11
FROM KNOWLEDGE TO LANGUAGE: WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO COMMUNICATE? *  JUN C. BERNADOS **  Introduction : When a newborn comes to maturity, the first faculty that he needs to develop is the faculty to communicate. Learning to talk and teaching the child to talk are the two of the conscious efforts that are observed and followed through. These efforts are fundamental in the impartation of knowledge, although there are many modes of knowledge dissemination aside from linguistic means. However, linguistic dissemination of knowledge is a primary device that men use in human interaction. Ideas are expressed into something concrete, or shall we say, ideas are concretized in the course of knowledge dissemination. Ideas are represented by symbols whose intentionalities or meanings are universally comprehended. According to Lee (2001), when a child acquires a language, meanings of words are not the only ones learned but also the linguistic expressions and its nuances 1 . This paper will consider the following: I. the foundation of ideas and the criteria for the validity of knowledge II. philosophical consideration on language specifically on the relation between knowledge and language I. Foundation of Ideas Even from the early days, there have been many attempts to explain not only the nature of ideas but also the foundation of ideas. Starting from Plato's conceptualization --- that ideas are innate --- to the contemporary thoughts --- that ideas have foundations from the things or res ---, it seems the debate is endless and has taken a different course of discussion. We will not mention all of them, but only discuss those that are germane to the discussion at hand. Numerous schools of thought have attempted to discuss the origin of ideas. * Published at KINI, the official publication of the Cebu State College of Science and Technology, Cebu City. 2004. ** Philosophy and Human and Social Sciences Professor at the Cebu State College Of Science And Technology- Cebu City Campus and Ph.D. Anthropology candidate at the University of San Carlos, Cebu City.

What Does It Mean To Communicate: Do We Really Mean What We Mean?

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: What Does It Mean To Communicate: Do We Really Mean What We Mean?

7/30/2019 What Does It Mean To Communicate: Do We Really Mean What We Mean?

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/what-does-it-mean-to-communicate-do-we-really-mean-what-we-mean 1/11

FROM KNOWLEDGE TO LANGUAGE:WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO COMMUNICATE?* 

JUN C. BERNADOS**

 

Introduction:

When a newborn comes to maturity, the first faculty that he needs to develop is thefaculty to communicate. Learning to talk and teaching the child to talk are the two of theconscious efforts that are observed and followed through. These efforts are fundamental inthe impartation of knowledge, although there are many modes of knowledge disseminationaside from linguistic means.

However, linguistic dissemination of knowledge is a primary device that men use inhuman interaction. Ideas are expressed into something concrete, or shall we say, ideas areconcretized in the course of knowledge dissemination. Ideas are represented by symbolswhose intentionalities or meanings are universally comprehended. According to Lee(2001), when a child acquires a language, meanings of words are not the only ones learnedbut also the linguistic expressions and its nuances

1.

This paper will consider the following:

I. the foundation of ideas and the criteria for the validity of knowledge

II. philosophical consideration on language specifically on the relation between knowledgeand language

I. Foundation of Ideas 

Even from the early days, there have been many attempts to explain not only thenature of ideas but also the foundation of ideas. Starting from Plato's conceptualization ---that ideas are innate --- to the contemporary thoughts --- that ideas have foundations fromthe things or res ---, it seems the debate is endless and has taken a different course ofdiscussion. We will not mention all of them, but only discuss those that are germane to thediscussion at hand.

Numerous schools of thought have attempted to discuss the origin of ideas.

*Published at KINI, the official publication of the Cebu State College of Science and Technology,

Cebu City. 2004.

**Philosophy and Human and Social Sciences Professor at the Cebu State College Of Science

And Technology- Cebu City Campus and Ph.D. Anthropology candidate at the University of SanCarlos, Cebu City.

Page 2: What Does It Mean To Communicate: Do We Really Mean What We Mean?

7/30/2019 What Does It Mean To Communicate: Do We Really Mean What We Mean?

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/what-does-it-mean-to-communicate-do-we-really-mean-what-we-mean 2/11

2

Notable among these schools are the Platonists, Realists, Idealists, and Empiricists.However, for the purposes of this paper, we will limit our discussion with the empiricists andthe rationalists and try to link these theories to the consideration on language.

When we say, "The apple is red", what does it mean to say "The apple is red". Havewe asked what an apple is? How about red? Bittle argued that before an individual willargue or disclose an idea, he/she must have a clear and precise understanding of theintentionality of ideas disclosed

2. What is an apple? Why do I say that it is an apple? How

about red? Why do I say that it is red? How do I know that it is red? What is the basis ofmy comparison?

The Foundation of Knowledge: The Empiricists Perspectives 

The question on the origin of ideas has stirred the minds of men. Where do ideascome from? What are the criteria of their validity? How will they be signified? These are

 just some of the basic questions that somehow brought numerous answers from differentcamps. Although different camps have different answers, we will be dealing only theempiricists' perspectives. Among the empiricists, we will tackle only the ideas of JohnLocke, George Berkeley, and David Hume.

John Locke (1632-1704), George Berkeley (1685-1753), and David Hume (1711-1776) agreed that human knowledge has its foundation on the senses, experience orsensation. To this effect, they proposed that human knowledge has an empirical beginning.Locke wrote:

Let us then suppose the mind to be, as we say, white paper, void of all

characters, without any ideas:-- How comes it to be furnished? . . . To this Ianswer, in one word, from EXPERIENCE (Locke, An Essay ConcerningHuman Understanding, Book II, Chapter 1:2).

To this end, we can deduce that human knowledge is primarily experiential and thattrue knowledge is such that it can be replicated through experience. Any knowledge thatcannot be translated or replicated to experience would be inferior as to those that can beexperience-able. In the mind of Hume, "the most lively thought is still inferior to the dullestimpression" (Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Sec 2.1).

The experience-ability of the human knowledge rests on its own very nature i.e. itsperceivability. The perceivability of human knowledge stands that it exists only if it can be

perceived. Berkeley argued:

But besides all that endless variety of ideas or objects of knowledge, there islikewise something, which knows or perceives them, and exercises diverseoperation, as willing, imagining, remembering, about them. This perceiving,active beginning is what I call mind, spirit, soul, or myself. By which words Ido not denote anyone of my ideas, but a thing entirely distinct from themwherein they exist, or which is the same thing, whereby they are perceivedfor the existence of an idea consists in being perceived (Berkeley, Principles

Page 3: What Does It Mean To Communicate: Do We Really Mean What We Mean?

7/30/2019 What Does It Mean To Communicate: Do We Really Mean What We Mean?

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/what-does-it-mean-to-communicate-do-we-really-mean-what-we-mean 3/11

3

of Human Knowledge).The self perceives the variation of objects and the existence of an idea on

something consists in being perceived. "Esse est percipi ". Without the self perceiving thevariations of things in the world, the objects will just be "there", with each one of themhaving similarities with each other. And the only way that we can say that our knowledge of

an object really is existing, something has to perceive it3.

Maybe some will argue that human knowledge is limited to perception or experienceonly. It has to be stressed here that perception is not a limiting factor for human knowledgerather perception or experience binds human knowledge or ideas with reality. Man iscapable of knowing through the different operations of mind, e.g. perception, thinking,doubting, believing, reasoning, knowing, and willing (Locke, An Essay Concerning HumanUnderstanding, Chapter II:4). For Locke, he calls this REFLECTION.

The other fountain from which experience furnisheth the understanding withideas. . . the perception of the operation of the mind. . .

At this point, there is a disagreement between Locke and Hume, for Hume does notacknowledge that human knowledge is possible beyond sensation or realm of experience.He posits that the meanings of ideas are always traceable to experience. If they can be, itis only then the intention of ideas become determinate. He wrote:

All ideas, especially abstract ones, are naturally faint and obscure: The mindhas but a slender hold of them. They are opt to be confounded with otherresembling ideas, (Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding,Sec 2.9)

4.

We can have a departure from at this point and discuss at length the Lockeian

theory of human knowledge. Locke goes on to say that there are two types of humanknowledge: the intuitive and demonstrative knowledge. By intuitive knowledge, Lockedefines it as the state of the mind possessing its own ideas (Book IV, Chapter II, Sec. 1)while the latter is founded on clearly perceived proofs (Secs. 2-3). For the former, Locke hasthis to say:

For if we will reflect on our own ways of thinking, we will find, that sometimesthe mind perceives the agreement or disagreement of two ideas immediatelyby themselves, without the intervention of any other. . . Thus the mindperceives that white is not black, that a circle is not a triangle, that three aremore than two and equal to one and two. . .

As for the latter, Locke goes on to say:

Those intervening ideas, which serve to show the agreement of any twoothers, are called proofs; and where the agreement and disagreement is bythis means plainly and clearly perceived . . .

Page 4: What Does It Mean To Communicate: Do We Really Mean What We Mean?

7/30/2019 What Does It Mean To Communicate: Do We Really Mean What We Mean?

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/what-does-it-mean-to-communicate-do-we-really-mean-what-we-mean 4/11

4

Each step in demonstrated knowledge must have intuitive evidence . . . Inevery step reason makes in demonstrative knowledge, there is an intuitiveknowledge of that agreement or disagreement. . .

It is clear from the treatise of Locke that for him knowledge is just an agreement ofdisagreement of two ideas, and this polarity is classified into any of the four classes: 1)identity/diverse, 2) relation, 3) co-existence, or necessary connection, 4) real existence. Inthis instance, all our knowledge that we are capable of are contained within these fourclasses.

Within the spectrum of this paradigm, it is evident that the empiricists would argueon the reality of knowledge. The question on whether knowledge is real is crucial in thisphilosophy. We have to note here that all our knowledge is traceable to an impression orexperience, which although in some instance the knowledge is demonstrative one, arefounded on the intuitive knowledge. As for the intuitive knowledge, no proofs are deemednecessary otherwise it ceases to become intuitive. Hence, the reality of knowledge is basedon the conformity of ideas with the reality of things.

What are the criteria of conformity then? Locke proposes the following:

1. simple ideas are really conformed to things

2. complex ideas, except ideas of substance, are their own archetypes and,

3. complex ideas of substance can exist alone.

The Idealists' Perspective on Knowledge 

On the opposite side of the issue, the Idealists, e.g. Kant, Descartes, etc. sees theissue on knowledge differently. The idealists maintain that the mind is loaded with innateideas, and that it is not a clean sheet devoid of impressions. Knowledge is pre-contained inthe mind. Knowledge is foremost has a priori beginning.

For the purposes of our discussion, at least we will take up two (2) philosophers andreflect on their thoughts about the phenomenon of knowledge. In this aspect, we will takeup Rene Descartes (1596-1650) and Immanuel Kant (1724-1804).

Rene Descartes, famous of his principle "Cogito, Ergo Sum" --- I Think, Therefore I

Exist --- has proposed that in the attainment of knowledge a method or system has to bedevised in order for the secure and accurate attainment of truth. For instance, I know thatwater is composed of two (2) atoms of hydrogen and one (1) atom of oxygen ---H20. Isthere certitude on this claim? What is hydrogen and oxygen? For Descartes, the search fortruth must be bounded on a method that would secure the validity of ideas or knowledge.Hence, he put everything to doubt and advanced that everything can be reduced to doubt,except doubting itself. This method is called Methodical Doubt. Thus, in his treatise,"Rules for the Direction of the Mind", Descartes wrote:

Page 5: What Does It Mean To Communicate: Do We Really Mean What We Mean?

7/30/2019 What Does It Mean To Communicate: Do We Really Mean What We Mean?

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/what-does-it-mean-to-communicate-do-we-really-mean-what-we-mean 5/11

5

The end of study is to direct the mind towards the enunciation of sound andcorrect judgment on all matters that come before it (Rule I, Rules for theDirection of the Mind).

It is now evident in the first rule that Descartes wanted a method for the attainment

of truth. We can conjecture that Descartes' Methodical Doubt is a safety net towards theidealists' paradigm on knowledge that the mind is in possession of certain cognitions apriori.

Although it was Immanuel Kant who discussed at length the innate nature ofconcepts as perceived by the mind, this thesis was articulated by Kant in his Critique ofPure Reason. Kant opined: "The human intellect, even in an unphilosophical state, is inpossession of certain cognitions a priori ". He continued thus:

If we have a proposition which contains the idea of necessity in its veryconception, it is judgment a priori ... If moreover, it is not derived from anyother proposition, unless from one equally involving the idea of necessity, itis absolutely a priori .

Granting that knowledge is a priori , how can truth be ascertained? This is now thequestion that the Idealists have to contend with especially the problem that Kant wanted toaddress. The problem of knowledge for Kant was how to connect the "is" of senseexperience with the "must" of universal and necessary truth.

Kant begins by distinguishing between the analytic judgment from the synthetic judgment. The former is one in which the predicate is contained in the subject --- "Thetriangles have three sides". The truth can be known by an analysis of the subject. Thelatter is one in which the predicate adds or expands the subject --- "Triangles were the

earliest figures discovered in geometry". The truth of this statement cannot be known by ananalysis of its subject.

Descartes, on the other hand, distinguishes the two mental operations needed toarrive at the knowledge of truth: the intuition and deduction. He considered the former as"the conception which an unclouded and attentive mind gives so readily and distinctly thatwe are wholly freed from doubt about that which we understand" (Rule III, Rules for theDirection of the Mind). For the latter, he defined this as "all necessary inference from otherfacts that are known with certainty" (ibid ). There are cognitions that can be known withcertainty although not self-evident but only "deduced from true and known principles by thecontinuous and uninterrupted action of a mind that has a clear vision of each step in theprocess" (ibid )

5. The justification in proposing this distinction can be summed up, thus:

In the subjects we propose to investigate, our inquiries should be directednot to what others have thought, nor to what we ourselves conjecture, but towhat we can clearly and perspicuously behold and with certainty deduce; forknowledge is not won in any other way (Rule III, Rules for the Direction ofthe Mind).

Page 6: What Does It Mean To Communicate: Do We Really Mean What We Mean?

7/30/2019 What Does It Mean To Communicate: Do We Really Mean What We Mean?

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/what-does-it-mean-to-communicate-do-we-really-mean-what-we-mean 6/11

6

II. Knowledge and Language: What does it mean to communicate? 

Many will agree that man is the only being that is endowed with the capability ofintelligible speech and that his speech can be translated into symbols, and these symbols

signify something which are determinate and signate in themselves.

The knowledge acquired, regardless of the modes of its acquisition, has to beexternally manifested. The mode of its external manifestation, either written or verbal mode,is being signified by the use symbols. The utilization of symbols in the mode of the writtentext abound in such venue. For instance, in our idea of the term "man", this concept issymbolized by MAN (in English), TAO (in Filipino), TAWO (in Cebuano), HOMO (in Latin),HOMME (in French), etc. Considering the symbols themselves, what is in the symbol MANthat points to the concept of man with a real existence?

The linguistic acquisition in the theory of Chomsky begins by proposing that the childlearns the language with limited stimuli. The input during the period of a natural languageacquisition is circumscribed and degenerate whereas the output cannot be simplyaccounted for by the learning mechanism such as induction and the analogy of the input.The learner knows linguistic facts without instruction or even direct evidence (Liu 2000,Chomsky and the Knowledge of Language). Thus, "knowledge of language is normallyattained through brief exposure, and the character of the acquired knowledge may belargely predetermined", (Chomsky 1986, Knowledge of Language).

Chomsky's theory is empirically based, and what he missed in this theory is therelation between the symbols and the signified objects. For certain in the process ofcommunication, there can be no private concepts for there will be no means to know them.Hence, private language which is privately symbolized cannot be said to exist. What will be

the use of communication if it is not known?

Language has a prescriptive or act-ive component. It leads us to act on somethingthrough the use of language. It can be filled with emotions; texts may be filled with emotivedesignations so as the readers are led to actions. Why would an individual act just on thebasis of language? Wittgenstein (1889-1951) used this example:

Now think of the following use of language: I send someone shopping. Igive him a slip marked "five red apples". He takes the slip to theshopkeeper, who opens the drawer marked "apples"; then he looked up theword "red" in a table and finds a color sample opposite to it; then he says theseries of cardinal numbers ---(Philosophical Investigation, 1).

The example of Wittgenstein is not the only one we can think of. Most probably, wehave experienced already reading instructions or manual of operation of gadget orinstrument. What we have experienced then is that we are led to act based on the text thatwe read and decoded. Certainly, we act because we know the meaning behind symbolsappearing in the text. Wherever we learn the meaning of the symbols, Wittgensteinbelieves that language teaching is just but a training. In Sections 5 and 6 in hisPhilosophical Investigations, Wittgenstein wrote:

Page 7: What Does It Mean To Communicate: Do We Really Mean What We Mean?

7/30/2019 What Does It Mean To Communicate: Do We Really Mean What We Mean?

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/what-does-it-mean-to-communicate-do-we-really-mean-what-we-mean 7/11

7

There is only an ostensive teaching which can be an establishment of anassociation both the word and the thing. When a child hears a word, heassociates the word with an image. But in the language, it is not thepurpose of the words to evoke images.

It is in this context that Wittgenstein considered language as a game. It is alanguage game wherein everybody participating in that game is not actively consciousconcerning the rules of the game. Furthermore, the game is not a founded game and it isbounded to knowledge and the forms of knowledge. As there are many players, languageis also reflective of the form of life. As there are many language users, there can be manyforms of life. The language of construction workers is different from the language ofsurgeons. As language game, the "form of life" cannot be defined nor be founded, and thelanguage does not dissolve into different language games, but the actual use of a languageis the effective language game.

As to the signification of texts, Bonvillain pointed out that texts have culturallmeanings, reflecting attitudes, values or stored symbols. Furthermore, words and sentenceconstruction can have situational relevance; some are used in formal context, while some ininformal situations. In line with this context, it can be assured that the very function oflanguage is to express the speaker's meaning which is encoded through language insegmented linear form (Bonvillain 1997, Language, Culture and Communication).

In this same light, she maintained that in the use of language, the speakers' use ofwords or symbols expresses and reflects attitudes about the world that come from their owncultures. Cultural models are expressed in several ways, but language is key to theirtransmission. Furthermore, the grammatical requirements of a language influence, direct,and reflect people's thoughts.

The Bonvillain theory is clear: language acquisition and expression is cultural andculture is expressed in language. Supporting this theory, Stickle (n.d., Introduction toHabermas) using the philosophy of Habermas explained that this position is sustainedbecause the knowing subject is also social, and that there is no knower without culture. Allknowledge is mediated by social experience. For Habermas, as cited by Stickle, theprocess of knowing and understanding is grounded in the patterns of ordinary language thatis shared in everyday communicative interaction.

At this juncture, investigating the philosophical make up through semantic analysiswould then be in order. Sapir (1949, Language and Environment) already pointed out thatvocabulary analysis uncovers the "physical and social environment" in which people live.

According to him, the "complete vocabulary of a language may indeed be looked upon as acomplex inventory of all the ideas, interests, and occupations that take up the attention ofthe community." Like Habermas, he argued that all human physical environment becomelabeled in language only if they have cultural significance. Once a language provides aword of an object or activity, that object or event becomes culturally significant.

The Whorfian theory on semantic analysis as behavioral would rather take adifferent course for he used grammatical theory into his work. He advocated thatgrammatical structures orient speaker's mental framework and behaviors. He believed that

Page 8: What Does It Mean To Communicate: Do We Really Mean What We Mean?

7/30/2019 What Does It Mean To Communicate: Do We Really Mean What We Mean?

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/what-does-it-mean-to-communicate-do-we-really-mean-what-we-mean 8/11

8

the influence of language can be seen through both vocabulary and more complexgrammatical relations. By using data from the Hopi people, he concluded that Hopis weredirected by grammatical requirements of their language to notice the underlying cause oftheir knowledge of things. In relation to this finding, the concept of time and matter is notgiven substantially the same form by experience to all but depends upon the nature of the

language or languages, through the use of which they have been developed (Whorf 1941,The relation of habitual thought and behavior to language).

Functions of Language 

Halliday (1997, Language in a Social Perspective) advanced the theory thatlanguage is a behavior potential. However, Mirtin (1975) cautioned that behavior in thiscontext should include both the covert and overt behavior. He maintained that those whostudy language only include in their analysis the observable phenomenon. For him,language as a behavior potential includes a range of possibilities, an open-ended set withoptions in behavior that are available to the individual in his existence as social man. Thecontext of culture is the environment for the total set of options while context of situation isthe environment of any particular selection that is made from within them. The investigationof language as a social behavior is not only relevant to the understanding of socialstructures; it is also relevant to the understanding of language.

In relation to the discussion in the preceding paragraph, Halliday posited the threefunctions of language: a) ideational, b) interpersonal, and c) textual. Language having anideational function is concerned with the context of language; it functions as a means ofexpression of our experience, both of the external world and the inner world of ourconsciousness. Language as having an interpersonal function is the indicator of rulesbetween personal expression and social interplay of communication, and lastly, languageas textual enables the speaker to organize what he is saying in such a way that it makes

sense in the context and fulfills its function as a message.

This discussion will be focused on the third function of language, i.e. language astextual. It will be in the reading of the written text that the fusion of the reader's worldviewand the writer ensues. The interpretation of the text demands scrutiny. In the interpretationtheory of Paul Ricouer, the written texts distanciates the meaning of the author's messagefrom the literal events of speech. It can be deduced from this statement that thisdistanciation grants the inscription of a message in any persisting medium effects manytransformation from a spoken discourse. This process of fixation by which a message isrecorded in a medium enables the subsequent process of interpretation. When the text isgranted semantic autonomy, this state opens up a vast and virtual audience which would beimpossible for the verbal event. According to Ricouer, "the text's career escapes the finite

horizon lived by its author, and the message of the text is completely metamorphosedthrough transcription".

Ricouer's distanciation theory brings up a new horizon of text interpretation.Ricouer's hermeneutics poses the fusion of different worldviews, paradigms or perspectivesin the reading or interpretation of the text. Furthermore, it is implied that the written text hasa life on its own. This is what he meant by semantic autonomy.

Page 9: What Does It Mean To Communicate: Do We Really Mean What We Mean?

7/30/2019 What Does It Mean To Communicate: Do We Really Mean What We Mean?

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/what-does-it-mean-to-communicate-do-we-really-mean-what-we-mean 9/11

9

If we have to accept the theory of semantic autonomy, another problem would ariseand this is the problem of the double sense. The problem of double sense signifies thatdifferent readers can or may have different interpretation or understanding of what hasbeen read. This opens up the equivocal nature of language and may ensue confusion asto the intentionality of meaning or what has been denoted in the text. In our discussion

above, the texts have cultural use or implication and other factors that will contribute to thesignification of the text. Because of this problem, a new string of thought was espoused:Deconstructionism.

Jacques Derrida, who is known to be the pre-cursor of deconstructionism,transformed the "destruction" of Heidegger. Orban (2000, Language Games, Writig Games--- Wittgenstein and Derrida: A Comparatve Study) opined that most probably there is nodefinitive definition of deconstructionism although there were attempts to define thisconcept. To some extent, it is understood as a method, metalanguage, or discipline

6.

Although it was Derrida who first used the term deconstructionism, he himself noted thatNietzsche, Freud, and Heidegger were the the proto-deconstructors and that deconstructiveactivity is as old as philosophy. Staten pointed out that:

Wittgenstein is unique among Derrida's predecessors in having achieved inthe period beginning with the Blue Book, a consistently deconstructivestandpoint (Staten, 1985).

Derrida opined that reading is not the search for meaning but it is a special kind oftextinterpretation and textwriting. This deconstructive reading is a prudent, differentiated,slow, stratified reading. This kind of reading involves a new attitude toward reading, whichdoes not mislead us with the illusion of a final solution and interpretation, but it makespossible an approach to the textual dimensions. The text will be free from the trap of

interpretative harassment; the text will be given back to itself.

Conclusion 

This paper attempts to tie-up the theories on knowledge and language. This is onlyan initial attempt which is exploratory in nature in order to assess and appreciate thedevelopment of the theories at hand.

The discussion is limited in part. It is recommended that further research along thisline be carried out in order to give much deeper insight to the problem at hand.

Page 10: What Does It Mean To Communicate: Do We Really Mean What We Mean?

7/30/2019 What Does It Mean To Communicate: Do We Really Mean What We Mean?

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/what-does-it-mean-to-communicate-do-we-really-mean-what-we-mean 10/11

10

LITERATURE CITED 

BONVILLAIN, NANCY. 1997.Language, Culture and Communication. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

DERRIDA, J. 1987.Jacques Derrida, in F. Rotzer (ed.), Franzocishe Philosophem im Gesprach.Munchem. pp.67-89.

 __________. 1989."Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human SciencesDiscussion", R. Con Davies and R. Schleifer (eds.). Contemporary LiteraryCriticism. New York: Longman.

HALLIDAY, MICHAEL. 1997."Language in a Social Perspective" in Nikolaus Coupland and AdamJaworski (eds). N.Y: St Martin's Press Inc.

JACQUETTE, D. 2000.Wittgenstein on Private Language and Private Mental Objects.

LIU, M. 2000.Chomsky and Knowledge of Language.

ORBAN, J. 2000.Language Games, Writing Games --- Wittgenstein and Derrida: AComparative Study.

SAPIR, E. 1949.Language and Environment. In Selected Writings of Edward Sapir, ed. D.Mandelbaum. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press. pp. 89-103

STATEN, H. 1985.Wittgenstein and Derrida. Oxford: Basil Blackwell

STICKLE, S. n.y.Introduction to Habermas. www.niu.edu/acad/english/wac/hbrm.html

WHORF, B. 1941.

The relation of habitual thought and behavior to language. In Language,Thought and Reality. Ed. J.B. Carroll. Cambridge, Ma: MIT Press. pp.134-159

ZIFF, P. 1962Semantic Analysis. N.Y: Cornell University Press.

Page 11: What Does It Mean To Communicate: Do We Really Mean What We Mean?

7/30/2019 What Does It Mean To Communicate: Do We Really Mean What We Mean?

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/what-does-it-mean-to-communicate-do-we-really-mean-what-we-mean 11/11

11

Notes:

1. Lee, Z., 2001. "Language, Categories and Social Reality", A discussion paper

delivered during the 24th annual conference of the Philosophical Association of theVisayas and Mindanao, May 25-27, 2001 at Bohol Agricultural Promotion Center,Tagbilaran City hosted by the Holy Name University, Tagbilaran City, Bohol.

2. Bittle, C. 1950. The Science of Correct Thinking. The Bruce Publishing Company,U.S.A.

3.Berkeley wrote: The table I write on I say exists --- that is, I see and feel it; and if Iwere out of my study, I should say it existed --- meaning thereby that if I was in mystudy I might perceive it.

4.ibid  

5. Descartes in his discussion on his Rules for the Direction of the Mind wrote: "Thesetwo methods are the most certain routes to knowledge, and the mind should admit noother."

6. "What is consider as deconstruction, can produce rules, procedures, techniques, butfinally it is not method and no scientific critique, because a method is a technique ofquestioning or of interpretation, which should be repeatable in other contextsalso,without consideration of the idiomatical characters. The deconstruction is not atechnique. It deals with texts, with special situations, with signatures and with the wholehistory of philosophy where the concept of method would be constituted", (Derrida1987, "Jacques Derrida").