autonomous" and as reflecting the "formal", not (deeply) "semantic" organisation of the human "mind". Very few alternative orientations in linguistics share this view. Chomskian "generative grammar" considers our ("innate") "competence" rather than our "performance" (parole). The whole approach is known as "mentalism" in linguistics. "Deep structures are very similar across languages, and "transformations" convert such deep structures into "surface structures".
(e) The P - function.
The best example of this is the analysis of "Freudian slips". These are linguistically somewhat marginal (and derive from personal case histories rather than from properties of the langue concerned), though vital for depth psychology. Linguistically more central are vocabulary choices reflecting psychological attitudes, such as submissiveness, authoritarianism, etc., --- and these are often cultural. Western European languages, for example, are much given to metalinguistic utterances, and to what might be called "The picture replaces the picture attitude."
More as a matter of theoretical principle, Chomsky considers language structure, especially syntax, as displaying the psychology of cognition.
(f) The U - function.
Individual languages reflect culture – or perhaps, more correctly, are part of cultures. This is apparent in the "lexicon" (the vocabulary) as well as in the grammar. In linguistic analysis, one branch is that of "componential analysis" --- showing how lexemes (i.e. words) have to be seen as related to one another. Grammatically, the "existential" (and copulative) function of "be"- verbs, have been shown to derive from locative "be"-verbs, (which are often identical with "have" - words.
(to be continued)