• Home
• Columnist
• Videos
• Artist
  • Musicians
  • Actors
  • Comedians
• Notable Nigerians
• Legend Dies
• Articles
  • Nigeria Articles
• Photos
• Submit Article

Author: Gerald C. Ogbuja
Posted to the web: 9/11/2008 1:41:30 AM
Submit an article
   
Email This Page
   
Print This Page
   
+A | -A

THE SOCIAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL FUNCTION OF LANGUAGE

 

 

PRE-REFLECTION

 

A distinguishing characteristic of man is his ability to communicate through the use of language. This means that language has no counterpart in the animal worldview.  As the name goes, language is described as organized system of symbols that is used to express and receive meanings (Cropper, 2003).  Unique to Homo sapiens, language appears inseparable to human nature and a feature of human intelligence. Contrary to the above is the acquisition, comprehension, or expression of spoken or written language by man. Adopting Darwinian perspective, language offers a bold synthesis of human and natural sciences. This is the more reason why Philosophers, Psychologists, Counselors, social workers, medical practitioners, scientists, researchers, administrators, CEO’s and clerical workers all perform their task through the power of the word. The power of the word classically called “phonetic competence” reflects a social pressure for vocal imitation, learning, and other forms of social interaction and transmission.

The American Speech and Hearing Association uses five subsystems for language: Phonology (sound), Morphology (word forms), Syntax (word order and sentence structure), Semantics (word and sentence meaning) and finally Pragmatics (social use of language). Phonology is the sound system of language and the linguistic rules that governs sound combinations. The ability of a child to have phonological awareness of likeness and differences in sounds is necessary for the development of speech patterns. This may be related to later reading and writing skills. Morphology is the linguistic system that governs the structure of words and the construction of word forms from the basic element of meaning. Children with problems in this area will experience difficulty in understanding or producing morphological inflections. The power and function of language is rooted in the understanding and use of suffixes and prefixes. Both can be described as major form of oral and written communication. Also Syntax is a philosophical and linguistic rule system governing the order and combination of words to form sentence (Cropper, 2003). On one hand Semantics is the psycholinguistic system that patterns the content of an utterance, intent, and meaning of words. The philosophy underplaying semantics require an individual who speaks to understand what has been said, to comprehend the meaning of what has been said, and express their intended meaning. Finally, Pragmatics is a sociolinguistic system that patterns the use of language in communication, which maybe expressed motorically, vocally or verbally (Copper, 2003).  It is basically the use of social situations or settings which express one’s intention. In most instances when a person has difficulty with one subsystem, other subsystems may be affected. When children have a language disorder, generally one of the subsystems is substantially affected. A language disorder is the impairment or deviant development of comprehension and/or other symbol system.

LANGUAGE ACQUISATION AND INTERPRETATION

The domain of philosophy and anthropology is rich in the acquisition and development of thought and human languages. Other human disciples such as psychology and sociology are limited in the creativity of human expressions. According to the field of behavioral psychology, the learning of language is influenced by environmental, social and cultural factors. Skinner and other behaviorists state that language is learned through imitation and reinforcement. Here, the infant imitates the models of language in his environment. The reaction to the imitation by the parents and other individuals reinforces and shapes the development of such language. The second theoretical mode of language acquisition is the psycholinguistic theory. Psycholinguistics such as Chomsky believes that children are biologically predisposed to acquire language. Chomsky believes that Infants are born with an innate ability to be able to learn and use language. The third mode of linguistic acquisition is Cognitive theory. According to cognitive psychology, the child begins to acquire or understand some levels of language in her environment and then modifies that understanding as he interacts with the environment. Piaget, Bloom, Vygotsky and others emphasis the importance of providing meaningful experiences, so that the child can build upon her earlier learning experience to expand both the knowledge base and language use.

THE HERMENETEUTICAL PRIVILEGE OF LANGUAGE

The German philosophical expression-Vorhabe, Vorgriff characterizes all linguistic interpretations. Even at that, there is no element of culture where Vorgriff, the forestalling and anticipatory prefabrication of concepts, is as obviously present as in human language. Despite the function of interpretation, language is relative to every culture.  Robert miller (1968) in a dissertation under the title “the linguistic Relativity Principle and Humboldt in Ethno linguistics” came to some modest and wary conclusions after a thorough discussion of Hamann, Herder, Humboldt, Saussure, Cassirer and especially Leo Weisgerber. Cultural relativity makes every language represents a distinct worldview since there exists a unity between language and thought (Gadamer, 1987).  Linguistic writers have pointed out that words can have manifold meanings and connotations. The word language as spoken by a particular culture can recall to us very different meanings depending on the circumstance in which we hear it. For a culture egbe (Kite) recall a bird, for another egbe recalls the gun, yet for the third something totally different from the two. In spite of these varieties, we understand what language means to people of different cultures. For Theoplius Okere (1983) the word “culture for instance can recall to us very different meanings depending on the circumstances in which we hear it. For one man it will recall the cultivation of land, for yet a third, electric light or even fashion. Based on Hermeneutical privilege of language, the world “now” is also easy and clear to understand. However, it is difficult to define the expression “now.” This show that “egbe” can mean many different things. It is an “occasional” expression which means that its meaning can only become clear when one knows the ocassions or circumstance in which it is used. This occasional meaning says a great deal of truth about language in general (Okere, 1983). This means that every meaning of a word has also a situational horizon. Therefore, a word has really no transparent and adequate meaning unless it is merely idealized. All meaning conveyed by speech is fatally situational (Kleine, 1981).

HERMAENEUTICS AS MEDIATOR BETWEEN LANGUAGE,    CULTURE AND PHILOSOPHY

My reflection will center on culture, language and the understanding of the philosophy of communication and people’s way of life. It is within the context of hermeneutics that African and Western philosophies are reflected and communicated linguistically. In this sense, Africans look at hermeneutics as an epistemological tool/ method of mediation, and of making the passage between culture as lived, culture as reflected and culture linguistically expressed. The role of hermeneutics in the manifestation, interpretation and linguistic expression of being (man) forms the ontological roots and anthropological implication of language. This role of hermeneutics compels African culture to give birth to African philosophy and language. Ricoeur called African linguistic approach the ontology of comprehension. In this case, Africans comprehend within the ambient of their culture. For Mbiti, Africans comprehends within the urgency of time.  The eschatology of African faith is expressed linguistically in time. Mbiti affirmed that Africans comprehend within their nature capacity. If hermeneutics is a study of human characteristic and meaning to human life then the linguistic of human characteristic becomes very symbolic in African culture? What then would happen to African culture to bring forth a philosophy that is linguistically communicable? To ask these philosophical questions is to arrive at the fundamental problem of hermeneutics. The ultimate burden however rests in a radical investigation of what roles language plays in philosophy and culture. This ultimate burden explores how African languages compliment philosophy and culture. The linguistic philosophy of Africa is always related to African interpretations. This relation provokes series of questions. What is culture? And what is African philosophy? What aspect of culture and philosophy is linguistically tied?

 

 

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT

African languages convey African thoughts and worldview. It recognizes that African linguistic expressions are meaningful, thoughtful, intentional and relational. This relation is precisely with Desein (Heidegger, 1965). The question of the relationship between language and thought has for a very long time remained a philosophical question. The absurdities to which a simplistic understanding of this relationship leads every philosopher nowhere more evident than in the linguistic articulation of Kagame There seem to be some relationship between the form of a language and the modes of thought of its speakers, but this can hardly be taken to mean that a language is a prototype of a philosophical system, or that the structure of a language represents the structure of African philosophy. The Mexican, Chinese, Greek, Native Americans, Indians, Japanese, Jewish have a class system for all the nouns whereas; the Ibos, Bantus, French, German, and the Romans have a gender system. All these languages have cultural significance. Their significance can be expressed philosophically. Okere (1983) postulated that if to each language there was a corresponding philosophical system, it would be impossible to conceive two distinct and much less two opposed philosophies in one language and there would be no difference between Thales and Plato-Aristotle and Parmenides. Cultural and linguistic comparism does not of course refuse all validity to the thesis of linguists who have drawn attention to the close relationship between language and thought (Whorf, 1956). Due to the close relationship between language and thought, linguistic researchers admit that language seems to affect culture and thought at some level but there is enough material yet to help determine precisely how. In most cases, speaking of philosophical and metaphysical thought as somehow predetermined linguistically is really to indulge in baseless and fruitless rationalization. Fruitless rationalization leads man no where. In this sense man cannot even communicate what he has reflected. African philosophy must have something to do with its culture, tribe, its concept of time expressed linguistically. In his work “New Testament Eschatology in an African background, Mbiti formulated cogent arguments that prove that Africans have two-dimensional concept of time, an indefinite past and an intensely active present. African eschatological concepts are “eschatological” in the strict sense since they are directed towards the end in the opposite direction. They lack a telos; they are eschatological but not teleological.

 

SPEECH AND LANGUAGE HANDICAPS

In the philosophy of language, speech and expression is identified as component of human communication. Here, human speech refers to the production of oral symbols of language. These symbols serve as a conduit wire through which rational entities communicate rational thoughts and ideas through speech, gestures, and written forms. In the linguistic reflection of man, speech problem are identified as those associated with articulation (faculty production of sound) and which fall into four reflective categories: substitution, distortion, omission, and addiction. Other speech problems include disorders of voice (problem, and quality and fluency (shuttering or cluttering). Sequel to speech problem is language problem. At all times, language problems result from language delays and language disorders. Language disorder includes problems in the reception or expression of language and aphasia. Receptive language disorder refers to the problems of understanding language. Aphasia may impair language acquisition and/or expression due to injury, disease or incomplete brain development. There are other causes of speech and language disorder which include: emotional problems, faculty learning, inadequate experiences and opportunities for developing appropriate language, physiological abnormalities such as that associated with cerebral palsy, and hearing impairment. When speech deviates from normal linguistic order, it generally makes both the speaker and listener uncomfortable. When both parties fail to arrive at one ultimate goal, then the social function and ambition of language is defeated. If it is severe enough, the individual may become a social isolate or linguistic outcast. Studies have shown that difficulty in communication may impact all aspects of an individual’s life. Also severe speech and language problems may result in emotional and social delay and disturbances. These disabilities however, may seriously affect learning and impede academic enhancement and social development. The diagnosis of this problem is handled by speech/language pathologists or speech clinicians.

Language as a remarkable social adaptation conveyed through words testifies to the growing influence of evolutionary thinking in psychology, linguistic anthropology, and general linguistic power of man (Chris, et al, 2000). This is the more reason why Aristotle gave the classical definition of man as living being who has logos. Following this line of thinking, man in the Western philosophy is traditionally known as animal rationale. Man as a rational being is distinguished from all other primates by his capacity of thought. According to Aristotle, thinking and perceiving are two distinguishing activities of perception of the special objects of sense that is always free from error and are found in all animals. Where it is possible to think falsely or truly, thought is found only where there is discourse of reason.

ONTOLOGY, PURPOSE AND FUNCTIONALITY OF LANGUAGE

The role and functionality of language is manifold. The discourse of reason is the function and meaning of Greek logos. The primary meaning of word is language which attempts to communicate feelings or intention since communication of all realities are expressed in the here and now. The structuring of words most often becomes equivalent to the conferring of meaning and expressions. Man who is logos has the capacity to enhance the functionality of his expressions. Language gives reference to the expression of man; language purposefully communicates expressions; Language give meaning and offers intelligibility-letting human feelings and emotions appear (freigben); letting be (begennen lassen); meaningfulness (Bedeutsamkeit) becomes identified with the totality of reference. Language interprets Desein.  But constitutionally man who is logos is inescapably time-bound, historical, contextual, linguistic and relative. Therefore man’s ultimate interpretation, his philosophy is necessarily historical and culture-bound, relatively to his environment and worldview. His environment often prescribes the terminology, provoke the questions and predetermine the answer (Okere, 1983). Based on the above argument, one can make a clear distinction between man and animals. When objects perceived by animals are pleasant or painful, they make a sort of affirmation or negation and then pursue or avoid the object. This experience is so with human beings. True to all linguistic understanding, to feel pain or pleasure is to act towards what is good or bad. Man who is logos always asserts or denies a thing to be good or bad and avoids or pursues it. Above all, Man who is logos can speak and express his view or opinion. He can make what is not present manifest through words so that another can see, hear or perceive it. Through communication man expresses what he meant or what affects him. Through language man communicates rational words which build, praise or destroys another. Gossip is conveyed through the medium of word or language. That is why there exists in man common meaning and concepts.

In human world, language and communication is unique because of its rational nature. The rational nature of language distinguishes human language from animal whispering or signals. In the animal world language is expressive in signs. Although human language on one hand takes place in signs, they are not rigid. Human language is variable both in the sense that there are different languages and in the sense that within the same language, the same expression can designate different things or different expressions at the same time. Even in the scriptures, it is significant that the Old Testament story of creation, the naming of the animals by man was done through the word.  Also, creation narrative indicates human dominion over created things (Gen 2:19-20). The story of the tower of Babel (Gen.11) indicates the fundamental significance of language for human life. The hubris for humanity, the attempt to overcome the boundaries ordained by God, consisted in the construction of a city with a tower reaching the heavens, challenging the supremacy of Yahweh, the “I am of the Judeo Christian religion.” Beyond ancient criticism, the deity has to descend from the heavenly dwelling even to catch a glimpse of this product of human arrogance, otherwise called the divine monologue. This monologue could be attributed to divine response where God confused the language of men and dispersed the builders in anger and frustration. This passage demonstrates radical ambivalence about the works and achievement s of human civilization.  The towel of Babel was a primitive technology of man towards civilizing his utopian dreams.  The wonder of the Babel contradicts the ancient notion that human civilization emanated from Egypt, in the building of the pyramids. There are innumerable African philosophers including Western Scholars like Barry Hallen, Thomas Hodgkin who have done great work in African history and culture as well as the universally accepted statement that Africa is the cradle of civilization, which reflectively is not devoid of linguistic rationality.

Shading a light into the Enlightenment era, the question of the origin of language was posed in a different way. Enlightenment position on language was a wholesale rejection of traditional belief and institutions. J.C Justine’s response on the wisdom of traditional belief on language is more likely to be correct than the ideas of an individual philosopher. Nevertheless, the question and origin of language in the Enlightenment era was sought in the nature of man instead of in the biblical story of creation. Post Enlightenment era saw language as natural to man. Language for them was essentially human with man being essentially a linguistic king or linguistic professor. These attributes make man (homo logos) in the human society a linguistic being. A characteristic of a linguistic society is that it has a diversity of human linguistic structures.

In our own era, the study of hermeneutics has cast a new and decisive light to our understanding of language. Proponents of linguistic evolution support the position of Gadamer. A principal contribution of Gadamer (1979) to hermeneutical studies is the clarification of understanding as an event that in its very nature is trans-subjective. It means that what take when an expression is communicated is an understanding, mediation and transformation of the past and the present. Gadamar add that language and the understanding of transmitted meanings are not two processes but one and the same thing. According to this era, understanding is perceived as fusion of horizons and it’s essentially a linguistic process. If the above arguments are correct, we would logically say that our horizons are given to us pre-reflectively in our languages. Man who is a linguistic being possesses his entire world view linguistically. This makes words the subject matter of language. A subject matter that is inexplicable with reality.

The limits of my understanding coincide with the limits of our common languages. We use language to express what we know and understand. We use language to express ourselves before another in our families, schools, neighborhood, churches and communities. We use language to teacher and receive response from our students. We use language to engage is a dialogue with our physicians. We use language to engage in counseling. We chat in one language by voicing our feelings and making our anxieties felt. We use language to facilitate in group and therapies. We make calls using English or Spanish as a medium of universal communication. The business of Desein is summarized in language. The world and human persona are always there as the subject matter of a particular language community. The world without a language community is non existent. Therefore, every language community has a peculiar ways of expressing itself which is not easily translatable into other languages. Every culture has a language through which they communicate meaning, symbols and emotion. English, German, French, Italian, Spanish, Greek and Hebrew are major international languages that are distinguished from national dialects. All these languages have social and significant functions to those who use them as a medium of conveying thoughts. I have come to believe that no one has the capacity to know everything in his own language. This is the more reason why any claim to know a particular language in totality as it is in itself would be a contradiction as much as it would amount to a claim to know something as it cannot be known. All languages have one thing in common; they are real. They are not repugnant to one another; there realities always arise from one source or an ultimate support or reality.

Merton (1949, 1967) admitted that social function refers to observable consequences and not subjective disposition (aim, motives, purpose). And the failure to distinguish between the objective sociological consequences and the subjective dispositions inevitably leads to confusion of functional analysis. Therefore the social function of language is to communicate meaning in a thought without room for confusion in functional meaning. Often times this thought is packaged in a word with significant cultural meaning. For instance, in Igbo language community of Nigeria, the word ukpa could simply be rendered in English as kitchen knife. But this does not bring out the authentic and cultural meaning of the word. The same is true of other languages of the world. Greek and Hebrew languages are used by biblical writers/ interpreters to communicate the word of Yahweh in its original manner as inspired to the writers. Therefore Greek and Hebrew languages are password to the messages of the scripture. Some words in trying to convey meaning challenges the specific cultural significance. I therefore agree with Gadamar that those who are brought up in a particular linguistic community and cultural tradition see the world in a different light from those who belong to other traditions. There were genuine assertions by some social analysts that each of the existing languages or social institutions in general were irreplaceable for the fulfillment of a variety of social functions, and that such functions could alternate and substitute for one another-hence the notion of functional alternatives, substitutes, and equivalents.

At this juncture, it should be clear that language is not simply an instrument or a tool. Rather, language has its true being in conversation in the exercise and promotion and understanding between peoples. I make bold to say that we should not understand the process of communication as a mere action, a purposeful activity, a setting-up of signs. Language should not be a means to impose or transmit my will to another. Above all, language is a living process in which a community of life is lived out. Believe it or not, we must think of human language as a special and unique living process, in that in linguistic communication, word and human worldview is disclosed. This disclosure, this function of language means that language does not draw attention to itself but transparent to the realities that are manifested through it. For this reason, I do not consider invented systems of artificial technological inventions of communication to be languages. They have no basis in the community of language or social life. Technological medium of language and expression contradicts the neo-functionalist movement in sociology that was adopted as tradition rather than as method (Alexander, 1985). The essential function of language is in its lessons/messages. To speak means to say what some other person understands. If this is the case, whoever speaks a language that no one else understands does not speak. To speak means to speak to someone who understands. To that extent, speaking does not belong in the sphere of the “I” but in the sphere of the “We.”(Gadamar, 1976)

In conclusion, I wish to emphasize that language is a universal medium of understanding. Understanding therefore is essentially linguistic, but to be properly so, it must transcend the limits of any particular language. There is therefore mediation between the familiar and the alien. It is a fact that no language is a world in itself. That mean that language should not close itself against what is foreign to it, rather every language ought to be porous, and open to absorption of new ideas and contents. In this regard, the understanding of man’s linguistic community and his use of language ought to promote the relationship between him and others from other linguistic communities. No linguistic community is a world in itself. No linguistic culture is superior to another. It is only through openness to the other that every linguistic community can develops the dynamism that is inevitable in human development. Such openness contributes to authentic development of man who belongs to such linguistic communities. We must submit that the universality and meditative power of language can help promote proper understanding among the various cultures of the world. Admittedly, this type of understanding though radical is inevitable for peace, harmony and tranquility.

 

 

POST-REFLECTION

Philosophy, culture and language are inter-related. It is the general knowledge of these three interactions that constitutes linguistic philosophy for the Bantus. The same interaction constitutes linguistic thoughts for the Ibos, the Jews, the Germans, the Greeks and other cultures of the world. Linguistic philosophical connection of the culture of man is like a spider’s web. To pull a line would involve the entire network. Any argument contrary to the above would be considered divertive maneuver aimed at distracting attention from the fundamental linguistic problems posed to all cultures (Okere, 1983). The criticism of African languages has challenged many to speak out. Criticisms of African languages are of a mere theoretical nature. Some scholars have criticized African thoughts and languages as having no verb and articulation. Some have vilified African expressions as not communicating the feelings of Dasein (Man). Others say African language communication would hardly invoke how Dasein go about sentiments, sensations, humors etc. These criticisms are motivated ostensibly by the desire to perpetuate or tarnish the image of a black man and relegate his linguistic skills to “mentalite primitive,” absolutely impermeable to the rules of elementary logic, intellectual alchemy and reasoned discourse. In reality studies have proved that Africans, just like the Europeans, specifically had sound linguistic thoughts and logic.

Let us forget and abandon the old saying that Africans cannot express their thoughts linguistically. Let us abandon the obsolete terminology that Africans lack expressive skills. The outdated terminology of symbolic magic, of magic of expressed desire and magic similitude says very little about African culture, African languages, and African weltanschauung (worldview). If we don’t have coherent speech and articulation, we have what Tempels’ calls “vital force”. African force pervades everything. It invades all department of African life. African knowledge is force. Primogeniture is force; hunting is a trial of force. There is force all over African worldview. Mbiti and Temple’s concept of language is the radicalization of African expression and communication that is meaningful, intelligible and total. The above terminologies illustrate why African’s linguistic skills are not “mentalite primitive.” It illustrates that Africans are not linguistically handicapped

 


Reference:

 Alexander, J (1985). Neo-functionalism, Beverly Hills: Sage

Aristotle, De Anima Book 111 (1985) in Jordan Bames (Ed),

The complete works of Aristotle, Princeton University Press    

Chris K, Kennedy M, Hartford, J (2000). The evolutionary emergence of     language: Social function and origin of linguistic form, Cambridge University press.

Cropper, C (2003) Preparation Manual for the Texas Examination of Educator Standards, www.texasstudy.com

 Gadamar, H, G (1979). Truth and method, London; Sheed and Ward

 Gadamer, H.G (1968) Wahrheit Und Methode p.380 Und P.416; Kleine Schriften

Gadamar, H.G (1976), the philosophical Hermeneutics, Trans & Ed by David. F. Lange, Berkley University of Californian Press.

Heidegger, M., Kant (1965) und das problem der metaphysike. V. Klostermann, Frankfurt am main, p.41

 Kleine S (1981) Functionality of language p.67

Merton, C (1949, 1967). Manifest and latent function pp.73-138 in Muller, R.L (1968) The linguistic Relativity and Humboldtain Ethno linguistics, Janua Ling arum, Nr. 67, Mouton the Hague Paris

Okere T. (1983), African Philosophy-A Historico-Hermeneutical Investigation of the conditions of its possibility, University Press of America.

 Ricoeur, P (1969) Le Conflit des Interpretations, Edition de Seuil, Paris

Tempel’s (1948) La Philosophie Bantoue, Presence Africaine, p.28

 Theoretical sociology: Five Essay, Old and New, New York: Free press

Whorf, B L (1956) Language, Thought and Reality, Ed, John B Carroll, Cambridge; German Version; Sprache, Denken Und Wirklichkeit