Insights From Wit Philosophy
Insights From Wit Philosophy
Insights From Wit Philosophy
meaning as use, family resemblance, and language games are particularly relevant to
vocabulary instruction and learning.
What are the major concepts in Wittgensteins philosophy?
The fact is that in theorizing about language most theoreticians including Wittgenstein create a
meta-language with its own unique terminology and framework. Wittgensteins meta-language
terminology includes such terms as: (1) meaning as use, (2) rule-following, (3) language games,
(4) family resemblance, (5) private language, (6) grammar, and (7) forms of life. What follows is
an introduction into each term in turn with a particular focus on aspects most relevant to the issue
of vocabulary instruction and learning.
1. Meaning as Use
In Philosophical Investigations (1953) Wittgenstein sets out to reject a common conception
about language and language learning, namely, the view that words function essentially as names
of objects or properties already given in advance of language. Such a view is referred to as
nomenclaturism (Harris: 1988, p2). Instead, he proposes the term meaning as use.
Wittgenstein starts in Philosophical Investigations (1953) by quoting a passage from St.
Augustine.
When they (my elders) named some object, and accordingly moved toward
something, I saw this and I grasped that the thing was called by the sound they
uttered when they meant to point it out. Their intention was shown by their bodily
movement, as it were the natural language of all peoples: The expression of the face,
the play of the eyes, the movement of other parts of the body, and the tone of voice,
which expresses our state of mind in seeking, having, rejecting or avoiding
something. Thus, as I heard words repeatedly used in their proper place in various
sentences, I gradually learnt to understand what objects they signified; and after I had
trained my mouth to form these signs, I used them to express my own desires.
(Confessions, I. 8)
So what is wrong with this straight forward and commonsensical statement? Commentators on
Wittgensteins philosophy say that this is an observation in need of explanation rather than an
explanation in its own right (Harris, 1988). The question is how we relate these words with what
they signify. Is there a mystical relationship between words and what they signify in advance and
independently of language as St. Augustine seems to be implying? If not, what principle governs
this relationship? To answer this question Wittgenstein describes a primitive language.
The language is meant to serve for communication between a builder A and an
assistant B. A is building with building-stones: there are blocks, pillars, slabs and
beams. B has to pass the stones, and that in the order in which A needs them. For this
purpose they use a language consisting of words block, pillar, slab, beam. A
calls them out. B brings the stone which he has learnt to bring at such-and-such a
call. Conceive this as a complete primitive language (PI, 2).
To Wittgenstein what connects the word bloc (here the builders call bloc) to the object blocs
is a function of the communication system i.e. language game within which it occurs. There is no
connection between the words and what they signify in the absence of this communication
system. If it was possible to assume the existence of such a relationship in the absence of the
communication system, then words would have the same meaning irrespective of the context in
which they occurred. If this were the case, we would be using the same words every time we
produced them. In other words, the words pillar, slab, block, and beam would have
exactly the same meaning every time we produced them.
Wittgenstein, however, argues that even the verb of sameness itself is not the same every time we
use it: Does the word is have the same meaning in the rose is red and two and two is four?
So what counts as the same or different is in fact the use of form i.e. meaning as use.
Wittgenstein uses the metaphor ' tool box' to emphasize the unfixed nature of words.
Think of the tools in a tool-box: there is a hammer, pliers, a saw, a screwdriver, a rule, a glue-pot, glue, nails and screws - the functions of words are as
diverse as the functions of these objects.
2. Language games
The metaphoric expression 'language games' introduced by Wittgenstein provides an alternative
view of language as a set of actions each with their own applications. Thus, rather than an
abstract system language consists of a large number of rule-governed, purposeful games such as
giving orders and obeying them, describing the appearance of an object; reporting an event,
speculating about an event; making up a story; guessing riddles; requesting, thanking; cursing;
greeting; and praying (PI: p23). In a broader sense language games can be equated to First,
speech acts like requesting or greeting; second, activities like play acting, singing catches or
guessing riddles; third, primitive languages like the language of builders consisting of four
words: block, pillar, slab, and beam(PI: p2) ; and fourth, there is the whole language
viewed as language and actions to which it is woven(PI: p23) (Kopytko, 2006).
3. Rule-following
Closely associated with the idea of language games is the notion of rules. After all, how can one
envisage a game without rules? Defending the notion of rules by a philosopher who has been
described as anti-formalist is a paradox in itself. It is interesting to see how Wittgenstein solves
this paradox.
First of all, it should be mentioned that Wittgenstein rejects to define the notion of rules in
analytic terms such as necessary and sufficient conditions. Instead, he views them as a family
resemblance concept with the implication that there are different types of rules with only broad
similarities. In his view the best way to conceptualize such terms is through examples. Second,
Wittgenstein does not conceptualize rules as mental operations either. Let us not forget that to
Wittgenstein understanding is not is not a mental process (PI: pp 134-184). Instead, he envisages
rules as a social phenomenon. Kopytko (2006) illustrated this point:
3. Language teachers should resist the temptation to give the meaning of words through
explanations. Rather, they should provide their students with a description of the diverse uses of
words i.e. depicting them as part of an activity. They should have in mind that words often have
fluid, diverse, and unfixed meanings.
4. Language teachers should move from isolation to context and experimentation.
Traditional vocabulary instruction usually involves reading passages preceded by a glossary of
words along with their definitions to be augmented later through practice activities. A
constructivist view of learning, however, requires us to move from isolation to context and
experimentation. That is, learners should be given the opportunity to create contexts for and
experiment with words. Thus, the role of the teacher is to provide opportunities for
experimentation, and helping learners to make the most appropriate inferences.
5. Language teachers should realize that learners do not come to class empty-handed. They
are social beings with a repertoire of experience and background knowledge. There are cases
where they are already familiar with the semantic field to which the word to be learned belongs.
Such knowledge should not be underestimated. Rather, it should be invested upon. So both the
presentation and selection of words to be taught should be planned with an eye to what the
learners themselves can bring to the task of learning.
What vocabulary instruction strategies are congruent with Wittgenstein's philosophy?
Based on the discussion so far the following strategies can be suggested for the teaching of
advanced vocabulary.
childhood a bachelor? What about a Eunuch? An elderly senile gentleman who has never
been married?
Finally, another shortcoming of dictionary definitions is that most often they rely on
abstractions and generalizations in the sense that quite often dictionary definitions start with
a general superordinate term which is then qualified i.e. narrowed down. Naturalistic word
acquisition, however, takes the opposite path of moving from instances to generalizations.
Such shortcomings bring into the focus the necessity of going to areas beyond the mere
definition of the word. Areas beyond the definition of words includes in Willis's term (1998):
The knowledge that certain language features are more typical of some kind of texts
than others
This paper touched upon the major concepts in Wittgenstein's philosophy with a view to get
some insights into the nature of meaning and vocabulary instruction in EFL contexts. It
concluded that as the current practices of vocabulary instruction in EFL contexts is often
influenced by an essentialist view of meaning, Wittgenstein's view of meaning as use and
other related concepts in his philosophy can be informative to language teachers. It further
enumerated vocabulary instruction strategies and techniques which are in line with such a
view to meaning and language learning.
References
Bednar, A. D. Cunningham, T. Duffy, M. and Perry, J. D. (1992) Theory into practice: How do we link?
In Duffy and Jonassen 1992. Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation,
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Johnannessen, K. (1981). "The concept of practice in Wittgensteins philosophy". Inquiry 31, 357-369.
Joe, A., Nation, P. and Newton, J. (1996). "Speaking activities and vocabulary learning". English
Teaching Forum. 34 (1):2-7
Harris, R. (1988). Language, Saussure and Wittgenstein: How to play games with words. London.
Routlage.
Kopytko, R. (2006). "Philosophy and pragmatics: A language-game with Ludwig Wittgenstein". Journal
of Pragmatics. Retrieved from www.elsevier.com/locate/pragmatics
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things: What they reveal about the mind, Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.
Nation, P, and Hamilton -Jenkings, A. (2000). "Using communicative tasks to teach vocabulary".
Guidelines22 (2):15-19.
Schatzki, T. (1996). Social practice: A Wittgenstein approach to the human activity and the society.
Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Willis, Jane (1998) Concordances in the classroom without a computer, In Brian Tomlinson (Ed.)
Materials development in language teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
The Creative Methodology for the Classroom course can be viewed here.
The Drama Course can be viewed here.