What
Is Philosophy And Language Philosophy?
For
the first meeting, we learned about what philosophy is and what philosophy of
language is? In this part we saw that philosophy come from Greece and divided
into two parts Philia means love, and Sophia means science, wise and smart. So
philosophy is love to the science or love to the wise. Whereas language
philosophy is study which learning the truth of language. Language philosophy
try to understand the concept which delivered by the language and also looking
for supporting system that more effective. This is the job of the philosopher
where they have to find the theory of language to avoid mistake in meaning and
the using of language concept so between language and philosophy have close
relation.
And
the next we learned about the period of philosophy can be divided into some
parts:
a.
Ancient Greek
b.
Mediaeval philosophy
c.
Renaissance philosophy
d.
Modern philosophy
e.
Contemporary philosophy
f.
Eastern philosophy
And
the theory of philosophy:
a.
Epistemology, study about what and how.
What can be seen physically, and developed by Immanuel kant.
b.
Ontology, study about learning how to
learn, how the human know something exist
c.
Axiology, study about the value in
science.
Philosophy of language
concerned with four central problems:
a.
Nature of meaning
How
to perceive the word, to inquiry and explain the synonym, the origins of
meaning and explain how any meaning can ever be known. For example: good man
(gentle, kind, wise, friendly), power (strong, force, brave)
b.
Language use
Understand
what the speaker and listener do the language by the recognizing the word, and
how it use socially
c.
Language cognition
To
know how language relates to the mind both of the speaker or listener
interpreted.
d.
The relationship of language and reality
Truth
need to be proved, how the speaker encode the messages, how the utterance of
the speaker decode, how language is used with culture, truth come from many
aspect.
And the next was discussion from
the first group, discuss about meaning in philosophy.
Chapter
III: Meaning in Philosophy
1. Verification
Principle verification consists of:
·
Indicative sentences must be verifiable
in order to have meaning
·
Analytic sentence has general truth so
it doesn’t need to be verified
Before
assessment we need to understand that:
·
Analytic sentence has general truth so
it doesn’t need to be verified
·
For language to be meaningful, it must
in some way relate to the observable
world
·
Characteristic of society
And
the assessment:
·
Verifiable in practice (in saying that a
meaningful sentence must be verifiable, it was not meant that it should be
verifiable in practice.
·
Verification to proof (by verification,
we cannot mean strict, conclusive verification amounting to proof.
2. Emotivism
Emotivism is a
meta-ethical view that claims that ethical sentences do not express
propositions but emotional attitudes. It refers to emotive meaning that is a
philosophically influential view about meaning, especially in the fields of
ethics and aesthetics.An argument for emotive meaning that Logical positivists
(historically, emotivism was an integral part of logical positivism. The
positivists insisted that a sentence had a meaning only if it was analytic or
verifiable.A second argument for emotive meaning, one that is not confined to
any particular philosophical outlook.
3. Paradigm
and polarity
·
Paradigms:
The argument from paradigm cases, It
explains the words or sentences by giving example and example can be
applicable.some philosophers called for "paradigm cases" to establish
the meaning of a word.
·
Polarity
The Argument from Polar Opposites, Sceptics
have often claimed that empirical truths can only be probable but never
certain. This is to overlook that the word ‘probable” is in polar opposition to
the word “certain”. Professor Malcolm said that some beliefs must be certain if
others are probable
Chapter
IV: Reference and Predication
1. REFERENCE
Does
the reference take place?
Some
of the words can be used to refer to things around us, and that other can be
used to describe what there is around us.
First,
a note of terminology, we should speak of referring expressions, among this are
‘john Smith’, ‘London’, ‘the present Queen of England’, ‘the girl I like’, ‘his
mother’ and ‘she’. It is best to think of referring expressions such the
examples above, and by way of contrast to other, non-expression, such as ‘if’,
‘happy’ or ‘a Queen’. These expression either make no possible to pretence at
referring, or do not serve to pick out just one person or thing. Anything
supposedly refers to is called by referring expression, a ‘particular’.In this
section we will be concerned with expressions of the form ‘the so-and-so’, let
call the ‘ descriptive referring expression’. It would seem plain that there
are any number of genuine descriptive referring expressions serving to pick out
particulars. But it needs to be said, straight away, that some expressions
which have the form of referring expressions are not ones o this sort at all.
For example ‘the whale is a mammal’, if we say that the whale is a mammal, we
probably not talking about a particular whale in the sea. It is actually called
by stylistic variant.
So
it would be going too far to suppose that expressions of the form ‘the
so-and-so’ always serve as referring expressions. If we treated the vast
majority of expressions of this type, we find ourselves entangled in
intolerable paradoxes.
1.
“the first man born in a light bulb does not exist” : the first man born in a
light bulb is referring expression, it follows either that I am contradicting
myself, or that I am talking gibberish, when I say of him that he does not
exist.
2.
According to Russell: Anything we say is true, false, or meaningless. If ‘the
present king of France’ is a referring expression, it must be either true or
false of what is referred to that it has hair, or it must be meaningless to say
it has hair. We have already seen that it is neither true nor false. Now surely
it is not meaningless, in any sense of meaningless we have encountered. So,
then ‘the present king of France’ cannot be a referring expression at all.
3.
Russell’s point: if both ‘(the A)’ and ‘(the B)’ refer to the same particular
it cannot make any difference to the truth value of what we say which of the
expressions we employ.
According
to Leibniz law, something can be no difference to the truth of what.
2.
NATURE OF LANGUAGE
•
Successful for Reference = Pick out
Particular
•
Question
-
What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for a successful act of
reference?
-
How does a series of words or even single word allow us to pick out only one
particular from innumerable particulars in there are in the universe?
•
We can reach appropriate answer by considering some informative defect Russell
analysis of referring expression. The first defect Russell ‘s
analysis we say which of two referring expressions having the same
reference we employ
1. Have
you stop beating your wife lately?
To
answer the question is that we need presuppose in that case, namely there is
wife to be beaten
•
Second defect in Russell’s analysis.
1. The
king of France is bald , There might be any number of kings of France. The
sentence might be used to refer to different people
•
Referring expression can be used to refer to more than particular on the
different occasion
•
Context permits such an expression to refer uniquely on an occasion. Context is
often getting hearer to recognize what particular is being refer to by a
speaker
Context
is to be given generous interpretation here, and is meant to include at least
the following
a.
The physical surrounding
b.
Previous part of conversation
c.
The believes or thought of the hearer
•
Referring expression is either an identifying expression oran expression which
the speaker is able to replace by identifying expression.
The
king is bald , We can only success in referring to particular king if we are able
to replace the king who was over seven feet tall
•
Speaker’s Right intention is a necessary condition of successful reference
The
emperor wore no clothes
•
Conclusion
A
person successfully refers by using ‘The A ‘if only
a.
He correctly presuppose the existence of ‘ The A’
b.
‘The A’ is identifying expression or could be replace by identifying expression by the speaker
c.
The speaker intend to refer to that which ‘the A’, or identifying expression
which replaces it actually applies to.
•
The objection is that necessary must be added. The objection is that an cat of
reference is successful only if the hearer succeed in identifying particular
referred by a speaker.
3.
PROPER NAMES
A
proper name is a word that answers the purpose of showing what thing it is that
we are talking about. The problem of proper names is a proper name tells us
which thing is in question, without giving us any other information about it.
But how does it do this? What exactly is the nature of this information?
4. PREDICATION
Frege
found the most important thing in the philosophy of language is the distinction
of the meaning (sense) and reference. He explained this distinction based on
the issue about the identity of statement. Frege then develop this distinction
to the expression of predicate and the entire sentence. Predicate is a term
that mentioned something about the subject. He said that in addition to express
its meaning, the expression of predicate also refers to the concept of the
sentence (at least the sentence that showed the issue about whether it is right
or wrong) expressing thoughts and has references to the value of truth (which
is the state that the sentence was true or false).
A
predicate is a sentence contains a referring expression and a different sort of
expression. In 'Socrates is bald' or 'Mother loves to cook', the predicate are
'... is bald' and '... loves to cook' respectively. I shall call the
expressions coupled with predicates the 'subjects' of the sentences. Thus
'Socrates' and 'Mother' are the subjects of the sentences. Typically a subject
will be a referring expression.
Chapter
V: Language and Culture
§ Definition
of Language and Culture
Merriam-Webster's
Collegiate Dictionary in Ilic (2004), as 5a/, defines culture as 'the
integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief and behavior that depends upon
man's capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding
generations'. Lazear (1997) the definition usually includes some notion of
shared values, beliefs, expectations, customs, jargon, and rituals. Shelling in
Lazear (1997) Language is the set of common sounds and symbols by which
individuals communicate.
§ The
Sapir and The Whorf Hypothesis
Culture
says Sapir may be defined as what a society does and think. When linguist,
anthropologists, and philosophers study the relation between language and
culture they are not, however, concerned with culture in such a broad sense as
this. Certainly they are concerned with men’s ideas, conceptions, and beliefs,
but not with everything men do.We decided that words and sentences are not
labels given to some quite separate mental entities. But when Sapir and Whorf
talk to connection between language and thought, they particular thought, but
in the connection between whole areas of language, and whole areas of human
intellectual phenomena. For example, the connection between how men think,
about the nature of time, and the grammar of the language they use to talk
about the time.
It
is best to regard the Sapir/Whorf hypothesis as a challenge to a commonly
accepted conception of the language/ culture relation. It is commonly thought
that language reflect a pre-existing reality of which men are pre-linguistically
aware. Languages are then devised to describe that reality. Since this reality
is pretty much the same for all people, since environment is fairly similar,
one expects that all language will be basically similar in their modes of
describing that reality.
These
assumptions are strongly challenged by Sapir and Whorf. For them, language is
no mere passive recording instrument, which reflects are pre-existing reality
of which we are aware.Before we can establish that language causally influences
culture, o more modest point must be establish-namely, that there are
significant correlations between linguistic differences and cultural
differences.
1)
The first problem is the problem of translation. Clearly we must translate
other languages properly before we can assert that these languages differ in
significant and relevant respects from our own.
2)
A second, even more serious methodological is this. If a significant
correlation is to be established between A’s and B’s, it is necessary that the
A’s and B’s be separately identifiable.
§ Two
Test Cases
1.
Color perception; this type connection between language and culture is the one
that is most free from the conceptual/ methodological problems mentioned in the
last section.
a.
The first thing to realize is that color terminology does vary considerably
from society to society. This is not surprising.
b.
The second thing to realize is that perceptual abilities vary from society to
society.
The
question is: is there any correlation between differences in color
terminologies and differences in discriminatory abilities?
2.
Kinship terminology, it is discuss the possible connection there might be
between (1) kinship terminology, and (2) the various attitudes taken towards
kinsmen, and the various norms governing inter-kin behavior, which exist in
different societies.
§ Language
and Conceptualization
We
have seen that it is highly misleading to speak of there being a correlation
between linguistic differences and conceptual differences among societies.
Concept differences consist in linguistic differences. Concept difference
consist in (1) the fact that certain words belong to very different groups in
different societies, and (2) the fact that the explanatory analogies employed
in different societies may be different.
§ The
Correlation between Language and Culture
1.
It is peculiarly self-defeating to insist that one cannot understand the
concept of another, radically different, society.
2.
It is surely an exaggeration to say that language ’determines’ our thinking, in
the sense that a person is incapable of thinking except in the terms dictated
to him by his language.
Chapter
VI: Grammar and Mind
§ Transformational
Grammar
A grammar of language
may be regarded as a set of rules operating upon certain data for certain purposes.
First, the rules of a grammar of English must generate all and only sentences
in English. A fluent speaker of English is capable of recognizing an infinite
number of strings of words as being grammatical sentences, and an infinite
number of strings of words as being grammatical. The rules of grammar must
generate all and only those he would recognize as grammatical. Second, the rules of the grammar must enable
us to exhibit the structure of grammatical sentences.
A Phrase-Structure
grammar of English can be thought of as a sophisticated version of the sort of
grammar we did at school, where our concern was to parse sentences into various
components, and to assign these components to such categories as Noun, Verb,
Adverb, etc.
Take the sentence ‘The
boy hit the girl’. We could represent the structure of this sentence in the
form of the following PS-rules :
1) Sentence NP + VP
2) NP ART + N
3) VP V + NP
4) ART ‘the’
5) N ‘boy’, ‘girl ‘
6) V ‘hit’
7) VP v transitive + N
V intransitive
8) V V + s / in the context NP singular
+.....
There are three various types of
Transformation rules. They are :
1. Rules
which alter the order of the words.
The form
is NP1 – V – NP2 NP 2 - be+ en – V – by + NP1
Example : “The movie is seen by my
brother”
2. Rules
which delete certain words.
The form is NP1 – V – NP2; NP3 – V – NP2 NP1 + and + NP3 – V – NP2
Example : a. the boy hit the girl b. the man hit the girl
“The boy and the man hit
the girl”
3. Rules
which add certain words .
The form is NP1 – V – NP2 NP2 – be – V – by + NP1
Example : “The girl was hit by the boy”
It
is essential to realize that T-rules differ in several respects from PS-rules.
The differences between them are :
1) A PS-rule only permits us to replace
one symbol in a string at a time. Futher PS- rules do not allow us to alter the
order of the symbols, but merely to replace any symbol by one or more symbols.
2) Symbols like NP1 or V, as they appear
in T-rules, are variable; whereas, when they appear i PS-rules, they are
constants. A PS-rule simply tells us that a certain symbol can be replaced by
another symbol. But T – rules tell us that anything which is of a certain
grammatical form can be transformed into something of a different grammatical
form.
3) Finally, T-rules can, and PS-rules
cannot, make use of information concerning the history of a string’s
derivation. J.J Katz expresses this point in the following way :
Transformational rules
thus differ from phrase structure rules in that, while a phrase structure rules
can only make use of information contained in the linear context of the symbol
to be rewritten, a transformational rule can use any information in phrase
marker to which it applies.
From that explanation
above, we can conclude that transformational grammar is a grammar which
contains T-rules as well as PS-rules.
§
Languange and Innate Knowledge
James Beattie wrote “the
principle of grammar form an important and very curious, part of the philosophy
of the human mind” and Chomsky claims that ‘linguistics is subfield of
psychology. It is not surprising that a study of language should reveal things
about the nature of the mind. But how can a theory of grammar relate to
psychology and the philosophy of mind? The connection is that a grammar of
language may be regarded not simply as a description of that language, but as
model which helps explain how people actually produce and understand language.
So when linguists study the rules of the grammar, they are also studying an
aspect of the human mind.
According to Chomsky,
speakers have ‘internalized’ a system of rules. But what must the human mind be
like in order to have internalized these rules? Chomsky’s answer is that we
must attribute to the mind an innate, unlearned, comple structure in order to
account for this internalization, sound like there are innate ideas; there is
innate knowledge.
In order to see what
about the innateness, it will be following by simple model:
·
AD is some acquisition device capable of
receiving input data and of producing some output. A typical AD would be a computer which
receives and process information. We may regard the human mind as an AD.
·
The input into the human mind will be the data
received through sense-experience sounds, etc.
·
The output will be a wide range of intellectual
activities.
Chapter VII: Truth, A priori, and Synonymy
§
1. The a priori and the analytic
The terms a priori ("from the earlier")
and a posteriori ("from the later") are used in philosophy
(epistemology) to distinguish two types of knowledge, justifications or
arguments. A priori knowledge or justification is independent of experience
(for example "All bachelors are unmarried"); a posteriori knowledge
or justification is dependent on experience or empirical evidence (for example
"Some bachelors are very happy").There are many sentences whose truth
cannot be explained in the above way. Take the sentences “all bachelors are unmarried”
and “two plus two equal four”. Here are other examples of similar sorts of
truths : “whatever is, is”, “all triangles are three-sided”, “whatever is red
is coloured”, “if ‘S’ IS true, then ‘S’ is not false”, and “all bodies are
extended”. They are called a priori truths.
The definition of analytic is one terms of synonymy. It has been
suggested that an analytic truth is one which can be transformed into a logical
truth once synonyms are replaced by synonyms. For example, since “bachelor” is
synonymous with “unmarried man” then we can transform the sentence “All
bachelors are unmarried men” into “All bachelors are bachelors” when we replace
one expression by its synonym. Now the latter sentence is a truth of logic;
that is, it has the form ”All A’s are A’s”. This view of analytic truth depends
upon our being able to give an adequate
account of synonymy. This is something we should want to do anyway, since it
constitutes one of the two major problems about but the role that synonymy
plays in answering the question “what is a priori truth?” provides an added
spur to studying it.We have already noted that analytic truths are a priori,
and we are assuming that analytic truths depend upon synonymy relations. If it
could be shown, further, that all a priori truths are analytic it would then
follow that all a priori are true in virtue of synonymy relations. So what the
linguistic theory asserts is:
1. All a priori
truths are analytic
2. All analytic
truths are true in virtue of purely linguistic data (eg synonymy relations)
Contemporary empiricists, like Ayer and Carnap said there are just two
kinds of truths namely empirical ones, which area tested by observation and
analytic ones, which are tested by seeing how words are employed.
§ Synonymy
There are some analisys of synonymy used in
this explanation which is stated by some of the philosopis.
• According to Fowler’s Modern English Usage
“Synonyms, in the narrowest sense, are separate words whose meaning, both
detonation and conotation, is identical, so that one can always be subtituted
for the other without change in the effect of the sentence in which it is
done.”
• The extreme version of the theory is well
stated by Benson Mates as follows:
Two expressions are synonymous in a language L
if and only if they may be interchanged in each sentence of L without altering
the truth value of that sentence.
• Goodman stresses that two expressions are
not synonymous just because they apply to all and only the same things.
‘Centaur’and ‘unicorn’ are not even alike in meaning, yet they apply to all and
only the same-namely nothing at all.
The theory of synonymy that E. Cooper wants to
consider is concerned with the subtitution of one word for another only insofar
as this might change the truth-valve sentences-not with how it might alter the
psychological or emotive force of the sentences. The theory of synonymy that
E.Cooper wants to discuss and amend is often called the ‘interchangeability
theory’. Put loosely, the claim is that synonymy is a function of words being
interchageable in sentences without altering the truth-values of those
sentences. The extreme version of theory is well stated by Benson Mates.
For example, ‘bachelor’ and ‘unmarried man’
are synonyms if any true sentence containing ‘bachelor’ remains true when
‘unmarried man’ replaces ‘bachelor’- and similarly for false sentences. But,
there are the extreem theories that mentioned as the recalcitrant sentences:
1. ‘“Bachelor” has eight letters.’ Obviously
this becomes false if we replace ‘bachelor’ by ‘unmarried man’. So these two
putative synonyms fail to interchange here-and, of course, no two words that
are not orthograpically identical will be interchangeable in all sentences of
this sort.
2. “[di’said] (ie decide) has less phonemes
than [di’laitid’ (ie delighted).’ This would become false if we replaced
‘decide’ by the putative synonym ‘make a decision’-and again we could not
expect any two words which are phonetically distinct to be interchageable in
all such sentences.
3. ‘He’ll get over her;it’s only puppy-love’,
or ‘John,Mary, and Susan from passionate love-triangle’. The first become
absurd if we try to replace ‘puppy’ by ‘young dog’. The second becomes absurd
if we replace ‘triangle’ by ‘plane, triangle figure’. When a word forms part of
some longer compound expression, it will, in general, be hopeless to expect any
other word to be interchangeable with it Salva veritate.
4. ‘Too many cooks spoil the broth’, or ‘Life
is just a cherry-cream pie’. Try replacing ‘cooks’ by some putative synonym
like ‘culinary workers’ in the first. And try replacing ‘cherry’ by ‘pulpy
drupe from a species of prunus’ in the second. Both the proverb and the
metaphor become absurd as a result, To the extent to which, qua proverb and
metaphor, they are true, they cease to be true once ‘cooks’ and ‘cherry’ are
replaced by their putative synonyms.
5. ‘Whoever believes all the men in the men in
the room are bachelors, believes all the men in the room are bachelors.’ This
is certainly true. But suppose we replace the second occurance of ‘bachelors’
by ‘unmarried men’, and derive ‘whoever believes all the men in the room are
bachelors, believes all the men in the room are unmerried men’. This is almost
certainly false- for there is almost certainly someone who does not believe
that all bachelors are unmarried. And in general one should not begin to expect
any two words to be universally interchangeable in all so-called ‘intensinal’
sentences-ones of such forms as ‘he believes that X is Y’, or ‘She hopes that X
will be Y’, or ‘ They want X to be Y’, or ‘He wondered if X was Y’, etc.
§ Sentences and proposition
The alleged confusion is between sentences,
which are linguitic entities, and certain non-linguistic entities which
sentences are used to express. The claim is that truth and falsity belong not
to sentences, it is difficult to see how a necessary truth can depend upon
linguitics data, since what is necessarily true, a proposition, is not
something linguistics at all. To suppose that sentences are true or false is
like supposing that it is written score of a symphony that is beautiful rather
than the symphony itself. Just as the beauty of the symphony does not depend
upon the nature of the symbols used in writing the score, so the truth of a
proposition does not depend upon the nature of the symbols used in a sentences
whish expresses it.Can sentences be true or false? If we consider sentences as
grammatical entities, we may think that they can be true or false. Can a
sentence be grammatical or not? If we consider the different meanings of the
word grammatical, we will have different answers to this question.In philosophy
and logic, the term proposition refers to either
1. The "content"
or"meaning" of a meaningful declarative sentence or
2. The pattern of symbols, marks, or sounds
that make up a meaningful declarative sentence.
The meaning of a proposition includes having
the quality or property of being either true or false, and as such propositions
are claimed to be truth be arers. The existence of propositions in sense (a)
above, as well as the existence of "meanings," is disputed by some
philosophers. Where the concept of a "meaning" is admitted, its
nature is controversial. In earlier texts writers have not always made it
sufficiently clear whether they are using the term proposition in sense of the
words or the "meaning" expressed by the words. To avoid the
controversies and ontological implications, the term sentence is often now used
instead of proposition to refer to just those strings of symbols that are truth
bearers, being either true or false under an interpretation. Strawson advocated
the use of the term "statement," and some mathematicians have adopted
this usage.
§ ……is true
Based on the book ‘philosophy and
the nature of language’, david e. cooper have been using the terms of true and
false without explaining the terms. This procedure is justifiable enough, for
even if the normal person would be hard pressed to give definitions of them
david e. cooper certainly has a working grasp of them and to that extend knows what
they mean. In this section, though, I do want to give some account of these
crucial little words.
There are many questions that can be
asked about truth, which would all fall under the question, what is truth? The
question could mean what things are true?. Traditionally there have been two
favorite theories which have tried to provide the answer: coherence theory and
correspondence theory. For the first we will see:
1) Coherence theory
Some
philosopher like: plato and irsathotholees or aristoteles, both of them had
developed coherence theory based on thinking pattern.
For a
coherence theorist a sentence is true if and only if it is related in a special
way to other sentences: if it coheres with these in some manner. The coherence
theory is best regarded not as an explanation of what “true” means, but of why
it is that we accept sentences as true in many instances.
For example: all people will die, is right sentence, and
Fulan will die,
It means
second statement is right too because the second sentence relevant with first
sentence. And another example for this theory we can find it in mathematics.
2) Correspondence theory
The philosopher namely Bertrand russel had defined this theory.
For a
correspondence theorist a sentence is true if and only if it is related in a
special way to the world: if it corresponds to something in the world.
For example: Jakarta is the capital of Indonesia
Surabaya is the capital of east java.Turning to the correspondence
theory, david E.cooper shall distinguish between an old-style, and a new-style
version. The former is much plausible, but its mistakes will be instructive.
a) The old-style theory
We can
think of this theory as claiming that the relation between a true sentence and
some aspect of the world is analogous. Analogously, it has been suggested that:
• There
corresponds to each part of the sentence something in the world.
• The
components of the sentences be ordered or structured in a way corresponding to
the order or structure of the features in the world.
For the
theory to be acceptable, it is essential that we can separately identify the
component in a sentence from the component in the world. For only then could it
make sense to speak of comparing the sentence fits or matches?
For example:
• Relation between a photograph of a face and face
• The cat on the mat
For the
photo to be accurate it is necessary that, corresponding to each area on the
cellulose, there is an area on the surface of the face. In addition, the areas
on the cellulose must be ordered of the areas on the face. This second
condition required; it is not enough that bits of the photo should corresponds
to b its of face, since photo might be cut up into little pieces and stuck back
together again so that it does not resemble the subject. By analogy, we could
only say that a photo is accurate if we can identify the photo, identify the
subject and see whether they are similar in look. Now it can be shown that is
not possible separately to identify the components in a sentence from the
components in the world. What about if there is a language which one-word
sentence.” Catamat “ is used when and only when we would use the sentence ‘ the
cat is on the mat’ and that speaker if this language hold catamat to be true
when and only when we hold our sentence; they describe the same situation in
the world. For here we have two sentences differing in their components, but
describing same situation on the world. If the cat is on the mat were true in
virtue of special relation holding between each of its components and
components in the world, then catamat could not be true, since it does not have
that relation. It is tempting to reply; but catamat must really have several
components and is simply an abbreviated way of saying what we say. This reply
is based on linguistics ethnocentrism.
b) The new-style theory.
This
amended version of the correspondence theory admits all that david e cooper has
said so far. Indeed proponents of it stress that the relation between sentence
and the world is conventional and not natural like that between a photo and a
face. What is suggested is this: when a person utters a true sentence we must
be obeying certain convention which relates his words to the world. These
conventions will include at least the following;
a. Convention
whereby referring expressions are used to refer to things to the world.
b. Convention
whereby predicates can be used to express characteristic of things
Let us admit that when a person utters a sentence ‘s’ truly, the
person obeying the relevant conventions, it does not follow, however, that “s “
is true means the same as ‘s ‘ was uttered in accordance with the relevant
conventions. It does not follow that calling a sentence true is the same thing
as asserting that the sentence obeyed the conventions. It may be that the
theory under discussion informs us of the necessary and sufficient conditions
for a sentence’s being true. But does not inform us what “true ‘ means.
For example, it has
been argued that if theory were correct then, whenever we call a sentence true we
should be talking simply about the meaning of words and rules of using words.
And this, it is alleged, is an unacceptable consequence since, surely, we are
at least partly talking about the world when we say a sentence is true. It
seems to david e cooper, though that on the new-style theory we would be
talking about the world in calling a person’s sentence true. The reason is
this; a true sentence only obeys the relevant conventions if something in the
world is the case. There does seem to be a more effective reason for denying
that the new-style theory gives us the meaning of is true. There is a good
sense in which necessary truths, as discussed earlier in this chapter, are not
about the world at all. Certainly they do not need to be established via observation
of what is happening in the world. So let us try again. It is important to note
that in a good sense the expressions is true and is false are superfluous. For,
whenever one says a sentence is true, one could instead simply reassert that
sentence. It would be natural to conclude that when a person says p is true. It
means no more than when he simply. But this would be too hasty. True is not
completely superfluous. This can be seen in the following way. So this is a
further, albeit minor, objection to the new-style correspondence theory. If
asked what true means is then, we must first point out that the
information-content of calling a sentence true is precisely the same as that of
simply asserting the sentence in question. In addition we must point out that
calling true differs from merely asserting the sentence, in that the former
plays an endorsing role not formally played by the assertion itself.
Chapter
VIII: Speech Act
Speech act is to avoid
the dangerous myopia involved in concentrating upon the fact stating, true or
false, sentences of our language. Reason for insistence speech act: As we have
seen, the form of the sentence tells us little about it.to discover what the
sentence is being used to say, we must look at total act by the speaker with
the aid of the sentence andThere is the pragmatic justification that by studying the sentences as part of total speech act.
Type of Utterance by Austin:
o
Performative
utterance, Utterance which are not only
passively describing a given reality, but they are changing the (social)
reality they are describing.
o
Constative
utterance, Utterance which roughly serve to state a fact, report that something is the case or
describe what something is
Type of
speech act:
·
The
locutionary act: The act of performing words into sentences, etc. That make
sense in a language with correct grammar and pronunciation
·
The
illocutionary act Intended action by the speaker, bound to certain conventions
(the illocutionary act can only be achieved if there is a convention in society
that makes it possible)
·
The
perlocutionary act: The effect that an utterance has on the thoughts, feelings
or attitudes of the listener
And the last meeting we reviewed all of the
study by the lecturer and concluded that:
1. What is meant by “meaning”?
If and
only if it refers to certain image
·
Mentalistic
Expression
of meaningfull if and only if to certain mental image. Example: a pretty girl,
a beautiful girl.
·
Behavioristic
Expression
of meaningfull if and only if it gives second respon / action. If and only if
it creates or produce behavior respon. Example: close the door!
·
Use
theory
Expression
of meaningful if and only if it can be used for second purposes or second ways (whether
sentence can be used as second or not). Ask about direction and tell about
suggestion.
2. Meaning in philosophy
What is
semantic meaning and philosophical meaning?
a. Verification
It is
empirically verifiable and it can be identified by……
For
example: the main is in pain.
We can
identify in two ways:
·
Observing
behavior (lie down)
·
Listening
what he says (complaining)
b. Emotivism
Meaning
which is gaining from some experience as a respond from utterance.
c. Paradigm
Looking
at the possibility that can be applied in certain in any condition. Example :
kawin lari, mati muda
d. Polarity
Antonym
of certain words. Example: probable and certain, male and female.
3. Reference and predication
Example:
mother is coming, Reference mother: a person/someone, female, who has a child.
Certain
object can be limited by predication.
4. Language and culture
a. Language is a part of culture
b. Language influenced culture
5. Grammar and Mind
a. Innate (acquisition device)
Understand
the grammar or rule by directly observed. And no body recognize when it happen.
b. Connection between sign and symbol
c. Transformational grammar
How to
transform the sentence
6. Truth
How to
identify the something is true?
7. Speech act
a. Locutionary
b. Perlocutionary
c. Illocutionary
