PHILOSOPHY AND LINGUISTICS

Philosophy and Linguistics

Philosophy and Linguistics

While the philosophy of language has evolved in the direction of an own understanding of what language is and how it works, one wonders if it has not become completely identical to the language, or one of its parts. One could answer easily - but erroneously - that the language, unlike philosophy, is not involved "language", but historical-natural languages, individual objects, each with their history, certain patterns of mutation, structure.

Firstly, indeed, the idiosyncrasies of different languages are not necessarily without consequence for the philosophy of language: it is precisely insofar as it tends to draw general conclusions, it is significant that those they are contradicted by events specific language of a particular language. Secondly, there is a linguistic theory, or general, which considers the historical-natural languages as essentially empirical material of a general theory of verbal language.

Consequently, she often engaged in the analysis that had great importance for philosophy, but no real language issue: it is clear that the role of the adjective 'voluntary' (Ryle, Austin) of interest only very on linguistics, not more than the statement 'I hurt' (Wittgenstein); linguistics does not deal with specific words, but classes of expressions.

I believe that it is not necessary that the linguistic philosophy is dominated by philosophical concerns in all the forms.therefore it is not important that it engages in the anaylysis that have great importance and no language issue .

In addition, much of the linguistic philosophy during his entire first phase was dominated by distrust of natural language. We have seen that this attitude could be shared by Frege and the "first" Wittgenstein and later, the results of Tarski on the contradictory nature of theories formulated in a semantically closed language (as are all natural languages) seemed to sound the death knell for any hint of cruel treatment of natural language. In the anarchy of natural languages opposed discipline and transparency of logic languages.

For philosophers who - as are many linguistic philosophers - had at heart the liberation of philosophy and science, obscurities and confusions of natural language, and implementation based on a linguistic instrument optimal for both the philosophical analysis for scientific discourse, the theory of language was primarily a theory of artificial languages of logic, suitably enriched to increase the expressive power.

Therefore, theories of language developed by these philosophers were only rarely and indirectly challenge for linguistics, which obviously must take into account all the traits of "indiscipline" presumed natural languages. When philosophers have dealt truly natural language, and they did so with intentions descriptive, they developed theories that belong as much too linguistic philosophy that, as the theory of speech acts or Montague grammar.

I think that it is not necessary that all theories set by these philosophy were a challenge for linguistics.it does not always happen that philosophers develop theories only when they have dealt with natural language.

Moreover, the philosophy of language was also differentiated from the language for a reason, in a sense, opposite, namely its commitment on ...