Some contradictions in philosophical and linguistic approaches to basic problems of language

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Article

Some contradictions in philosophical and linguistic approaches to basic problems of language

Nikitina N.P. Candidate of Science (Theory of Education), Associate Professor, Head of the Department of Foreign Languages Donbas State Teachers' Training University

Slabouz V.V. Candidate of Science (Linguistics), Associate Professor, Foreign Languages Department Donbas State Teachers' Training University

The article deals with the problems which are investigated by linguistic philosophy and philosophy of language. The ideas presented show that linguistic philosophy studies the philosophical problems analyzing the meanings of words of natural languages and logical relations among them. In the article, it is demonstrated that philosophy of language allows identifying and evaluating the essential characteristics of language and words. The article also investigates the inconsistencies in the views of language philosophers and linguists on the main language problems. The materials investigated show that in the current directions of modern philosophy of language and linguistic philosophy there are a large number of contentious issues. The article also draws the reader's attention to the proof that philosophy of language and linguistic philosophy are two separate disciplines but disciplines that are closely related to each other. The article substantiates the differences in the approaches concerning the study of the central concept of linguistics (the word) among the representatives of philosophy of language and linguistics itself.

Both the approaches are extremely important, and need further investigation since they allow analyzing the symbolic and deictic functions of the word: a verbal sign is equally important both as an indication of an object and as a symbol that contributes to accumulating new knowledge. Linguistic phenomena can and should be viewed from different (often complementary) points of view, to the same extent, philosophical aspects can be illuminated using purely linguistic techniques and methods.

After analyzing the primary sources and works of the prominent philosophers and linguists, the authors have concluded that the most interesting and important point is finding such methods and techniques of analysis that helps to overcome the differences between philosophy, linguistics, philosophy of language, and linguistic philosophy. Two sciences - philosophy and linguistics - can meet, come to an agreement, unite, and at the same time remain themselves.

Thus, philosophy must find a substantial need for historical and linguistic research, and linguistics must use such philosophical principles that allow reaching the goals of their field.

Key words: approach, concept, meaning, linguistic philosophy, philosophy of language, notion.

ДЕЯКІ ПРОТИРІЧЧЯ У ФІЛОСОФСЬКИХ І ЛІНГВІСТИЧНИХ ПІДХОДАХ ДО ОСНОВНИХ ПРОБЛЕМ МОВИ

Нікітіна Н. П. кандидат педагогічних наук, доцент, завідувачка кафедри іноземних мов Донбаський державний педагогічний університет

Слабоуз В. В. кандидат філологічних наук, доцент кафедри іноземних мов Донбаський державний педагогічний університет

У статті розглядаються проблеми, які досліджуються лінгвістичною філософією та філософією мови. Представлені ідеї показують, що лінгвістична філософія вивчає філософські проблеми, аналізуючи значення слів природних мов та логічні відносини між ними. У статті показано, що філософія мови дозволяє виявити та оцінити основні характеристики мови та слів. Стаття також досліджує невідповідність поглядів філософів- мовознавців на основні мовні проблеми. Матеріали дослідження показують, що в сучасних напрямках сучасної філософії мови та лінгвістичної філософії існує велика кількість суперечливих питань. У статті також звертається увагу читача на доказ того, що філософія мови та лінгвістична філософія - це дві окремі дисципліни, але дисципліни, які тісно пов'язані між собою. У статті обґрунтовано відмінності в підходах щодо вивчення центрального концепту лінгвістики (слова) серед представників філософії мови та самої лінгвістики. Обидва підходи надзвичайно важливі і потребують подальших досліджень, оскільки вони дозволяють аналізувати символічну та дейктичну функції слова: словесний знак однаково важливий як вказівка на предмет, так і як символ, що сприяє накопиченню нових знань. Мовні явища можна і потрібно розглядати з різних (часто доповнюючих) точок зору, філософські аспекти можна висвітлити, використовуючи суто лінгвістичні прийоми та методи. Проаналізувавши першоджерела та праці видатних філософів та лінгвістів, автори дійшли висновку, що найцікавішим і найважливішим моментом є пошук таких методів та способів аналізу, які допомагають подолати відмінності між філософією, лінгвістикою, філософією мови та лінгвістичною філософією. Дві науки - філософія та лінгвістика - здатні зустрітися, домовитись, об'єднатись і в той же час залишатися собою. Таким чином, філософія повинна знаходити істотну потребу в історичних та лінгвістичних дослідженнях, а лінгвістика повинна використовувати такі філософські принципи, які дозволяють досягти цілей своєї галузі.

Ключові слова: підхід, концепція, значення, лінгвістична філософія, філософія мови, поняття.

The problem setting

Out of all the scientific disciplines that study natural language, philosophy is of particular importance for linguistics: it is it which influences the understanding of the subject of linguistics. Expanding the individuals' horizons, philosophy helps linguists in building paradigmatic categorical systems, generalizes grammatical rules, and laws. The categories of language are more logical and clearer through the philosophical understanding of mental space. Philosophy within the framework of linguistic philosophy helps to understand what is happening in the minds of speakers, who, for example, adapt neologisms, or, over time, deviate from pre-existing grammatical rules as a result of trends due to the known facts in the structure of a particular language. All this determined the fact that in the 20th century, philosophy of language took one of the central places not only in analytical philosophy.

In this regard, it is customary to distinguish between linguistic philosophy and philosophy of language. Linguistic philosophy solves philosophical problems by analyzing the meanings of words in natural languages and the logical relationships between them. This analysis can be used to discuss traditional philosophical issues, such as the problems of determinism, skepticism, or causation. Linguistic philosophy puts into the verbal form the ideas of being and essence that really exist in man's consciousness. It is possible, without turning to traditional philosophical problems, to study notions as separate and interesting objects of study, as a way to penetrate the world, making identifications and differences in the language that one uses to characterize and describe the world. Philosophy becomes a research method, and concrete language becomes a research material. Philosophy of language allows one to identify and evaluate the essential characteristics of language and words. It consists of “attempts to analyze the most general linguistic units and relationships, such as meaning, truth, verification, speech act or logical necessity. If “philosophy of language” is the name of the object of study, the title of the topic within philosophy, then “linguistic philosophy” is, first of all, the name of a philosophical method” [3].

It is important to note that both directions are closely related. Thus, the methods used by linguistic philosophers in their studies of language are more dependent on philosophical views on language, that is, on philosophy of language. It is also necessary to rely on the main hypotheses in the field of language: it is important to know the main sections of linguistics - lexicology, grammar, stylistics, etc.

The analysis of recent studies and publications. Both fields of study are as ancient as philosophy itself. The issues related to philosophy of language, namely, how words acquire meaning, can be found, for example, in Plato's dialogue “Phaedo”. Despite the fact that modern philosophy maintains historical continuity since antiquity, these areas have been dealt with more meaningfully only over the past two centuries. Many influential philosophers, such as J. Austin, B. Russell, G. Ryle, P. Strawson, L. Wittgenstein, and others, were also philosophers of language to one degree or another. For instance, the Oxford School of “Common Language” sought to create a positive concept of language activities. It developed original ideas, introduced a new categorical apparatus for the analysis of linguistic communication into circulation (the theory of “speech acts” by J. Austin), carried out a description of the ways of using psychological concepts (G. Ryle), identified the “conceptual schemes” of language and cognition (P. Strawson), conducted the analysis of moral statements (R. Hare). The representatives of the exact sciences have been engaged in philosophy of language: logicians, mathematicians, physicians. For example, in philosophical grammar of O. Jespersen, the relationship between grammatical and logical categories is considered, that is, the relationship between language and thinking.

The purpose and tasks of the study. The purpose of the study to consider the problems investigated by linguistic philosophy and philosophy of language. The tasks of the study are the following ones: 1) to show that linguistic philosophy studies the philosophical problems analyzing the meanings of words of natural languages and logical relations among them; 2) to demonstrate that philosophy of language allows identifying and evaluating the essential characteristics of language and words; 3) to investigate the inconsistencies in the views of language philosophers and linguists on the main language problems.

The results and discussion

The birth of philosophy of language, in all likelihood, began with the works by G. Frege, whose most serious achievement in this area was the distinction between thought, or proposition, and affirmation. In his opinion, sentences express thought as their meaning and have truth values (conditions under which they are true and conditions under which they are false) as referents. Thus, G. Frege, like other representatives of logical positivism, believed that the main function of language is to represent and convey factual information, that is, what can be true or false. This means that really only the cognitive part of language should be taken into consideration. The reality of these provisions was criticized by some linguistic philosophers in the middle of the last century. For instance, L. Wittgenstein argued that the statement of facts is only one of the numerous tasks solved by language and that the meanings of linguistic units are manifested not in some abstract relations, but their actual use: for a large number of cases, the meaning of a word is its use in language [1].

In recent years, attention has noticeably increased to the issues of perception, interpretation, and conceptualization of reality by humans. The traditional definition of language function as communicative is increasingly being replaced by the provision that linguistic ability is considered as a biological property of a living organism (human), which arose and developed in the process of the adaptive activity, and therefore the main function of language is the adaptive function. The thesis presented is at odds with the basic principles of generative (transformational) grammar, according to which the most important function of language is to provide a connection with reality.

Often no distinction is made between linguistic philosophy and philosophy of language. Philosophical studies in the field of language can relate to linguistic philosophy, philosophy of linguistic analysis, or philosophy of everyday language, which, in turn, can be one of the main directions of logical positivism, analytical philosophy, or the school of neopositivism (the trend that arose in the 40s-50s of the 20th century based on philosophy of common sense by G. Moore and the views by Wittgenstein). The main difference between logical positivism and linguistics is that the subject of research in linguistics is natural languages, while logic is interested in formal languages, the relative simplicity of which makes it possible to elucidate the structures of these languages more clearly than it is achievable for linguists who analyze extremely complex natural languages. In view of the fact that the languages studied by logicians use relations copied from natural languages, logicians are able to make a significant contribution to the general theory of language, although the methods used by the two sciences are different - logic applies the method of idealization, and linguistics empirically describes natural languages.

The representatives of analytical philosophy (in England - G. Ryle, J. Austin, J. Wisdom, and some others, in the USA - M. Black, N. Malcolm, etc.) show the imaginary nature of philosophical problems, considering them pseudo-problems arising due to the disorienting influence of language on thinking. They consider the analysis of language to be the only possible issue of philosophy. The object of attention of linguistic philosophy, in contrast to logical positivism, is not artificial languages-models, but the spoken natural language, since its representatives believe that it is impossible to exhaustively express the richness of the latter in the schemes of some ideal language. Language is a means of construction, not a reflection of the world. Critics of this trend argue that refusing to analyze the entire philosophical problematics of the relationship between language and thinking, linguistic philosophy dooms research to an empirical description of various types of using expressions in language, closes the way to explain the essence of language and comes, ultimately, to its conventionalist interpretation. At the same time, language turns into some self-sufficient force, a means of constructing, and not displaying the world.

Since the 60s of the 20th century, there has appeared a tendency for the adherents of linguistic philosophy to move away from the orthodox position of “pure analysis” and turn to the meaningful philosophical problems (P. Strawson and others). There is a convergence of problems and research approaches of linguistic philosophy and some areas of modern linguistics (primarily in the field of linguistic pragmatics). Some concepts originally put forward in linguistic philosophy receive a formal-logical interpretation (such, for example, is J. Searle's illocutionary logic, inspired by the ideas by J. Austin).

It would be advisable to dwell on the discrepancies in the views of language philosophers and linguists on the main linguistic problems. As an example, it can be taken the relation to such a central concept of linguistics as the word. The linguist and the philosopher look at the word differently: the linguist is more likely to turn to its meaning, and the philosopher - to the notion behind the word. The meaning of a word is found in its interpretation and is a translation of the word into a special language of semantic components (semes, features). The components of the meaning of a word can be very different and appear in any quantity, while the content of the notion operates with the only general - generic and most essential feature of distinction, necessary and sufficient to highlight the main thing that needs to be known about the subject at the moment of its comprehension. In our opinion, both the symbolic and deictic functions of a word are equivalent: a verbal sign is equally important both as an indication of an object and as a symbol that contributes to accumulating new knowledge.

It is important to note that notions correlate with logical operations of thinking, and meanings are given with a known margin (semantic redundancy contributes to the accuracy of thought and the rigor of its transmission in any context). The notion is more related to the mental space, the concept, and the meaning is the linguistic essence. However, the notion, like the meaning, can be expressed in verbal form, but to comprehend and formulate the notion, a larger number of factors are required to be taken into account, that is, the whole concept must be involved.

If the notion concentrates generalized knowledge about the cognized object, then the meaning can encode different sides of the object or phenomenon. The meaning is often associated with a specific content: the images behind meanings are more objective (for example, the notion of “to run fast” can be reflected in the language in the form of the following synonymous series: “to rush”, “to fly”, “to float”, “to skip”, etc.). That is why, the meaning is narrower and deeper than the notion, at the same time, the notion is poorer than the meaning. Besides, the meaning is potentially capable of changes, while the notion rarely changes and rather involves its replacement, associated, for example, with cultural or political changes in society or age characteristics that change the individual's worldview.

According to V. V. Kolesov, the philosophical level of understanding a word is logos, the lexicological level of representation is pragma, and the lexicographic level is lexis [2]. From the logical point of view, it is preferable to deal with notions, since they are most often determined from genus to kind (wife - a married woman), while when formulating the meaning, logical circles are often observed (“a rooster is a male hen”, and “a chicken is a female animal of a rooster”; the verbs “to have” and “to possess” can be interpreted through each other). Since the accumulation of generic features of the content of a notion occurs gradually and is based on the elaboration of features of the meaning, indicating the improvement of consciousness, then the idea of a notion develops relatively late. “One can say that once there was no notion of this and that, but its meaning is known based on the internal form of the word” [2, p. 34]. Hence it follows that the notion comes into the meaning, and the latter changes in accordance with the properties of the notion.

Conclusions and prospects for further research

language philosophical evaluating meaning

Thus, there are differences in the approaches concerning the study of the central concept of linguistics - the word - among the representatives of philosophy of language and linguistics itself. But both approaches are extremely important since they allow one to equally explore the symbolic and deictic functions of the word: a verbal sign is equally important both as an indication of an object and as a symbol that contributes to accumulating new knowledge. Linguistic phenomena can and should be viewed from different (often complementary) points of view, to the same extent, philosophical aspects can be illuminated using purely linguistic techniques and methods.

Literature

1. Витгенштейн Л. Логико-философский трактат. Москва: Иностранная литература, 1958. 133 с.

2. Колесов В. В. Философия русского слова. Санкт-Петербург: ЮНА, 2002. 434 с.

3. Серл Дж. Введение. Философия языка. Москва: Едиториал УРСС, 2004. 206 с.

4. Vitgenshtein L. (1958). Logiko-filosofskii traktat [Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus]. Moskva: Inostrannaia literatura. 133 s.

5. Kolesov V. V. (2002). Filosofiia russkogo slova [Philosophy of the Russian Word]. Sankt-Peterburg: IuNA. 434 s.

6. Searle J. (2004). Vvedenie. Filosofiia iazyka [Foreword. Philosophy of Language]. Moskva: Editorial URSS. 206 s.

Размещено на Allbest.ru