THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PHILOSOPHY OF LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTIC
Introduction
The
central concern of philosophy of language is the nature of linguistic meaning.[1] Because of this concern,
the philosophy of language is relevant to virtually all other areas of
philosophy. What do we understand when we speak a language? Frege, Russell and
Early Wittgenstein hold a compositional, truth-functional account of
understanding. They think we understand a proposition when we understand what
has to be the case for it to be true, and that we achieve that by understanding
the expressions constituting the propositions. However, they have different
approach to truth-functional accounts of meaning.
Understanding
might be best conceived as an ability- specifically, a disposition to use a
term correctly. This links understanding to use without collapsing into the
other, for one might have an appropriate disposition but, on occasion, fail to
implement it correctly; and the nature of one’s disposition will not be
exhausted by a finite sample of use.[2] To understand a word is to
be able to use it correctly. Speakers are generally able to apply a word when
the criteria for its use are fulfilled. Given this, we must explain what gives
a speaker this ability.
In
the Tractatus Logico Philosophicus,
Wittgenstein held that ‘the word’ is composed of numberless unions of certain
colourless simples, whose whole intrinsic nature consist in their sheer
capacity for the union in question, and that the task of language is merely to
‘show forth’ the manner of such unions, both by devising names to stand for
such the simples, and by arranging parallel marriage among the names.[3] He did not think there was
any need to reconstruct a new language, as Russell suggested, because there is
only one language from a logical point of view, all languages are one language,
one language with respect to the logical
conditions they must satisfy.[4] Language as a picture of
reality must have similarity of structure between that which pictures and that
which is pictured. The form of language must be the same as that of reality. If
the structure is distorted, the result will be nonsense. In other words, it is
possible to formulate meaningful statements only if the form of the language is
in accordance with the structure of reality. In sum what can be said at all can
be said clearly and what we cannot talk about we must consign to silence.
Philosophy
must in no way interfere with the actual use of language: it can in the end
only describe it. Since the words in ordinary speech have a sense and a use,
each sentence that employs them conventionally must be in order as it is.[5] It is the task of
philosophy to discover what that order is, and to bring words back from a
mistaken metaphysical to an everyday usage.[6] Hence one can say that
philosophy of language and linguistic are actually complementary. But that is
not the concern of this essay rather to find that line of demarcation of
differences between philosophy of language and linguistics. But before we do
that, we must first make some clarification of the two basic concepts we are
going to use in the course of this essay viz. philosophy of language and
linguistic. Knowing quite well that words occupy a very important position
between philosophy of language and linguistic, we shall also take a close look at
the use of word especially from the philosophical perspective. Having done
these, we shall then venture into showing the differences between philosophy of
language and linguistic which is our main goal in this essay, which afterwards
we conclude.
Philosophy of Language
Language, according to one
traditional notion, consists of words and each word possesses meaning insofar
as it stands for something.[7]
One learns a language, in this view, by learning what each word refers to; word
are names, and to know a language is to know what all the words denote. Hence,
a word which does not denote anything would not be a word at all; it would be a
mere sound; it would be meaningless.
Several philosophers have built
theories on such a view of language. David Hume, for instance, held that only
those words which stands for objects have meaning.[8]
What does not exist cannot be named. To name is to name something, and when
there is no ‘something’ there is nothing to name. Therefore, it was argued that
the expression, ‘The round square,’ neither refers to nor names anything. But
if it is so, it seems to entail the rejection of the notion that the meaning of
a word is what it stands for. No one can deny that the statement ‘the round
square does not exist’ is true; thus the expression, ‘the round square does not
exist’ is with meaning. If it had no meaning, the statement could be neither
true nor false. It follows that the expression ‘the round square’ means
something but names nothing.
There is then a shift towards truth-functional
approach to meaning, not of words but of expressions. According to Russell, the
statement ‘the round square does not exist’ has, in truth, no subject whatever.
Its grammatical form is such that it leads one to believe that it has a
subject, but it is the aim of philosophical analysis to find the correct or
logical form of this statements.[9]
‘The round square does not exist is’ is ‘there is no entity which is both round
and square’. In other words, ‘it is not true that there is an entity c such that the propositional function ‘x is square and round’ is true, if and
only if x is c and otherwise false. Russell wants to construct a language in
which the logical form of our statement is preserved.
Philosophy of language deals with the
examination of language in the hope that it will reveal something about the
inner workings of our souls. Chomsky calls this ‘deep grammar’- something
intrinsic that dictates which sentence are possible and which are not.
Linguistic
Linguistic is the scientific study of
language.[10]Linguistic studies what
Chomsky calls ‘shallow grammar’. The shallow grammar as so called, deals only
with the relationship between words, sounds and sentences- but not where those
things come from. According to Saussure, language is a system of arbitrary
signs. He argues that each sign is a marriage between signifier and signified.
This concept, for him, is essential to different between meaningful human
utterances or signs and non-linguistic strings of sounds that are mere noise.[11]
Contemporary linguist approach their
work with a scientific perspective, although they have used methods that have
been thought to as solely academic discipline of the humanities. Contrary to
previous belief, linguistics is multidisciplinary. It overlaps each of the
human sciences including psychology, neurology, anthropology and sociology.
Linguist also engage in a formal study of sound structure, grammar and meaning,
but they also investigate the history of language families, and research
language acquisition. Being a science, they formulate hypotheses, catalog
observations and work to support explanatory theories.[12]
The Use of Words
The
problems of philosophy must be cured by examining in detail the actual ways in
which the key words involved in philosophical puzzlement are used.[13] We run into these puzzles
because we misinterpret our forms of speech, because we have a wrong and
over-simplified view of the way language works. Such puzzles are resolved by
seeing how our words actually do work, what their uses really are.[14] Consider the word “time”,
for example. Let us suppose that time has the kind of use as “tree” or “table”
or “rivers”. Then it is likely we will be held captive by some picture or other
and will suppose wrongly that the word “time” is the name of a peculiar
ethereal medium in which events occur, and which the word “time” flow
ineluctably from the future, through the present, into the past. In this case,
it can be shown that we fall very quickly into philosophical puzzlement. But if
we would only examine the actual situations in which the word “time” is used
and notice how it is used, we would see that it does not function as name of
any kind of ghostly medium.[15] Once we command a clear
view of the use of the words, our philosophical problems are solved.
There
are various aspects of the use of a thing, and what these aspects are will vary
with the kind of thing in question. In the use of a hammer, for example, there
are at least the following aspects: how to use it (e.g., how to handle it),
what it is used for or used to do, and, more rarely, what it can be used as
(e.g., as a paperweight). Now words are used in one aspect as the material of
most of our speaking and writing. It is words which we most-often utter and
write, when we utter and write something. In this aspect of use of words, all
words are identical, and one word, or group of words, cannot be distinguished
from one another.
A
more significant aspect of the use of words has to do with the grammar of the
word in question, with the kind of linguistic context in which the word can or
cannot occur. Knowing how to use a word, in this aspect of its use, includes
knowing in what sort of linguistic
context or frames the word can and cannot occur without grammatical oddity; or
, knowing how to construct grammatically
correct word-groups or sentences which contain that word and being able to
recognize grammatically incorrect word-group which contain it.[16]
Words
are also used to perform certain linguistic jobs. It is this aspect which is
meant when one says that the sentence “Get out!” is normally uses to issue an
order, the sentence “Is he?” is normally used to ask a question, and the
sentence “ He is” is normally used to state something. When we speak of the use
of words in this way, we mean that words are used to perform certain speech
acts (such as issuing orders, asking questions, to make jokes, to greet
peoples, and to solve problems.). John Austin distinguished between “illocutionary”
acts (speech acts performed in saying something) and the latter perculotionary
acts (speech acts performed by saying something). Example of illocutionary acts
are such speech acts as describing something, issuing an order, asking question, greeting someone,
announcing an intention, making a promise. They are illocutionary acts because,
in order to perform them successfully, one needs only to say certain words in
the appropriate circumstances; there is no need that the saying of the words
should produce some effect in the hearer or anywhere else. Perlocutionary acts
are such speech acts as persuading someone to do something, upsetting someone,
pleasing someone, cheering someone up, confusing someone, shocking someone,
amusing someone, and so on. To perform one of these speech acts, it is not
enough that certain words be spoken; in addition, some effect must be produced.
Words
in sentences and sentences themselves have many uses. A language is like a box
of tools: ‘Think of tools box in a toolbox; there is hammer, pliers, a saw, a
screw-driver, a rule, a glue-pot, glue, nails, and screws. The functions of
words are as diverse as the functions of these objects. It is interesting to
compare the multiplicity of the tools in language and of the ways they are
used, the multiplicity of kinds of word and sentences, with what logicians have
said about the structure of language.[17] Just as tools have
multiplicity of functions, so also is language. A word can be a proposition. It
depends on how it is used. Meaning is understood not simply on the name it
bears but on their use or application. Here, Wittgenstein used the analogy of
the game of chess. If I call this piece a king it does not mean that I know
since I do not know how it moves in the game of chess. The function of the king describes the name
but the name does not imply the use.
Language
has many functions besides simply picturing objects. It is used to give order,
to make jokes, to greet peoples, and to solve problems. This shows that
language has no single essence.[18] Language is an enormous
complicated activity, learned in a variety of ways and used in search for an
essence, the search for the real meaning behind the everyday flow of experience
that characterizes the activity of the people. Since language is used in many
ways, it then means that historians for instance use language differently from
lawyers or psychologists. Each is a different language game played by its own
rules. This words gain their meaning from how they are used in a language game.[19]
Distinction between Linguistics
and Philosophy of Language
One
way we can basically understand the thin line demarcating philosophy of
language from linguistic is to understand it from this simple perspective;
philosophy of language looks at the ‘why?’ of language, while linguistics looks
at the ‘how?’ of language. Again, linguistic, it is given in the tradition of
linguistics to have been concerned with written language, i.e. the language of
the Holy Scripture, the great authors, and later on simply with what is
considered to be ‘good’ written standards, educated or ‘received’ English,
German, Swedish, etc. it has focused on formal rather than semantic aspects and
for centuries, grammar has been the kernel of real linguistics. [20] It is also quite obvious
that linguistics is concerned with the nature of language and communication. It
tries to study particular languages, and search for general properties common
to all language or large groups of languages.[21]
For
philosophy of language, having seen the interest of linguistics in the study of
language, and having seen that both uses language as one of their subject
matter, a clear cut distinction is to be see in their approaches. Language has
undergone certain development, in the sense that it is not a logically
developed tool. There are native historical antecedents to every language.
Words are associated with emotions and gather context of popular ideas. This
makes the use of language imprecise and the medium of communication hindered. This should
tell us how many, if not most constructions, in colloquial language are not
really suited to deal with philosophy. Exploring this aspect of language,
whether particular features of languages are influenced by context or not is
the first challenge of languages.[22] It is in
the context of philosophy that words, statements are robbed of any emotional
attachment and laid bare, bits and pieces for evaluation of the ‘why’ in the
statements.
Linguistics
also includes deeper investigations into the nature of language variations
which is dialects. Over time, language
undergo slow or rapid change which pricks the curiosity of the linguists. They
also look at the manner language is processed and stored in the brain, and how
it is acquired by young children.[23]
Philosophers
have always been interested in language and a close perusal into this
philosophical interest in language one can understand that it is maintained by
foundational and conceptual questions in linguistics, essentially philosophical
problems about the connections between mind, language and the world and issues
about philosophical methodology. These springs sustain a rich and fascinating field of
philosophy concerned with representation, communication, meaning and truth.[24]
But in the study of the human language, linguists often seek systematic
explanation of its syntax[25],
its symantics[26], and its pragmatics[27]. Contemporary
philosophers have stayed at a remove from work in syntax since they only
discuss rather than doing it. But in semantics, which is another matter
entirely, philosophers have made great strides, including Gottlob Frege,
Bertrand Russell, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and Rudolf Carnap. One major strand in
semantics in the past century has consisted in the development and careful
application of formal, mathematical models for characterizing linguistic form
and meaning. This has precipitated the philosophical interest in pragmatics,
typically in a desire to understand how meaning and truth are situated in the
concrete practices of linguistic community.[28]
Conclusion
Language has always been one of the
major avenue of human relationship. Language is not only seen in the words we
utter, it goes deeper into the intrinsic understanding of humanity. A fact that
man can understand each other, mother understanding the language of her baby,
deaf understanding the language of love and friendship. All these goes deeper
to tell us that language is not just verbal expression but a deeper
understanding of humanity ‘all round’ expressions. We understand hunger, anger,
sadness, and other emotions that cannot adequately be expressed in verbal
language. Philosophy of language as we have earlier hinted in this essay deals
with the intricacies connected to the use of our language, our preference to
certain words instead of the others. But the thing is that philosophy of
language only considers the words, semantics and pragmatic aspect of language.
It does not deal directly with other forms of language and expressions but this
does not limit its scrutinizing invasion into such areas. On the other hand,
linguistics also considers language from the perspectives of its syntax,
pragmatic and semantic aspect. It always goes back to understand the way language
works by referring to historical antecedents and the factors that stimulates
language mutability and and diversity.
It is obvious that at the end of this
essay further research is expected to be made as the essay is meant to spur the
reader for in-depth understanding of this two basic concepts. Our engagement in
this essay so far has been to understand the subtle differences between
philosophy of language and linguistics. Although they seem to have similar
subject matter, we have made a good attempt at establishing the distinctions
between philosophy of language and linguistics.
Bibliography
Devitt Michael & Hanleyp, Richard, Eds. The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Language ed. Australia: Blackwell
Publishing Ltd, 2006.
Ezcurdia, Maite & Stainton Robert J. eds.
The Semantics-Pragmatics Boundary
in Philosophy. Toronto: Broadview
Press, 2013.
Findlay, John Niemeyer. Language, Mind, and
Value:
Philosophical Essays. London: George Allen & Unwin Limited,
1963.
Harknack, Justus. Wittgenstein and Modern Philosophy. New
York: University Press, 1965.
Lugg, Andrew. Wittgenstein's
Investigations 1-133: A Guide and Interpretation. Canada: Routledge, 2004.
Malpas, Simon. Jean-François Lyotard. Canada : Routledge, 2003.
Marsal, Eva et al., ed. Children
Philosophize Worldwide: Theoretical and Practical Concepts. Frankfort:
Peter Lang Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschauften, 2009.
Orenstein, A. & Kotatko P. eds. Knowledge,
Language and Logic: Questions for Quine. B. V: Springer Science+Business
Media Dordrecht, 2000.
Pitcher, George. The
philosophy of Wittgenstein. Michigan: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1962.
Pupkin Richard & Stroll, Avrun. Philosophy
Made Simple. Doubleday: Dell publishing Group Inc. 1993.
Internet
Materials
Mark
Crimmins, “Language, Philosophy of”. Online (URL), https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/language-philosophy-of.
[1] Cf. The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of
Language Michael Devitt & Richard Hanleyp (Australia: Blackwell
Publishing Ltd, 2006), p. 22.
[3] Cf. John Niemeyer Findlay, Language, Mind, and Value:
Philosophical Essays (London: George Allen & Unwin Limited, 1963), p. 198.
[4] Justus Harknack, Wittgenstein and Modern Philosophy (New York: University Press,
1965), p. 16.
[5] Cf. The
Semantics-Pragmatics Boundary in Philosophy, edited by Maite Ezcurdia & Robert J. Stainton
(Toronto: Broadview Press, 2013), p. 14.
[6] Children Philosophize Worldwide: Theoretical
and Practical Concepts edited by Eva Marsal, et al., (Frankfort: Peter Lang Internationaler Verlag der
Wissenschauften, 2009), p. 578.
[7] Cf. Knowledge, Language and Logic: Questions for
Quine edited by A. Orenstein, P. Kotatko (B. V: Springer Science+Business
Media Dordrecht, 2000), p. 167.
[8] Cf.
Justus Hartnack, Wittgenstein and Modern
Philosophy, p. 8.
[10] http://www.linguisticsociety.org/what-linguistics.
Accessed: 12-01-2016.
[11] http://monoskop.org/images/3/38/Hawkes_Terence_Structuralism_and_Semiotics_2003.pdf.
Accessed: 12-01-2016.
[17] Cf.
Andrew Lugg, Wittgenstein's
Investigations 1-133: A Guide and Interpretation (Canada: Routledge, 2004),
p. 55.
[18] Richard
Pupkin and Avrun Stroll, Philosophy Made Simple, (Doubleday: Dell publishing
Group Inc 1993), p. 298.
[19] Cf. Simon Malpas, Jean-François
Lyotard (Canada : Routledge, 2003), p. 22.
[21] https://linguistics.arizona.edu/content/what-linguistics-and-why-study-it-0. Accessed : 13-01-2016.
[22] Cf. https://www.quora.com/Why-is-philosophy-of-language-important-to-study. Accessed: 12-01-2016.
[23] Cf. https://linguistics.arizona.edu/content/what-linguistics-and-why-study-it-0. Accessed: 13-01-2016.
[24] Mark Crimmins, “Language, Philosophy of”. Online (URL), https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/language-philosophy-of.
Accessed: 12-01-2016.
[25] The organization of the
language’s properly constructed expressions, such as phrases and sentences.
[28] Cf. Mark
Crimmins, “Language, Philosophy of”. Online (URL), https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/language-philosophy-of. Accessed: 12-01-2016.
Comments
Post a Comment