Pragma

Reference as a theory of meaning
As we mention or discussed earlier, we agree that the simplliest theory of meaning is reference.
and we also can claim that semanthic is reference. In simpliest way we can say that reference
pick up element in real world. This approach might make a claim, jut like Ruth Kempson (1977:
13) stated, suvh as :
proper names denote individuals
common names ′′ sets of individuals
verbs ′′ actions
adjectives ′′ properties of individuals
adverbs ′′ properties of actions
looking at this approach, there are some problem come up with this theory
1. Sometimes word doesn’t have a meaning, as we see in the word “like” “also” “very”
2. The real world referent for a word didn’t ever exist, for example the world “santa
clause” “world war 3” “Pegasus”
So we assume that every word has it own referent in real world, meanwhile santa clause, etc
doesn’t have its referent because they don’t even exist, then we also assume that those word
are meaningless. Meanwhile when someone mention about “santa clause” everyones know
what it’s mean. So it’s actually meaningful right? So reference as theory of meaning seems
uncovered all the thing, so we should explore more theory.
More problem is that when one word has its real-world referent, sometimes nobody knows the
referent.
For example :
1. Deni is studying in library
2. The smartest students in 4IKI class is studying in library
Both share the same referent, but probably, we can say that they dont share the same
meanings
So as you can see that we can understand word without the real life referent, also we can
understand some exprecions that share the same referent, than we can conclude that meaning
and reference is a different idea.
To solve this questions or problem Frege come up win an idea to divide semantics into part:
1. Sense : sense is the thing that allow us understand why we can use different words to
refer at the same referent and how we understand word without the real-world
referent.
2. reference
more we will learn about what the sense element may be like
2.5 Words, Concepts, and Thinking
Now in this section we will talk about 2 opossite view about language & thought.
1. Linguistic relativity : is that lexicalized concepts that influenced someone pattern of
thought
2. Language of thought hypothesis
Lingusitic relativity
It provides an explanation for a common experience when dealing with different languages. For
example : in Japanese and Korean they have different verbs to describe put in according to the
each body part. So sometimes when translating from English to Korean, there might be some
problems. So it is show that language mirror culture. Boaz an antrophologist stated that
people’s thoughts are determined by the categories available to them in their language. Sapir
(Boaz’s students) then come up with stronger thesis about this. Sapir stated that we see and
hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because the language habits of our
community predispose certain choices of interpretation. And lastly Whorf strengthened this
idea of the link between language and thought into the notion he called linguistic relativity. Its
basic premise is that the way we think about the world is determined by our cultural and
linguistic background. If we assume that this hypothesis is correct then it seems that if speaking
different languages means that we think in different ways, how could we ever step outside our
own language to set up a neutral metalanguage which does not privilege any particular
language or language family?
Language of thought hypothesis

Previous hypothesis has ben rejected by many linguist. A typical response is to dismiss as a
fallacy such a strict identification of thought and language. There are 2 arguments that we can
use to support this view.
1. there is evidence of thinking without language
it’s come from pinker (1994) that come up with some example regarding to this, such as the
phenomenom happen in babies and primate also some artist that got their creativity from
nonlingistic images.
2. linguistic analysis has shown us that language underspecifies meaning.
Speakers simplify their thoughts and frequently imply rather than say explicitly what they
mean, while listeners construct their own interpretation of the intended meaning based on the
language offered to them. This view, that language underspecifies meaning and must be
expanded by listeners, appears to fit neatly with the idea that speakers put their thoughts into
language, that is, translate their thoughts into spoken language, rather than simply stating their
thoughts directly.
These arguments has been used for explaining the language of thought or sometimes called
mentalese. When we think in mentalese, transalated in to our spoken language. Than we can
assume that everyone’s mentalese is roghhly the same so language of thought is universal. So
that’s why we say that this hypothesis is opposite from linguistic relativity where here
everyones share the same language of thought even they speak different language.
Thought & reality

Talking about those question do you think that everything that we thought in our mind will
always come true? If yes you are joining the objectivism team, if no you are in idealism team.
We could explain the fact that we successfully interact with reality (run away from lions, shrink
from fire, etc.) because of a notion of ecological viability. Crudely: that those with very
inefficient conceptual systems (not afraid of lions or fire) died out and weren’t our ancestors.
We could call this position mental constructivism: Still, for the linguist keen to describe the
semantics of Swahili or English these are a heavy set of issues to deal with before getting on
with the job, especially when added to the complex issues of conceptual representation that we
discussed a little earlier. One understandable response is to decide that only language is the
proper object of study for linguists and issues of mental representations and the existence of
reality are best left to psychologists and philosophers. Thus some linguists have decided to
leave the philosophical high ground to other disciplines, to put aside discussion of the reality of
the world, and the nature of our mental representations of it, and to concentrate instead on
the meaning relations between expressions within a language, or to try to compare meanings
across languages. The decision is that it is more the task of linguists to describe, for example,
how the meaning of the word dog is related to the words animal or bitch, than to discuss what
the mental concept of DOG might look like, or how this relates to the real dogs running around
in the world.

Pragma

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pragma

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pragma

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reference as a theory of meaning

Language of thought hypothesis

Thought & reality

You might also like