Speech Acts and Word-World Relationship: Aphenomenological Perspective
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
SPEECH ACTS AND WORD-WORLD RELATIONSHIP: APHENOMENOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE THESIS SUBMITTED FOR THE DEGREE OF Ph.D IN PHILOSOPHY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH BENGAL BY._... SATI SINGH UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF DR. MANJULIKA GHOSH UNIVERSITY OF NORTH BENGAL RAJA RAMMOHUNPUR, DARJEELING APRIL, 2009 Preface I was drawn to the theme of my research work through the instructions of my teachers in the Department of Philosophy, University of North Bengal during my Post-Graduate studentship. I was captivated both by analytic philosophy as well as the phenomenology of Husserl which was a closed world to us in our Under-Graduate class. In my work I have not said anything completely original. I have tried to restate, reanalyse, revaluate positions and arguments critically and discover hidden connections. Bridge building between desperate traditions in philosophy has started. l consider my work as an endeavour to understand this intellectual climate. ( Sati Singh) . ' Acknowledgement I owe a deep sense of gratitude to my supervisor Dr. (Mrs.) Manjulika Ghosh for everything she has done for me in the way of inspiring, helping and providing invaluable guidance and also in improving my style and expression. But for her I could not have completed this project. Dr. Ghosh who retired as a Professor in the Department of Philosophy. University of North Bengal in 2006. helped me in choosing the specific area of my work which is a further development of my M. Phil. Dissertation. The Supervisor of my M. Phil. Dissertation was Dr. Gautam Biswas who is now a Professor in the Department of Philosophy of Assam University, Silchar. In fact the tirst impetus to treat the speech act theory came from them. f am fortunate enough to have such vvonderful teachers as my supervisors for the Ph. D. and M. Phil. Dissertations. I cannot forego the pleasure of thanking my teachers in the Philosophy spcciall; for their encouragement to think of. or to remember philosophy as something more than the preoccupation of specialists. My heartfelt thanks go to Professor Raghunath Ghosh. Head of the Department of Philosophy and Director. SAP (U .G .C.) for his kind words of encouragement. lie told me that the word-world relationship can be studied from the perspective of Indian Philosophy \vhich could be delved into in my project. But I could not make it a part of work due to sheer want of time. I sincerely wish to take up the study in an opportune moment. As an alumnus of the Department of Philosophy of this University I remember Late Prof. Chinmoy Goswami who later joined the Department of Philosophy of Hyderabad University and Late Professor Chandidas Bhattacharya for many interaction I had with them. l am also grateful for their courtesy and kindness. 11 Thanks are due also to Dr. J. C. Basak, Teacher-in-Charge, Departmental Library, Philosophy for allowing me to avail of library services. I am specially benefited by consulting the books procured under the SAP, by the Director, Professor Raghunath Ghosh. A paper of mine entitled "Austin's Concept of Performative as An Attempt Towards Conjoining Language and Reality" allied to my research work was published in the SAP volume on Language and Ontology. I acknowledge my debt to the editor, Dr. Kanti Lal Das for this kind gesture. I also wish to put on record the graciousness of Professor Raghunath Ghosh for allowing me to present papers related to my topic in the National Seminars held in the Department under the SAP. I am indeed grateful to the University Grants Commission for granting me three years' leave under F.l.P. l am also obliged to Dr. rvfanjuri Bisv.ras, Principal. Thakur Panchanan Mahila Mahavidyalaya. Cooch Behar to allow me to avail ofthis opportunity. I thank the Librarian, Officers and Staff of the North Bengal l Jniversity Central I ,ihrary for providing me all kinds of facility in connectwn \Vith 111) research work. l am grateful to my loving younger brother Mr. Joyanta Singh and my sister-in-law· Mrs. Neeta Singh for their graceful hospitality during my stay at Siliguri in connection with my work. To my husband, Mr. Dhirendra Bahadur Singh, and young daughter, Rajeshwari Singh, I stand in personal gratitude for emotional support and encouragement. I specially thank my young daughter and my nephew Kunal Singh who wondered what I was doing when I inexplicably scribbled away those many afternoons and evenings depriving them of my company. lll I thank my fellow researchers S. M. Rakibuj Zaman and Sushovan Deb Barman as well as senior M. Phil student Anup Das for helping me in innumerable ways. I thank Sri Mayukh Dutta of the Departmental Seminar Library for his co-operation. I dedicate the work to my parents acknowledging a daughter's debt to them. I thank Mr. Sudhangshu Kr. Das of Computer Link, Shibmandir for composing, printing and binding the thesis in a presentable manner. I also thank all those whom I cannot individually name for their wishes and help. (Sati Singh) IV Contents Preface Acknowledgement 11-lV Chapter I 1-27 Introduction Word-World Relationship: A Fundamental Problem in Philosophy of Language Chapter II 28-96 Word-World Relationship: An Exposition of the Views of Some Analytic Philosophers Chapter III 97-121 A Phenomenological Account of Language and Meaning Chapter IV 122-136 Austin's Speech Act Theory and Its Phenomenological Interpretation Chapter V 137-153 Some Recent Developments in Speech Act Theory Chapter VI 154-179 Concluding Remarks Select Bibliography 180-205 v Chapter I Introduction Word-World Relationship: A Fundamental Problem In Philosophy of Language Man's preoccupation with language has had a long history. Language matters to philosophers as it does to the poet, the novelist, the linguist, the grammarian and others interested in language. Yet the philosopher's concern with language goes to a basic level. Philosophers have been concerned with the mysticism enshrined in language, and baffled by it. Now, poets and mystics may also be baffled by the workings of language. What, however, marks out the philosopher's distinctive approach to language is that he seeks his way out of the mystery, and attempt to arrive at an understanding of language, its nature and function. Hence, the philosopher's problem at the basic level is not how we form a well formed formula, but the singularly surprising phenomenon of what renders a licit concatenation of signs express meaning. How is it that the employment of a well-formed sentence means such and such a state of affairs; how to read off from another sentence, even in advance what will make it true; how is it possible for the ·mere signs' of language to be intentional, that is, for a name to reach up to the very object itself of which the name is the name and for a sentence, to a state of affairs? These questions were raised by Plato himself but these are vigorously discussed in the analytical tradition, be it conceptual analysis or analysis of language which goes by the name "linguistic philosophy'. Let us digress for a while to clarify these notions. Conceptual analysis, instead of words, or without looking at words attends to concepts or universals which words signify; the reason could be that words are inadequate to express concepts. Language analysis or linguistic philosophy has been broadly classified into ideal language philosophy and the ordinary language philosophy. The ideal language is an improved language free from the vicissitudes of ordinary, common sense language. The formulation of ideal language as the 'logical syntax' of ordinary sentences, i.e. a logically correct language, was initiated by Rudolf Camap in The Logical Syntax of Language. 1 Ordinary language philosophy, on the other hand, claims that ordinary language with its historic-grammatical syntax is well-equipped to analyse typical philosophical problems of knowledge, being, object, other mind, and so on. For both types of linguistic philosophy, it has been said that "' ... the only difference between Ideal Language Philosophers and Ordinary Language Philosophers is a disagreement about which language is Ideal."2 Such a characterization of linguistic philosophy is also made by Gustav Bergmann3 in the following passage: All linguistic philosophers talk about the world by means of talking about a suitable language. This is the linguistic tum, the fundamental gambit as to method, on which ordinary and ideal language philosophers (OLP, ILP) agree. Equally fundamentally, they disagree on what is in this sense a "language" and what makes it "suitable". One thing more to be clarified is that the three studies ( 1) Philosophy of Language, (2) Linguistic Philosophy and (3) Analytic Philosophy are three overlapping philosophical methods. A full account of their checkered career is beyond our present purpose. We simply note that despite subtle distinctions between them they are used interchangeably, and we also propose to so use them whenever the occasion arises. The purpose of making the digression is that it lays bare the linguistic orientation of philosophy or the linguistic tum which has been the comer stone of analytic philosophy. This linguistic orientation is basically the search for the root of our understanding of word-world relationship. Since our present concern is the word-world relationship, let us make an attempt to concentrate on the two very important elements in man's experiential framework - language and reality. Language, broadly speaking, stands for any system of signs, verbal and non-verbal. It is defined as an abstract system of symbols and their modes of combination. To put it in more concrete terms, language is the medium of human communication that people use to express thought, emotions. attitudes, etc. Viewed in this way, language is basically a set of words (vocabulary), used following a set of rules and conventions.