Language In Theory

By Author: Henry Ford
Total Articles: 189
Comment this article

Language refers to human capacity to acquire and make use of systems of communication to pass ideas from one party of the communication to the other. The faculty of human language is thought to be very different and complex from languages of other species due to the fact that it is based on a set of rules regarding the use of symbols and thus forming a limited number of possible utterances from a wide variety of elements. Theories have been developed to clarify the complexity of language and explain how elements in language can be acquired and utilized to elicit meaningful system of communication. The essay will describe language as is depicted by some of the most prominent theories of language developed during the classical and the modern age (Marga 2004:322).
Plato’s philosophy of language is one of the most acknowledged classical theories on language. However, scholars in the current world curse his theory of ideas as mere mythology. However, it is worth noting that Plato’s theory of language is not only philosophically neutral but also astonishingly up to date (Buhler 2000:217). It may not be surprising ...
... to find some anticipations of language discussed today in the theory despite the fact that it is among the earliest account of investigations on the subject. The study of the Cratylus offers ideas on the naturalistic-mimetic theory of Plato as contrasted to the conventionalist understanding of language. In Plato’s philosophy, problems in aesthetics, epistemology and metaphysics have their basis on the philosopher’s reaction to language. He fails to take a systematic position towards language by mingling the conventional with the natural and the human with the divine (Hughes 2004:36).
Regarding the theory of forms, Crytylus cautiously investigates the origin, nature and use of words in language. According to Plato, assignment of names to objects is arbitrary and does not follow any sequence. He argued that any object may be assigned any name and existing names may be replaced with others without any loss. Generally, Plato’s philosophy of language indicates that there is no mandatory procedure of naming and objects are assigned names as per the will of the individual involved (Hughes 2004:36). In addition, Plato illustrates that there is no need for an individual and the public to agree on what name to be assigned to any object. According to him, any person is at liberty to assign any name to any object regardless of the opinion of the public. He argues that it is very legitimate for a person to call small what the society calls large and is also very okay for an individual to call a horse a man or a man to be called a horse.
Plato’s philosophy of language is greatly criticized by the Socrates, though Plato in his dialogues warns that an allowance has to be provided to limit the detrimental effects of the characters of the Socrates in understanding the theory of language. Plato ridicules Socrates by arguing that his theory of language can only be understood in a manner consistent with his own ignorance profession and therefore he knows nothing on language. Despite the ridicule, Socrates argues that there is a natural and inherent appropriateness of names and the objects they are assigned to (Hughes 2004:36). The Socrates illustrates their ideas through his assertion that objects come in to existence with their names attached to them as the skin clings to an animal. The Socrates criticize Plato’s philosophy of language by their argument that names have likeness to their bearers as opposed to the Plato’s idea on language that any name can be given to any object (Marga 2004:322).
John Locke has also made a significant attempt to analyze the origin, nature and the use of language as system of communication. Locke’s discussion on language is generally based on signification, his central notion on linguistics. According to john Locke, signification in the theory of language is not only applicable to the words making up the language but also in the ideas of the language. An analysis of Lockean signification leads to Locke’s counter-intuitive claim that words signify ideas (Buhler 2000:217). Linguistic thesis of the theory of language proposed by John Locke in his theory of language is that words in their immediate ore primary signification stands for the ideas in the mind of the individual who makes use of them. Thus, Locke depicts words as a sensible mark of ideas and the ideas form proper and intermediate signification of the words.
Effective interpretation of Locke’s claims on words and ideas can only be achieved after the intention of “signification”, as is used by john Locke is understood. The meaning of the word has triggered a fierce debate leading to various interpretations of word ranging from reference and sense to medieval understanding of signification which is to make something known to the intellect. However, signification in the Locke’s theory of language can generally be explained by a statement illustrating the terms total denotation. In his argument, Locke defended his claim that concepts are signified by asserting that things are signified by means of concepts and the means must also be signified. Thus, signification in the theory encompasses things like making known, revealing, expressing and also involves some significant aspects of sense and reference (Buhler 2000:217).
However, scholars argue that there is something wrong with the reasoning of John Locke; in fact, they argue that the reasoning of Locke on the signification of words is fallacious. The main question of debate here is that, if ideas are the condition for meaningful use of words, it should thus not follow that ideas themselves are what is to be signified. The fallacy of Locke’s theory of language is derived from the fact that, if character X is the condition for signification, then it is not logical to argue that X is what is signified. Kretzmann’s statement reinforces the claim that a condition for signification can not be what is actually signified. In the statement, Krietzmann argues that what is to be ruled out in Locke’s theory of language is that words signify ideas and other things like extra-mental objects. However, Kretzmann in his statement assumes that a word can only signify a single thing at a time though the assumption is questionable. Another philosopher against Locke’s theory of language is Arshworth who criticizes the theory by arguing that the move from the premise that ideas are the condition for meaningful use of language to the argument that ideas make up what is signified remains unjustified.

The author is associated with

The author is senior writer at https://www.allacademicanswers.com