The Philosophy of Language

THE THOMIST A SPECULATIVE QUARTERLY REVIEW OF THEOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY Em:ToRs: THE DoMINICAN FATHERS oF THE PRoVINCE OF ST. JosEPH Publishers: Sheed & Ward, Inc., New York City VoL. IV OCTOBER, 1942 THE PHILOSOPHY OF LANGUAGE INHERITANCE or creation? Whence comes that original system of signs that is called language? From whom did man receive it as a legacy? Was it from Nature? Was it from Society? Or, on the contrary, was man, himself, its inventor? Did he bring it forth complete in its parts from his own creative fecundity? What is the structure of those signs? How explain their infinite plasticity? To what can their flexibility and their unlimited expressiveness How is it that, being so small, so rudimenbny, they are at the same time as diverse and as complex as our sentiments, as universal and as unfathomable as the intuitions of our minds? Finally, what is their function, their destiny? To what use they passed? Of what :reality are they carriers? To whom are they addressed? What is the purpose that they serve? These few questions open a vast field for investigation; are charged with interest and with mystery" But would be further complicated by any attempt to exhaust them or explain them in one short study. In this paper, therefore, we restrict ourselves to the philosophical aspects of language, avoiding the field of the historian of language, and of' the linguist himself. If at times we appear to encroach on the domain of 547 548 LOUIS LACHANCE another discipline, it will be only because we see there reflections of philosophic truth, because we find there elements of a nature to reveal indirectly the essence of things. In virtue of an unexplained unity, facts that are apparently most dissimilar have astonishing conformities, which, when they are perceived, are transformed into degrees of light directed upon the structural lines of the object under consideration. I. PRoVISIONAL NoTIONS Before proceeding to the exposition and justification of our views regarding the origin, nature, and finality of language, it is important that we define our terms, stating with clearness what is to be understood by the word language, for the least variation in the understanding of the term might lead to ambiguities and mistakes. It is to be noted that the word can be taken in a broad and improper sense; it then designates any class of signs among living beings. When there is a communication by means of signs there is language. Although it is a matter of indifference whether they are addressed to one or another of the sensesthe languages o:l' touch and smell are examples-these signs are usually addressed to sight and hearing. This gives rise to language that is visible or in the form of gestures, and to language that is audible or expressed by cries. As long as languages are determined in accordance with this material order, it must be said that animals, which can communicate by signs, have a language. That is to say, they make use of signs, whether they come to them by nature or are acquired by training.1 Thanks to an association of images, fixed by nature or by repeated experiences , animals, without perceiving the relation of meaning, make use of it and give that relation life. Through the intermediary of signs, the role of which they do not understand, they become conscious of certain objects and of certain things to be 1 Bruta exprimunt suos conceptus signis naturalibus. (De Ver., q. 9, a. 4, ad 10; q. 24, a. 2, ad 7). Experimentum quod quaedam animalia non participant, nisi parum. Experimentum enim est ex collatione plurium singularium in memoria receptorum. (l Metaph., lee. 1, n. 16.) THE PHILOSOPHY OF LANGUAGE 549 done. As a matter of fact ancient authors/' as well as modern,8 do not hesitate to designate as language the cries, gestures, and songs by which some animals enter into affective and practical relations with beings of their own kind. However, if we hold to the strict and proper meaning of the word, it must be admitted that language has the characteristics of a phenomenon that is typically human. It is truly the appendage of the rational creature...