Philosophy of Language

by Alexander Miller

A comprehensive perspective on the philosophy of language.

Genres: Philosophy, Language, Linguistics, Nonfiction

416 pages, Paperback

First published September 1, 1997

Reviews

[I Møller · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book is one of the best introductory book in regards with philosophy of language which starts with the German philosopher Gottolb Frege who tried to give a systematic notion of meaning by appealing the two properties : reference and sense. And then it comes to Bertrand Russel the British philosopher who criticize Frege of his introduction of notion of sense.

Alexander Miller, the author of the book, did not consider merely the classical language philosophers, the formalist, specially those belonged to the Cambridge School. In addition, he made a contribution of thoese who saw language a social complicated phenomenon. In this way, Miller reviewed some very interesting account of non-formalist tradition specially Wittgenstein (the latest) and Kripke who, in on Wittgenstein's Rules and Private language, introduce a paradoxical non-factualist and sceptical views regard the notion of sense, vanishing into the air, as he put it.

The book also deals with philosopher's like Strawsson and Grice who, unlike Frege and Russel, saw the role of language users somehow significant and indispensable in refering to something. Thus Bedeutung as they believed are realized in a context by users and it is not something done automatically.

[Conrado · Rating 3 out of 5]

Read this if you want a good introduction to Frege and Russell; Miller does a fantastic job at explaining their main theses, differences and contributions to early philosophy of language. The other chapters are OK (I liked the ones on meaning scepticism and the relation between language and realism), but they're really dry and can be tiring, even if very clarifying at times.

One thing that can be frustrating is the lack of discussions within the intersections between phil. language, phil. mind and cognitive science; e.g., there's no discussion on the language of thought hypothesis, no substantive discussion on recent theories of linguistic competence within linguistics, no discussions in syntactic theory, etc. That wasn't a big frustration to me, as I was already expecting a book that treated the more traditional problems in a traditional (i.e. mostly a priori) manner. However, if you're sympathetic with naturalistic approaches to phil. language, you should look elsewhere for a satisfying introduction (Language and Reality by Devitt and Sterelny is a good one).

I also admit to skipping the chapter on Davidson.

[lcjfrc · Rating 5 out of 5]

A synoptic outline of Frege's and Russell's points on what it would mean to build a semantic theory of verbal languages from which I profited the most. Miller refers to Dummett, Davidson, Wright, and others to explain how Russell solved the puzzles Frege couldn't escape due to his inability to let go of the second level of meaning, that of sense. Through easily digestible chapters, Miller explains Russell's notion of definite descriptions, why he turned to it, how that allowed him to treat the non-existent signified (e.g. a fictional character) as meaningful (Frege couldn't do it), etc.

The title is too general for what the book covers, but Miller does show why the Frege/Russell dispute constitutes the core of all subsequent issues in the field.

There is also a brief overview of Kripke's reading of Wittgenstein.

[Mishehu · Rating 5 out of 5]

Outstanding overview of the field. Miller does a terrific job of elucidating the essential questions in Philosophy of Language and how they have been approached by theorists 2 from Frege onwards. Of course, only so much ground can be covered in a relatively brief book. But Miller manages to cover quite a lot. And he does it cogently and compellingly. If you're at all interested in this branch of philosophy, Miller's book is a great place to start your journey.

[Emma]

I do not enjoy the Philosophy of Language

[Saif · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great introductory book (however, it requires some acquaintance with basic formal logic and the field)

[C · Rating 1 out of 5]

Dehumanizing.