Interpretation of language in philosophy of logical positivism and linguistic analysis

Анотація. Стаття присвячена аналізу феномену мови з точки зору філософії логічного позитивізму та філософії лінгвістичного аналізу. Автори застосовували в якості методологічної бази дослідження основні положення філософії логічного позитивізму та лінгвістичного аналізу, зокрема, принцип взаємозв'язку змісту та форми знань, теорії Л. Вітгенштейна щодо множинності змістів та їх залежності від контексту. Л. Вітгенштейн розглядав філософію як лінгвістичний аналіз, головним об'єктами якого є мова та «гра слів».

Слова та лінгвістичні вирази є засобами, що можуть виконувати різні завдання. Не всі з них можуть бути використані для опису фактів. Така гнучкість мови дозволила Л. Вітгенштейну сформулювати положення про відмінності «гри слів» у різних осіб як представників різних соціальних груп, професій та субкультур. Відповідно, основним завданням філософії є тлумачення змістів. Зміст логічної пропозиції може бути адекватно відтворений лише відповідно до контексту та тієї «гри слів», частиною якої він є. Головним шляхом розв'язання таких лінгвістично-філософських завдань є терапевтична процедура аналізу та опису діючої мови. Автори систематизували та окреслили великий масив різноманітних точок зору представників філософських шкіл логічного позитивізму та лінгвістичного аналізу щодо сутності мови та логіки мислення і спілкування. З'ясування можливих значень окремих слів та виразів вважається важливим кроком у чіткому та однозначному висловленні філософських тверджень, у визначенні загальних умов, які мають бути дотримані для надання значущості лінгвістичним висловлюванням, та критеріїв розрізнення змістовних і беззмістовних висловлювань.

Метою лінгвістичного аналізу є опис та систематизація елементарних («атомарних») фактів. Щоб зберегти значущість, твердження повинні бути побудовані відповідно до вимог можливості зведення до лінгвістичних висловлювань, які мають структуру, подібну до опису простих фактів, і лише логічні пропозиції, засновані на фактах, можуть вважатися змістовними. Результати аналізу поглядів основних представників логічного та лінгвістичного позитивізму дозволяють сформулювати висновок щодо нерозривного взаємозв'язку змісту знань та форм їх мовного виразу, які можуть бути різноманітними і потребують системного та різнобічного філософсько-лінгвістичного аналізу з метою визначення найбільш адекватних із них.

Ключові слова: мова, лінгвістичний аналіз, теорія значень, гра слів, контекст, логічний позитивізм.

Introduction

Logical positivism as a part of analytic philosophy deals with the problem of knowledge representation in a language. Besides, it is closely connected with the other branch of positivism, i.e. linguistic analysis, the proper understanding of which is of importance for contemporary linguistic and philosophical researchers. Logical positivism initiated one of the most important chapters in the history of analytic and linguistic philosophy [1, p. 527]. Pursuant to the positivists, the main task of philosophy is the clarification of meaning, not the discovery of new facts or the construction of comprehensive accounts of reality. Logical positivism was a philosophical movement which used a strict principle of verifiability to reject as meaningless the non-empirical statements of metaphysics, theology, and ethics. The logical positivists regarded as meaningful only statements reporting empirical observations, taken together with the tautologies of logic and mathematics. According to the verifiability theory of meaning, only scientific statements are legitimate factual claims; and metaphysical, religious, and ethical sentences are factually empty [2, p. 620-621]. So, the merit of the representatives of logical positivism is statement of the problem of clarity and unambiguousness of the language of science, removal of meaningless expressions from it. The central issue is the problem of the significance and clarification of scientific expressions. Scientific statements are meaningful when they can be directly verified by reducing them to elementary description of facts.

Purpose. This paper attempts at analyzing the phenomena of the language from the point of view of philosophy of logical positivism and linguistic analysis.

Methodology. The authors applied the basic approaches of the theory of the philosophy of logical positivism and philosophy of linguistic analysis, especially the principle of connection between content and form of knowledge, Wittgenstein's theory of meaning and the idea that the meaning depends on the context.

Theoretical basis and results

Wittgenstein viewed philosophy as linguistic analysis with its focus on language and “language games”. Words serve as tools, and can fulfill different functions. The same is true about linguistic expressions. Some propositions can be used to picture facts, others cannot. Such linguistic flexibility led Wittgenstein to the conclusion that people used to play different “language games”. So, Wittgenstein treated philosophy as linguistic analysis with its focus on language and “language games”. According to Wittgenstein the representatives of different professions and social groups are involved in different language games. The meaning of a proposition is to be understood in terms of its context, i.e., in terms of the rules of the game of which thatproposition is a part. The main way of solving these philosophical and linguistic tasks is the therapeutic process of examining and describing language in use.

L. Wittgenstein contributed a lot to analytic and linguistic philosophy development, so the proper analysis seems to be quite essential. His basic work related to the problem discussed is “Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus” [3], which is based on the idea that improper understanding of the logic of language and its different forms can lead to misunderstanding in communication. It was suggested that “philosophy aims at the logical clarification of thoughts” [3, p. 2]. The differentiation between ideas that make sense and do not make sense depends on the rules of language. Contexts help to solve the problem of differentiating the shades of meaning, to change the gist of concepts and ideas in response to the requirements of the time.

Language is composed of complex propositions that can be analyzed into less complex propositions until one arrives at simple or elementary propositions. Correspondingly, the world is composed of complex facts that can be analyzed into less complex facts until one arrives at simple “atomic facts”. The world is the totality of these facts. His most famous proposition was “What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence” [3, p. 9].

In opinion of L. Wittgenstein the nature of language demands elementary propositions, and his theory of meaning requires atomic facts to be pictured by the elementary propositions. According to his picture theory of meaning, the elementary propositions logically picture atomic facts, or “states of affairs” [3, p. 48].

Hence, only propositions that picture facts are considered to be cognitively meaningful and can be the propositions of science. On the other hand, theological, metaphysical, and ethical and statements are not meaningful assertions. Such statements are based on Bertrand Russell's theory of logical atomism [4] and greatly influenced the further development of logical positivism. L. Wittgenstein in his first major work, “Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus”, presented a theory of language which argued that “all philosophy is a critique of language” and that “philosophy aims at the logical clarification of thoughts”. The results of Wittgenstein's analysis resembled Russell's logical atomism. The world is ultimately composed of simple facts, and the purpose of language is to `picture' these facts. To be meaningful, statements about the world must be reducible to linguistic utterances that have a structure similar to the simple facts pictured; and only propositions that picture facts are considered factually meaningful.

Wittgenstein's second work devoted to the problem of logic and language is “Philosophical Investigations” [5], which gave rise to the so-called ordinary language philosophy describing rule following and private language. In order to widen the previously narrow view of language the researcher advised his readers not to think too much about essence of knowledge but observe any practices that involve language as “language games”. “Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language” [5, p. 47].

The new principles given in “Philosophical Investigations” are the following: words serve as tools, and can fulfill different functions. The same is true about linguistic expressions. Some propositions can be used to picture facts, others cannot. Such linguistic flexibility led Wittgenstein to the conclusion that people used to play different “language games”. So, Wittgenstein treated philosophy as linguistic analysis with its focus on language and “language games”.

According to L. Wittgenstein the representatives of different professions, cultural and social groups are involved in different language games. The meaning of a proposition is to be understood in terms of its context, i.e. in terms of the rules of such a game of which that proposition is a part. The main way of solving these philosophical and linguistic tasks is the therapeutic process of examining and describing language in use.

In his opinion, every day and theoretical language is the plurality of situational contexts (games). Words and expressions do not have one and the same meaning in different contexts. The meaning of the word is one of the ways its use in a particular life context (game). According to L. Wittgenstein, there is no single meaning of these words, and in order to avoid “metaphysical confusion” it is necessary to reduce the words to ordinary language to identify the plurality of their meanings by reducing it to elementary description of facts.

L. Wittgenstein aims at showing up nonsense of most philosophical ideas. He describes them as attempts to answer questions that are not questions at all, or to solve problems that are not problems in fact. The task of philosophers is to show the logic of our language clearly. This will not lead to the solution of problems but instead will reveal the nonsense character of the things that are taken to be important issues. The outcome is not increased wisdom but an absence of confusion. This is not a rejection of philosophy or logic. L. Wittgenstein paid much attention to philosophical issues requiring solution, but he thought they should be dissolved by means of analysis rather than by theories quantity increase.

In “Culture and Value” L. Wittgenstein writes, “Rules of life are dressed up in pictures. And these pictures can only serve to describe what we are to do, not justify it. Because they could provide a justification only if they held good in other respects as well. I can say, “Thank these bees for their honey as though they were kind people who have prepared it for you”; that is intelligible and describes how I should like you to conduct yourself. But I cannot say, “Thank them because, look, how kind they are!”- since the next moment they may sting you” [6, p.29].

L. Wittgenstein offers four main methods to avoid philosophical confusion: describing circumstances in which a seemingly problematic expression might actually be used in everyday life, comparing our use of words with imaginary language games, imagining fictitious natural history, and explaining psychologically the temptation to use a certain expression inappropriately [7, p. 166].

Other representatives of logical positivism are A.J. Ayer, B. Russell, G. Ryle, G.E. Moore, J.L., Austin Peter, F. Strawson, etc.

А.J. Ayer influenced the development of contemporary analytic philosophy. His most important work, “Language, Truth, and Logic” [8] was an influential expression of contemporary logical positivism. “The principle of verification is supposed to furnish a criterion by which it can be determined whether or not a sentence is literally meaningful. A simple way to formulate it would be to say that a sentence had literal meaning if and only if the proposition it expressed was either analytic or empirically verifiable” [8, p. 106].

According to his principle of verification, a statement is considered empirical only if some sensory observation is relevant to determining its truth or falseness. Sentences that are neither logical nor empirical, including traditional religious, metaphysical, and ethical sentences are judged nonsensical [9].The drawback of this principle lied in the fact that the positivists reduced the importance of the statement to the procedure of its verification. In fact, it turned out that unverified statements cannot be unambiguously considered devoid of meaning, meaningless. linguistic expression logical word context

Scientific philosophy can only be a linguistic analysis, which turns into something like linguistic therapy, in the means of solving nodes that have arisen as a result of non-strict use of words. The function of such a philosophy lies in the conditional analysis of the disadvantages of previous philosophers.

The present-day researchers (P.V Kretov and others) also underline that linguistic problems traditional for analytic philosophy is complicated by including the review of language metaphysical constants and by diversification of use of interdisciplinary paradigms [10, p. 8].

Within the framework of linguistic analysis analytic and linguistic philosophers agreed that the proper activity of philosophy was to clarify language so as to resolve philosophical problems which were immersed in linguistic confusion. A considerable diversity of views existed among analytic and linguistic philosophers regarding the nature of linguistic analysis. Some were concerned with clarifying the meaning of specific words or phrases as an essential step in making philosophical statements clear and unambiguous. Others were concerned with determining the general conditions that must be met for any linguistic utterance to be meaningful; their intent was to establish criteria that would distinguish between meaningful and nonsensical sentences. Some focused on the analysis of ordinary, or natural, language. Still others were interested in creating formal, symbolic languages which were mathematical in nature.

According to representatives of logical positivism the purpose of the philosophy was considered to be “logical clarification of thoughts”, which used the logical procedures to identify expressions and their verification. They tried to build an ideal model of knowledge in general as an example of scientific knowledge.

G.E. Moore claimed that philosophy makes primary analysis of all components of meaningful information and communication. Philosophical tasks involve the clarification of puzzling propositions by indicating less complicated propositions to which the originals are held to be logically equivalent [1, p. 2]. Only when this task is completed can the truth or falsity of problematic philosophical assertions be adequately determined after careful analysis and exemplifications of philosophical and linguistic problems.

А. Russell was concerned with developing an ideal logical language that would accurately reflect the nature of the world. Russell's logical atomism was a metaphysical view based on the logical analysis of language, and the insistence that meaningful propositions must correspond to facts 5]. According to B. Russell, complex propositions can be resolved into their simplest components, which he called atomic propositions. These propositions refer to “atomic facts” and are the ultimate constituents of the universe [2]. His interest in the structure of language also led him to distinguish between the grammatical form of a proposition and its logical form.

G. Ryle played a significant role in the development of contemporary analytic and linguistic philosophy. According to G. Ryle, the task of philosophy is to restate “systematically misleading expressions” into forms that are logically more accurate. He was particularly concerned with statements which misleadingly suggest the existence of nonexistent objects [1]. In “The Concept of Mind” [11], he attacked the so-called “mentalist language” which suggests that the mind is an entity in the same way as the body. The `natural' phenomena that philosophers are interested in studying are, according to G. Ryle, better constructed as many layered, complex practices in which the concepts of agency, rationality, understanding, meaning, and the like are wielded [12].

J.L. Austin was another prominent figure in analytic and linguistic philosophy. He also viewed the fundamental philosophical task to be that of analyzing and clarifying ordinary language; and he came to believe that all language is “performativity” and made up of “speech acts”. According to J. L. Austin's speech-act theory, many utterances do not merely describe reality; they also have an effect on reality, insofar as they too are the performance of some act. His well-known works are “Sense and Sensibly” [13] and “How to Do Things with Words” [14]. “We see that in order to explain what can go wrong with statements we cannot just concentrate on the proposition involved (whatever that is) as has been done traditionally. We must consider the total situation in which the utterance is issued-the total speech-act if we are to see the parallel between statements and performativity utterances, and how each can go wrong. Perhaps indeed there is no great distinction between statements and performativity utterances” [14, p. 52].

P.F. Strawson is associated with the movement known as `ordinary language' philosophy. P.F. Strawson's first book, “Introduction to Logical Theory” [15], contains his analysis of the relationship between formal logic and the logical features of ordinary language. According to Strawson, the complexity of ordinary language is inadequately represented by formal logic, and that in analyzing ordinary language a variety of tools must be used [2, p. 621]. In the work “Individuals” [16], PF. Strawson engaged in what he called descriptive metaphysics, an effort to describe how people think about the world.

The commitment to language analysis as a way of pursuing philosophy continues as a significant dimension in contemporary philosophy. A division also continues to exist between those who prefer to work with the precision and rigor of symbolic logical systems, and those who prefer to analyze ordinary language. Although few contemporary philosophers maintain that all philosophical problems are linguistic, the view continues to be widely held that attention to the logical structure of language and to how language is used in everyday discourse can often aim at resolving philosophical problems.

Originality

The authors systematized and outlined a considerable diversity of views existing within logical positivism and linguistic analysis regarding the nature of language and logic of thinking and communication. They concerned clarification of the meaning of specific linguistic expressions, phrases and words as an essential step in making philosophical assertions clear and unambiguous; determining the general conditions that must be met for any linguistic utterance to be meaningful; establishing criteria that would distinguish between meaningful and nonsensical sentences. The purpose of linguistic analysis is to describe and systematize elementary (atomic) facts. To be meaningful, statements must be reducible to linguistic utterances that have a structure similar to the simple facts pictured; and only propositions based on facts are considered factually meaningful.

Conclusions

The undertaken analysis of the basic views of main representatives of logical positivism and linguistic analysis allows making the conclusion concerning inseparable connection between content of knowledge and forms of its language manifestation, but this correlation can take different forms and the task of the systematic philosophical and linguistic analysis is to define the most relevant of them. The perspective of the further research lies in the possibility of applying philosophical and linguistic analysis in the sphere of intercultural and interpersonal communication.

References

1. Kosciejew R.J. Analytic and Linguistic Trends

2. Kosciejew R.J. The Corpses of Times Generations: Volume Two. Bloomington: Author House, 2014. 588 p.

3. Wittgenstein L. Culture and Value / Translated by Peter Winch. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984 181 p.

4. Russell B. The Philosophy of Logical Atomism. London and New York: Routledge Classics, 2010. 162 p.

5. Wittgenstein L. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Logisch philosophische Abhandlung. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 2018.

6. Wittgenstein L. Philosophical Investigations / Translated by G.E.M. Anscombe. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986.

7. Richter D. Historical Dictionary of Wittgenstein's Philosophy. Bloomberg: Scarecrow Press, 2004. 272 p. Retrieved from https:// books.google.com.ua.

8. Ayer A.J. Language, Truth, and Logic Courier Corporation

9. Kosciejew R.J. The Pursuing Presence of Facts. Bloomington: Author House, 2014. 734 p.

10. Кретов П.В. Філософема символу та концепт сенсу: філософсько-антропологічний аспект. Anthropological Measurements of Philosophical Research. 2015. №8. C. 7-18.

11. Ryle G. The Concept of Mind. London and New York: Routledge, 2009. 314 p.

12. Tanney J. Rethinking Ryle: A Critical Discussion of The Concept of Mind // G. Ryle. The Concept of Mind London and New York: Routledge, 2009. 314 p.

13. Austin J.L. Sense and Sensibilia.

14. Austin J.L. How to Do Things with Words.

15. Strawson P.F. Introduction to Logical Theory. London and New York: Routledge, 2011. 266c. Retrieved from https://books.google.com.ua.

16. Strawson PF. Individuals. Oxford: Taylor & Francis, 2002. 260 p

Размещено на allbest.ru