Philosophy of Language: "Use" Theory of Meaning

Philosophy of Language: "Use" Theory of Meaning

Joshua Caesar O. Elegado, III-BA Philosophy, Philosophy of Language; Theory of Meanings

Meaning is not something that is studied under a microscope; indeed, some theory suggests meaning are mental images (ideational) and another meaning is abstract that is independent of things and has no causal properties that bound them of time and space. With that being said, one question remains; how do people understand utterances, strings of words, and sounds and make sense out of such without having confusion in synonyms, multiple meanings, and overall language barriers? The Use theory of meaning does explain an answer to such a question in a compelling fashion. Meanings, according to the Use theory, is a matter of role in the human convention, of where words, strings of it, and utterances, can express its meaning under a conversational fashion and under a specific setting where people with the same culture, rules, conduct, and overall bounded context. It seems to be that meanings are highlighted from people to people that are covered under a certain convention. Just like in a certain country, say the Philippines, that practices the language of Filipino Tagalog, we are able to understand those utterances of Filipino expressions because we are part of the convention of being a Filipino. We are able to understand the words such as, “asin”, “kape”, “asukal”, and “paminta”, while people from Canada cannot understand those utterances. It goes to show that, meaning, let alone language is somewhat an issue of familiarity. For one to be able to understand a certain language, one must be able to enter a domain where culture and convention are practiced in relation to the language you target to learn. In Wittgenstein’s sense, language is a game, people will understand people if they were in a game, they know the rules of the games, and can therefore grasp the sense of meaning to respond to. It is like the game of mobile legends, players of the said game know the jargon in that game, and players of the said game can understand players of the said game. Imagine if one person who enters the game without any knowledge whatsoever in the rules, and convention of the said game, definitely, the intruder is going to scratch their head. Indeed, language is really complex and ambiguous if we disregard the context, to begin with. That being said, language is use, practiced, a way of life, and inherently social.

On the objections of the theory; One, the objection of the twin world, where it is the literal twin of our world, and they question whether in that twin world, would the language game be applicable despite them being different? Like, in our reality, we have Oxygen, and the twin world calls and names their oxygen as QWERTY, would it compromise meaning? In defense of the Use theory, even if the twin world exists, they too have their own language game, and that means they still have their own meaning and still would account for conventional understanding. Second, on the issue of proper names, in applying Use’s, is it a requirement where every person in a context must know the said name and has to make and know the rule for such matter? Third, what about words that are novel or new? As we can see, we humans also have the capacity for learning new things that are not provided nor exhibited by any conventional properties, to begin with. Fourth, can one be able to not know the rules but still be able to play the game?

The Use theory is in itself practical, that is, for utterances to be understood and be meaningful, they must be in practice by a people under a particular context. One implication is that, whenever there are difficulties in understanding, we must take into consideration entering in a particular domain where we find difficulties, to begin with. That is, in order for us to understand well the things we may find difficult and ambiguous, we must account for playing the game and knowing the game to fully grasp the meaning of things. If we want to learn about Bikolano culture, we must enter its domain through entering Bicol Region in the Philippines and learn its game, only then we can truly realize and grasp things and ultimately make sense out of the said culture one may want to study. Because if we are to evaluate topics without even knowing its mechanism, and how it runs, it is most likely that we sort of becoming an intruder who scratches their head and does not understand anything in that topic.

With the Use theory as a theory of meaning, it definitely explains why people understand people and why conversations between people-to-people seem to work effectively with ease. Indeed, studying a language can be difficult, for the subject itself is somewhat complex and ambiguous at times, but when it comes to the idea of communication and overall people understanding people, it is best to understand that language is in itself socially inherent and is a game.