THESIS 44: LANGUAGE AS REFLECTION
OF REALITY: ITS ROLE AND
Introduction
Language and philosophy have
an intimate connection to one another;
without a philosophical examination of
the meanings and structure of language,
we cannot usefully discuss abstract
concepts. The philosophy of language
seeks to understand the concept
expressed by language and to find a
system by which it can effectively and
accurately do so. This is more difficult
IMPORTANCE IN THE FIELD OF
PHILOSOPHY
PHILOSOPHY OF LANGUAGE
than it appears at first; philosphers are
looking for a theory of language which
avoids the minute errors of meaning
and usages which occurs in all
discussions of abstract concepts and
which tend to lead those discussions
into complicated dead-ends.
Since so much of philosophy is
currently concerned with linguistic
representation of reality. The bond
between the philosphical and the
linguistic is growing stronger.
Philosopher can only write syntax for
the language they want to use in
expressing theory with some
knowledge of linguistic; and linguists
can use philosophical principle to solve
the problems of meaning and syntax.
This strong link can be exploited to the
advantage of both sides.
In recent history, philosophers
have struggled with the question of
precision in language and have sought
to construct a system under which
meaning can be discussed without
danger of falling into circular or
metaphysical traps. Two major
approaches to this question have arisen
in scientific circle of the twentieth
century. Logical empiricism, also
known as logical positivism seeks to
produce a language which consists of
symbols combined precisely in from
semantics in that syntax guides the
proper formation of elements of a
language into statements, whereas
semantics consists of the correct
association of elements of language
with elements of the real world.
Ordinary Language Theory
Saint John Paul II in his fides et
ratio said: “A single term conceals a
variety of meaning.”1 For him, a single
word is loaded by so many meanings,
hence, such this words made us
encounter problems of interpretation of
the language.
On the other hand, on the mid-
20th century, thinkers in the oxford
university tries to resolve this problem
through establishing the ordinary
1 2
John Paul II, Fides et Ratio (September 14,
1998), 4.
language philosophy. Furthermore, this
school is particularly associated to
Wittgenstein and to the member of
Vienna circle. This school is aware that
language is complex and multi-faceted
face of reality. Hence, this reality that
lies in language can obliterate errors
and problems of interpretation when an
individual used it in the context of
ordinary language. As Wittgenstein
said: “Everyday language is a part of
the human organism and is no less
complicated than it.”2 Ordinary
Language Philosophy primarily deals to
the use of the expressions of language,
Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus, trans. D.F
Pears and B.F McGuiness (New Jersey:
Humanities Press International, Inc., 1974), 42.
not expressions in and of themselves.3
Moreover, this view aims to construct
an ideal language that would resolve to
the philosophical problems. The
Ordinary Language Philosophy
suggested that these philosophical
problem appear when language is used
improperly; the language itself is
perfectly acceptable and can be easily
applied to discussion of abstract and
philosophical concepts without undue
modifications, as long as it is used and
interpreted properly. This theory,
however, suggested that everyday
language without special, more formal
semantics could be used to discuss
philosophical thought; it just had to be
used correctly.
Truth-Condition Theory
Language as a reflection of
reality is concretely seen in the
emergence of the Truth Condition
Theory, a theory designed to be one
with the conditions of the world itself.
There are major proponents to this
3
Sally Parker-Ryan, “Ordinary Language
Philosophy,” http://www.iep.utm.edu/ord-lang/
(accessed on November 11, 2014).
theory, and variations of this same
theory have been discussed in
numerous instances within the field of
analytic philosophy or strictly within
philosophy of language. One major
figure in the emergence of the Truth
Condition is Donald Davidson.
Davidson was an American philosopher
who specialized in certain fields such
as analytic philosophy, philosophy of
mind, philosophy of language and
action theory. Generally accepted
interpretations of the truth condition
come from Donald Davidson’s thought
specifically found in his work Truth
and Meaning.
Davidson, therefore, pursues
neither a theory of what
meaning is nor a theory of what
meanings are. Rather, for
Davidson a theory of meaning
is a descriptive semantics that
shows how to pair a speaker’s condition of certain sentences and
statements with their meanings, propositions. The truth of the
and it does this by displaying statement, or its truth-condition,
how semantical properties or depends upon the condition of the
values are distributed world itself, where truthfulness and
systematically over the falsifiability ultimately lie.
expressions of her language; in
short, it shows how to construct Speech Act Theory
the meanings of a speaker’s
sentences out of the meanings J.L. Austin is the pioneer of this
of their parts and how those theory and further developed by his
parts are assembled. As a first student Searle. In Austin’s lecture, he
approximation, one can think of
a Davidsonian theory of
meaning for the language L as a
set of axioms that assign
meanings to the lexical
elements of the language and
which, together with rules for
constructing complex
expressions of L, imply
theorems of the form.4
Davidson aimed to give a stated that:
comprehensive analysis of the truth
condition, specifically zeroing in on the It may be said that for
too long philosophers have
4
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, neglected this study, treating all
“Davidson: Philosophy of Language,” problems as problems of
http://www.iep.utm.edu/ 'locutionary usage', and indeed
dav-lang/ (accessed November 11, 2014). that the 'descriptive fallacy'
 mentioned in Lecture I There are three levels on which we can
commonly arises through
mistaking a problem of the
former kind for a problem of the
latter kind. True, we are now
getting out of this; for some
years, we have been realizing
more and more clearly that the
occasion of an utterance matters
seriously, and that the words
used are to some extent to be
'explained' by the 'context' in
which they are designed to be or
have been spoken in a linguistic
interchange.5
He expresses his intention to expose the
function of language through the
speech act theory. According to this
theory in a speech on is doing multiple
acts at the same time. Depending on the
intention of the speaker.
5
J.L. Austin, How to do Things with Words:
The William James Lectures Delivered at
Harvard University 1955 (Great Britain:
Oxford University Press, 196), 100.
2. Illocutionary acts –
evaluate a speech act.
To perform a locutionary act
1. Locutionary acts – “The act of is in general, we may say, also
'saying something' in this full normal and eo ipso to perform an
sense I call, i.e. dub, the performance illocutionary act, as I propose to
of a locutionary act, and the study of call it. To determine what
utterances thus far and in these respects illocutionary act is so performed
the study of locutions, or of the full we must determine in what way
units of speech.”6 we are using the locution:
 asking or answering a
question,
 giving some information or
an assurance or a warning,
 announcing a verdict or an
intention,
 pronouncing sentence,
 making an appointment or
an appeal or a criticism,
 making an identification or
giving a description, 7
3. Perlocutionary acts –
Saying something will
often, or even normally,
produce certain consequential
effects upon the feelings,
6
J.L. Austin, How to do Things with Words,
7
94. Ibid., 98.
 thoughts, or actions of the
audience, or of the speaker, or
of other persons: and it may be
done with the design, intention,
or purpose of producing them;
and we may then say, thinking
of this, that the speaker has
performed an act in the
nomenclature of which
reference is made either (C. a),
only obliquely, or even (C. b),
not at all, to the performance
of the locutionary or
illocutionary act. We shall call
the performance of an act of
this kind the performance of a
perlocutionary act or
perlocution. 8
These three are levels and not
categories. Therefore, a locution or an
utterance may be at one point
illocutionary or further perlocutionary.
Speech act in a strong sense is
illocutionary in the way that is not a
mere utterance of words, instead it is an
utterance that is accompanied by an act.
8
J.L. Austin, How to do Things with Words,
101.
There are classifications of pronouncing someone husband
illocutionary acts: and wife.9
 assertives = illocutionary acts
that require a speaker to the
How can God’s reality can deepen
truth of the expressed intention,
human language?
e.g. reciting a pledge of
allegiance.
 directives =illocutionary acts
that persuades the hearer to take
a certain action in response to
the statement, e.g. requests,
commands and advice
 commissives = illocutionary
acts that obligates a speaker to
some future action, e.g.
promises and oaths
God can deepen human
 expressives = illocutionary acts language in some various ways.
that makes explicit the speaker's Primarily, by acknowledging God’s
attitudes and emotions reality, man is able to accept the fact
regarding the statement, e.g. that human language is and will never
congratulations, excuses and be able to grasp the totality of
thanks everything. That there are things or
 declaratives = speeches that
declares change the reality in 9
For further reading see, Searle, John R.
accord with the proposition of (1975), “A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts”,
the declaration, e.g. baptisms, in: Günderson, K. ed., Language, Mind, and
Knowledge, Minneapolis Studies in the
pronouncing someone guilty or
Philosophy of Science 7 (Minnesota: University
of Minneapolis Press, 1975), 344-69.
person on which human language will
never be able to encapsulate. Hence,
the limitation of the human language
helps man to rely not just on human
language, but rather on the language
that exceeds the capacity of man; the
way of immanence.
God’s reality deepens human
language in a sense that thought,
speech, and the meaning which
language bears is guided by faith.10
10
John Paul II, Fides et Ratio, 84.
Human language, guided by faith, leads
to the deepening of its use, capacity. It
deepens the capacity of human
language by enriching its meaning
through faith, always presupposing the
reality of God. As St. John Paul II
would say, “faith clearly presupposes
that human language is capable of
expressing divine and transcendent
reality in a universal way --
analogically, it is true, but no less
meaningfully for that.”11 Indeed, God’s
reality deepens human language.
Illumined by faith, human language can
be a medium wherein man can meet
God.
11
John Paul II, Fides et Ratio, 84.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources

Austin, J.L. How to do Things with Words: The William James Lectures Delivered at Harvard University 1955. Great Britain: Oxford
University Press, 1966.

Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Tractatus-Logico Philosophicus. Translated by D.F Pears and B.F McGuiness. New Jersey: Humanities Press
International, Inc., 1974.

Secondary Sources

Parker-Ryan, Sally. “Ordinary Language Philosophy,” http://www.iep.utm.edu/ord-lang/ (accessed on November 11, 2014).

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Davidson: Philosophy of Language http://www.iep.utm.edu/dav-lang/ (accessed November 11,
2014).