Reflection Paper #1

Class No. 17

The concept of language for Ludwig Wittgenstein is a game which is supposed to be defined
by the rules. And for the participants to understand each other, they should be in the same language
game.
And for Noam Chomsky, language serves as an instrument for free expression of thought,
unbounded in scope, uncontrolled by stimulus conditions though appropriate to situations, available
for use in whatever contingencies our thought processes can comprehend. That is, language requires
both grammatical competence (knowledge of form and meaning) and pragmatic conference
(knowledge of conditions and manner of appropriate use, in conformity with various purposes). For
the communicators to understand each other, they should be in a homogenous speech community.
For both Wittgenstein and Chomsky, though they used varied terms, they simply mean that
for the communicators to understand each other for them to attain the same meaning they should
be in the same context.
As a teacher of language, sometimes I encounter the difficulty of understanding inside our
classroom, between me and my student or even among the students themselves. And that is due to
the fact that we are not talking in the same context. I might produce an utterance with a certain idea
in my mind. But my students might receive the utterance with another concept in their minds. Or vice
versa. For example in my class with Information Technology students, when I utter apple and I mean
the edible fruit, they might conceive my utterance as the brand of computers or cellular phones. In
this case, there might be misunderstanding between us because we are not in the same context. I
and my students have the same term but varied concepts.
And since the meaning of an utterance is arbitrary, we can be playful with its use and comeup with various meanings. Though we are bounded by rules which we call grammar, various
denotations and connotations might still spring up. And with this, I can also use it to check or to
determine the range of the vocabulary of my students.
The heading of the chapter is language, meaning and truth. With the discussion of the points
of Wittgenstein and Chomsky, the concepts on language and meaning are clarified. But the concept
of truth was not yet touched. Does it mean that when the speaker and the hearer are in the same
language game or in the same homogenous speech society, they are already speaking of the truth?
Does it follow that when the communicators conceptualize the same meaning, that is already the real
state of affairs?
According to John Locke, a word represents some idea in the mind of the speaker. But the
hearer should also have the same idea when he/she hears the words so that each other could
understand one another. Again, Locke might be using another terms, but he also meant being in the
same context. The contention of Locke can also be exemplified in the example which I have pointed
above. I have a word which stands for and certain concept, but the students receive the word with a
varied concept in mind.
To conclude, in order to avoid misunderstandings in our communications, the participants
should be in the same context with a common specific concept or idea for a specific word or
utterance.