Explanation of my topic (and brief summary of following sources)

As for my topic, I want to look at the ancient philosophy of language, meaning what did philosophers such as Plato, Aristotle and Socrates think about language and its origin–where do words come from, how are they built, etc. I've also seen that there was this idea of 'essence' and its purity: that essence (the being of a concept, object, animal, person, etc.) could have a perfect 'name', which means a perfect way to name a word that really represents the 'being' in question. The Ancient thought that the real essence of a word depended on naturalism, the natural way we name a word (e.g. onomatopoeia, which is according to sounds) or by convention–that people choose the name of a word in debating what are the best sounds in themselves and combinations of sounds that would perfectly represent an essence within its name (word chosen to name the thing itself).

◊ UPDATE ◊

I have decided to focus more on Hellenistic philosophies of language and do a bit of a compare / contrast between themselves (Plato and Socrates / Aristotle / The Stoics) in taking an interest in how we already perceived language and the fascination it brings within the questions that the Ancient were asking themselves. I think it shows the beauty of human nature–knowledge and the desire for knowledge, consistently questioning the reason of existence. Also, I want to add a few other theories that were suggested from the Scientific Revolution to our Modern Era as to understand which of the ancient theories of language is the most supported.

According to Plato, "names cannot aspire to being perfect encapsulations of their objects' essences, and some element of convention is must be conceded." (Sedley 2003) Plato says that he does not agree nor disagree with naturalism and conventionalism because they are both part related to natural influence.

"The relevant Form for a name-maker to look to, Socrates makes clear, will not be simply the generic Form of a name, but also one of its species, the specific Form of the name currently being sought. Presumably the generic form of a name as such, which as we have seen is to instruct by separating being." (Sedley 2018)

Name's function of instructing is by divising the essence and its label, but also by combining them.

In other words, once you acknowledge both the essence and the name, you recognize the being. Going back to the example of the elephant, the essence is the animal itself, while its name is the word 'elephant' that refers to the animal. Its final state in language–the being–is that we recognize both the essence as the elephant–the animal–and the name 'elephant' we gave it as to refer to it.

B E I N G = E S S E N C E + N A M E

Other example from Socrates (from Plato's dialogues)

"the Greek word for 'man', anthrôpos [...] appears to break down into anathrôn ha opôpe, 'one who reflect on what he has seen' (399c). That is, the species which uniquely possesses both eyesight and intelligence has been given a name which acknowledges precisely that distinguishing combination." (Sedley 2018) As such, Plato says that as humans we have the faculty to question our existence, such as in studying language.

Main Principles

The original name–maker will have encoded in their products their own insights–some better, some worse–into the natures of the things they were naming. (#2)

Those original names have survived into today's language, but corrupted by sound-shifts over the centuries, so that to discern their originally intended message requires special expertise. (#3)

In other words, the philosopher is saying that the name of an essence does change over time, and that sometimes the name in itself does not fit the essence as it used to. For instance, the word from Ancient Greek for 'man', anthrôpos, designs "one who reflects on what he has seen". In contrast, there is no single word that fits this same meaning/essence in English because it would be translated as 'wise person' or 'philosopher', and these names still reference to one who studies the meanings of life OR question it OR it can also refer to someone who has experience in life (Cambridge Online Dictionary). As for the word anthrôpos, it is difficult to give it a right translation because in the English language there is no such names as to refer to the essence of anthrôpos. Even the words 'human', 'human being' and 'man' all represent different essences that do not meet the same being of anthrôpos, even though they seem similar.

A name is a tool, whose function is to instruct by separating the being and its object.

Here, Socrates refers to the process we go through in naming things, abstracts or concepts, as in divising the whole being into name and essence.

A name is a 'power' (dunamis) lies in its sucess in separating the beings of its object by descriptive means.

As such, a name is perfect since we still understand the essence through the name given to a word–which is descriptive.

Different names used for a same essence, but that still modifies the being as the name is not the same.

Plato refers to synonyms as they do not directly refer to a same essence as to create ambiguity in meaning. To better understand, the word 'animal' is to represent animate beings, while its synonym 'creature' means both being and beast, and 'beast' refers to a brute animal (Thesaurus). In this case, even though the words 'creature' and 'beast' can replace the word 'animal', they remain different in their whole being as their names are different, but also their essence.

Notes:

Sedley, D. N. Plato’s Cratylus. Cambridge University Press, 2003. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=120616&site=eds-live&scope=site. pp. 16-24. Accessed on February 11th, 2020.

This book argues also on Plato's discourse, though it explains in more details Plato's intention about language. It confirms the informations I have found in the first source.

Sedley, David, "Plato's Cratylus", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2018 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/plato-cratylus. Accessed on February 2nd, 2020.

This is an updated form of Sedley's book that has been revised. It still confirm the points the author described in his first edition, but some are added to explain Socrates' point of view and how it relates with Plato's and Aristotle's arguments.

Relevant quotations:

"In the Cratylus, the problem addressed is whether the language is a means to teach the nature of things, as Cratylus believed, or if it is adopted by convention by speakers, as considered the Sophists."

The author says that, in the Cratylus, the theory of language of naturalism is used to teach the process that a certain being has been through as to how it is reflected in its name and essence, while the theory of convention defines words in debating the most suitable combinations of sounds, in relation to onomatopoeia, in order to find the best name to define an essence, and as such as being.

Also, Barbosa criticizes the ambiguous side of Plato's work as it does not really fully "stick", per say, to either the theory of naturalism or of convention. As such, Plato's view about the origin of language is pretty vague.

Further in the text, the author explains that Aristotle prefers the theory of convention as to how 'name' and 'essence' both represent a certain aspect in reality, though in the name / combinations of sounds used to describe this aspect as to how it is perceived in reality, which fits his realist philosophy.

Note:

Moreira Barbosa, Maria Fernanda. "A Bref way on Philosophy of Language: from Plato to Port-Royal Grammar." International Journal of Language and Literature, vol. 3, no. 1, June 2015, pp. 61-70. PDF file.

This source is relevant as to how the study of language has changed throughout history, though it mostly summarizes the arguments of Plato and Aristotle according to different authors (and their interpretations).

Charles Darwin once said that early humans had "already developed musical ability prior to language and were using it to 'charm each other.'" (Darwin 1871; Yule 1) His theory of the evolution of human language seems quite different from what I have learnt with the theories of the Ancient and the Stoics, though it is still relevant as he indirectly refers to the idea of onomatopoeia.

In The Study of Language, the author suggests that there is no direct evidence from the past that could prove any theories seen previously, perhaps due to the absence of physical proofs. Indeed, language has developed between 100,000 and 50,000 years ago, while written evidences of language were found from 5,000 years ago. As such, even though we have an idea of when human speech was developed, it is still merely impossible to assure that one of the theories is the right one.

The Physical Adaptation Source

Yule also presents the idea that speech is a human thing since we evolved as to create sound physically as we became bi-pedal, so that our body had to adapt to a new way of breathing. Rhythm breathing was also influenced by the rhythm of walking, thus becoming a "one pace–one breath relationship." (4) Breathing is an important part of language since we exhale 90% of the air in speaking. As such, as human beings we seemed to have developed the ability of speech within the physical adaptation our ancestors have gone through in order to become bi-pedal beings with an upright posture.

Note:

Yule, George. The Study of Language. Cambridge University Press, 2007. pp. 1-7

This source is important because it proves the theories presented by Plato (naturalism), Aristotle (convention) and the Stoics (divine legislator). It also adds relevant scientific informations as to understand how the human body had changed in order for us to produce language.

In the article Stoic Philosophy of Language, it is said that the Stoics' "conception of existence is dynamic. Matter as such is passive, but bodies are not, since they are also infused by logos, which is active… only bodies can act or be acted upon". In this case, it implies that even though many of the Stoics believed in an Original Legislator, there is still a number of them (like Epicurus) that believed that names represented bodies (and as such essence).

From the diagram, what we've known up until now as names is called the "signifier", which is made out of (external) sounds. For the essence, it would be the combination of both the "sayable" (the meaning) and the "name-bearer" (the thing that is getting signified). Ultimately, the being here is called the "body".

Unfortunately, we cannot see in the diagram that there are non-corporal things, so the creator of the diagram (and the site) has made further clear that metaphysical concepts are there as "they do not exist, but subsist (ὑφεστάναι, hyphestanai); yet they are real (ὑπάρχειν, hyparchein). We can think of them as conditions ‘without which the interaction of bodies in the world would neither be analysable nor intelligible”.

Notes:

Baltzly, Dirk, “Stoicism“, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2019 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2019/entries/stoicism. Accessed on March 30th, 2020.

This source confirms the points made in the following source.

"Stoic Philosophy of Language." Visual Philosophy, https://visual-philosophy.blog/2019/02/22/stoic-philosophy-of-language. Accessed on March 30th, 2020.

This site is really relevant because it explains Saint-Augustine's view and how it could have been affected by other Stoics.