Language is not found in the natural world, which itself would exist directly or indirectly because of the uncaused cause [1], and even then, the uncaused cause and cosmos can only exist if they are logically possible--if they are consistent with or necessitated by the intrinsic truths of logical axioms. Yes, the physical materials used to craft the parchment (animal skin) or page (wood converted into paper) on which linguistic symbols can be written would be made of matter, and thus are part of the natural world and subject to whatever laws of physics are active at the macroscopic or quantum level. Language itself is not; language can be expressed in written form on physical substance, but it can also be used privately inside of a person's immaterial mind (though this is not necessary for thinking whatsoever [2]), and the logical necessities governing language are of course more foundational than science and language and thus transcend them [3].
Since language is not part of the cosmos, for it is something that conscious beings have to create and use, it cannot be grounded in physics or discovered through the scientific method. Yes, how the vocal cords correlate to the production of sound used in conversation, which requires language, is a matter of science. How the muscles in the body behave and the air from the lungs brings about the vibrations connected with the audible voice are scientific in nature (although science hinges on logical truths dictating necessity and possibility and thus is never supremely central to any aspect of reality). How changing the way one utilizes specific muscles generates specific vocal sounds to modify spoken language is an issue of science, but language is not noise: it is a system of written or verbalized symbols that have to be arbitrarily created.
Language is not arbitrary in the sense that it is beyond reason. Nothing can be. If something is logically impossible, it cannot be true. The truth about all things is governed by logic, though truths about what does and does not follow from something, metaphysical identity, and possibility and impossibility are all true independent of examples beyond the inherent reality of reason itself. Logical axioms like how something which follows from another thing cannot be invalid, as necessary truths in themselves, have to be true pertaining to language as well as outside of it (a word is a word, which requires the law of identity's veracity, a letter is not a word, which requires the law of non-contradiction's veracity, and so on). No, language is arbitrary in that words are individual or social constructs used to communicate information.
They are not the things being described. The word love is not the mental state of love. The word bacterium is not any of the many microorganisms it could be referencing. The word reason is not the necessary truths of logic that are true in themselves apart from the creation or use of any language. The word dust is not actual particles of dust. Like it can refer to other things related to or beyond science, language can convey or be assigned to scientific objects, events, and laws. However, it is not perceived out in nature or initially perceived with the senses at all. No, it is contrived by people for the sake of communication between non-telepathic beings, and there is no inherent meaning to any sound or symbol no matter how much it might seem to be the case--the fact that people can intend different things by the same words alone requires that this is true.
Since some people think that linguistics is a social science, it is relevant that social "science" is not science. Unless the laws of physics change, dropping a stick under identical conditions will lead to identical outcomes because scientific phenomena entail physical environments/objects behaving in specific ways. There is no such thing with people. Conscious beings have their own individualistic wills and personalities that can vary dramatically from person to person. There is also no deterministic outcome with outward behaviors when different people are in the same situations as there would be with truly scientific phenomena. Thus, even on the level of human behavior regarding language, language is not in the domain of science metaphysically or epistemologically. Like science, it is governed by the laws of logic, but unlike scientific objects and laws, language is often a social construct (otherwise it still has to be created and amended by individuals). The only person who thinks otherwise is highly irrational.
No comments:
Post a Comment