|Abstract||When one looks into the role of artificial languages in philosophy of language it seems appropriate to start with making a distinction between philosophy of language proper and formal semantics of natural language. Although the distinction between the two disciplines may not always be easy to make since there arguably exist substantial historical and systematic relationships between the two, it nevertheless pays to keep the two apart, at least initially, since the motivation commonly given for the use of artificial languages in philosophy of language is often rather different from the one that drives the use of such languages in semantics. Of course, this difference in motivation should not blind us for the commonalities that exists between the two disciplines. Philosophy of language and formal semantics have a common history, and arguably also share some of their substance. Philosophy of language is by and large an outgrowth of work in the analytical tradition in philosophy in the first half of the twentieth century. Both ordinary language philosophy, with its emphasis on the description of actual language use, as well as the more logic-oriented and formally inclined school of logical positivism contributed to the definition of philosophy of language as a separate philosophical discipline, with its own set of problems and methods to solve them. Another major contributor to the establishment of philosophy of language as a distinct discipline has been modern linguistics, in particular generative grammar in the tradition of Chomsky that became the dominant paradigm in linguisticsin the fifties and sixties of the previous century. And as it happens, both the generative tradition of Chomsky and analytic philosophy in its formal and less formal guises have been important factors in the development of formal semantics as well. Thus, it should come as no surprise that the two have something in common. That the communalities go beyond a common ancestry, but are reflected in substance and methods as well, will be argued later on. However, be that as it may, it is still a good idea to keep philosophy of language and formal semantics separate, at least initially, since the role that is assigned to artificial languages and the ways in which these languages are employed in both does differ in a number of respects that are worth keeping in mind..|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Martin Stokhof (2007). Hand or Hammer? On Formal and Natural Languages in Semantics. Journal of Indian Philosophy 35 (5-6):597-626.
Chris Fox (2005). Foundations of Intensional Semantics. Blackwell Pub..
Jaroslav Peregrin (2008). Brandom’s Incompatibility Semantics. Philosophical Topics 36 (2):99-121.
Pablo Lopez Lopez (2008). Philosophy of Languages and Languages as Framework of Philosophies. Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 39:137-141.
Hans Poser (2000). Leibniz on the Improvement of Language and Understanding. The Proceedings of the Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy 7:17-34.
Raymond Turner (forthcoming). Programming Languages as Technical Artifacts. Philosophy and Technology:1-21.
Michael N. Forster (2011). German Philosophy of Language: From Schlegel to Hegel and Beyond. Oxford University Press.
Martin Heidegger (2004). On the Essence of Language: The Metaphysics of Language and the Essencing of the Word ; Concerning Herder's Treatise on the Origin of Language/ Martin Heidegger ; Translated by Wanda Torres Gregory and Yvonne Unna. State University of New York Press.
Added to index2010-12-22
Total downloads6 ( #154,676 of 722,813 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,541 of 722,813 )
How can I increase my downloads?