Overview of §§1-120
Theories of Meaning: Review
We have considered three main theories of meaning so far:
- Referential view. Meaning is naming; every word stands for something,
and the something it stands for is its meaning.
- Ideational view. Meanings are ideas. In the crudest version, ideas are
understood as images.
- Propositional view. Meanings are abstract entities.
Of these three views, the third has not yet been fleshed out enough to really
constitute a theory. But Wittgenstein explicitly argues against 1 and 2, and
implicitly criticizes 3. He also offers a rival view, often called the view that
meaning is use.
Against the Referential Theory
Much of the early sections of the Investigations is devoted to criticizing
the idea that meaning is just naming.
In section 1, the referential theory is introduced with a quotation from
Saint Augustine that seems to express it. W links the referential theory with an
account of language learning: the referential theory seems to go along with the
idea that all words are learned ostensively. Subsequent sections offer many
criticisms, including these:
- ostensive definition only works relative to a substantial background:
sec. 28 on ostensively defining 'two'; sec. 32 on Augustine (cf. Locke)
- Without such a background you can't tell what is being ostended:
sec. 33 color, shape; sec. 73 leaf, schema; cf. Quine
- words that aren't names of things: sec. 27
- nondenoting terms: Excalibur vs. 'Excalibur's meaning (we don't use
language this way) - sec. 39-40
- negative existentials: sec. 79 on Moses. (Also rejects simple
description theory in favor of a cluster-of-descriptions view)
Against the Ideational Theory
In §73, W shows that
there is a natural transition from the referential view to the ideational view:
to understand what an expression means is to have the corresponding idea. (We
need to remember that ideas are being thought of here as something like mental
images. The term "idea" can also be used for abstract objects, but that would
give us a version of the "propositional theory" rather than the "ideational
suggests that this too is a mistake.
- images are too specific: green vs. shade of green, specific shape vs.
Against the Propositional Theory
W doesn't really argue explicitly or in detail against the idea that meanings are abstract. But he does seem out of sympathy with it. See, for
instance, §§93-95 about the
idea that "propositions" are "queer".
Against Logical Atomism
W argues that, although "analysis" can be helpful, it is a mistake to think
that it must lead to one single set of absolute primitives (as Russell thought,
and as W had also held in the Tractatus). See
Wittgenstein's Positive View
Wittgenstein's positive views are expressed primarily by means of metaphors
and questions; he never states a positive theory of meaning, and indeed seems to
reject the very idea of a philosophical theory. Nevertheless, there are a number
of positive suggestions.
- Meaning as use. §43:
"For a large class of cases -- though not for all -- in which we employ the
word "meaning" it can be defined thus: the meaning of a word is its use in
- Language is like a game. This analogy is used from
§3 on, as W calls his example languages
"language games." He uses the game analogy to suggest a number of things
(a) no essence, nothing in common to all language games (§65)
(b) there are rules of language use, as there are rules of games. But
this doesn't really explain all that much: the rules don't cover everything,
and the rules themselves stand in need of interpretation (do we need rules
for how to apply the rules?). see §§81ff, especially §86
- Family resemblances. Often the things a word is
used for are tied together, not by necessary and sufficient conditions, but
by "family resemblances" -- see §67, among
many other places. (Notice that W uses the idea of a game both as a metaphor
for language as a whole, and as a specific example to illustrate his views
Problems for the View
Lycan mentions several problems for meaning-as-use
views. The two most important seem to be:
- (Objection 3) How can one account for
compositionality on this view?
- (Objections 4-5) Many rule-governed activities do
not involve meaning. Similarly, we can understand use without knowing
meaning. So it seems that there must be more to meaning than just
rule-governed activity. What distinguishes language-games from
Last update: September 17, 2012
Curtis Brown |
Language | Philosophy Department
| Trinity University