Sense and Reference of Expressions in Natural Language

Sense and Reference of Expressions in Natural Language

Reading note on Russell’s theory of definite descriptions.

            The theory of definite descriptions are explained by Russell attempts to come up with a proposition that when using language, there must be a direct object that must be quoted in the statement or the phrase in order to avoid ambiguity in such a phrase. He notes that there is a big difference between what is denoted and the meaning brought about by the sentence. He further asserts that the meaning of a sentence or phrase does not lie on the individual phrase but the logic of the statement itself.

            From the foregoing analysis of Russell’s theory, it can be argued that, statements, which are either contradictory or ambiguous in nature, should be avoided to assist the person receiving the information from being confused. For example, we can talk of the ‘morning star’ and the ‘evening star’ as representing planet Venus. In reality, the morning star appears in the morning while the evening star appears in the evening and therefore the morning star cannot be synonymous with the evening star. Each stands on its own. In addition, according to the principle of the excluded middle, we need to say whether a thing is or is not. It must be or not be. Generally, ambiguity is avoided by making sure that the words given to a statement do not bring about contradiction. For example, when we say, ‘the man’, we should mean a definite human who is known rather than saying, ‘a man’, who may be existing or not existing.

            On the other hand, however, there is a situation in which, if we are to follow the argument of Russell, we might lose the meaning that a certain speaker intended to relay. Sometimes, there are instances where a statement might be taken to mean a real object or not.  Sometimes therefore, we have to get the sense of what the speaker says rather than bothering the reason of the reference.

Reading note on Frege’s theory

            Frege’s theory lies in his endeavor to distinguish between reference and sense of linguistic expressions. He asserts that there are situations where a statement made may refer to the same object but makes different senses. For example, we may want to talk about, ‘ the former leader of the Labor party in United Kingdom’.  Again, we may say, ‘the prime minister of England in 2005’. Although the two statements refer to the same person; Tony Blair, the sense they make is different. This is what Frege says that there is a difference between the reference and the sense that is created.

            To a greater extent, the theory of Frege can be convincing. There are instances where you need not to mention of an abstract thing so that to get a meaning out of it or to make sense. For example, we may say, “the integer.” In this example, although the term integer does not refer to any real object, it makes sense. Therefore, in this case, the reference is not made but the phrase makes sense though it means an abstract idea. The main contention of Frege is that it is possible to make sense without even referring to any definite object. The meaning of a phrase or a sentence is the function of the meaning of the individual words. Meaning that the specific words that are used in the phrase must definitely have a meaning.

Review of the article “Turning The Tables On Frege Or How Is It That  “ Hesperus Is Hesperus” Is Trivial? By Howard wettstein

            Howard Wettsein in his work, “Turning the Tables On Frege or How it that “Hesperus is hesperus” is is trivial, seems to contend with the anti- Fregian perspective. Although he contends with the fact that the critics of both Frege and Russell never gave a significance consideration of the cognitive significance of language, he seems to lean more on the anti-Fregian side. From the side of the anti-fregian, for one to be speaking or thinking about something or an object, the thoughts of that person must be absolutely distinguishing that thing from the rest of all other objects that are found on the earth (Howard, 1989, page 324). From the Russell point of view, someone cannot speak about something without knowing that in reality they are speaking about that same thing and not any other. The real thing must be in existence. Russell was motivated by the epistemic point of approach.  On the other side however, Frege maintains that there is no much need of representing objects in a unique way as Russell claimed.

            The work of Howard has tried to bridge the gap between the works of both Russell as well as that one of Frege.  According to Frege, although different speakers may attach different senses to a name, it does not matter as far as the reference of the name remains. He means that we can do without senses. This to a great extent distorts the reality about human beings. Human beings are created with the power of rationality. They are therefore unique and require to be treated with a lot of uniqueness that is required. There is no way that statements can be meaningful if there are no meaning attached to every concept used which is different for other concepts that can either replace or fit in their absence.

            The concept of giving people names when they are born is just meant to identify them (Howard,1989 page 385). In this case, I strongly agree with Howard.  The name of the person cannot be given an identity equivalent to the person it refers to. The role-played by the name that a person is given is meant to distinguish him from others who are also human beings like them. This continues process of calling a person by name is an aspect of a culture developed by the people in a specific community. Nevertheless, it cannot be argued out that the name can be used to represent the person. I argue that, the name is only used to give an identity while the personality remains the same. I would tend to believe that the reality remains with the person being identified and not within the name that is used to refer to them.

            For example if we are to take the example of Hesperus and phosphorous, we can be able to explain the stand that he takes( Howard,1989). For example, Hesperus and phosphorous mean the same thing. They are only equivalent only in the dimension of reference. However, they are different along the dimension of cognitive. In many instances, a speaker can be using two different names, which refer to the same thing but do not understand that they do refer to the same object. There are also instances where the same person can bear different characteristics. The same name to a great extent may not guarantee that it will be the same individual even if the information produced is similar to the person. This means that reality of identifying a person with a certain characteristic can be useful in that it is constant. On the other hand, however, there are no parameters kept to ensure that another person bearing the same qualities does not bear the same identity.

Critical discussion of Russell’s theory

            Russell’s theory of definite description of definite language argues that a word or a phrase denotes what it means by the virtues of the form in which it is put. For example, when we are to consider a phrase like “the present president of United States,” then the phrase denotes a specific person and not any other (Russell, 1905 pg. 479). This means that it is that specific person referred to in the statement and is known but not any other. The name of the person should also be included to avoid confusion. A word or a phrase with no definite expression is ambiguous. For example, when we talk of ‘a tree’ we do not specify a definite tree but the phrase represents an ambiguous or a non-specific item. In interpreting such a phrase or a statement, one is likely to have trouble as compared to when there is a definite description of the item or object (Russell, 1905, pg. 479). Russell suggests that the meaning or the knowledge that we acquire about certain phrases start from acquaintance of the object or the main feature of the statement that is made.

             What we claim to know is a product of denoting (Russell, 1905 p.g 480). In addition, Russell claims that denoting phrases never have meaning in themselves. For example when we say that David is the son of Albert. This means, it is definite that the relation between David and Albert is that of a son-father relationship and nothing else. The term ‘the’ has been used to denote a definite relationship in the phrase and cannot be otherwise apart from what it means or what it is (Russel, 1905 pg 481). There are instances where the meaning of a certain proposition changes when there is even a simple interference with the statement made (Russel, 1905 pg. 484). In other cases, for example, when we claim that we can be able to know the mind of other people, then it becomes complex. We only know the minds of other people by denoting phrases but we are not acquainted to them (Russel, 1905 pg. 492). Sometimes when we talk about an individual having certain attributes, then we have to have the properties at hand and not merely forming denotations.

            From the perspective of Frege, every grammatically correct phrase or statement has a meaning on it. (Frege, 1952 pg. 58). This is what Russell tries to refute because there are instances where we try to form different phrases with the intention of trying to bring out the same meaning yet they do not mean the same. For example, if we say “the king of France is weird.” However, the phrase might sound correct grammatically but in the deeper sense, the meaning or the sense the phrase tries to bring is ambiguous. This is from the standpoint of Russell. To be able to bring about a unified meaning of the statement, then Russell contends that the sense of a word or a phrase should be approached from its logical point of view as opposed to Frege’s proposed approach of the grammatical aspect.

            A person who is completely familiar with the language or the total description to which it belongs is the only person who can be able to grasp the sense of a proper name. The same sense may have different languages either from the same setting or from a different setting. (Frege, 1952 pg. 58). When an expression belongs to a complete totality of signs, then a definite sense is created. However, natural languages do not conform to this condition. An individual must be content that the same word has a similar sense in only one context. Sometimes it may be granted that every grammatically correct and formed word has always sense in itself. This also means that to a sense means not that a thing is meant. To a greater extent therefore, when one wants to grasp the sense of a statement there is no worry about any meaning of the words that one speaks about (Frege, 1952 pg. 58).

            When a person uses words in the ordinary way, what they intend to speak of is the meaning of the words. Every person has their own perception on the usage of words ( Howard,1989 page 384). The idea held by one person may not always be the same idea held by another. There are always different ideas, which may be associated with the same sense (Frege, 1952 pg. 59). Ideas are therefore subjective and not objective in nature. For instance, different experts may have differing senses in the same idea. From this point of approach therefore, Frege believes that the context in which specific terms, words or phrases are used can only be meaningful or sensible as far as the particular context it is used is concerned. There is difficulty when one tries to bring about the universality of meaning of the natural language that all human beings use. For example, it would be difficult if it were to be held that whatever a specific group of people use in their context would be the same translated in other contexts. People have got different ways of expressing their meanings. The analysis or the translations of the meanings shall come from the individuals.

            The concept of Frege gives human beings the absolute rationality to be able to decide the kind of language that they are to use. It also means that they are the final judges on the usage of specific expressions. Whatever they decide as the meaning of the expressions remain the same. No universal language of expression can be imposed for people to follow, as this would result to denying them the noblest unique feature of being rational beings. By reading carefully the wording given to a specific statement, the human beings can be able to come up with an informed conclusion. Contrary to the position held by Russell, the human mind has an endless potentiality of venturing more and even coming up with an informed or sound conclusion. This means that, even when there is ambiguity in a statement, they can be able to come up with a better decision on the meaning of the statements that are made.

            When one for example is to speak about ‘the moon’, this is just an idea or a word that has been used to presuppose something (Frege, 1952 pg 61). It is not exactly known whether the moon has any meaning. We may not be satisfied with the sense alone but we have to get to the depth of the matter and get the meaning, which is brought about by the word or the statement. For example is we are to say that ‘the continent mars is smaller than the earth’, the person who comes up wit such a proposition might make sense to the reader but the statement at the end may not have any meaning. Frege believes that it is worth to verify the statement. For example, the above statement can be taken to be, ‘my idea holds that planet mars is smaller than the earth (Frege, pg 62).

            In other cases, there are times that the receiver of the information has to contend with the sense that a certain phrase or statement brings rather than its meaning. For example, the morning star receives its light from the sun. Another sentence would be, the evening star receives light from the sun. Somebody who did not know the aspect of the morning star and the evening star would tend to side with the sense of the two statements but not the meaning. The origin of the two statements would be questionable only by the person who has a clear knowledge of the concepts. A thought and the meaning of a statement are very different.  The sense is in the word, while the meaning is either from the source of the information or the person reading the phrase. In many instances therefore, it is possible that most of the times people are satisfied with the sense that words or phrases bring out more than the meaning that the words or phrases have. If one is just satisfied by the sense brought about by the phrases that are used, then there would be no need of getting to deeper thoughts about the idea of the same than the superficial thoughts that inform one that they are satisfied (Frege,1952  p.g 63).

            Whether a part or some words used in the sentence have meaning or not, one would not want to care as far as the sense not the meaning satisfies the curiosity of the reader. When we concern ourselves too much about the meaning of a part of the sentence beyond the sense that our thoughts inform us, we fall into a big trap. Sometimes it happens that we want to get the meaning of the sentence, yet when we go deeper to get it, we find that we have lost its value. If for example it is a part of the sentence and we want to get the meaning that a phrase portrays to us, then it is better that we concern ourselves with the direct meaning that it brings about. When we for example say that we want to know the meaning of a phrase, then ultimately, we will want to know the meaning of the whole sentence. In this case, as we explore deeper to know the meaning of the sentence, the value is immediately lost the moment we recognize that a part of its meaning is missing (Frege, 1952,p.g 63).

              Frege asks the reason why we are never satisfied with the sense brought about by the thoughts but we want to go deeper to get the meaning of every word used in the sentence or the phrase. Frege asks, “Why do we want to have the meaning of every proper name and are not satisfied with the sense of the words or phrases.” He says that it is the search of the truth that drives people to want to move from the sense to the meaning of the phrase or sentence. In cases where we have very sweet poetic phrases, the inquisitive mind and the urge to want to get the meaning that words have may drive us to lose the touch of the aesthetic value that poems come with at the expense of scientific enquiry (Frege, 1952,p.g 63). Therefore, to him, instead of wanting to go deeper into the logic or the urge to want to understand the meaning of each and every word used in a statement, it would be better to be satisfied with the sense that are informed by our thoughts.

            Russell tries to bring the concept that, for a phrase or a proposition to be considered logical in nature, it must contain a named object. From his point of view, it is the logic nature of the sentence that makes it true or false. In this case, there are no grounds that are left for other human beings who have different views. Whatever is true in reality is what he calls as objective( where the meaning of the statement is brought about by the use of direct or definite names as objects).  In the argument of strawson, sometimes it is possible that a statement made by an individual will have more than one meaning. There can be diverse contexts in which a statement made derives its meaning. For example, one can say that ‘the whale is a mammal’ (Russel, 1905 pg 482). Another person can say that ‘the whale struck the boat’. He contends that in many cases, it is better to use the actual words for example the name of a person if the sentence or the statement that you are making is in reference to the person as the object. For example, if one is talking about a scientist like Albert Einstein, it would be advisable to say, ‘Albert Einstein is the proprietor of the law of gravity’ instead of saying that ‘the French scientist is the proprietor of the law of gravity’.

            In the above case about Albert Einstein, the mentioning of the name of the scientist is important by the fact that the name specifies the person who did the act. Mentioning the name of the person ensures that there is no ambiguity. There could be other scientists who came up with different concepts regarding the same idea but the fact that the name of the specific scientist is mentioned within the context of what the author wanted to relay to the reader, then ambiguity is erased. One would not take chances in trying to guess on the name of the specific scientist who discovered the idea of gravity. A person reading the article containing the information would not struggle to think but would definitely get the idea the author wanted to convey.

            On one hand, most of the studies have contended that the aesthetic value of language; that which brings about satisfaction of the mind is the epitome of what constitutes the best language. No matter how the real truth of the words or the phrases used, but as far as the language used, can be used to satisfy the human mind, then it has sense (Sandra, 2005). On the other hand, however, Russell contends that when one uses some statements, words, or phrases that are not real, the reality about the world will not be maintained and so becomes meaningless. For example, if one is to speak about something that does not exist even if they want to relay some aesthetic value of something, then it would be meaningless according to Russell. He strongly advocates for logic as opposed to grammar. He says that many statements can be grammatically correct but they are not logically correct and in that case, they are meaningless (McDowell, 1977).

             A statement is given its meaning from the logic point of view but not from the grammatical point of view. To avoid therefore coming up with bad arguments, there are phrases that are made by the authors that raise alarms. What should be done in order to come up with logically correct statements or phrases it to disarrange the wording and then put it in a way that will make it look logical. There should be some universally accepted way of communicating ideas in order to safeguard logic.

            Therefore, strawson contends with Russell argument that the meaning of a statement is contained within itself and not with the logic that he asserts. Russell contends with universal meaning of a statement while strawson contends that the way the phrases are used definitely gives the meaning of the statement or the phrases that are used within a certain context.

            The whole idea that strawson seem to disagree with is the concept of Russell refuting abstract ideas. For example if one hand money in the pocket, they can produce the money. You can take out the money from your pocket and say, “this is my money,” but you cannot produce the meaning of the money you produce from your pocket. This was the greatest mistake that Russell did. He was not able to distinguish between mentioning and referring. Russell confused meaning and mentioning that he argued that if there was any particular statement to be made, and then the specific object that was included must have its real name mentioned. Failure to do that according to him resulted to ambiguous statements.

            Most of the times, it is the people that give meaning to the expressions that they use. What they sense as the meaning ultimately is taken as the truth. In other instances, they depend on the expressions to get the meaning of what is implied in the phrases (Howard, 1989,page 382). If the human beings are not given the capacity to decide the meaning of the statement but the statements are given more power to rule the human thinking, then a problem would arise such that the human mind would be highly reduced.

            From my point of view, the language that human beings use and the meaning should be judged from the point of view of the context in which they are. Most of the times, the focal point of all about language is communication. It is this aspect of communication that brings about happiness in life and this is the ultimate focus of all people. Happiness comes when the human mind is sufficiently satisfied with what is synthesizes. When the meaning of the statements used by the human beings is judged from the logical point of view, then a significant component of human life would be lost (Moore, 1993). Most of the times, there are important signs or components of language such as the poems, which are used for aesthetic purposes. If all the words used in the context of such a piece of work was to be considered in details, then the targeted focus would not be attained but would be highly compromised. This means that it would be important not to deal with the meaning of language from the universal point of view.

            On the other end however, it is advisable that a harmonized system of dealing with the meaning of signs and symbols used in the language for universalistic purposes. There are times when one would want to communicate with people of differing backgrounds and this demands that the use of language is universal (Evans, 1982). In conclusion, however, when the complex human mind guided by their rationality is allowed to function, then all the people can be able to accommodate people of diverse backgrounds.

           

           

           

           

           

References

Moore A.W., 1993., Meaning and Reference .Oxford University Press, Oxford. pp. 111–36;

 Frege, G.. (1952).On Sense and Meaning. In Geach, Peter & Black, Max. (eds). Translations       from the philosophical writings of Gottlob Frege. (3rd ed.) Oxford, UK : Basil Blackwell,    pp. 56-79.

Howard .W. (1989),.Turning the Tables on Frege or How is it that "Hesperus is Hesperus" is         Trivial? Reviewed work(s):Source: Philosophical Perspectives, Vol. 3, Philosophy of    Mind and Action Theory (pp.317-339

Marcus .W. (1999). John McDowell: Reason and Nature, Munster: Lit Verlag,

Nicholas .S. (2002). Reading McDowell: On Mind and World, Routledge,

            On the Sense and Reference of a Proper Name”, Mind lxxxvi (1977), 159-85; reprinted in             Mark Platts, ed., Reference Truth and Reality (Routledge and Kegan Paul, London,        1980), pp. 141–66,

Russell . B. (1905). On Denoting. In Mind, V.15: no.56. pp. 479-493.

Sandra M. D. (2005). On Thinking and the World: Oxford University Press on behalf of the          Mind Association.

McDowell, J. (1977). "On the Sense and Reference of a Proper Name". Mind. New           Series   86 (342).

Evans, G. (1982). The Varieties of Reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press.