Essay III: Option A Universals seek to answer the question of “One Over Many,” that is, how we identify and name two different objects or concepts. While real universals are useful to explain how we use words to describe complex sensual experiences, the argument has been made against the validity of universals. In this essay we will explore these arguments and the possibility of language functioning without them. The central argument against universals comes from the school of Dinnaga. The simplest stages of their argument boil down to the fact that universals cannot be ultimately real because they would have to be eternal, and no existing thing could be eternal (see proof Siderits 214). For example, in opposition with the Nyaya, to
In the words of George Orwell, “If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” Language has been spoken for over 350,000 years. It has expanded tremendously, but its power has never changed. The use of language shapes peoples' perceptions and the depth of interactions because it can demean, avoid, portray emphasis, persuade, and conceal from simple phrases such as “I feel like” and “just”.
Merriam Webster Dictionary defines Nominalism as: “a theory that there are no universal essences in reality and that the mind can frame no single concept or image corresponding to any universal or general term” on the other hand it defines realism as: “a doctrine that universals exist outside the mind; specifically: the conception that an abstract term names an independent and unitary reality” . Throughout the lengthy history of philosophy, and especially through the medieval time periods, the terminology of “realism” and “nominalism” were used in opposition to one another. The terms that the conflict was based on dealt with the idea of “universals” versus “particulars.” The nominalist approach is to state that only “particulars” exist around us; they do not acknowledge the existence of any of what the realists would call a “universal.” A realist, on the other hand, would acknowledge the existence of both “universals” and “particulars”: “the debate therefore revolves round the metaphysical question: what there is?” The debate that is often brought up when discussing the ideas of nominalism in relation to realism are normally dealing with how certain distinguishing questions or characteristics are interpreted. The debate constantly dragged back down through linguistics of how individuals view, experience, and come to know something linguistically; what seems to be the most convoluted is
The Language Wars have been waged in the realm of English Literature, Language and Linguistics for years. Both sides of the argument are staunch believers in their position, but are more than willing to concede points to the other sides’ favour. In Bryan A. Garner’s essay, “Making Peace in the Language Wars”, he describes himself as a ‘descriptive prescriber’ (Garner, Making Peace in the Language Wars 2008, 270), and offers a truce that fulfils both sides of the argument as the crux of his essay. While the separate sides of the argument are relatively easy to define, it seems that no one sticks to them religiously, and the argument is between individuals fighting over individual points. The two sides are that of the descriptivist and that
Vague neologisms leave individual minding to define what the new word means and creates the opportunity for language to create a new reality.
Kripke’s modal argument challenges descriptivism with particular concern for the semantic thesis. Kripke says, that names and definite descriptions differ in their respective modal profiles. Descriptivism claims that the semantic value of a name holds the same as the semantic value of some definite descriptions. Kripke famously argues that definite descriptions, unlike names, are not rigid designators. Therefore, the semantic values of names are not identical with the semantic value of definite descriptions. Following this logic, the name ‘n’ and the definite description ‘F’ are semantically dissimilar.
Key features of language include its words and their sub structures such as morphemes, graphemes and syllables at the writing level as well as reading or speaking, words, their meanings and contexts in which the words get spoken or read. Language has to be interpreted as a whole, and not just as the specific word. There must be an explicit pattern or structure. In order for language to be understood correctly, the meaning of words must be arranged in a given context. This is what constructs language; even though words are arbitrary themselves, in order to integrate as a language, they must be used in the appropriate context. This pre-established cultural context is what will enable effective communication. (Daniel Willingham, 2007, p. 1).
In order to analyse the importance of a ‘semantic field’ we must identify the different classifications within semantic field theory such as; Hyponymy, Antamony and Synonymy, and how they advance in different ways, our ability to grasp a better composition of written communication.
Modern day linguistics has seen the arrival of many different viewpoints of language. Beginning with Noam Chomsky, unquestionably one of the most influential figures in recent linguistics, new theories and ideas have been introduced at a rapid rate. In part due to his status as a revitalizer in the field, but also due to his often controversial theories, Chomsky maintains a place at the center of this discussion. His search for a universal grammar and criticism of pure descriptivism have informed generations of research. Much of this has been reactionary against him, but his influence can not be discounted. His theories of a universal grammar have inspired writers on both sides of the debate. Paul Hopper argues against this view, positing
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
Throughout the decades, language has become a major interest as a field of studies as it shaped our reality of the world. This interest has led into a new development in theories and creating new methods as a way in studying and learning about language uses and its roles in human society.
Wittgenstein’s the Tractatus and Plato’s Cratylus are two works that offer remarkably comparable theories. The Tractatus uses propositions to establish a theory regarding language and Plato uses names in the dialogue Cratylus to develop a similar theory. Using propositions and names, respectively, the two philosophers develop arguments showing that there is an extreme parallel between language and pictures. After Plato discloses the origination of names and Wittgenstein looks at the composition of propositions, the two philosophers are able to assess the relation between names, propositions and reality. The relation of names and propositions to reality leads
Deacon’s special interests include bio-cultural evolution, brain development, and biosemiotics. He has published 2 major books "The Symbolic Species: The Co-Evolution of Language and the Brain” and “Incomplete Nature: How Mind Emerged from Matter” also coauthored several books and articles revolving semiotics. The book I will be mainly focusing on is The Symbolic Species, which tackles on his theory of the co-evolution of language and the brain. He has 3 tasks in this book first, differentiates human mode of reference (symbolic reference), versus the non-symbolic references found in nonhuman species. Second to explain why it may be difficult for nonhuman species to understand this form of symbolic reference, and third how to explain humans overcome the difficult of understanding symbolic references.
Floros reviews the ways in which the study of translatology has been categorized by different typologies. He presents and rejects several formulations, binary ones- such as word for word, and sense for sense,
According to Solganik, subjective modality is present in all levels of language. In the lexicology, it’s a variety of evaluative means; in morphology – modal linking words, particles, pronouns, etc. Even in semantics of case, modality occurs. The most important role that modality plays is in syntax. Not only does subjective modality contributes to semantics, but also to the functioning of syntactical units and speech production.
He supports his claim by saying the “S” in private language can represent sensation to him; however, when someone else interprets the “S”, it can different notions of meanings. Hence, he mentions in his argument that “ it would not help either to say that it need not be a sensation; that when he writes “S”, he has something”.