The Philosophy of Language is mainly engaged in the
activity of CLARIFYING THE MEANING OF OUR
LINGUISTIC EXPRESSIONS.
The relevance of this philosophy can be seen
immediately in the role that language and its meaning
in resolving disagreements or disputes.
3 BASIC KINDS OF DISAGREEMENTS
1. Disagreement in Attitude: disagreements over
preferences; usually resolved by persuasion, or
compromise. Persuasion can be done either logically or
illogically
2. Disagreement in Belief: disagreements about facts;
resolved by verifying the facts at issue through directly
observing the facts, examining the relevant documents,
appealing to proper or appropriate authority.
3. Merely Verbal Disagreements: disagreements that
arise out of the misunderstanding of the meaning of our
linguistic expressions; not real disagreements; properly
resolved by clarifying the meaning of the linguistic
expressions.
Philosophy of Language vs. Linguistic Philosophy
Philosophy of Language: attempts to give
philosophically illuminating descriptions of certain
general features of language, such as reference, truth,
meaning, and necessity.
Linguistic Philosophy: a philosophical method for solving
philosophical problems by analyzing the language of
those problems.
Theories and Concepts in the Philosophy of Languae:
IDEAL LANGUAGE PHILOSOPHY
Investigate how language in its descriptive or
representative function works, or how language is being
able to represent the world.
Main focus of analysis: the meaning of the statements
or propositions and of the terms/words that make up
these statements, such as proper names, definite
descriptions, and predicate expressions.
e.g. Man is a rational.
Main Objective: to make language used in
philosophizing logically perfect by ridding off of its
vague and ambiguous characteristics or ordinary
language.
ORDINARY LANGUAGE PHILOSOPHY
Examines the variety of linguistic functions as applied
in ordinary life.
Challenges the privileged status given by the ideal
language philosophy to the descriptive function of
language. For ordinary language philosophy, the
descriptive function is on equal footing with other
functions of language.
Ordinary language philosophers regard
philosophical problems not as results of the failure to
distinguish between genuine and pseudo propositions
but products of deviations of philosophy from the
ordinary uses of language.
Summary:
Ideal language philosophy is concerned with the
REPRESENTAIVE FUNCTIONS of language.
Ordinary language philosophy is concerned with
ORDINARY/EVERYDAY FUNCTIONS OF language.
IDEAL LANGUAGE THEORY
John Locke and John Stuart Mill
John Locke:
Of words or Language in General
1. We are sociable animals, language contributes to this
sociability by allowing us to communicate with others.
2. Language also requires that there be ideas in the
mind of the speaker which the words (signs) one uses
stands for.
3. Impracticality of having new word for each idea for
the multiplication of words may confuse/perplex their
use. Hence, GENERAL TERMS exist. General term is a
single word that marks a multitude of particular
existences. General terms= general ideas’ particular
terms= particular ideas
4. Some useful names do not stand for ideas, instead
they stand for privations.
e.g. barrenness
II. The Signification of Words
1. Words are public signs for our public ideas. The
connection between the particular sounds and ideas
they represents is normally ARBITRARY and purely
CONVENTIONAL.
References: the proper and immediate signification of
ideas that words stand for
2. To be understood is to have one’s idea/s conveyed by
speech.
3. People use words without understanding the ideas
they signify.
4. The connection between a sound and its signification
is totally and wholly ARBITRARY.
OF THE SIGNIFICATION OF WORDS
Words are the public signs of our private ideas.
The ideas of the words stand for are their proper and
immediate signification.
To be understand, we need to have one’s ideas
conveyed by speech. We cannot use words
meaningfully without actually possessing the ideas that
they stand for.
The connection between a sound and its signification is
wholly arbitrary.
GENERAL TERMS
All things exist are particular, but most words are
general.
2 claims why man words are general.
A. it is impossible to give a proper name to every
particular words… We cannot have distinct ideas for
every bird, for every grain of sand, for every strand of
leaves, etc.
B. Our interests determine what we give to proper
names.
e.g. human person: Darwin
How do words come to be general? How do we acquire
general ideas?
= the process ABSTRACTION: “Words become general
by being made the signs of general ideas: and ideas
become general, by separating from them the
circumstances of time and place, and any other ideas
that may determine them to this to that particular
existence.
OF SIGNIFICATION OF WORDS:
“Everything that exists in the world is particular, so
“General and universal belong not to the real existence
of things, but are the inventions and creatures of the
understanding.”
General Ideas= the essence and that thus are creatures
of understanding.
IDEATIONAL THEORY OF MEANING OF JOHN LOCKE
JOHN STUART MILL’S OBJECT THEORY OF MEANING
OBJECT THEORY OF MEANING
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)
What is a NAME? Names are names of things but they
are not merely of ideas.
3 Grand Divisions of Names
I. General vs. the Individual Names (Singular
Names)
General Names are capable or being truly affirmed,
in the same sense, of each of an indefinited number
of things; also called a GENERAL TERM.
e.g. human person, soldier
= denotes, not a class of individuals, but each of the
individuals in the class.
= a General term is different from a collective name.
a collective cannot be predicated to each individuals
separately, but only of all taken together.
e.g. of a collective name: army, choir.
Individual Names are only capable of being truly
affirmed, in the sense, of only one thing.
Proper Names and descriptive phrases
(definitive descriptions) denote a single object.
Proper names and descriptive phrase are alike;
hence, both are individual names.
e.g. Daryl Sabal
II. CONCRETE VS. ABSTRACT NAMES
A. Concrete Names stand for a thing; some are singular
and others are general, are not attribute of things.
e.g. This laptop, white, blue
This table is white
These tables are blue.
B. Abstract Names stand for an attribute of a thing.
1. Singular Abstract Name which stands for a single
attribute.
e.g. Milk-whiteness, squareness
2. General Abstract stands for a generic attribute.
e.g. whiteness, color
III. CONNOTATIVE VS NON-CONNOTATIVE NAMES
A. Connotative Names denote a subject and implies (or
connotes) an attribute.
Connote= meanings;
Denote= reference
e.g. white denotes each white thing; white connotes the
attribute of whiteness.
All concrete general names are connotive. A general
term (“concrete general names”) denotes all of things
the term applies, connotes the property that all those
things have in common.
Man (connotes) the attribute humanity; it denotes
Ricarmelo, Aran, Daryl, etc.
B. Non-connotative Names= signifies a subject only or
an attribute only.
2 kinds of non-connotative names
Concrete: e.g. table, chair, England, Philippines
Abstract: whiteness, blueness, length, values, virtue,
etc.
Individual concrete names:
Proper Names: definite descriptions of realities.
e.g. sun, author of the devil wings, the present
president of the R.P.
Fredge: Sense and Reference vs. Russell’s: Proper
Names and Definite Descriptions
Sense and Reference:
Gottlob Fredge’s Sense-Reference Theory Meaning:
There are two aspects on the meaning of the
linguistic expression: sense and reference
The reference of a linguistic expression is the object
which the expression identifies or represents
The sense of the linguistic expression is the mode of
presenting or manner of identifying the reference.
This theory came about as a result of Locke’s Ideational
theory of meaning and Mill’s object theory of meaning:
= the object theory of meaning fails to account the
nature of identity statements and the fact that some
words though having no reference are still meaningful.
= the ideational theory of meaning fails to account the
objectivity of meanings.
Argument for Sense:
= The meaning of a linguistic sign cannot simply consist
of its reference; otherwise one cannot explain the
difference between the following two forms of identity
statement:
e.g. a=a
b=b
= this difference concern their cognitive significance,
i.e., the value in terms of providing knowledge.
e.g. ice=Frigidaire (refrigerator)
= Sense refers to a linguistic sign’s mode of presentation
or the particular way in which the reference of the sign
is identified.
Identifying a sign’s reference is done by pointing to a
property or set of properties of the reference.
RELATIONS OF THE SENSE AND REFERENCE
1. While a single sense only identifies a single reference,
various sense can identify one and the same reference.
2. While a sign that has a reference necessarily has a
sense, a sign has a sense does not necessarily have a
reference.
SENSE AND IDEAS
1. Senses are objective and public, while IDEAS are
subjective and private.
An Idea is subjective in that it is colored or
influenced by the personal experiences and attitude of
the person. An idea is private in that the person who
has the idea is the only one who has the direct access to
or direct knowledge of the particular idea; and other
people can only infer that this person has such an idea
from his/her behavior.
Sense is objective that is not influenced by our
personal experiences and attitudes; it is public in that it
is directly accessible to the people who share a common
language.
SENSE OF A STATEMENT
= refers to the THOUGHTS expressed by the statements,
which are the TRUTH CONDITIONS OF STATEMENTS,
i.e., refers to the circumstances that must obtain in the
world to make the statement true. Here we have to
know the conditions that makes the statement true or
the conditions that make statements false.
Hence, if a statement has no truth conditions then it has
no sense.
THEORY OF DEFINITE DESCRIPTION
Bertrand Russel
Ordinary Grammar and Reality
- the subject of a statement refers to a
particular entity while the predicate is attributed to the
entity being referred to by the subject.
e.g. the diocesan college seminary in Cebu
CONFUSION BETWEEN GRAMMATICAL AND LOGICAL
FUNCTIONS
Consider: “Jose Rizal is the national hero of the
Philippines.”
The National hero of the Philippines is the author of El
Filibusterismo.
A logical contradiction:
The statement: “Manila is the capital of the Philippines”
“The present datu of Manila does not exist.”
Russell’s Solution:
1. Even if a definite description appears as a subject in a
statement, it does not change its logical status.
A predicate expression whose function is to describe
and not to refer
2. Ordinary grammar is misleading, what is needed is to
translate the statement whose subject is a definite
description into a form which clearly shows that the
logical function of the definite description in the
statement, i.e., the predicate expression.

e.g.

No name delights the hearts of your children

beloved San Carlos as your own.

If grammar will be the basis for saying what types of

entities certain statements are about, then we will most
likely run into some form of confusion or
misunderstanding.

Proper Names and Definite Descriptions: Logical

Functions

Proper Names correspond to what is normally called:

PROPER NOUNS.

Logical Function of Proper nouns= to identify or refer to

particular person, place, things.

e.g. San Carlos Seminary College, Ricarmelo Tumale

Definite Descriptions are expressions of the form “the

so and so”.

Logical Function of Definite description= to attribute

exclusive properties to particular entities.