THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF

EASTERN AFRICA.

ENG; 101

INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF LANGUAGES.

NAME; ALEXINA.

REG. NO;

LEC; MADAM GILPHINE CHEBUNGA.

TERM PAPER.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN;

LANGUAGE AND PHILOSOPHY.

Basically there is no particular or a strong one, just like linguistic, there is a philosophy of

language. In consideration of language there is a big relationship between the two principles

in that the one depends on the other. Philosophy is the fundamental study of language, reality

and also existence. And also a theory that guide principle of behaviour. This help understand

the language that surround certain people in a particular culture. Language or linguistic is a

science or a social science and therefore it’s focused on Empirical questions through

observation and experiment. On the other side philosophy has its view on questions that can

logically debate on rationally and also assessed. The two principles interface each other and

tend to overlap each through the language and mind interface. Language deals with the

studies concerning the nature of meaning revolving in the context of empirical language.

Philosophy of language considers the role of meaning within the functioning mind. For

instance Wittgenstein erected his somewhat dogmatic ‘Private Language Argument’ in

Philosophical Investigations which argues that meaning exists in language itself and not in

people’s minds. But linguistics theorises that each individual has their own ‘idiolect’, a

specific variant of their language complete with an individual set of meanings of words.

There are any number of scholarly works available via the Internet on the relation between

linguistics and philosophy. Here's how I see it. There is a philosophy of language

(Wittgenstein, even Chomsky) and a strong interconnexion between this philosophy and

linguistics. There are many other scholars, too, who have delved into the deeper significance

of human thought and communication, and expanded on their relationship to linguistics

proper. Almost everywhere in linguistics there creeps in a little of the “philosophy” behind

human thought and communication.

LANGUAGE AND ANTHROPOLOGY.

The scientific study of human is known as Linguistic. Although it may take its concentration

on a particular single language or group of language, its main aim remains unchanged that to

bring a general understanding of language as a human phenomenon. In northern part of the

great America, linguistic has develop as part of anthropology. Anthropology is the study of

human past experiences that draws and build biological and social sciences in humanities and

natural sciences. In anthropology, basic studies are undertaken basically using language. This

strongly overlaps the field of linguistic anthropology. Descriptive or synchronic linguistics is

describing dialects or forms of language used by a specific speech community. Language has

a great impact to historian’s archaeologists by using the use of their knowledge of how

languages are so dynamic. Languages are said to have relationship or to have contact to each

other. This gives us an assurance through people’s migration patterns and their behaviours.

Language has also a lot of impacts when it comes to interpretation of religious contexts

REALATIONSHIP BEWEEN LANGUAGE AND SOCIOLOGY

Thus every people of course should own and use the social means of communication. There

are no people without country and no country without people. While the science and

technology is running so language experience transition is very significant. Language really

could not apart from every people. This two case mutual interrelated so did with Indonesian

language raised from melayu language was had the same characteristic as lingua franca. The

study of relationship between language and society is known as sociolinguistic. This clearly

explains the reasons behind why we speak different languages. The sociolinguistics will be

concerned with investigating the relationship between language and society with the goal of
better understanding of the structure of language and of how languages function in

communication. The main aim in sociology of language is to discover how social structure

can be understood much better through the study of language. Language is considered as a

central to social interaction in each and every society that ever existed. There is a double

coincident in this in that language shapes the society and the society shape language.

Language therefore becomes a social tool of interaction in communities and with other

human.

LANGUAGE AND RELIGIOUS EDUCATION.

Donovan (1976) came up with two major points to be considered. In his first view, he said

that a religious language is a unique language which is used separately in some very special

occasions, such as Hebrew in Jews, Arabic for Muslims. Though this first view has not been

fully accepted. In this respect, all Arab countries speak with religiousness, even when

they are commonly conversing with each other for their routine affairs and so do

Jews. Another problem with this statement is that it delimits the religious countries just to

those countries which have a divine book and also those people who speak with the

languages of those books such as Islam, Christian and Jew. Another point of view according

to Donovan (1976) is that religious language is using specialist words like "Apocalypse",

"Incarnation", "Revelation." This second opinion is mostly accepted compared to the

previous one. This is simply because a religious person, a religious sermon or a religious

message requires a specialist in delivering the context of religion. On the other hand,

although ordinary people can use special words like what were mentioned, it is not necessary

for them to use specialist words in their texts and speeches unless they need them. The

difference is that religious contexts and environs need special words. That’s to say contexts

constrain language and the creation of meaning. Although words are the most important
building blocks of every style and genre of language, they are not the only source to build a

religious language and a religious context.

BIBLIOGRAPHIES.

Language and Religion; Linguistic Religion or Religious Language. Available from:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283723882_Language_and_Religion_Linguistic_R

el

Vol XCIII, NO 311 by Aprille De Castro.Aprille De Castro

Saturday, July 2014

Vol XCIII, No. 311

LINGUISTICSgion_or_Religious_Language [accessed Oct 21 2018]. A. Reyes, et al.

(2010). From humor recognition to irony detection: The figurative language of social

media. Data and Knowledge engineering. doi:10.1016/j.datak.2012.02.005. Bloor, M. Bloor,

T. (2007). The practice of critical discourse analysis. Oxford University Press Inc.

Clouston, M. L. (2010). Theology lectures as lexical environments: A case study of

technical vocabulary use. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9 (2010) 308e321.

Coffin, C. & K, O,Halloran. (2005). Finding the global groove. Applied linguistics

method, Published 2010 by Routledge. (PDF) Language and Religion; Linguistic Religion or

Religious Language. Available from:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283723882_Language_and_Religion_Linguistic_R

eligion_or_Religious_Language [accessed Oct 21 2018].