Reference and Meaning

Locke, Mill, Frege, Wittgenstein

Mundane Fact of language:“When people interrelate with one another by

producing and hearing sounds, they are using words which have meaning.”

Questions:How can sounds achieve so much?What account should we give of words having

meaning?

Explore answers of John Locke, John Stuart Mill and Gottlob Frege

Two possible answers:◦ Words stand for things.◦ Words are used to communicate.

1. If words stand for things, then presumably they often stand for real things. The first answer connects language with reality.-seems actually suited only to words that are proper

names: Shy, Philippines, Philosophy Department Office

-what about words like ‘cat’ ‘pretty’ ‘eat’ or words like ‘and’ ‘or’ ‘by’

At the end of this chapter we will pinpoint the difference in the way in which “Shy” or “Philippines” make connections with things in reality and the way in which ‘pretty’, ‘cat’ or ‘and’ do.

Different approaches for words’ meaningfulness:◦ Frege: think abour words in relation to one

another—to think of words as combining one with another to make up meaningful sentences

◦ Locke: did not accept that it is the role of words to stand for real things

◦ Mill: presented his thoughts on the different behaviours of different sorts of words but did not envisage the kind of systematic theory of words’ combination that Frege introduced

2. Words are used to communicate.When you use words, you get your thoughts across

to others, and when others use words, they get their thoughts across to you.

But, words can be used to communicate because they have meaning. We have to know what words mean in order to think about how they are used in communication.

Chapter 2 will explore the different approaches in which questions about what speakers do or intend are treated as more fundamental than questions about what words do.

One of the most difficult tasks for philosophy of language is to bring the fact that people use words and sentences to convey their thoughts to one another into the right relation with the fact that words and sentences make connections with reality.

In Locke, we shall discover some of the difficulties there are in finding appropriate connections between words and real things when words are treated as if they got their meanings in the minds of individual thinkers.

In Mill and Frege, we shall discover that even when it comes to proper names, which can seem to be words of which a very simple account might be given, there are questions about their role in communication.

The focus here: the particular case of proper names:

How should proper names be treated? Is standing for things all that there is to be

said about them?

Chapter 1: Of Words or Language in General

1. Man fitted to form articulate sounds.-as a sociable creature, language is the great instrument and

common tie of man with society-our organs are fashioned to frame articulate sounds which we

call words

2. To use these sounds as signs of ideas. -use sounds as signs of internal conceptions; - and to make them stand as marks for ideas within his own

mind -a person’s ideas are not accessible to other people, but a

person can communicate her thoughts to others using the sounds of speech: her words are signs standing for her ideas, and others can hear her words

John Locke, ‘Of Words’

3. To make them general signs.-the use of general terms: one word was made to

mark a multitude of particular existences; -general names which made to stand for general

ideas

4. To make them signify the absence of positive ideas.

-words that signify the want or absence of some ideas, simple or complex, or all ideas together (e.g. nihil, ignorance, barrenness)

-not to signify no ideas but that they relate to positive ideas and signify their absence*

Chapter 2: Of the Signification of Words2. Words, in their immediate signification, are

the sensible signs of his ideas who use them.

Locke thinks that words must be signs of the speaker’s ideas, because words are significant, and there is nothing else in which their significance could reside.

2 claims here:1. That words are ‘voluntary signs;’“every man has [an] inviolable liberty to make

words stand for what ideas he pleases”What’s the critique for this claim?

Even if words are not voluntary, it might still be allowed that they are ‘arbitrary.’

What is the difference between voluntariness and arbitrariness? (f)

So Locke might acknowledge that there is one respect in which one isn’t free to use words exactly as one pleases: one must use them as others do if one is going to be understood.

2. That one can make a word a sign for something only if that something is immediately present to one and known to one.

What is the critique to this claim?

1. A person could have immediate knowledge of something in the world (as opposed to the mind).

2. Some of the contents of a person’s mind need to be explained not just in terms of the person’s own individual sense experience but of their interactions with other people

Can one have immediate knowledge of something in the world based on his own sense experience only? Or are the contents of a person’s mind due to his/her interactions with other people too?

E.g. how a child’s mind is formed

A child’s mind is formed, and its contents are gained, as the child grows up and learns a language. It would seem appropriate to think about word’s meanings in connection with concepts people share with one another rather than in connection with the ideas of each isolated speaker.

Problems with ‘general signs’ will be discussed by Mill

1. An exception to Locke’s general principle (words stand for ideas):

a. ‘particles’: signify the connection that the Mind gives to ideas, one with another (e.g. and, not, but)

b. Words signifying the absence of positive ideas (e.g. ignorance and barrenness)

B. Problems for Locke

Difficulties:a. What exactly is involved/the scope of some

word’s signifying the absence of ideas? (Will this include ‘rejection’? ‘fruitless’? ‘loneliness’? ‘scarcity’?)

b. What exactly are words standing for a positive idea?

Do I really know the meaning of the word ‘cold’ or do I just rely on what the English meaning of the word ‘cold’ is?

For Locke, I must first have an idea on my mind, then attach a sound to it, then go on to mean something by that sound.

What does Locke really think to be in our minds when we take our words to be meaningful?

2. People wrongly supposes that words might stand for ideas in other people’s mind (vs. my mind) and they stand for things (vs. ideas: ‘whatsoever is the object of understanding when a man thinks’) outside my mind.

For Locke, it looks as if the hearer could only surmise that the ideas he has when he hears the word is an idea of the same sort as the one whom the speaker chose to attach the word to. And to further surmise that it is the same thing/person whom both the speaker and himself then have an idea of.

Is this really always the case when we communicate with another?

3. Words are often used without signification.e.g. Messages referring to people/ things you do not have

any idea about.

If you do not have any idea what the words are referring to, does that mean that the words in such cases are ‘nothing but…significant noise?’

When Locke speaks of ‘insignificant noise’, he is speaking of words applied without any ‘constant connection’ between sound and idea.

However, usually, when a particular word is used from occasion to occasion, there is a regular match between the idea of its speaker and the idea of those who hear the speaker.

Speakers’ and hearers’ may be mismatched, but this does not necessarily destroy the words’ significance.

We have questioned whether the existence of the regular matches (that Locke takes for granted) can really be taken for granted by someone who thinks that it is up to people in the role of speaker to make a sound a mark of their own idea;

Recognize that Locke wants to allow that there are regularities of meanings; and that what he say about the arbitrariness of the relation between sounds and meanings seem correct; and

His view that words are name of ideas is no longer popular (Mill’s view: “When I use a name for the prupose of expressing a belief, it is a belief concerning the thing itself, not concerning my idea of it.”)

summary

Read ‘Of Names’ by John Stuart Mill Answer these questions in preparation for

the oral recitation:

◦How did Mill characterize the three principal divisions among names that he makes in the extract?

◦What is the distinction between general names and proper names?

Assignment for next meeting:

1. The thoughts of your chosen philosopher:1. The question/issue he wants to answer 2. His answer (thesis)3. Explanation and Supports for his thoughts

2. Your evaluation of his thought:1. Commendable points2. Questionable points

3. Your own recommendation(s):1. Your own answer to the question2. Your own design/system

Prelim Paper