My Semantics class have started a unit of logic and I've found myself surprisingly fascinated by it. On my lecturer's advice I've been doing some reading on the subject (books like "The language instinct" and "Everything that linguists have wanted to know about logic but were too ashamed to ask") and feel that I've learned a lot about the topic, except for one thing.
I've learned a lot about logic and how to apply it in linguistics, but I don't really feel comfortable talking about WHY we use it. I know what I think on the subject; I believe that we use logic because languages don't really reflect reality, but rather our perception of it (if a language COULD perfectly describe reality, we wouldn't need so many of them!). The rigidity of logic allows us to sort out ambiguities and get at the real meaning behind words and sentences. I'm still unsure about its ability to translate concepts.
What do other people think? Why DO we utilise such a rigid, rule- based thing as logic to describe something as fluid and illogical as language?
Apologies for anonymous posting; I've registered but my password has not yet shown up.
I've learned a lot about logic and how to apply it in linguistics, but I don't really feel comfortable talking about WHY we use it. I know what I think on the subject; I believe that we use logic because languages don't really reflect reality, but rather our perception of it (if a language COULD perfectly describe reality, we wouldn't need so many of them!). The rigidity of logic allows us to sort out ambiguities and get at the real meaning behind words and sentences. I'm still unsure about its ability to translate concepts.
What do other people think? Why DO we utilise such a rigid, rule- based thing as logic to describe something as fluid and illogical as language?
Apologies for anonymous posting; I've registered but my password has not yet shown up.
Comments
Doubts about 'logic' and 'linguistics': Julia Kristeva covers some related aspects in her book 'Desire in Language' (1980). One well known essay from this collection is 'The Ethics of Linguistics'. Her premise, as I understand it – and I'm not entirely certain I follow every step of her argument – is that e.g. the 'poetic' use of language isn't wholly susceptible to analysis of the kind you describe. (Unfortunately, I can't find the text online, but your tutor may have a copy.)
I don't myself know much about these things; but I'm not convinced that logic alone does allow us to 'get at the real meaning'. Often the meaning of a sentence is more than the accumulated meaning of its individual components; to take a simple example, any sentence that includes the phrase 'to be or not to be' is replete with associations that a straightforward logical analysis would fail to discover.
On the other hand, the editors of the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language explicitly reject the idea that to understand how English works today, you have to know something of its history and how it worked in the past. (I'd hesitate to suggest that this approach represented a post-facto rationalization of their own limitations.)
MrP
I'm willing to help you as much as I can, but I really don't know where/how to begin with. I think the following excerpt contains a fairly important concept:
[ Logic does not go into the actual meanings of particular expressions, but we do determine the nature of their meanings and give a semantic interpretation to the syntactic rules by means of which sentences may be obtained (Gamut,vol.1:1991:5) ]
Would you pose questions to us more concretely...? I'll do my best.
We'll be waiting for your post.
MrP
Would you mind my putting in a word above...? I hope you wouldn't.
MrP
=But when I had a fit of blues
A peacock feather was no use.
(Though I suppose the peacock would have an opinion too.)
MrP