Comparison Between Indian Philosopher Bhart And Western Philosopher Wittgenstein

In paragraph 4, Flower opens up how particular words veils positive and negative meaning. One can begin to question how does the positive and negative meanings come take toll. The affiliations that corresponds to a word can be influenced due to certain experiences or knowledge on the word. In addition, many people can begin repetitively take on usage of particular word that binds to a certain scenario such as “awkward,” which can be negative due to the tone and body language one may have. An example, is the word “politician.” One can assume that word is negative due to negative experiences that occurs such as politician misrepresenting them or not taking action for promised

How we form and describe a sentence plays a major role towards determine the meaning of the sentence. This results in making each sentence very important to structure correctly so as to harness the most powerful meaning from the words used on the sentence (Iny 2006). To understand how word structure affects a sentence, we shall examine 5 sentences from a paper “the Purpose of Government written by Anon. A. Moss.

Compare the different ways in which language is used for effect in the two texts. Give some examples and analyse the effects.

Words are all around us. Words define the way we describe the way we articulate, one such example being this very paper, the way we interact with others, and most importantly, the way we feel or think. Adjectives: the words that give our world emotional meaning beyond the literal definition; that is connotation. Connotation is most evident in words to which we associate our most extreme emotions. Whether it is witnessing the greatest of fireworks, an elaborate collection of lights and sounds, or seeing truckfuls of babies being dumped into a blistering hot fire, the word we would use to describe these two events, fire, will forever be emotionally seen differently by whomever witnesses it. A word can develop in meaning, once meaning one thing to then mean something completely different. In fact, In Elie Wiesel’s “Night”, Elie’s definition of the word ‘fire’ changes from that of a danger to one’s self to that of destruction and revenge.

“Almost all words have connotative meanings”. (Postman & Powers 44) Postman and Powers go into great detail in the beginning of the article to

It is often thought that the reality that is being expressed in spoken word is the very same as the reality which is being perceived in thought. Perception and expression are frequently understood to be synonymous and it is assumed that our speech is mostly based on our thoughts. This idea presumes that what one says is dependent of how it is encoded and decoded in the mind. (Badhesha, 2002) In any case, there are numerous individuals that trust the inverse: what one sees is reliant on the talked word. The supporters of this thought trust that thinking is reliant on language. Linguistic Edward Sapir and his understudy Benjamin Lee Whorf are known as far as concerns them in the promotion of this very guideline. Their aggregate hypothesis, known as the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, also known as theory of linguistic relativity, relativism, determinism, Whorfian hypothesis or even Whorfianism. Initially talked about by Sapir in 1929, the speculation got to be prominent in the 1950s after post mortem production of Whorf's works on the subject. After incredible assault

"Words [or labels], like little buckets, are assumed to pick up their loads of meaning in one person's mind, carry them across the intervening space, and dump them

Linguistic relativity is the notion that language can affect our thought processes, and is often referred to as the ‘Sapir-Whorf hypothesis’, after the two linguists who brought the idea into the spotlight. Whorf writes how “Language is not merely a reproducing instrument for voicing ideas but rather is itself the shaper of ideas, the program and guide for the individual’s mental activity” (1956:212), and I will explain how it is able to do so. In this essay I will argue that certain ways of mental categorization, spatial cognition and reality interpretation, based on the characteristics of our specific variety of language, influence our perception of the world. I will discuss how languages divide up nature differently, and

In the article “Lost in Translation”, the author, Lera Boroditsky, maintains as her thesis that the languages we speak not only reflect or express our thoughts, but also shape the very thoughts we wish to express. Boroditsky begins the main section of her essay with the history of the issue of whether or not languages shape the way speakers think. Charlemagne was the first to think that languages do in fact shape the mindset of speaker, but Noam Chomsky rebutted this idea with his thought that languages do not differ much from each other, thus in turn proposing that linguistic differences do not cause a difference in thinking. Now with scientists

Connotation or the iconic message is not as easily explained as either the denotive or linguistic messages. Significantly Barthes has left the discussion of this message to the very end of his essay. The signs that constitute connotation are discontinuous. There is no definite way in which to interpret the separate, connotative message and in the ‘composition’ of the three (denotative, connotative and linguistic) signs an ‘aesthetic signified’ is carried. In much the same way as in text; when intonation is applied, it is a separate signifier than that of the text itself in a linguistic

Throughout twenty-centuries ago, writers thought that ordinary language and literary language were two different languages. But this is an analytical assumption. There is only one language, which

The connections between Ludwig Wittgenstein and Soren Kierkegaard as philosophers are not at all immediately obvious. On the surface, Wittgenstein deals with matters concerning the incorrect use of philosophical language and Kierkegaard focuses almost exclusively on answering the question 'how to become a Christian'. But this account belies deeper structural similarities between these men's important works. Thus, this paper suggests that their methods, rather than exclusively content, contain a strong parallel on which a natural and hopefully fruitful examination of their work can be based.

For all humans, language is the most common means of communication with others and it enables us to share our experiences and stories and to tell about our needs and feelings. For example, Yamamoto states that sociolinguistics see, it is ‘primarily through the use of language that people communicate with each other’ (1979: 146). We all speak one or more languages and as the main way of communication it is an important and vital part of our lives. There is many languages in the world and they differ from one another in many ways. But does the language we speak reflect to the way we see and experience the world around us? This paper will explore the question through the Sapir Whorf hypothesis and arguments for and against it.

In general terms, phenomenology is a philosophy of experience. It attempts to understand how meaning is made in human experience, and it sees our lived experience of the world as the foundation of meaning. For phenomenology, how the speaking or writing subject uses language is primary both because it is how we experience its rules and conventions, in their use, and because this is the source of semantic innovation. New meaning, novelty in the world, and the possibility of a future different from the past are some of phenomenology's defining values. In this paper I will be sketching a brief survey of the phenomenology of Husserl and Heidegger.

It has been noted that while considering changing word meanings is vital to the diachronic study of language, the notion and practice of studying them has been historically belittled as an intellectual pursuit. Semantic change is often irregular and arbitrary as a concept, as its causes are wide-ranging and multi-faceted. However, critics such as Willem B. Hollmann now give weight and notoriety to studying semantics synchronically . By considering individual cases, one can explain some word changes and apply common rules. These often occur intra-linguistically or through common social or political changes, especially surrounding class conflict. However, although we can catalogue the semantic change of similar or groups of words, word