Philosophy of language

Philosophy of language
 explores the relationship between language and reality, in particular, philosophy
of language studies issues that cannot be addressed by other fields, like
linguistics, or psychology. Major topics in philosophy of language include the
nature of meaning, intentionality, reference, the constitution of sentences,
concepts, learning, and thought.

 The topic that has received the most attention in philosophy of language has been
the nature of meaning, to explain what "meaning" is, and what we mean when we
talk about meaning.
 Secondly, this field of study seeks to better understand what speakers and
listeners do with language in communication, and how it is used socially.
Specific interests include the topics of language learning, language creation,
and speech acts.
 Thirdly, the question of how language relates to the minds of both the
speaker and the interpreter is investigated. Of specific interest is the grounds
for successful translation of words and concepts into their equivalents in
another language.
 Finally, philosophers of language investigate how language and meaning relate
to truth and the reality being referred to. They tend to be less interested in
which sentences are actually true, and more in what kinds of meanings can be
true or false. A truth-oriented philosopher of language might wonder whether
or not a meaningless sentence can be true or false, or whether or not
sentences can express propositions about things that do not exist, rather than
the way sentences are used.
 Ambiguity

 Ambiguity is a type of uncertainty of meaning in which several interpretations

are plausible. It is thus an attribute of any idea or statement
whose intended meaning cannot be definitively resolved according to a rule or
process with a finite number of steps. (The ambi- part of the term reflects an
idea of "two", as in "two meanings".)
 Vagueness

 In speech or writing, vagueness is the imprecise or unclear use of language.

Contrast with clarity and specificity. Adjective: vague.
 Although vagueness often occurs unintentionally, it may also be employed as a
deliberate rhetorical strategy to avoid dealing with an issue or responding
directly to a question
 Verbal disputes are often contrasted with
factual disputes, where disagreements have to do with
different opinions about facts and not meaning.
 verbal disputes, arise entirely from ambiguities in the
language used to express the positions of the disputants. A
verbal dispute disappears entirely once the people
involved arrive at an agreement on the meaning of their
terms, since doing so reveals their underlying agreement
in belief.
Consider the following dialogue:
Teacher A: Cindy is the best student in class.
Teacher B: No, she is not. Betty is better because Betty has more A
grades.
Teacher A: No. Cindy is the best because her average grade is higher
than Betty's.
Teacher B: You are wrong. Betty is the best!
Teacher A: YOU are wrong! Cindy is the best!
So who is right and who is wrong? In a way, both teachers are correct
because they seem to be operating with two different definitions of 'the best
students'. For teacher A, the best student is the one with the highest
average grade. For teacher B, the best student is someone who has the
highest number of A grades. Obviously, the student who satisfies the first
definition need not be the same as the student who satisfies the second
definition. This is an example of what we might call a purely verbal dispute,
where the apparent disagreement is not due to disagreement with regard to
the facts, but it has to do with the different understanding of the meaning of
a key term or concept.

There are two main ways to resolve a purely verbal dispute once the
different meanings of a key term is pointed out. First, the different parties
might agree to disagree with regard to the usage of the term. Thus, teachers
A and B might agree that they have provided two different precising
definitions of 'the best student', and that both are legitimate, and they can
agree that Cindy is the best student under one interpretation, and that Betty
is the best student under a different interpretation.
Kinds of Definition
The most common way of preventing or eliminating
differences in the use of languages is by agreeing on the
definition of our terms. Since these explicit accounts of
the meaning of a word or phrase can be offered in
distinct contexts and employed in the service of
different goals, it's useful to distinguish definitions of
several kinds:
A lexical definition simply reports the way in which a term is already used within a
language community. The goal here is to inform someone else of the accepted meaning of
the term, so the definition is more or less correct depending upon the accuracy with
which it captures that usage. In these pages, my definitions of technical terms of logic are
lexical because they are intended to inform you about the way in which these terms are
actually employed within the discipline of logic.

At the other extreme, a stipulative definition freely assigns meaning to a completely new
term, creating a usage that had never previously existed. Since the goal in this case is to
propose the adoption of shared use of a novel term, there are no existing standards against
which to compare it, and the definition is always correct (though it might fail to win
acceptance if it turns out to be inapt or useless). If I now decree that we will henceforth
refer to Presidential speeches delivered in French as "glorsherfs," I have made a
(probably pointless) stipulative definition.
Combining these two techniques is often an effective way to reduce the vagueness of a
word or phrase. These precising definitions begin with the lexical definition of a term
but then propose to sharpen it by stipulating more narrow limits on its use. Here, the
lexical part must be correct and the stipulative portion should appropriately reduce the
troublesome vagueness. If the USPS announces that "proper notification of a change of
address" means that an official form containing the relevant information must be
received by the local post office no later than four days prior to the effective date of the
change, it has offered a (possibly useful) precising definition.

Theoretical definitions are special cases of stipulative or precising definition,

distinguished by their attempt to establish the use of this term within the context of a
broader intellectual framework. Since the adoption of any theoretical definition
commits us to the acceptance of the theory of which it is an integral part, we are rightly
cautious in agreeing to it. Newton's definition of the terms "mass" and "inertia" carried
with them a commitment to (at least part of) his theories about the conditions in which
physical objects move.

Finally, what some logicians call a persuasive definition is an attempt to attach emotive
meaning to the use of a term. Since this can only serve to confuse the literal meaning of
the term, persuasive definitions have no legitimate use.
Specific Guidelines for Formulating
Good Definitions
 Rule 1: Equivalence
The definition of the term should not contain anything more or less than the
term being defined.
 For example, if I were to define "mug" as "something from which one drinks"
this definition would fail to meet rule 1's stipulations. The definition is too
broad and also could contain wine glasses, sippy cups, and guitar- shaped
margarita cups. In other words, the definition phrase contains more than the
term being defined.
 Rule 2: Essential Characteristics
The definition must identify the essential properties of the thing being
defined not the accidental properties.
 For example: cars are yellow and red four-wheeled vehicles designed for
transportation. "Yellow" and "red" are accidental features of cars, they are
not essential to a car being a "car."

 Rule 3: Clarity
The definition should make the audience's understanding of the term clearer
(rather than more vague). For instance, "philosophy" is a walk on slippery
rocks. This definition doesn't add to our understanding of the
term. Pseudoscience and alt-med are rife with violations of rule
 Rule 4: Neutrality
The rule of neutrality says we should avoid emotional language from
definitions. In political arguments it's important to make sure definitions are
neutral. For example "'Atheists' are godless heathens who don't have any
moral sense." Clearly the definition is biased. Other examples are
"communism" is the equal distribution of poverty; "teachers" are those who
can't do.
The Uses of Language

 Language is central to all our lives, and is arguably the cultural tool that sets
humans, us, apart from any other species. And on some accounts, language is
the symbolic behaviour that allowed human singularities—art, religion and
science—to occur.

 We use language in many different ways and for many different purposes. We
write, speak, and sign it.
Cataloguing the Uses of Language

A helpful scheme for analyzing the uses of language involves five broad categories:
the informative, the evocative, the expressive, the evaluative, and the performative.

The Informative Use

What we express, when using language informatively, can be judged true or false.
We may not know which it is, but we know it is one or the other.

The Evocative Use Language,

when used evocatively, serves to bring about a response, usually from another
person. Commands are one large group of evocative expressions.

If I use the sentence, "Close the door," presumably there is an open door and
someone present whom I want to close it. The sentence is used to evoke the action
of door closing. There are ways of getting that door closed besides commands. One
can request it. "Please close the door." It can be put in the form of a question.
"Would someone mind closing that door?" As a last resort one might say, "I beg and
beseech you to close the door.
The Expressive Use
The expressive use of language is best characterized by its lack of other
directedness. We can express our joy, sadness, or pain privately or publicly.
Expressions such as "Oh," "Wow," and "Ouch," curses and cheers are typical of
the expressive use.

The Evaluative Use Language

is used evaluatively to express ethical, aesthetic, or functional judgments.
Terms like "good," "bad," "right," "wrong," "beautiful," "ugly," "efficient," and
"inefficient" are clues to the evaluative use of language.

The Performative Use

A performative expression is one used to accomplish some social act, in contrast
to reporting, evaluating, provoking, or reacting to it.

To say, "I apologize for my offensive behavior," is to apologize for that behavior.
It is not to report an act, which has been performed or will be performed. It is
the performance of apologizing. When the minister or justice of the peace, in
performing a wedding, asks, "Do you take..." and you reply, "I do," you've done
it.