Anda di halaman 1dari 26
A151 USPP1014 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY PHILOSOPHY OF LANGUAGE PREPARED FOR: DR. MUSA YUSUF OWOYEMI PREPARED BY:
A151 USPP1014
HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY
PHILOSOPHY OF LANGUAGE
PREPARED FOR: DR. MUSA YUSUF OWOYEMI
PREPARED BY:
NAME
MATRIC
NUMBER
NORAINI BINTI MOHAMED RAHIM
NUR NAZIEHAH BINTI NAHAR AZLI
240994
240977
NUR DYANA AMIERA BINTI MOHD
ISHAK
238837

TABLE OF CONTENTS

  • 1.0 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................3

  • 2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW...........................................................................................................5

    • 2.1 NATURE OF MEANING....................................................................................................5

  • 2.1.1 Theory of Meaning...................................................................................................7

  • 2.1.2 Semantic Theory......................................................................................................8

  • 2.1.3 Foundational Theory...............................................................................................10

  • 2.2 THE USE OF LANGUAGE...............................................................................................11

  • 2.2.1 Reference..............................................................................................................12

  • 2.2.2 Language as Means of Communication and as Carrier of Culture................................14

  • 2.3 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LANGUAGE AND REALITY........................................15

  • 2.3.1 Reality..................................................................................................................16

  • 2.3.2 Truth.....................................................................................................................16

  • 2.3.3 Language, Thought and Reality...............................................................................17

  • 2.3.4 How Our Language Determines our Reality..............................................................18

  • 2.4 LANGUAGE COGNITION...............................................................................................19

  • 2.4.1 Cognition..............................................................................................................19

  • 2.4.2 Language and Thought...........................................................................................19

  • 2.4.3 Language and Cognition.........................................................................................21

  • 3.0 ANALYSIS............................................................................................................................22

  • 4.0 CONCLUSION......................................................................................................................25

  • 5.0 REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................26

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The initial prodigy of the philosophy of language in the logical tradition begins with advances in logic and with tensions within traditional explanation of the mind and its contents at the end of the nineteenth century. However, its early programs ran into serious hurdles by mid-millennium century, and major changes in direction came about as a outcome. Language is the most important occurrence in the world. All day without exception all our activities are controlled by language. The human knowledge and culture is kept and spread through language. Thinking is only possible through language. In our dreams, we make use of language. Language controls every aspect of human life. In fact, it is a borderline to separate us from other beings. Language is a key to communicate. With the help of language, we can express our thoughts and feelings to others. Without language, society would be impossible to express their thoughts and feelings.

Philosophy of language, philosophical survey of the constitution of language which is the relations between language, uses of language, perception of language, and the connection between language and reality. It beyonds to some scale with the study of epistemology, logic, philosophy of mind and other fields including linguistics and psychology. Because the investigation are hypothetical rather than observation nor experience, the philosophy of language is eliminated from linguistics, though of course it must aware to the facts that linguistics and related subjugation reveal.

First and foremost, philosophers of language examine into the nature of meaning, and desires to explain what it means to define something. Topics in that channel include the nature of

similarity, the origins of meaning itself, and how any meaning can ever really be known. Another project under this heading of special interest to analytic philosophers of language is the investigation into the manner in which sentences are constituted into a meaningful whole out of the meaning of its parts. Next, they would like to understand what speakers and listeners do with language in communication, and how it is used socially. Particular interests may include the topics of language learning, language creation, and speech acts. Other than that, they would like to know how language relates to the minds of both the speaker and the interpreter. Of specific interest is the ground for successful interpretation of words into other words. Finally, they figure out how language and meaning relate to truth and the world. Philosophers tend to be less concerned with which sentences are actually true, and more with what kinds of meanings can be true or false. A truth-regulated philosopher of language might ponder whether or not a pointless sentence can be true or false; whether or not sentences can express opinions about things that don't exist; and whether or not it is a sentence that is true or false, rather than the way sentences are used.

  • 2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

  • 2.1 NATURE OF MEANING

"Meaning" can be recapitulated as the content carried by the words or signs exchanged by people when communicating through language. Doubtfully, there are two essentially different kind of linguistic meaning, conceptual meaning which refers to the meaning of words themselves, and the amenities of those definitions, which can be treated using semantic feature analysis and associative meaning which refers to the individual mental understandings of the speaker, and which may be connotative, collocative, social, affective, reflected or thematic.

The nature of language is the nature of human thought and human action. A word is either the

shadow of an act or of an idea. Verbal sounds have no meaning in themselves

Plato has made

.. clear to us how easy it is to deceive ourselves with words, to work under an impression that just because we can utter a sound we also necessarily know what we are talking about. Words may be empty glass and pour out no more than hollow sounds. It is easy to define some words and quite hard to define others. The reason is that the definition of a word is the experience it past records. Hence the definiteness of a definition of a word is in proportion to the vividness of the experience, its meaning. We always define chair because of our frequent experience with the object of which the sound is a symbol. We define it in terms of our experience, as an object to sit in. But a definition of terms like truth, or virtue, or honesty, or beauty is a most severe trial because of the haziness or complete lack of experiences of this nature. What, then, is the source of the meaning of words? What is the relationship between words, things, and actions?

Meaning begins as behavior and terminate as language. There is meaning as behavior and meaning as language. And meaning as language is the reason of meaning as behavior. There can be behavior without language, but there could be no meaning as language without behavior. The source of the meaning of words is thus behavior. The relationship between behavior and things gives increment to the meaning of words. Meaning is instinctive neither in things nor in words, but both things and words obtain their meaning from behavior. What is the meaning of a thing or a situation? The kid sees the bee and he runs away. It sees a bar of chocolate and he runs towards it. I see one person approaching me and I smile. I see another coming towards me and I frown. The meaning of the bee to the kid is to run away. The meaning of the bar of chocolate is to run towards it. The meaning of one person to me is to smile, of another person to frown. If the bee or chocolate aroused no action in the kid they would have no meaning, as bee or chocolate. If the two persons awaken no action in me they would have no meaning as persons. From these simple illustrations we conclude that whenever a thing or situation becomes a cue, a signal, for a definite reaction, that thing or situation becomes meaningful, and the meaning of the thing or situation is the behavior it provokes. The thing or situation may have different meanings on different incident , but on each incident its meaning is the behavior. The behavior may be outer or inner, physical or mental, an act or a thought. But things or situations that cause neither inner nor outer behavior possess no meaning.

Now what about the relationship between sounds and things?

The cat hears the bark of the dog and it runs away from the source of the sound. It hears someone utter the sound "milk" and it runs to the place where it usually finds the saucer. I hear the voice of one person and I smile. I hear that of another and I frown. What is the meaning of the sounds? Again, the behavior provoked by them. The sounds have become substitutes for the thing or situation, and the meaning of the sounds is that of the thing or situation. A word is thus a sound that has become a substitute for a thing or a situation. Language is a substitute stimulus for behavior, its meaning being the behavior produced by the original stimulus. When the world does not stimulate mental or muscular activity, when it does not recall past experience of some sort, it has no meaning. A foreign language with which we are unfamiliar has no meaning because the sounds do not serve as clues for past events.

Language is therefore, in its basic nature, a utility, an instrument, a tool of the business of living. It is one with things and situations of the everyday world of life. We could get along without it, but it is a great convenience to which we have become so accustomed that we deem it a necessity. The business of mere existence could readily go on, as it does among animals, without language. We would even save ourselves a great deal of trouble in not deceiving ourselves and others by the use of empty sounds.

2.1.1 Theory of Meaning

The first sort of theory is a semantic theory which assigns semantic contents to expressions of a language. A way to semantics may be divided based on whether they assign propositions as the meanings of sentences and then what view they take of the nature of these propositions. It is a requirement of the meanings of the words and sentences of some symbol system. Semantic theories is answering the question, ‘What is the meaning of this or that expression?’ .The second sort of theory a foundational theory of meaning which states the facts in virtue of which

expressions have the semantic contents that they have. The way to the foundational theory of meaning may be detached into theories which do and do not, explain the meanings of expressions of a language used in terms of the contents of the mental states of members of that group. To be exact, the shape of a correct semantic theory may give force on the correct foundational theory of meaning or vice versa. Appearently it does not change the fact that semantic theories and foundational theories are actually different sorts of theories, made to answer different type of questions.

2.1.1 Semantic Theory

Semantics is the study of the definition of linguistic verbalization.The language can be a natural language, such as English or an artificial language, like a computer programming language. Meaning in natural languages is chiefly studied by linguists. In addition, semantics is one of the main department of contemporary linguistics. Theoretical computer scientists and logicians think about artificial languages. These divisions are transverse in some areas of computer science. While in machine translation, computer scientists may want to relate natural language texts to abstract image of their meanings and to do this, they have to design artificial languages for representing meanings.

There are quite strong relation to philosophy. Nowadays, much work in semantics was done by philosophers, and the important work is still done by philosophers. Anyone who speaks a language has a truly amazing capacity to reason about the meanings of texts. The meaning of a sentence is not just an unordered heap of the meanings of its words. If that were true, then ‘She plays doll” and ‘Doll plays her’ would mean the same thing. So we need to think about

collocation of meanings. This idea that meaningful units combine systematically to form wider meaningful units, and understanding sentences is a way of working out these combinations, has probably been the most important theme in contemporary semantics. Linguists who study semantics look for general rules that bring out the relationship between form, which is the observed arrangement of words in sentences and meaning. This is interesting and challenging, because these relationships are so complex.

You would expect an expert in semantics to know a lot about what meanings are. But linguists haven't directly answered this question very successfully. This may seem like bad news for semantics, but it is actually not that uncommon for the basic concepts of a successful science to remain problematic: a physicist will probably have trouble telling you what time is. The nature of meaning, and the nature of time are foundational questions that are debated by philosophers. We can simplify the problem a little by saying that, whatever meanings are, we are interested in literal meaning. Often, much more than the meaning of a sentence is conveyed when someone uses it. Suppose that Carol says ‘I have to study’ in answer to ‘Can you go to the movies tonight?’. She means that she has to study that night, and that this is a reason why she can't go to the movies. But the sentence she used literally means only that she has to study. Nonliteral meanings are studied in pragmatics, an area of linguistics that deals with discourse and contextual effects.

Semantics probably won't help you find out the meaning of a word you don't understand, though it does have a lot to say about the patterns of meaningfulness that you find in words. It certainly can't help you understand the meaning of one of Shakespeare's sonnets, since poetic meaning is so different from literal meaning. But as we learn more about semantics, we are finding out a lot about how the world's languages match forms to meanings. And in doing that, we are learning a

lot about ourselves and how we think, as well as acquiring knowledge that is useful in many different fields and applications.

2.1.2 Foundational Theory

Foundational theories of meaning, which are attempts to specify the facts in virtue of which expressions of natural languages come to have the semantic properties that they have. The question which foundational theories of meaning try to answer is a common sort of question in philosophy. In the philosophy of action we ask what the facts are in virtue of which a given piece of behavior is an intentional action; in questions about personal identity we ask what the facts are in virtue of which a and b are the same person, in ethics we ask what the facts are in virtue of which a given action is morally right or wrong. But, even if they are common enough, it is not obvious what the restrictions are on answers to these kind of questions, or when we should expect questions of this kind to have interesting answers.

Accordingly, one type of approach to foundational theories of meaning is easily to deny that there is any true foundational theory of meaning. One might be quite willing to declare one of the semantic theories outlined above while also holding that facts about the meanings of expressions are related, in the sense that there is no exact story to be told about the facts in virtue of which expressions have the meanings that they have.

1

2.2 THE USE OF LANGUAGE

Language is the ability to acquire and use complex systems of

communication, particularly the

human ability to do so, and a language

is any specific example of such a system. The scientific

study of language is called linguistics.

Language is an amazing and entrancing human capacity,

and human language are strikingly effective and complex frameworks. The exploration of this capacity and of these frameworks is linguistics. Like other sciences, and maybe to a surprising degree, language goes up against difficult foundational, methodological and theoretical issues.

At the point when examining a human language, linguists look for precise clarifications of its linguistic structure which is the syntax (the organization of the language's appropriately built expressions, for example, expressions and sentences), its semantics (the ways expressions display and add to significance) and its pragmatics (the acts of correspondence in which the expressions discover use).

The methodological part of language in philosophy is most effortlessly clarified by examples. A philosopher is keen on the nature of value, therefore they need to realize what goodness is. Language enters when they watch that decency is what is credited when we say of a thing that it 'is good'. So the philosopher concentrates on specific explanations, and seeks for a comprehension of what such articulations mean and all in all of how they function. They explore whether such proclamations are ever objectively genuine or false, whether their truth or inclination fluctuates from speaker to speaker, whether a satisfying clarification of them involves that "good" refers to or expresses a genuine characteristic (of actions, states of affairs, persons, and so on), and how their meaning relates to the distinctive sorts of endorsement that such statements usually pass on.

1

The example displayed in the illustration of value is evident all through philosophy. We are occupied with knowledge, fiction, need, causation, or sensation, so we end up contemplating as statements about what interests us: proclamations ascribing information, depicting fictions, asserting necessities, assigning causes and reporting sensations. Instruments from the philosophy of language make accessible a significant number of perspectives about what these statements mean and in general about how they do their expressive and communicative work and these perspectives advise and support philosophical positions on the genuine objects of philosophical interest. There have been emotional and undoubtedly misrepresented cases about such methods. For instance, that philosophy ought to just comprise in this sort of study of language. In any case, it is if anything an understatement to say that semantic modernity has extended philosophical comprehension and has advanced debate in nearly all areas of philosophy.

2.2.1 Reference

How language interacts with the world, what philosophers call reference, has intrigued numerous philosophers of language throughout the years.

John Stuart Mill had confidence in a kind of direct reference hypothesis, whereby the meaning of an expression lies in what it focuses out in the world. He recognized two segments to consider for most terms of a language, signification (the literal meaning of a word or term) and intention (the subjective social and/or emotional coloration attached to a word or term). As indicated by Mill, appropriate names, (for example, of individuals of spots) have only a signification and no essence, and that a sentence which refers to a mythical creature, for instance, has no meaning (and is neither genuine nor false) on the grounds that it has no referent in this present reality.

1

Gottlob Frege was a supporter of a mediated reference hypothesis, which sets that words refers to something in the outer world, yet demands that there is a whole other world to the significance of a name than just the item to which it refers. Frege isolated the semantic substance of each expression (including sentences) into two segments, Sinn (generally interpreted as "sense") and Bedeutung ("signifying", "meaning" or "reference"). The sense of a sentence is the abstract, universal and objective thought that it expresses, but also the mode of presentation of the object that it refers to. The reference is the objects or objects in this present reality that words choose, and speaks to a truth-esteem (the True or the False). Senses determine reference, and names that refer to the same object can have different senses.

Bertrand Russell, as Frege, was additionally a Descriptivist of sorts, in that he held that the meanings (or semantic substance) of names are indistinguishable to the descriptions associated with them by speakers and a logically proper depiction can be substituted for the name. In any case, he held that the main straightforwardly referential expressions are what he called "logically proper names, for example, "I", "now", "here", and different indexicals (terms which symbolically indicate or show some situation). He portrayed proper names of individuals or spots as abbreviated definite descriptions (the name remaining in for a more detailed description of who or what the individual or place truly is), and thought of them as not to be important all alone and not straightforwardly referential.

Saul Kripke (1940) has contended against Descriptivism in light of the fact that names are inflexible designators and refer to the same individual in every possible world in which that individual exists.

1

2.2.2 Language as Means of Communication and as Carrier of Culture

The social nature of language is obvious at once. Language arises in social situations. Indeed, even the inconsiderate enthusiastic calls of the lower animals are coordinated to individuals from their own species. On account of the individual he learns his language in reference to others around him. The refinement of language follows, or rather goes with, the refinement of thoughts and thinking. As our thoughts and ideas turn out to be more exact and correct, our language does likewise. Consequently in more complex culture group, individuals are able to communicate the most abstract conceptions of science, art and philosophy. By simple enthusiastic vocalization the primates are capable, in a rough way, to assign general circumstances to others. With human beings language permits the review of past encounters as pictures and thoughts, it is able to refer to the future condition. It licenses reference to time and space, to possible or restrictive circumstances, and to a world of connections in subtle element, of which the lower animal is incapable (Young, 1930).

Insofar as the language of the race held on just through the spoken word the transmission of society from generation to generation was somewhat constrained. With the development and evolution of written language further advances in complexity of culture were conceivable. Clodd remarks in his Story of the Alphabet that "the invention of writing alone made possible the passage from barbarism to civilization, and secured the continuous progress of the human race." Written language apparently started with the scoring of sticks, for example, are utilized by the Australian locals for messages, or with the hitching of rope to number articles, as with the old Peruvians.

1

Likewise early pictographs of articles came to have symbolic meaning. Along these lines, on account of Egypt, the unrefined sketches on walls or paper offered approach to shortened picture composing, and thus to hieroglyphics. Finally the Phoenicians, or some other Near Eastern group, invented true phonetic writing, in which man could relate straightforwardly his talked with his written language. With written language at hand, the social collections of the past could, be made more secure for what's to come. These written symbols, thus, influenced the rate of progress in civilization, on the grounds that written records themselves turned into a piece of the social environment to which the new individual was uncovered over the span of his advancement. Along these lines, with us, reading, spelling, writing, and number-crunching, which is a related type of written language, turn into the key school subjects. Through these "tool subjects" the storage facilities of the world's literature, science, and philosophy are made accessible.

So much of modern day culture is bound up in books that it is difficult to envision it:

continuation if the ability to write and to read were all of a sudden to vanish. Language turns into a most critical device of personal-social communication, from one perspective, and a most vital bearer of culture, on the other.

2.3 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LANGUAGE AND REALITY

In any philosophical system, the greatest challenge facing by them is the construction of a language that can dependably analyze reality according to logical criteria. Philosophy must speak in a language that we can understand, if it want to teach us any truth or it will remain a meaningless string of symbols. We are being exposes to the danger of conflating logical and grammatically relationships as the practical express logical arguments in human language. Since many of our words were coined from casual intuition and without concern for philosophical rigor

1

and logical, individual terms may distort our analysis. We must bring language into conformity with clearly intelligible logical principles, if we are to use language for logical argument because we cannot accept it as is.

  • 2.3.1 Reality

Based on Cambridge Dictionaries, reality is the state of things as they are, rather than as they are imagined to be. Before we go ahead to the relationship of language and reality, it is important to know about the idea of reality as well as truth. Reality is a useful word in a materialist context while in its wide definition, reality includes everything that has exist, existed, or will exist. Frege, Aristotle Plato, Russell, and Wittgenstein are the philosophers, mathematicians, also ancient and modern thinkers that have made a distinction between thought equivalent to reality, coherent abstractions which means thoughts of things that are imaginable but not real , and that which cannot even be rationally thought. In contrast existence is often restricted to that which has a direct basis in it in the way that thoughts do in the brain or has physical existence. Imaginary, delusional, which is only in the mind, dreams, what is false, what is fictional, or what is abstract is often contrasted with reality. The role both in everyday life and in academic research is often plays by abstract. For example, virtue, causality, life and distributive justice are difficult to define as they are the abstract concept, but they are only rarely equated with pure delusions. Fictions are considered not real.

  • 2.3.2 Truth

Falsity refers to what is not, while the truth refers to what is real. Being in accord with fact or reality, or fidelity to an original or to a standard or ideal is often used to mean truth. In modern contexts which to an idea of "truth to self," truth is also often being used. Opposite of truth is

1

falsehood, which, correspondingly, can also take on a factual or ethical meaning, and logical. Philosophy, art, and religion, debated the concept of truth in several context. Some philosophers view the concept of truth as unable to be explained in any terms that are more easily understood than the concept of truth itself and basic. Commonly, truth is viewed as the thought to an independent reality or correspondence of language, which sometimes called as correspondence theory of truth. Because of “falsity refers to what is not, while the truth refers to what is real”, so truth and reality is the same thing and the relationship between language and reality is as same as the relationship between language and truth.

2.3.3 Language, Thought and Reality

Language is primarily the spoken word, and secondarily as the written word, for Aristotle. Spoken sounds are “symbols of affections in the soul,” while written words are symbols of spoken sounds, a level of abstraction further removed from the “affections of the soul”. (Castellano, 2009). Words are symbols of our thoughts. In order to explore the relationship between logic and language, full psychological theory of meaning, did not have to be develop. However, how language expresses thought need to be clarify, this is because logic is concerned primarily with concepts (the objects of thought) and only incidentally with language, as a means to an end. In particular, we need aware into whether and when language expresses the mind’s images of reality, or if it is merely an arbitrary artifice having no necessary connection to the structure of reality. To clearly distinguish between the linguistic and the logical, a single quotation can be used to marks to signify a linguistic expression and double quotation marks to signify the logical concept behind an expression. It would be rash to divorce falsity and truth altogether from linguistic objects. Practical ability to relate truths and generate knowledge through language are being demonstrate from the facts of common experience, so our sentences

1

must correspond to logical objects in some way, and, provided the appropriate context. For example, how the speaker uses words, who is speaking, and when he is speaking. They can convey logical meaning clearly, enabling understanding on the part of the hearer. Truth and falsity can be relate trough grammatical propositions, when understood according to the sense of the speaker, even if we still hesitate to ascribe falsity and truth directly to the grammatical expression. Still, we may equivocally refer to a grammatical proposition as ‘true’ or ‘false,’ provided that we do not consider the proposition abstracted from the context in which it is spoken in a given instance. (Castellano, 2009)

2.3.4 How Our Language Determines our Reality

Based on Ralph Strauch in his book The Reality Illusion, some languages are structured around quite different basic word, such as categories and relationships. As a result, they project very different pictures of the basic nature of reality. For instance, the language of the Nootka Indians in the Pacific Northwest, has only one principle word-category which it denotes events or happening. Then, the Nootka perceive the world as a stream of transient events, rather than as the collection of less or more permanent objects which we see. Nobel Prize the winning physicist Werner Heisenberg said that things we are observing is not nature itself, but it is actually the nature exposed to our method of questioning. Language is the things that we depend on in all of our methods of interrogating nature and it is the nature of language to refer to things. We therefore think in terms of things, such as, how can we possibly think of non-things, nothings, nothing? In our very forms of thought we instinctively divide the world into matter and mind, objects and subjects, things and thinkers. The simplest statement all of these things actually, reality is the way we experience it, (which is rarely how it actually is.) Our experience of reality

1

is largely a function of our beliefs about reality, the language we use to describe reality and how reality occurs for us. (Lefkoe, 2010)

2.4 LANGUAGE COGNITION

  • 2.4.1 Cognition

The technological expression for "the process of thought" is cognition. It is brought into play in a variety of disciplines to describe things differently. What we think, how we think, and why we think is cognition, which means it has to do with our thought. We use words, when create thoughts in our head. We still had thoughts before we learned words as infants. when the mind makes a generalization, for an example the concept of house, it will extract similarities from numerous examples, then the simplification enables higher level of thinking. Some people would deny that cognitive processes are a function of the brain. A cognitive theory will not necessarily make reference to the brain or other biological process, but it may purely describe behavior in terms of information flow or function. Cognitive science and neuropsychology are recent field of studies which aim to bridge this gap by using cognitive paradigms to understand how the brain implements these information, processing functions or how pure information processing systems can simulate. (McJay, 2012)

  • 2.4.2 Language and Thought

Language cognition is how language relates to the mind of both speakers and the interpreter. Some of the major issues in the intersection of philosophy of language and philosophy of mind, it also dealt with modern psycholinguistics. There are three general perspectives on the issue of language learning. The first is the behaviorist perspective. In behaviorist perspective, it is learned

1

via conditioning, not only learned dictates of solid bulk of language. Then, the second is the hypothesis testing perspective. In this perspective, to involve the postulation and testing of hypotheses, through the use of the general faculty of intelligence, it understands the child's learning of syntactic rules and meanings. The final candidate for explanation is the innate perspective, where here it states that at least some of the syntactic settings are hardwired and innate, based on certain modules of the mind. To what extent language influences thought and vice versa is an important problem which touches both philosophy of language and philosophy of mind. Linguists Sapir and Whorf suggested that language was analytically prior to thought such as language limited the extent to which members of a "linguistic community" can think about certain subjects (a hypothesis paralleled in George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four).

Jerry Fodor and his language of thought hypothesis, is closely associated with this view. Spoken and written language derive their meaning and intentionality from an internal language encoded in the mind, according to his argument. The structure of thoughts and the structure of language seem to share a compositional, systematic character is the main argument in favor of such a view. Unless some sort of meaning is infused into signs and symbols by the contents of the mind or else it is difficult to explain how signs and symbols on paper can represent anything meaningful is another argument of him. Such levels of language can lead to an infinite regress is one of the main arguments against it. In any case, Ruth Millikan, Fred Dretske and Fodor, the philosophers of mind and language, have recently turned their attention to explaining the meanings of mental contents and states directly. Another tradition of philosophers has attempted to show that language and thought are there is no way of explaining one without the other.

2

2.4.3 Language and Cognition

Language and cognition are closely connected, conceptually and practically, however there is considerable disagreement among experts about the precise nature of this connection. The debate among linguists and psychologists is much like they question whether the ability to speak come first or the ability to think comes first. There are three main positions regarding the relationship between language and cognition. The cognition is language develops largely independent of cognition; language precedes cognition and is the primary influence on thought development and cognition influences both language and the pace of language development. There is considered to be validity to all three theories concerning the nature of the connection between cognition and language. According to a system of rules that is used to communicate knowledge and information, language is the use of grammar, sounds, and vocabulary. Only humans utilize a system of rules that incorporates grammar and vocabulary, although many non-human species have a communicative ability that might loosely be called language. “Thought” or “thinking,” is often used synonymously with the word "cognition", but its general meaning is more complex. It refers to the process or act of obtaining knowledge through not only perceiving but through judging and recognizing. Cognition also includes such thinking processes as categorizing, reasoning, decision making, remembering, and problem-solving.

3.0 ANALYSIS Social context will think about variety within a language.

2.4.3 Language and Cognition Language and cognition are closely connected, conceptually and practically, however there is

Everybody who speaks a language has

a very wide linguistic repertoire unless they have very severe learning difficulties, or are learning

the language as a foreign language.

2.4.3 Language and Cognition Language and cognition are closely connected, conceptually and practically, however there is

This means, they can use language in many different ways,

2

depending on the situation they are in. social background and social identity.

depending on the situation they are in. social background and social identity. The sort of language

The sort of language that they use also depends on their

As mentioned in a passage in the bible, Psalm 37:30 (ESV) “The mouth of the righteous utters wisdom, and his tongue speaks justice.” This passage tells us that from experience how a righteous person will speak, and explains that wisdom and justice will be spoken by someone who truly follows after God. Good communication skills can then be developed and experienced when our mouths are full of God’s wisdom.

Language is one of the most powerful emblems of social behavior. In the normal transfer of information through language, we use language to send vital social messages about who we are, where we come from, and who we associate with. It is often shocking to realize how extensively we may judge a person's background, character, and intentions based simply upon the person's language, dialect, or, in some instances, even the choice of a single word.

Having the right language can make us a good leader as it helps in developing thoughts and ideas to make better decisions. Having the right language enables one to motivate others to do the right thing. This can be proved through several methods:

a) Words Matter

In 1974, Dr. Elizabeth Loftus began directing experiments requesting that individuals review what they had found in a short video of a car crash. In the review, a few students were inquired as to whether they had seen "the" broken headlight and some were acquired as to whether that they had seen "a" broken headlight. Those that got the-review addressed that they had seen the broken headlight a few times as frequently as the individuals who got the an overview. Truth be told, there was no broken headlight.

2

On the other hand, the individuals who got the a-study were a few times more prone to choose "I don't have any idea" than the individuals who got the the-review. At the end of the day, a solitary distinction in the middle of "an" and "the" had a major effect in what individuals thought they remembered.

  • b) See-Interpret-Act

People are undeniably great at making quick interpretations of visual scenes. We then decide what to do. This gives a transformative point of preference. It works to a great degree well at an individual level and is the thing that kept the species alive. When we associate as a gathering, on the other hand, this skill restricts our effectiveness. We contend about what to manage without being interested about the distinctive understandings we may have of reality. More awful, each of us feel that we are right since we see the entire picture, disregarding the way that we really see distinctive things.

The leader's job then is to first make noticeable to the whole group what everyone thinks to be reality, what they see, and make all viewpoints just as important. Research by Garold Strasser and William Titus demonstrates that colleagues tend to share data that other individuals definitely know and are hesitant to offer data only they hold, particularly on the off chance that it may disaffirm an accepted way of thinking. Teams value data to the relative quantity of colleagues that know it and not how critical, exact, or precise the data is.

  • c) Move Up the Ladder of Control

Before, officers would "request permission to" perform operations, for example, submerge the ship. Regulations stipulated that the captain affirm these operations. Previously, the chief would then react with, "submerge the ship" and the officer would repeat, "submerge the ship, aye." We

2

changed this. Officers quit asking consent and rather expressed "I intend to… " The impact was quick and significant.

Presently, officers expressed, "Captain, I intend to submerge the ship" and I would react, "very well." That was the ideal end state. The quick and clear advantage was that with this little shift in language, only a couple words truly, the officers turned into the main thrust behind the submarine's operations rather than me, the leader. They adored it.

Moving individuals from "request permission" to "I intend to… " raised them one rung on the ladder of control, from passive followers doing what they were advised at the base to proactive engaged leaders, crafting the future, at the top.

  • d) Just Tell Me What To Do

You may see a lot of "tell me what to do" when you listen to the conversations around you. Periodically, it doesn't sound precisely like "tell me what to do" but that’s in essence what it is. For instance, reporting an issue to the supervisor without a proposed solution (or a way toward getting an answer) is by implication saying "tell me what to do."

With a little bit of awareness you can peg where individuals are on this continuum and persuade them up. As you climb, moving control and psychological ownership the subordinate, their brains will connect with, and typically involvement and enthusiasm will take after.

It's hard work. On any day the weights of your job will bias you toward working at the base of the ladder. Be that as it may, whenever one of your subordinates tries to deceive you into letting them know what to do, set aside an ideal opportunity to ask them what they think you ought to do. At that point be quite and listen. With time, these incremental changes will have a significant effect on your association's adequacy, as well as on the lives of its people.

2

4.0 CONCLUSION

Philosophy is one of the most important element one should have in order to live a good life. The meaning of philosophy itself, thinking about thinking, shows that having philosophy is compulsory for everyone and having the right language is vital in today’s world of communication. We meet people, we speak to each other, we communicate by using either technology such as phones and social medias or direct communication. When I say something, the things I said may not even happen in reality. There is always something that bind the language and reality.

In a nutshell, philosophy is not just about using the right language, but it also helps our brain to think critically and creatively. Therefore, it is important to develop our mind and brain to think philosophically. To philosophize is not easy, but once you know how to do it, it will not be that hard anymore.

2

5.0 REFERENCES

Castellano, D. J. (2009). Arcane Knowledge. Retrieved December 4, 2015, from http://www.arcaneknowledge.org/philtheo/logiclang/logiclang.html

G.Lycan, W. (2001). Philosophy of Language, A contemporary Introduction. New York:

Routledge.

Geirsson, H. (2012). Philosophy of Language and Web Information. New York: Routledge. Irving M.Copi, C. C. (2011). Introduction to Logic. Boston: Pearson.

Lefkoe, M. (2010, June 8). Lefkoe Institute. Retrieved December 3, 2015, from http://www.mortylefkoe.com/how-our-language-determines-our-reality/

Lund, N. (2003). Language and Thought. Hove, UK: Routledge.

McJay, A. (2012, June). Academia. Retrieved December 4, 2015, from

https://www.academia.edu/11212066/relationship_between_Language_and_cognition

Miller, A. (1998). Philosophy of Language. United Kingdom: University College London.

Sullivan, A. (2012). Refference and Structure in the Philosophy of Language : A defense of the Russellian orthodoxy. New York: Routledge.

Trudgill, Peter. 1995.

Sociolinguistics: An introduction to language and society. London:

Penguin Books.

2