linguistic philosophy

Also found in: Dictionary, Wikipedia.

linguistic philosophy

The latter is more common.

Linguistic Philosophy


(philosophy of linguistic analysis, ordinary language philosophy), a school of analytic philosophy that originated in the 1930’s and developed in Great Britain (G. Ryle, J. Austin, J. Wisdom, M. MacDonald). It has influenced philosophers in the USA (M. Black, N. Malcolm), Australia, and the Scandinavian countries.

Being a Neopositivist school, linguistic philosophy denies that philosophy’s task is to present an integrated world view and regards traditional philosophical problems as pseudo-problems that arise as a result of the disorienting influence of language on thought. Unlike the adherents of the philosophy of logical analysis—another variety of analytic philosophy—the linguistic philosophers consider that the task of the philosopher-analyst is not to reform language in accordance with some logical norm but rather to provide a detailed analysis of the actual use of natural spoken language with the aim of eliminating the misunderstandings which arise as a result of the incorrect usage of language. In particular, according to linguistic philosophy, such an analysis leads to a clarification of the causes underlying the formulation of philosophical problems; these problems supposedly result from the incorrect extension of ordinary word usage.

Objecting to preoccupation with technicalities in philosophy, that is, a preoccupation with the use of a specialized conceptual apparatus, and upholding the “purity” of natural-language usage, linguistic philosophy resolutely opposes scientism in philosophy, especially the scientism of the logical positivists.

The ideas of linguistic philosophy were first expressed in the 1930’s by the Cambridge school of the followers of G. Moore and the later Wittgenstein. In the late 1940’s, the philosophers of the Oxford school (G. Ryle, J. Austin, P. Strawson) gained in influence; while opposing all tendencies toward the unification of language, they emphasized the diversity of linguistic phenomena and of the methods of using linguistic expressions.

In spite of the unsoundness of linguistic philosophy as a philosophical trend on the whole, the work of the linguistic philosophers has proved valuable in the analysis of the logical structure of ordinary language and the study of its semantic possibilities.


Gellner, E. Slova i veshchi. Moscow, 1962. (Translated from English.)
Begiashvili, A. F. Sovremennaia angliiskaia lingvisticheskaia filosofiia. Tbilisi, 1965.
Hill, T. E. Sovremennye teorii poznaniia. Moscow, 1965. (Translated from English.)
Black, M. Problems of Analysis. Ithaca, 1954.
The Revolution in Philosophy. Edited by G. Ryle. London, 1956.
Charlesworth, M. J. Philosophy and Linguistic Analysis. Pittsburgh, 1959.


References in periodicals archive ?
While Heidegger's precise position within the context of twentieth-century philosophy of language and linguistic philosophy and his relationship to the heirs of structuralism obviously remain a complex and multifaceted topic, Language after Heidegger makes an important case for the originality and the considerable innovative potential of the linguistic aspects of the Heideggerian heritage.
Nevertheless, philosophical precision is exactly what this term requires; particularly if the author wants to avoid falling victim to the claim he resists in chapter 7, that linguistic philosophy is just about "words" (80).
The young poet, after a short period during which he imagined himself as "the harbinger of new romanticism," turned to linguistic philosophy and with it to an increasingly analytic approach to poetry.
155-79) is very important for clarifying Saadia's unique terminology and linguistic philosophy.
This point of view owes a debt to Geertz's notion of culture, as well as to the linguistic philosophy of the later Wittgenstein, and is intriguingly consistent with the methodological presuppositions that underwrite the Buddhist doctrine of Sunyata.
In the past, some forms of linguistic philosophy have argued that a single sentence will elicit everything about a language.
Rather than discussing recent Western linguistic philosophy, Yagi is more concerned with issues of direct religious experience, on which theme he has recently written another book.
He is equally at ease with linguistic philosophy or Jungian psychology or the problems of cultural imperialism.
The author concludes that the developments of contemporary linguistic philosophy are an attempt to deal with novelty of meaning, to "express the unthought of"; this is what is at the heart of the revolt against the "metaphysical" ideal of a universal language.
Much of the book is given to a mode of linguistic philosophy, focusing on Yagi's perception of Christian anthropology, especially Pauline (with development in the Eastern Orthodox tradition).
A similar demonstration of learning, this time with respect to linguistic philosophy and purely artistic topics including some interesting interpretations of Ibsen's dramas - is found in letters to the conservative politician Gunnar Hekscher from 1962.
describes himself, live largely in the world of Anglo-American linguistic philosophy and with the practitioners of that discipline: Strawson, Austin, Alston, and Searle.