- Though it is obvious language sometimes makes truth/false statements, it does not mean language is always making a truth/false statement, and as unique as language, it is also intuitively absurd to assert if a language is not “true/false”, it does have any value at all/are nonsense. For instance, if someone steps on me or I just knock my head somehow, and I say “oh, sh*t”, does that mean there is sh*t somewhere, or there is no sh*t and I just talk nonsense? Also, this suggestion solves a lot of ironic languages that are hard to explain by logic, as in the case someone says something stupid or ridiculous and I say “yea-yeah”.
- Instead of focusing on what the language intended to mean or weather language always making truth statements, he suggests another way to look at language, from the action within the language or the environment the language is in. In this sense, language is not something apart from the reality, but something roots in reality and actions.
- I would agree that J. L. Austin broadens our understanding of language, and his work covers more than what the people before him ever try to cover, but I wouldn’t brush aside the truth value of language completely. So I wonder how he explains the speakers of language sometimes truly merely want to deliver an idea only, as in the case I say I am agnostic but I speak as I know something for practical reasons.
Wednesday, May 4, 2016
Austin [Hui Yang]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My understanding was that Austin was merely trying to move away from solely focusing on truth values of statements. I think there were a couple of places in the paper where he mentioned how a sentence's relation to the factual world could be quite relevant, but I don't think he got into the specifics (at least not as much as your objection might require). Your example is an interesting one though because it seems to me very similar to an expression of an emotion as you are the only person who can really determine the truth value of the statement.
ReplyDelete--André Robert