Education and Linguistics Research ISSN 2377-1356 2016, Vol. 2, No. 1 http://elr.macrothink.org 40 Real Language Jesús Martínez del Castillo Dept. of Philology, Almería University, Almería, Spain Tel: 34-950-015-390 E-mails: jesus.gerardo@ual.es; apofansis@msn.com Received: January 7, 2016 Accepted: March 1, 2016 Published: March 2, 2016 doi:10.5296/elr.v2i1.8832 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5296/elr.v2i1.8832 Abstract Human beings make themselves with language in history. Language defines human beings making them subjects of their being and mode of being. In this sense language is essential and exclusive of humans. The problem with language consists in explaining the reality of language, something internal to speakers but manifesting itself as external to them. Keywords: language, a language, degree of reality, modes of thinking, modes of being of things 1. Language and the Speaking Subject The first problem arising when you study language or any particular aspect of language is the problem of the nature of the object you study, that is, the nature of language. The first verification one can make is that language is something existing in speakers and by speakers. In this sense language is internal to the human being who speaks. Moreover language in so far as it is presented in most western languages with the word 'language' or similar ones (Fr. langage, Sp. lenguaje, P. linguagem, It. linguagio, Sp. lengua, Fr. langue, etc.) appears as something existing in itself, something out there, imposing itself on speakers. On the other hand speakers speak for others, that is, speech is directed to someone else who understands. In this sense language is external to the speaking subject. The problem with language then is that language is both internal and external to human beings. In order to know what language is it is necessary to analyze the function language performs both in the speaking subject and the listener and in the group of speakers who can speak and understand language in its narrower and broader sense. 2. Language as Something Internal to the Speaking Subject 2.1 Language as a Means to Overcome the Circumstance the Human Subject Is in Since language is internal to human subjects language is created in the conscience of speakers. A human subject is to be defined as the speaking subject (Coseriu 1985). Human subjects create language in their conscience because of which language defines human beings. Education and Linguistics Research ISSN 2377-1356 2016, Vol. 2, No. 1 http://elr.macrothink.org 41 Language thus is something exclusive and essential of humans. This fact reveals the nature of speaking subjects: they create language because they are free to imagine and create. Language in as much as it is created exists as a voluntary act of its creators. The faculty of imagining and creating is exclusive of the human subject who is in a particular circumstance having to do something in order to overcome it and survive (Ortega y Gasset, 1992b, 1992b). Language is nothing given to humans. It is something they must create since it constitutes the only means for them to survive in the world. 2.2 Language Is for Others Since language is internal to speaking subjects for language to be given there must be two speakers at least. Language is aimed at someone else. Human subjects create speech for others. In this sense language is not merely language: language is both language and a language. This fact reveals the double condition of being of humans. Human subjects create language speaking to others. That is, human subjects have to make themselves freely in collaboration with others. Speaking subjects are together-with-others (otherness, Coseriu 1985). In order to survive human subjects need the mutual help of others. This help is established through language and by means of language. In this sense speakers are co-speakers recognizing themselves in others. Because of this human subjects and language are social. 2.3 Language Made in History Since human subjects make themselves in participation with others they are historical, that is, they make themselves in history just from their birth. Because of this language is historical too, the manifestation of the historicity of its speakers. Language manifests itself as a series of historical objects, languages, made in participation of all speakers thus forming systems of contents, forms, units, rules, procedures, beliefs and attitudes put in common and constituting different speech communities (common > community). 2.4 Language Is Purposeful Since human subjects must do something in the circumstance they are in language aims at achieving something pragmatic at the speaker s interest. Because of this the state of affairs denoted in the linguistic expression is different from the reality denoted. Language thus is meaningful and symbolic. The words put in common in a speech community represent social conventions (Ortega y Gasset, 2001) but beyond these social conventions words and expressions aim at something not conventional but something determined intentionally, contextually and particularly. Language thus has meaning, designation and sense (Coseriu 1992). Language reveals the meaningful intentional purpose of the individual speaker (Martínez del Castillo, 2004, 2015b). 2.5 The Internal Arrangement of Things Since speakers are creative because they are free and thus absolute aiming at achieving something different they are transcendent. They do not describe things but create and represent the things created arranging and re-arranging them in their conscience. This means that speakers define themselves in the circumstance they are in, that is, they say about the things constituting the circumstance they are in (Martínez del Castillo, 2004). In this sense the execution of language, speaking, is not speaking but speaking and understanding. This Education and Linguistics Research ISSN 2377-1356 2016, Vol. 2, No. 1 http://elr.macrothink.org 42 fact as well reveals the character of the speaking subject. The speaking subject is intelligent because he is able to re-arrange things in order to get the maximum profit of the situation surrounding him. 2.6 Internal Definition of the Speaking Subject Since human subjects are free, creative, absolute, transcendent, together-with-others, social and historical, human subjects have a peculiar way of knowing. Speaking is not only speaking a language. It is speaking, saying and knowing. Human subjects speak because they have something to say, they say because they define themselves in the circumstance they are in at any moment and they define themselves because they are able to know (Martínez del Castillo, 2004, 2015b). 2.7 The Human Way of Knowing Since language is speaking, saying and knowing, the deepest genesis of language is the peculiar way of knowing of humans. The human way of knowing consists in the symbolic mental representation of different acts of perception thus making them into things. As a mental representation the act of knowing consists of two basic mental operations: first, it consists of the percept come to us through our senses or through imagination and creation. It is intuition (intuito, Descartes) designated as aísthesis (αἲσθησις=sensation) by Aristotle (cf. Ortega y Gasset, 1992). Aísthesis represents the starting point in human knowledge. Although it is sensitive it represents a mental understanding of itself, the connection of simple ideas representing something sensitive constituting with it a new reality (Ortega y Gasset, 1992). And second, it consists of the symbolic mental representation once the nature of aísthesis is changed in its way of being that from sensitive and concrete is made into abstract. The symbolic mental representation made in the conscience of the individual speaker is always executed in something material to be offered to others: words in the case of language and the particular means used in the different arts (a surface in painting, a piece of marble in sculpture, etc.). The human act of knowing represents the synthesis of sensibility and intellect by means of imagination (Kant, 2004), that is, the synthesis of the percept and something created on the part of the knowing subject. Since the words used in the act of knowing are common, that is, social conventions not belonging to the subject but the speech community, one thing is the percept perceived, that is, lived and something different is the meaning of words and something different is the things said. This is the problem of lógos or the problem of the relationships between language and thought. Lógos is the state lived by the speaking subject in his conscience. As a state lived in his conscience lógos prompts the act of knowing and thus the mental representation of aísthesis come to us through the senses. Lógos is sensitive and concrete. Since the human subject is intelligent lógos is intuitively understood but not made explicit. The problem comes when human subjects try to express their logos in words that represent social conventions. 2.8 The Birth of Language Since speaking subjects create language aiming at achieving something and since language is for others having to represent their creations mentally in words human subjects are limited and contingent. This means that language is limited, contingent and depends on the sounds of words, that is, language is form. Because of this language is born at the moment of speaking. Education and Linguistics Research ISSN 2377-1356 2016, Vol. 2, No. 1 http://elr.macrothink.org 43 Language is born when it is spoken. Language thus is nothing given to speakers, nothing existing before speakers. Language is the activity of speaking made by speakers involving knowledge, the knowledge to speak. 2.9 Language and Form The fact that language is form can be justified as well in the fact that for a human conscience to get into contact with another one is only possible through material means. Language thus is constituted with different systems of forms bearing contents forming units, rules and procedures and revealing attitudes and beliefs in force in a speech community. 2.10 The Speech Act as the Internal Activity of Speaking The speech act as a matter of fact represents the internal activity performed by speakers. As internal activity the speech act can be decomposed in a set of internal mental or intellective operations having to do with the act of conceiving and tackling with the chunk of reality apprehended and made known, the act of knowing. The speaking subject approximates reality, tries to capture it apprehending it with his senses (aísthesis), selects something out of the original concrete and sensual apprehension of reality, delimits the object apprehended thus transforming it into an abstract mental construct, creates a class or an essence, gives the construct a name, relates it to other concepts either existing in the conscience of the speaker or in the language, determines it thus orientating the construct created into real things and expresses it in words of a language. In this process of apprehension of the real in the act of knowing the speaking subject makes the following mental operations: first, the sensual concrete and material apprehension of things, intuition, aísthesis; second, the selection of something out of the initial apprehension of things; third, the delimitation of the thing apprehended and selected; fourth, the creation of a class or essence (a category) to attribute it to the construct created so far; fifth, relating the construct created to other concepts created either in the background of the speaker or in the tradition of speaking; sixth, giving the construct created a name; seventh, determining or orientating the construct created so far to the real; and finally expressing it in words of a language. In this process the construct apprehended was changed in its way of being in different forms: the sensual and concrete was made into abstract; the abstract was made virtual with the addition of the ideas of necessity and universality; the virtual was made objective; then the construct created was orientated to real things thus making it real; and finally with the use of words to express it the construct is made linguistic. The speech act is nothing but the execution of an act of knowing thus revealing the existence of language as something internal to speaking subjects (Martínez del Castillo, 2004, 2015b, 2015c, 2015d). As a consequence the speech act conceived in this way is nothing but the internal activity made by the speaking subject thus making possible the existence of what we call language and things such as they are conceived and considered to exist. Language thus is activity, the activity of speaking (Coseriu 1992), performed internally in accordance with the peculiar way of knowing of humans. Human knowledge encompasses both the sensitive given in intuition and the mental thus forming the symbolic representation in the synthesis of both (cf. Ortega y Gasset, 1992a; Ortega y Gasset, 1992b). 2.11 Language as the Result of the Human Act of Knowing Education and Linguistics Research ISSN 2377-1356 2016, Vol. 2, No. 1 http://elr.macrothink.org 44 The object to be studied now, language, is thus the product of sensibility (experience) and intellect (reason) by means of imagination and historicity. In this sense language as an object of knowledge is not anything different from any other object known. The human knowing subject who studies language as an object separates himself from the reality known. The reality of language is something lived in the conscience of the subject studying it different from the image or mental representation he as a speaker must create in his conscience in order to study it. However the reality of language manifests itself externally (cf. § 3 below). The external manifestation of language constitutes the data the linguist, both a linguist and a speaker, must analyze in order to verify his theory and interpret language. 2.12 Language and the Mental Problem Created in the Act of Knowing Language is the way it is because human subjects created it in their conscience thus revealing the human way of being, behaving and knowing. Correspondingly the words used to refer to the reality of language such as language, a language, speech, speech acts and the many of them referring to aspects of the reality of language used in the study of it (linguistic competence, sentence, word, text, thought etc.) do not refer to particular autonomous realities. They do not exist as concrete realities. Because of this they cannot be taken as the starting point to study the problem of language. They are nothing but particular aspects of a higher reality, the reality of humans who speak because they have something to say, who say because they define themselves before the circumstance they are in, who define themselves because they know thus constituting the only means they have to survive in the circumstance they are in. Language thus cannot be understood unless in connection to humans and the human life. Language does not constitute an autonomous unique reality but it refers to particular aspects of the reality of speaking subjects. 3. Language as Something External to Speakers Since language is form language manifests itself as something external to the speaking subject. Language thus constitutes a system to speak coming from the outside of the speaking subject, from others. Since all speakers participate in speaking language is constituted as a technique of speaking put in common. Because of this (the commonness of language) language constitutes the base of society in what it is called a speech community. The base of society is to be found in the peculiar way of being of humans, they are, as has already been said, together-with-others, that is, they participate with others in the same level of historicity and recognize themselves in others recognizing in the You another I (Coseriu 2006, 44). Although the reality of language is primarily internal language manifests itself in others because it is participated with others. 3.1 Historicity and the Process of Language Learning Human speaking subjects are born in a particular speech community at a particular moment of history. Because of this when they are born they will learn language intuitively in particular historical conditions. The language in force in a particular speech community constitutes a system of designations offered to speakers (Coseriu 1985). Speakers will accept the great majority of historical forms in force in the particular speech community they are born in and will create and thus offer new ones to the others. The newly born speaking subject will try to reproduce the sounds he hears and will interpret them in terms of meanings and designation. Education and Linguistics Research ISSN 2377-1356 2016, Vol. 2, No. 1 http://elr.macrothink.org 45 The forms and meanings created by him will coincide with the ones in force in his speech community or not. If the new form created is accepted he will reaffirm in his creation but if he verifies that the form is not accepted he will reject it. This process of language learning will last all the speaker's life long. It is the process of creation and resignation: creation of new individual forms and resignation of forms created tentatively if not accepted (Coseriu 1992). The process of language learning is based on the peculiar way of being of humans. Human subjects participate with others because they recognize themselves in others (otherness). Language is born when the words created by the individual speaker reverberate in the listener, that is, when the subjective representation of the sound given back to the ear of the listener is translated into something objectively real without being deprived of its original subjectivity (Humboldt, 1990). The condition of this process of participation and recognition is historicity. 3.2 Language as it Manifests Itself in Diálogos The degree of reality (cf. Ortega y Gasset 2005) of language cannot be verified in itself but in its manifestation. Language as internal to the speaking subject constitutes something previously known because of intuition in an internal experience. Speakers can verify their knowledge to speak (idiomatic knowledge, Coseriu 1992) in the verbal behavior of others. In dialogue (διά-λογος=by means of lógos) language manifests as it is. Language is speaking and understanding for both the speaker and the listener relieving each other in their roles of speaker and listener (Ortega y Gasset 1987). 3.2.1. Language and Lógos Language manifests itself as language, that is, as the state lived by the speaker in his conscience. In this sense language is lógos, the creation of meanings in the conscience of the speaking subject. But lógos when it manifests itself needs the words of a language. Since words are social conventions lógos appears only as the meanings of a language: lógos as the reality lived by speakers in their conscience constitutes something different from meanings. The problem with lógos consists in guessing what it is. This problem is always present in dialogue. Speakers do not pay attention to the words used but to the speaker's intention. Coseriu separates two types of lógos: semantic lógos and apophantic lógos. Semantic lógos as a state lived by the speaking subject is universal since it constitutes the meaningful function. It is historical since it belongs to a particular language performed in historical forms. And it is individual since the meaningful function is expressed in forms of a language using contexts and situations. Lógos when it appears with a poetic, pragmatic or fantastic determination is apophantic lógos. Apophantic lógos is universal in three senses: a) in as much as it is knowledge (example: it is minus twelve degrees outside); b) differs from logic (example: he lived to be three scores and five); and c) linguistic classifications of the real (=linguistic categories) differ from scientific classifications (example: it is evening, it is dawn). In this sense lógos apophantic goes beyond languages. It is historical since the real and its knowledge impose on linguistic intuition and meanings (example: a sea of troubles). And it is individual since it appears in particular types of texts (a sonnet, a song, a ballad, greetings, etc.) (cf. Martínez del Castillo, 2009). 3.2.2 Language as a Language Education and Linguistics Research ISSN 2377-1356 2016, Vol. 2, No. 1 http://elr.macrothink.org 46 Language manifests itself as a particular or historical language, that is, a historical object made in history in force and supported on a particular speech community. As a historical object a language manifests itself as independent and different from others. 3.2.3 Language as Speech But languages cannot be verified in themselves but in speech. In order to verify a particular language it is necessary to know about that language somehow. In accordance with the peculiar way of knowing of humans, for a human free subject to know he has to add something mental previously known or created on intuition to the thing perceived at the very act of knowing. As with language and a language speech is known because of an interior experience, that is, on intuition. Because of this idiomatic knowledge is previous to the performance of speech. Speech can be verified in innumerable speech acts. From the point of view of the creation of concepts, the concept "speech act" involves an apparent contradiction. It represents a typical synthetic a priori statement: an assumption taken from the real (experience) and given universality and necessity (Kant, Descartes, Ortega y Gasset). For a synthetic a priori statement to be given it is necessary to verify the existence of a few items of the thing studied in experience. Then the mental image of those few items is taken as representative of the whole class of items thus making it be considered the essence of what is going to be studied. But since a speech act is known intuitively because the knowledge of it is previous to its performance it cannot be considered a synthetic a priori statement. This fact reveals the difficulty involved in the study of language and the human problems they all involved with freedom and free activities. On the other hand speech acts which are innumerable having been given in the past, being given in the present and constituting the mental image for future performances revert to the activity of speaking, something made by speakers, the product of a free intelligent agent (the human speaking subject) thus giving an object made (speech acts, speech) and revealing the reality of language and a language. 3.3 Problems Posed in the Study of Language and the Human Sciences The fact of the existence of language on the one hand and the different and disparate languages on the other poses the problem of which one is first. This problem, which is the same as the one distinguishing language as internal and external to the speaking subject, can be solved in two ways: a) the concept of language may be achieved with abstracting from the different languages in the world, that is, from experience through induction. In this sense languages are first and language would be the generalization of the peculiarities of particular languages once they were studied and analyzed. This is the assumption of the so-called general linguistics, sometimes called typology. Or the contrary, b) the concept of language may be the result of an original intuitive idea by speakers. In this sense language as the creation of meanings and lógos is first. This position is to be justified in the fact that language is internal to the speaking subject thus constituting internal knowledge previous to the act of speaking and thus knowing. The problem in this second position consists in explaining and interpreting the previous knowledge they have about human problems in terms of the reality of humans with the constant verification of them in the verbal behavior of speakers. Education and Linguistics Research ISSN 2377-1356 2016, Vol. 2, No. 1 http://elr.macrothink.org 47 Human subjects create things in the very act of knowing. Dealing with human matters -and linguistics in particular- the so-called original (intuitive) knowledge determines theories. Original knowledge is that type of knowledge a man has about him himself and his free activities (and of course, about the aims and purposes of these ones) (Husserl; cf. Coseriu 1986b). Aristotle solved this problem with the introduction of purposeful causes in the study of things, causes determining free acts. J. B. Vico introduced the distinction between certum and verum in science. In human sciences, for Vico, certum and verum coincide (Coseriu 1986b: 70). In human sciences theories are present before, during and after empirical verification. Before, in as much as theories represent a preliminary delimitation of the original knowledge and the motivation of empirical verification; during, as the foundation and settings of that empirical verification; and after, as theories made clear, corrected and enriched with empirical verification. In accordance with this linguistics consists in the transformation of that original knowledge, cognitio clara confusa into cognitio clara distincta et adaequata (Leibniz) or the transformation of that type of knowledge only known (bekannt) into recognized (erkannt) (Hegel) (cf. Coseriu 1999). Induction, that is, the study of things based on the individual cannot give us an idea of such a complex and multiform reality as the one in languages because in induction the thing to be studied is the individual one. The essence of things is a mental creation and because of this it must be universal. The mental creation created on a particular language or a set of particular languages will always be individual. In the case of language, something internal to speakers, the essence of language is known not because of induction or synthetic a priori statements but through intuition because of an internal experience (original intuitive knowledge). Considering that language is something internal to the speaking subject and that language cannot be verified in itself unless in its performance language is first. Languages thus constitute necessary conditions for language to exist. Languages then constitute universals of language because they are necessary for the existence, performance and manifestation of language. 3.4 Language as it is Performed, the Activity of Speaking and Idiomatic Knowledge The set of innumerable speech acts constitutes the activity of speaking. The activity of speaking in its deepest genesis is internal to speakers but manifests itself externally. The activity of speaking constitutes the data necessary for the study and verification of the reality of language. The activity of speaking manifests itself as knowledge, the knowledge to speak, idiomatic knowledge or linguistic competence. Idiomatic knowledge is formed on a double basis: on the base of individual creations and the solidarity of speaking subjects with their co-speakers. In this sense and through abstraction we can speak of different realities in the activity of speaking they all referring to the manifestation of language. If we consider the activity of speaking on the base of individual creations the activity of speaking involves two factors, the agent of the activity, the human subject, and the thing done. Due to the peculiarities of the human condition of being together-with-others and the fact that language is at least for two the thing done relates to a language and a language is necessarily supported by a speech community. Languages in this sense do not appear or disappear they change and develop because they are spoken. Because of this the concepts of a language and a speech community relate to the same reality, the first one stressing the thing done in itself and the Education and Linguistics Research ISSN 2377-1356 2016, Vol. 2, No. 1 http://elr.macrothink.org 48 second one as the necessary condition for a language to exist. In the study of language two axes must be established, the axis of creation and the axis of solidarity. Creation has to do with innovation, variety and evolution. Solidarity has to do with the actual performance, fixation, permanence and homogeneity. Since speakers are free and absolute they create and since speakers are together-with-others they keep a double relationship of solidarity with their co-speakers: solidarity with those who speak the same language at the moment of speaking, horizontal solidarity; and solidarity with those who spoke the language before them, vertical solidarity. The first type of solidarity is synchrony having to do with the state of the language. The second one has to do with diachrony, the study of the evolution of language in history. 3.5 The State of the Language A state of the language is the language actually spoken in a particular speech community, a set of systems of isoglosses (=common speech acts) extending during a shorter or longer period of time. The state of the language involves a particular configuration of the activity of speaking. As a matter of fact a state of the language is nothing but a traditional technique in the activity of speaking functioning in a speech community. A technique of speaking is a set of knowledge, forms, contents and procedures by virtue of which the activity of speaking is performed. In synchrony all linguistic forms are analogous, not homogeneous. A language has constituted itself historically in a speech community as an ideal unit to be identified by its speakers. A language occurs historically and can be studied, not described, in its historical evolution. From the point of view of diachrony a language is a series of techniques in the activity of speaking (Coseriu 1986b) succeeding one another in history. The unity of the object we call a language, say English, is the set of common linguistic acts, that is, forms, contents and units constituting a set of isoglosses. Speakers of a particular language can identify this fact. They can understand the language of previous states of the language within certain limits. For example, English speakers can understand the language of Shakespeare because Modern English is constituted on the same tradition as the language of Shakespeare. The description of a language is to be made in terms of horizontal solidarity of its elements with one another; the evolution of the language is to be constituted in terms of the vertical solidarity of its elements. 4. Language as Something Autonomous Since language necessarily manifests itself as a historical object it appears as something objective and autonomous. This fact reveals the way of knowing of humans who objectify things known. Every historical object (a language) reveals a cosmic vision of the world. A cosmic vision of a particular language or set of languages constituting groups is structured in two basic radical components: the mode of thinking of its speakers and the mode of being of things. Both components constitute the same factor in the problem of knowledge since the mode of being is nothing but the mode of thinking as it is performed in things. The mode of thinking is notional, the mode of being executive (Martínez del Castillo, 2013, 2015j). In the Western World the prevailing mode of thinking is the so-called substantive being born around the Eastern Mediterranean in the sixth century before Christ. For Parmenides of Elea, being, what it is, what is behind what it is, is alien to generation and corruption. Being is, Education and Linguistics Research ISSN 2377-1356 2016, Vol. 2, No. 1 http://elr.macrothink.org 49 according to Parmenides, one, eternal, immovable, with no principle or end. Together with this he added, being is and it is impossible for it not to be and non-being is not (Ferrater Mora). In accordance with the analysis of Ortega y Gasset Parmenides extracted being from non-being (=nought). For Ortega y Gasset, this conception meant the attribution of reason to the real. Because of this thought became lógos, that is, something going beyond words (Ortega y Gasset OC, IX: 1063). This conception of being created innumerable metaphysical problems, one of them the problem of movement. In the fourth century before Christ Aristotle formulated the concept of being as ἐνέργεια ὄν. Being is a substance, something existing in itself. With this he distinguished three aspects in being: being is being in act, ἐνέργεια κατ  ἔργον, not needing anything else to exist; being is the performance of itself, ἐνέργεια κατ  ἐνἐργειαν; and being is the mental image of itself, ἐνέργεια κατα δὑναμιν. For example, a block of marble is a piece of rock but it may become a statue of Jove thus constituting the image of Jove and Jove itself. With the introduction of the concept of substance to the concept of being by Aristotle, ἐνέργεια ὄν, things can be analyzed individually, generally and universally. For example, I saw a squirrel; a male squirrel; a squirrel is a small furry wild animal with a long bushy tail, respectively. The so-called substantive being conceives things objectively as if they were things in themselves. It is the peculiar and underlying mode of thinking in force in western languages, the Western World and the Western Civilization, contrary to other civilizations all around the world conceiving things differently. As a matter of fact Greek thinkers took this concept of being from their tradition of speaking and their cultural influence made other people adopt this way of thinking. The concept of substantive being was later on modified in the 17th century with the introduction of intuition in thinking by Descartes, the modern mode of being or being as intuition. This fact prompted the birth of idealism in philosophy and the creation of positive science (the new science) by Galileo. Today since 20th century new modes of being were introduced, namely, being as it manifests itself, executive being and real being, modes of being co-existing with substantive being and being as intuition. These modes of being can be seen in language in the following way: a) Speakers intuit and create language (the mode of thinking of being as intuition). b) Speakers acquire and perform language (executive mode of thinking). c) For speakers, language is διἀλογος: activity and mode of speaking, that is, speakers speak, say and know in accordance with historical traditions thus involving others (mode of thinking of being as manifesting itself). d) Speakers use language thus making themselves human (mode of thinking of being as real). e) Speakers evaluate and speak of language as a series of entities: language, the English language, meanings, words, speech, speech act, speech sounds, the correct use of expressions and words, etc. (substantive mode of thinking). And this is the basis for us to say that speakers live language, that is, speakers intuit, create, acquire, perform, speak and say, use, evaluate and even speak of language. This fact can be Education and Linguistics Research ISSN 2377-1356 2016, Vol. 2, No. 1 http://elr.macrothink.org 50 analyzed in linguists when they study language. Since linguists are necessarily speakers of a language they must use language, the same as ordinary speakers, to make a description of language, that is, to determine the degree of reality of the problem of language. For speakers language 1) Involves intuition to know the piece of reality they want to speak of. For linguists language study involves the creation of a theory. That is, the linguist has to make series of analytic statements (modern mode of thinking). 2) Speakers learn language from their co-speakers. For linguists to study language means describing the verbal behavior of speakers either individually or in participation with others in a speech community (executive mode of thinking). 3) Speakers manifest their intelligence and freedom, their mode of thinking and way of conceiving things in speech. For linguists language must be described in accordance with the way of being of speakers (mode of thinking of being as manifesting itself) 4) Since speakers use the circumstance they are in thus creating contexts to define themselves and speak linguists must study the degree of reality of language and all aspects in it in terms of the radical reality they are based on, that is, the human subject (being as real). 5) And for both speakers and linguists the description of language and its manifestations cannot be made unless language manifestations are objectified, that is, conceived as entities (substantive being). 5. Language and Speakers Language exists in speakers, because of speakers and for speakers. Language is both internal and external to the speaking subject, something intuited since it constitutes knowledge created in the conscience of the individual speaker, performed in accordance with thought just because it is lógos; aimed at achieving something different, put in common in a speech community thus making and re-making itself in history; something material used as a means of expression, directed to someone else, participated by all speakers who recognize themselves in others thus constituting the essence of human subjects and the only means they have to survive in this world. 6. Conclusion Language is real in as much as it relates to human subjects who are free and contingent, absolute and limited, transcendent and historical thus making themselves in participation with others and recognizing themselves in others. Human subjects speak, say and know. Since language depends on human subjects linguistics is nothing but the study of real language manifest in the verbal behavior of speakers. References Coseriu, E. (1981). Principios de semántica estructural (Principles of structural semantics). Madrid: Gredos. Coseriu, E. (1982). Teoría del lenguaje y lingüística general: cinco estudios (Language theory and general linguistics, five studies). Madrid: Gredos. Coseriu, E. (1985). El hombre y su lenguaje: estudios de teoría y metodología lingüística (Man and his language: studies in theoretical and methodological linguistics). Madrid: Education and Linguistics Research ISSN 2377-1356 2016, Vol. 2, No. 1 http://elr.macrothink.org 51 Gredos. Coseriu, E. (1986a). Introducción a la lingüística (Introduction to linguistics). Madrid: Gredos. Coseriu, E. (1986b). Lecciones de lingüística general (Lessons in general linguistics). Madrid: Gredos. Coseriu, E. (1987). Gramática, semántica, universales (Grammar, semantics, universals). Madrid: Gredos. Coseriu, E. (1988). Sincronía, diacronía e historia: el problema del cambio lingüístico (Synchrony, diachrony and history: the problem of language change). Madrid: Gredos. Coseriu, E. (1992). Competencia lingüística: elementos de la teoría del hablar (Linguistic competence: elements of the theory of speaking). Madrid: Gredos. Coseriu, E. (1993). Discursos pronunciados en el acto de investidura de 'Doctor Honoris Causa' del Excelentísimo Sr. Eugenio Coseriu (Speeches in the ceremony of the most honored and learned Don Eugenio Coseriu as a doctor honoris causa). Granada: Universidad de Granada. Coseriu, E. (1999). Acto de Investidura del Dr. Eugenio Coseriu (Ceremony of investiture of Dr. Eugenio Coseriu). Madrid: Universidad Complutense de Madrid. Coseriu, E. (2006). Lenguaje y discurso (Language and Speech). Pamplona: Eunsa. Ferrater Mora, J. Diccionario de filosofía (Dictionary of philosophy). RBA: Grandes Obras de la Cultura. Humboldt, W. von. (1990). Sobre la diversidad de la estructura del lenguaje humano y su influencia sobre el desarrollo espiritual de la humanidad (On the diversity of the structure of human language and its influence on the spiritual development of Mankind). Spanish translation, Ana Agud. Anthropos Editorial del Hombre and Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia. Kant, I. (2004). Crítica de la razón pura (Criticism on pure reason). RBA: Grandes Obras de la Cultura. Lasaga Medina, J. (2005). "Introducción" ("Introduction"). In J. Ortega y Gasset. En torno a Galileo. Madrid: Biblioteca Nueva. Martínez del Castillo, J. (2004). La lingüística del decir: el logos semántico y el logos apofántico (Linguistics of Saying: semantic and apophantic lógos). Granada: Granada Lingvistica (cf. Martínez del Castillo 2015a-2015l). Martínez del Castillo, J. (2009). El logos semántico y el logos apofántico. Energeia, online-Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft und Sprachwissenschaftgechischte, I, 50-80. Martínez del Castillo, Jesús. (2012). Semantics and Lexicology. Almería: Universidad de Almería. Martínez del Castillo, J. (2013a). Modes of Thinking, Language and Linguistics, in Analecta Malacitana, Anejos/94. Martínez del Castillo, Jesús. (2015a). Linguistics of Saying. Presentation. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 3(6-1), 1-4. Martínez del Castillo, Jesús. (2015b). The Meaningful Intentional Purpose of the Individual Education and Linguistics Research ISSN 2377-1356 2016, Vol. 2, No. 1 http://elr.macrothink.org 52 Speaker. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 3(6-1), 5-10. Martínez del Castillo, Jesús. (2015c). The Process of Abstraction in the Creation of Meanings. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 3(6-1), 11-23. Martínez del Castillo, Jesús. (2015d). Fixing the Content Created in the Act of Knowing. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 3(6-1), 24-30. Martínez del Castillo, Jesús. (2015e). The Speech Act as an Act of Knowing. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 3(6-1), 31-38. Martínez del Castillo, Jesús. (2015f). Determining the Degree of Reality of Language. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 3(6-1), 39-49. Martínez del Castillo, Jesús. (2015g). Meaning and Language. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 3(6-1), 50-58. Martínez del Castillo, Jesús. (2015h). The Activity of Speaking. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 3(6-1), 59-66. Martínez del Castillo, Jesús. (2015i). Meaning, What Is It. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 3(6-1), 67-76. Martínez del Castillo, Jesús. (2015j). Modes of Thinking in Language Study. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 3(6-1), 77-84. Martínez del Castillo, Jesús. (2015k). Modes of Thinking and Language Change: The Loss of Inflexions in Old English. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 3(6-1), 85-95. Martínez del Castillo, Jesús. (2015l). Categories and Language. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 3(6-1), 96-104. Martínez del Castillo, Jesús. (2015m). Linguistics as a theory of knowledge. Education and Linguistics Research, 1(2), 62-84. http://dx.doi.org/10.5296/elr.v1i2.8368 Ortega y Gasset, J. (1966). La rebelión de las masas (The revolt of the masses). Madrid: Austral. Ortega y Gasset, J. (1983). Kant, Hegel, Scheler. Alianza Editorial. Ortega y Gasset, J. (1986). Mirabeau, Contreras, Vives. Alianza Editorial. Ortega y Gasset, J. (1987). El tema de nuestro tiempo (The topics of our time). Alianza Editorial. Ortega y Gasset , J. (1989). Una interpretación de la historia universal (An Interpretation to universal history). Alianza Editorial. Ortega y Gasset, J. (1992a). La idea de principio en Leibniz y la evolución de la teoría deductiva (The idea of principle in Leibniz and the evolution of the deductive theory). Alianza Editorial. Ortega y Gasset, J. (1992b). ¿Qué es conocimiento? (What is knowledge). Alianza Editorial. Ortega y Gasset, J. (1994). ¿Qué es filosofía? (What is philosophy) Alianza Editorial. Ortega y Gasset, J. (1996). Sobre la razón histórica (On historical reason). Alianza Editorial. Ortega y Gasset, J. (2001). El hombre y la gente (Man and people). Alianza Editorial. Ortega y Gasset, J. (2002a). Misión de la Universidad (The mission of the university). Alianza Editorial. Education and Linguistics Research ISSN 2377-1356 2016, Vol. 2, No. 1 http://elr.macrothink.org 53 Ortega y Gasset, J. (2002b). Meditación de la técnica (Meditation on technics). Alianza Editorial. Ortega y Gasset, J. (2004). El espectador, VIII, Obras completas (The spectator, VIII, Complete Works) vol. II. Ortega y Gasset, J. (2005). En torno a Galileo (On Galileo). Biblioteca Nueva. Ortega y Gasset, J. (2009). Obras Completas (Complete Works), vol. IX. Madrid: Fundación Ortega y Gasset y Taurus. Popper, K. (2002). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London and New York: Routledge. Copyright Disclaimer Copyright reserved by the author(s). This article is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).