PHILOSOPHY

AND
LINGUISTICS
Presented By Group 8:
Karina Larasati
Alya Afifah Izwandi
Geofaldy Dwi Denaldy
Dahlia

Lecturer:
Dr. Ira Maisarah, M.Pd.
 CONTENTS
INTERACTION OF
The relationship between philosophy and linguistics.
PHILOSOPHY & LINGUISTICS

LINGUISTIC CONCEPTIONS OF
Ferdinand de Saussure & Noam Chomsky.
THE NATURE OF LANGUAGE

PHILOSOPHICAL
CONCEPTIONS OF THE Language as a code, Language as a toolbox, and Continental philosophers on language.
NATURE OF LANGUAGE

KEY CONCEPTS Grammar, Meaning, Reference, and Truth

Syntax, semantics and pragmatics, Naturalism, Formal models, & Linguistic universals and linguistic
METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES
relativism.

PROSPECTS The list of questions situated along the border of linguistics and philosophy.
 01
The Interaction
Between Linguistics &
Philosophy
• Philosophy is the study of the nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, while linguistics is the
study of language and its structure, meaning, and use. In philosophy, language is often considered as a
tool for expressing thoughts and ideas.

• Meanwhile in linguistics, philosophers have contributed to the study of language by developing

theories of meaning, reference, and truth. They have also explored the relationship between language
and thought, and have considered how language shapes our understanding of the world.

• Overall, philosophy and linguistics are intertwined fields that both contribute to our understanding of
language and its role in shaping the thoughts, ideas and understanding of the world.
 02
Linguistic Conceptions
of The Nature of
Language
 Conceptions of the nature of language; the most influential of which were tabled by Ferdinand
de Saussure (in the end of the nineteenth century) and much later, in the second half of the twentieth
century, by Noam Chomsky. They are both well-known linguistic theorists, but they have different views
on the nature of language.

Ferdinand de Saussure Noam Chomsky

Ferdinand de Saussure was a Swiss linguist. He
is a pioneer of modern linguistic studies. He
conveyed his thoughts about linguistics in his
book entitled Course of general linguistics.
An American Linguist and Philosopher at
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
One of Chomsky's reputations in the field
of linguistics is established through his
theory of generative grammar.
 Ferdinand de Saussure
 De Saussure, a Swiss linguist, viewed language as a system of signs that are arbitrary and
conventional. He believed that the relationship between a word and its meaning is arbitrary,
and that the meaning of a word is determined by its place in the larger system of language.

 He also argued that language is a social construct, shaped by the culture and society in which
it is used.

 Language is a “system of pure values” which are the result of arrangements of linguistic
terms; and hence that language is, through and through, a matter of relations and of the
structure these relations add up to.
 Noam Chomsky
 Chomsky, an American linguist, has a different view of language. He argues that language is innate
to humans and that it is a biologically determined cognitive ability. He believes that humans are born
with a language acquisition device that allows them to learn language quickly and easily.

 Chomsky's theory also emphasizes the idea of deep structure, the underlying grammatical rules that
generate all possible sentences in a language, and surface structure, the specific sentence that is
spoken or written.

 Language on the apparatus of generative and transformational grammars: of precisely delimited

systems of rules capable of producing all and only well-formed sentences of the language in
question.

 In summary, while De Saussure views language as a system of signs, Chomsky views language as a
biological and innate human ability.
 03
Philosophical
Conceptions of The
Nature of Language
 01 Language as Code
1. Naming Things and The Relation of Reference

 It is clear that naming objects is one of the things we indeed use our language for. Moreover,
something like naming, based on ostension, plays a central role within language learning.
 The Fregean two-level notion of semantics: definite descriptions and anaphoric reference.
 The attraction of grounding language on the reference relation was so attractive especially because
reference links a word with a tangible object, which can be pointed at.
 Moreover, even if we manage to extend reference to names other than proper ones, or perhaps also to
sentences or verbs, there will still be a number of grammatical categories whose words cannot be
treated as directly vehicles of reference — prepositions, connectives etc.
2. The Semiotic Conception of Language

 Language is a system of communication that uses symbols, sounds, or gestures to convey meaning.
It can be a code, in the sense that it uses a set of rules and conventions to convey meaning, but it is
also much more than that.
 The fact of meaning is necessarily grounded in a semiosis — in the constitution of a sign which
interconnects a signifier with a signified and makes it possible for the signifier to act as a proxy for
the signified.
 Language consists of signs.
 Semiosis is accordingly a mediated-taking-account-of. The mediators are sign vehicles; the
takings-account-of are interpretants; ...what is taken account of are designata.
 Saussure called his own theory of linguistic signs semiology.
 02 Language as a Toolbox
1. Speech Act Theories

 Three kinds of acts in an act of utterance:

• The locutionary act is “roughly equivalent to uttering a certain sentence with a certain sense and
reference”.
• The illocutionary act “such as informing, ordering, warning, undertaking, i.e. utterances which
have a certain (conventional) force”.
• The perlocutionary act, which amounts to “what we bring about or achieve by saying something,
such as convincing, persuading, deterring, and even, say, surprising or misleading”.
In conclusion, locutionary act is the production of meaningful utterances and expressions,
which leads to illocutionary act, the intention of producing meaningful expression, which causes the
performance of perlocutionary act, which is the effect of the locutionary and illocutionary act.
2. Pragmatist and Neopragmatist Approaches to Language

 The ‘end-oriented’ view of language and meaning suggested itself quite naturally to all kinds of
pragmatists, who tend to consider everything as means to human ends.
 Pragmatism emphasizes the importance of experience and experimentation in the development of
knowledge and understanding, and holds that the truth of a belief or idea is determined by its
usefulness and effectiveness in solving problems or achieving goals.
 Davidson compromised Quine’s naturalism and pragmatism by stressing the centrality of the
irreducible (and hence unnaturalizable) concept of truth: “Without a grasp of the concept of truth,”
he claims, “not only language, but thought itself, is impossible”.
 Both pragmatism and neopragmatism are concerned with the practical consequences of ideas, but
neopragmatism is more focused on the social and political implications of these consequences and
the role of language and communication in shaping our understanding of the world.
3. The Later Wittgenstein and The Problem of Rule-following

 The concept of language game, of course, was introduced by the later Wittgenstein — he employed
it to indicate that the ways we use language are far too varied to be reduced to something like
‘naming things.

 Here, the term “language game” is meant to bring into prominence the fact that the speaking of
language is part of an activity, or of a form of life.

 Wittgenstein concluded that the concept of language game is inextricable from the concept of rule,
and as he was convinced that not all the rules can be explicit (in pain of an infinite regress), he
decided that the most basic rules of language must be somehow implicit to the praxis of using
language.
 03 Continental Philosophers on
Language
The conceptions of language outlined so far have been developed mostly by analytic
philosophers, the philosophers from that side of the philosophical landscape where philosophy borders
with science, this approach to philosophy has predominated within the Anglo-American realm as well as
in some European countries.

1. Heidegger

Martin Heidegger, for example, conceived the task of a hermeneutical reflection on

language as investigating how to make sense of the intimacy of thought and language because language
is not a prison. He did not investigate how each language, in spite of its differences from other
languages, could say everything it wants to say, which he characterized as a concern of the philosophy of
language and linguistics.
2. The French poststructuralists

 Poststructuralists tend to view language as a vehicle through which differences between and within
identity categories (e.g., gender, race, ethnicity) are created and realized.
 De Saussure’s structuralist approach to language led, via generalization, to the philosophy of
structuralism and subsequently its poststructuralist revision. Originally, it was based on the
generalization of de Saussure’s approach from language to other kinds of ‘systems of signification’;
however, it has also brought about new and ambitious philosophical accounts of language.
 04
Key Concepts in Linguistic
and Philosophical Accounts of
Language
 1. Grammar
Grammar refers to the system of It can be formalized mathema-
rules that govern
expressions in a language
how
01 02 tically, as demonstrated by
Chomsky and subsequent linguists.
combine to form more complex
expressions.

Some philosophers view

Grammar plays a crucial role in the grammar as a subjective,
principle of compositionality, which 03 instrumental concept, while
asserts that the meaning of complex 04 many linguists consider it
expressions is determined by the fundamental to the
meanings of their parts and their implementation of language in
mode of combination. the human mind/brain.
 2. Meaning
The study of meaning is an integral part of linguistics, but the nature of meaning has
been a subject of debate.

There are four basic candidate views of meaning:

 Meaning as a tangible, physical object (e.g., a specific referent for proper names).
This view has limitations.
 Meaning as a mental entity, which is rich and potentially shared among speakers but
faces the challenge of being locked within individuals.
 Meaning as an entity in a 'third realm' beyond the physical and mental, as proposed
by Frege and formalized in mathematical and logical semantics.
 The view that meaning is not an object but a property of expressions, defined by the
role they play in a language game.
 3. Reference
Reference pertains to the
relationship between a singular term
(e.g., "the king of Jordan") and the
real-world object it points to (the
actual king).
Some language theorists argue that
reference is the essence of language,
as it serves the purpose of referring
to things.
On the contrary, some theories, like
Quine's indeterminacy of reference,
suggest that reference might not play
a significant role in language.
Reference is crucial in the two-level
semantics (e.g., Frege's level of
Bedeutung), where it is linked to the
emergence of truth, as the reference
of a sentence directly corresponds to
its truth value.
 4. Truth
 The concept of truth has always been essential in understanding the connection between language
and the external world.

 It is often viewed as the measure of the success of language in accurately representing reality.

 A classical perspective on truth is the correspondence theory, which posits that truth is the
correspondence between linguistic expressions and the actual state of affairs.

 Critics argue that comparing vastly different entities (linguistic expressions and the world) is
problematic, leading to alternative theories like the coherence theory of truth, where truth is seen
as coherence between statements or beliefs.
 Contemporary theories of truth encompass variations of the correspondence theory, the coherence
theory, neopragmatic approaches, and minimalist or deflationist theories that claim the concept of
truth is purely grammatical.

 There are also theories that regard truth as a fundamental concept incapable of being fully
explained.

These key concepts are fundamental components of linguistic theory and philosophy,
and they underpin discussions in linguistics and philosophy, providing a framework for exploring the
structure, meaning of language, the multifaceted nature of reference, truth in language, and
demonstrate the diverse approaches taken by linguists and philosophers.
 05
Methodological
Issues
 1. Syntax, Semantics and Pragmatics
Syntax
Syntax, is arrangement or order
words, determined by both the
writers style and grammar rules.
Syntax which deals with the
relations between expressions.
Semantics
Semantics , also called semiotics,
semology, or semasiology, the
philosophical and scientific study of
meaning in natural and artificial
languages. Semantics which addresses
the relations between expressions and
what they stand for.
Pragmatics
Pragmatism is a philosophical
tradition that views language and
thought as tools for prediction,
problem solving, and action, rather
than describing, representing, or
mirroring reality. Pragmatics which
examines the relations between
expressions and those who use it.
 2. Naturalism
A theory that relates scientific method to philosophy by affirming that all beings and
events in the universe (whatever their inherent character may be) are natural. Consequently, all
knowledge of the universe falls within the pale of scientific investigation. Naturalism to suggest, if
the talk about language and meaning is to be understood as contentful at all, then it too must in
principle be translatable into the language of physics.

3. Formal Models
Language as an empirical phenomenon (just like many other empirical phenomena) is
described in mathematical terms to obtain a ‘model’, which is investigated using mathematical means
and the results are then projected back on the phenomenon. (We can also understand this
mathematization as a matter of extracting the structure of the phenomenon in the form of a
mathematical object).
 5. Linguistic Universals and Linguistic
Relativism
 Language Universals:
Linguistic universals are the underlying principles or patterns that are common to all human
languages. These universals can be found in various aspects of language, such as grammar, syntax, and
phonetics. Universalists argue that there are innate and universal structures in the human mind that shape
language, and these structures are reflected in the grammar and syntax of all languages.

 Linguistic Relativism
Linguistic relativism, also known as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, suggests that the structure of a
language influences the way its speakers perceive and think about the world.
 Relativists argue that different languages have different ways of categorizing and representing
the world, and this diversity of linguistic structures leads to differences in thought and perception

Both linguistic universals and linguistic relativism are important in understanding the complex
relationship between language and thought. While universalists seek to uncover the underlying structures
that are common to all languages, relativists highlight the diversity and influence of language on thought.

The study of such universals is then considered as the study of ‘language as such’ — of a type whose tokens
are the individual natural (and possibly also some artificial) languages. Theoreticians of language often
differ in their views of the ratio of the universal vs. idiosyncratic components of an individual language.
 06
Prospects
The nature of language
Should we see language primarily as a communal institution; or rather as a matter of
individual psychologies of its speakers; or rather as an abstract object addressable in
mathematical terms?

The nature of meaning

Should we see meaning as an abstract object, as a mental entity or rather as kind of role?

The nature of reference

What is the tie between an expression and the thing it is usually taken to ‘refer to’? Is its
nature causal, is it mediated by some non-causal powers of human mind (‘intentionality’), or
is it perhaps a matter of ‘rules’ or ‘conventions’?
Language vs. languages
Does it make sense to ponder language as such, or should we investigate only individual
languages (making at most empirical generalizations)? How big is the ‘common
denominator’ of all possible languages? Can there exist languages untranslatable into each
other?

The ‘implementation’ of language

What is the relationship between public language and the states of the minds/brains of its
speakers? Is the former only a kind of statistical aggregation of the manifestations of the
former, or does it rather exist in some more ‘independent’ way, perhaps even conversely
influencing people’s minds/brains?

The nature of a theory of language

What conceptual resources should we use to account for language and meaning? Are we to
make do with the terms we use to account for the non-human world, or are we to avail
ourselves of some additional concept of a di fferent kind? And if so, what kind?
 CONCLUSION
Language is maintained by foundational and conceptual
questions in linguistics, quintessentially philosophical
problems about the connections between mind, language
and the world, and issues about philosophical
methodology. These fascinating field of philosophy
concerned with representation, communication, meaning
and truth.
THANK YOU