Philosophy: Meaning and Language

109문장 0% 중국어 번역 0명 참여 출처 : 칸아카데미
번역 0%

Philosophy: Meaning and Language 발음듣기

(intro music) Hi, I'm Kate Ritchie.발음듣기

I'm an assistant professor of philosophy at the City College of New York.발음듣기

Today, I'm going to talk about meaning and language.발음듣기

In particular, we'll focus on ways to explain how some sounds and marks on a page or computer screen have meaning.발음듣기

For example, what makes the sounds "snow is white" and "mercury" meaningful, while this sound (keys jangling) fails to have meaning?발음듣기

The question we're focusing on is "What gives a word or utterance meaning?"발음듣기

This is a question about what determines meaning.발음듣기

This could be called a foundational meaning question, since we're looking for what serves as the determiners or foundations of an expression or sentence's meaning.발음듣기

In contrast, one might also ask questions about what a particular word or utterance means.발음듣기

Dictionaries classify these bits of information.발음듣기

Questions like "What does 'cat' mean?" or "What does 'gato' mean?" are descriptive meaning questions.발음듣기

When we ask descriptive meaning questions, we're not asking "What gives the word 'cat' meaning?", but what meaning it actually has.발음듣기

Here, we are going to focus on foundational meaning questions.발음듣기

We'll look at two ways to answer foundational meaning questions, questions about what gives a word or utterance meaning.발음듣기

There have been two general sorts of answers to this question: internalist answers and externalist answers.발음듣기

Internalists argue that mental or psychological states determine meaning.발음듣기

These theories are called "internalist," as the psychological states are inside individual persons, maybe inside individual persons' heads.발음듣기

These psychological states are the things internalists say fix meaning.발음듣기

Externalists, on the other hand, argue that something outside of the individual is required to determine meaning.발음듣기

They usually appeal to natural features of the world, or the expertise of others in society.발음듣기

Let's look at the internalist view.발음듣기

The internalists' view was argued for by the philosopher Paul Grice.발음듣기

Grice argued that speaker intentions determine meaning.발음듣기

What are intentions? Intentions are purposes or goals we have in acting.발음듣기

For example, you might turn on your TV with the intention of watching a basketball game.발음듣기

I might walk out of my house with the intention of taking the bus to work.발음듣기

Grice argued that intentions of a specific sort can account for certain sounds and marks on a page or computer screen being meaningful.발음듣기

He developed the theory on which a sentence has a particular meaning given a speaker's or writer's intentions.발음듣기

Let's look at an example. I'm going to say a sentence now.발음듣기

Here it goes: "Grice lived in Oxford."발음듣기

You probably already know what this means.발음듣기

Let's call its meaning, whatever it is, "P."발음듣기

Remember, here we're concerned with foundational meaning questions, rather than descriptive meaning questions, so we can sidestep questions about what the sentence means and instead focus on how it is that it has meaning.발음듣기

According to Grice, my utterance of that sentence means "P" just in case I, the speaker or writer, uttered that sentence intending three things.발음듣기

First, that my audience (that's you) come to believe "P."발음듣기

Second, that my audience recognizes that I want you to come to believe that P, that I had that intention.발음듣기

And third, that you come to believe "P," given your recognition that I wanted you to come to believe "P."발음듣기

So far, this theory tells us what a particular utterance of a sentence means.발음듣기

It tells us what my utterance, the one I made just a minute ago, means based on the intentions I had.발음듣기

Usually, utterances of sentences mean the same thing.발음듣기

If you, later today, say to a friend, "Grice lived in Oxford."발음듣기

It means "P." It means the same thing that my utterance, "Grice lived in Oxford," meant just a moment ago.발음듣기

So we might want an account that tells us what that sentence itself eternally, or given every utterance, means.발음듣기

Grice argued that a sentence's meaning depends on the way speakers and writers use it.발음듣기

If speakers tend to use "Grice lived in Oxford" to mean that a particular person resided in some town in England, then that is what it means.발음듣기

So in this way, certain sounds and marks are meaningful due to intentions.발음듣기

Intentions are goals that are represented psychologically in individuals, so this is an internalist theory.발음듣기

Next, let's look at how an externalist would answer the question "What makes our words or utterances meaningful?"발음듣기

Externalists hold that meaning is determined by what is external to a language user.발음듣기

The philosopher Hilary Putnam famously argued that "meanings just ain't in the head."발음듣기

He argues that meanings are external in an important way.발음듣기

He starts his argument by explaining two conditions many philosophers have accepted.발음듣기

First, knowing the meaning of a term is just being in a psychological state.발음듣기

Internalists take meaning to require speaker intentions, which are psychological.발음듣기

So internalists would accept this condition.발음듣기

The second condition is that the meaning of an expression determines what things the expression applies to.발음듣기

For example, the meaning of this expression, "creature with a kidney," determines a certain group of things that have kidneys.발음듣기

You're one of those things, I'm one of those things, my dog is one of those things, and lots of other creatures, every other creature with a kidney.발음듣기

Any expression with the same meaning as "creature with a kidney" will apply to all those same things.발음듣기

So for example, "renate" means "creature with a kidney," so "renate" and "creature with a kidney" apply to exactly the same things: you, me, my dog, and so on.발음듣기

Putnam accepts this second condition, but argues that the first must be rejected.발음듣기

Meanings, he concludes, are not psychological states.발음듣기

Meanings just ain't in the head.발음듣기

He argues for the conclusion by appealing to thought experiments.발음듣기

Thought experiments are hypothetical situations that philosophers use to help determine what would make something true and what the conditions for accurately applying a concept are.발음듣기

They help us to look beyond the way our world really is to consider ways the world might have been.발음듣기

The most famous thought experiment for externalism focuses on a scenario involving Earth and another planet we could call "Twin Earth."발음듣기

Putnam asks us to imagine the following situation.발음듣기

Imagine a person named Oscar, living on Earth in 1750.발음듣기

Oscar, like all of us, has come in contact with water.발음듣기

He's had some to drink, he's swum in it, he's admired it flowing in a river, he thinks of it as something like "the colorless, "odorless, tasteless liquid that fills "the lakes and streams and comes out of the faucet."발음듣기

Oscar thinks, and sometimes says, things like "water is wet" and "I would love a cold glass of water."발음듣기

Oscar doesn't think things like "water is H2O," since the chemical structure of water has not yet been discovered.발음듣기

Now, imagine another planet, called "Twin Earth."발음듣기

On Twin Earth, there are duplicates of everything on Earth.발음듣기

There's a duplicate Rome, a duplicate Nile River.발음듣기

There's a duplicate Oscar. We can call him "Twin Oscar."발음듣기

Twin Earth looks just like Earth.발음듣기

However, the stuff that fills the lakes, streams, and taps on Twin Earth is not H2O.발음듣기

Instead, it has a distinct chemical structure, call it "XYZ."발음듣기

On Twin Earth, Twin Oscar has come in contact with XYZ.발음듣기

Twin Oscar would say things that sound like this: "water is wet" and "I would love a cold glass of water."발음듣기

Oscar and Twin Oscar are, according to Putnam, psychological duplicates.발음듣기

Both think of wet liquid substances that fill lakes and streams, they say things that sound identical, they report their feelings in ways that sound identical, yet, Putnam argues, they're different.발음듣기

Oscar says things about water, the H2O stuff, while Twin Oscar has thoughts, and says things, about twin water, the XYZ stuff.발음듣기

Oscar asks for a glass of H2O, while Twin Oscar asks for a glass of XYZ.발음듣기

Since they are psychologically identical but mean different things when they make the same sound, "water," meaning cannot be wholly internal.발음듣기

Meanings, Putnam argues, "just ain't in the head."발음듣기

Let's look at one more example that's meant to be an argument for externalism.발음듣기

This example is also developed by Putnam.발음듣기

Suppose that I cannot tell the difference between beech trees and elm trees.발음듣기

I think of both as deciduous trees that grow in North America, and I just don't have any more information about them.발음듣기

Given this, it seems that I am in the same psychological state when thinking "beeches are lovely" and "elms are lovely."발음듣기

So, if meaning determines what things an expression applies to, and all meaning is is one's psychological state, then for me, "elm" and "beech" pick out the same thing.발음듣기

I'm in the same psychological state when I think about elms and beeches.발음듣기

But that doesn't seem right. I speak English and I use "elm" and "beech" in the same way as a more informed individual does.발음듣기

It seems when I say "elm," I mean "elm," and I pick out elms, just like an arborist would.발음듣기

And when I say "beech, I mean "beech," and I pick out beech trees.발음듣기

So meanings cannot be psychological states. Meanings cannot be wholly internal.발음듣기

If you're convinced by these examples, we can ask, "What external things are relevant to meaning?"발음듣기

Both examples give evidence that one's natural, physical environment affects meaning.발음듣기

What kinds of things are out there in one's physical environment affects the meanings of one's words and utterances.발음듣기

Others have argued that the external, social environment also affects meaning.발음듣기

According to the externalist, causal and historical connections with our natural and social environment work to determine what our expressions and utterances mean. Let's sum up.발음듣기

We began with the question "What makes our words and sentences meaningful?"발음듣기

We saw that the internalists argue that complex speaker intentions that are part of an individual's psychological state determine meaning.발음듣기

In contrast, externalists argue that some external factors, like one's natural environment, work to determine what our words and sentences mean.발음듣기

These are two ways to answer foundational meaning questions.발음듣기

Top