Ferraci D.

Sanvictores PHLO 182

Wittgenstein’ Semiotic Referentiality and Verbal Sexual Harassment

In the first twenty sections of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s book Philosophical Investigations,

he laid down his investigations on the relationship of words and their meanings. He
presented a text from St. Augustine’s Confessions describing how he was able to learn
language. It was said that Augustine learned language through the process of
associating a word in the form of a name to an object. This conception of language
shows that there is a direct and one-to-one correspondence between words and
meanings, that every word has a meaning, and a sentence is mere set of names that
pertains to different objects. Wittgenstein provided an example the better picture the
problem that may arise from Augustine’s description of language. He made an example
through someone writing the words “five red apples” on a slip and showing it to a
grocer. The grocer will go to the drawer marked with “apples”, looks up for the word
“red” on the table and finds a color sample opposite it. Then counts for the word “five”
as he takes apples out of the drawer. The grocer used the three words differently: the
word “apples” directed him to such kind of fruit, the word “red” directed him to
comparing the colors, and the word “five” makes sense of the cardinal arrangement and
quantity needed. Augustine’s description of language that a word pertains to a specific
objects disregards the different kind of words (that not all words have direct object to
pertain to). People may tend to generalize words to be by all means the same, because
they all look the same, but they are actually not. It can argued that every word signifies
something, but what they really signify depends on the sort of distinction one makes.
For example, the word “one” signifies a number if someone mean to distinguish it from a
word, for example, “orange”. Yet the word “one” can signify a number to differentiate it
to other numbers like “four” or “five”. The meaning of a words does not necessarily
depends on the counterpart of the word in in objects but rather depends on how it was
used. This theory of referentiality will be applied to a specific PH societal issue.

Verbal sexual harassments happens when a sexually motivated person throw verbal
remarks on another person whom he/she may know or not. In the Philippines, statistics
can prove that the usual victims of sexual harassments are women. And the most
rampant way of them being abused it through catcalling. Catcalling can be defined as a
verbal sexual harassment done by calling someone beyond who he/she is for sexual
pleasures or favors. An example is, but not limited to, calling an adult who is not named
“baby” as “baby”. This type of harassment led to different laws, ordinances, and
pending bills to be enacted and enforced to coerce such kind of actions. However, with
the foregoing situation of offensement by catcalling, perpetrators would argue that they
do not actually mean to sexually offend the victim but rather just randomly address
others people with words which meaning is defined by the objects they signify.

Given the definition of catcalling, one can ask if the referentiality theory can be applied
to analyze the excuse of the offenders that they merely mean the the object of the word
they say and therefore, not sexually driven. For Wittgenstein, meaning of words does
not simply rely on the object a word pertains to. A word like “honey” does not simply
pertain to the sweet liquid product made by honey bees. A word like “baby” does not
always pertain to a person on stage of infancy. He argued that words does not
necessarily need to have a definition for it to be useful. Therefore, it can go beyond the
boundaries of definition and can be used to pertain to other things. He also argued that
a word can express different meaning because a word can be expressed in different
ways. His central thesis is that the meaning of a word depends on the way it will be
used, considering the distinctions made by someone who said it.

In this case, offenders of catcalling cannot simply say that they are throwing words in
the air that whose meaning are merely what it is in the ordinary sense of understanding
it, a meaning of it being signified by an object. But one cannot also simply assert that an
offender of catcalling is really saying words which are sexually motivated. This will
depend on the timing, context, and situation it was said. For Wittgenstein, he just
expanded our conception of meaning, that it is not merely a one-to-one correspondence
but relies on the distinction and usage of words.

REFERENCES:

Wittgenstein, L., Hacker, P. M., & Schulte, J. (2009). Philosophical investigations.