Cognitive psychology has a major interest in learning, just like education and philosophy. These disciplines use words to impart new information, concepts and ideas to individuals. The knowledge covers different subjects, and they cannot be generalized a simple analysis of the words used. The problem of “the meaning of word” has been studied widely in philosophy, but in most cases the philosophers make the mistake of equating “the meaning of a word” with “the meaning of a sentence.” This paper is an evaluation of the article, “The Meaning of a Word” by Austin, Urmson & Warnock (1979). After a brief summary of the article, the benefits, shortcomings and the contributions of the article will be evaluated.
“The Meaning of a Word” by Austin, Urmson & Warnock (1979) attacks the view that philosophy can be done by analyzing the meaning of words used in philosophizing. The article is divided into three parts: analysis of “the meaning of word” in general, the problems of making conclusions and assumptions based on phrases like “the meaning of a word,” and lastly the problem of universals. Some words are universal in nature, making it hard to differentiate the real reasons behind the argument. According to Austin et al. (1979), what alone has a meaning is a sentence and not a “word,” yet we find ourselves constantly asking about the meaning of new words. However, a ‘word’ or a ‘phrase’ can have the derivative meaning of the sentence in which it occurs in.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
According to Austin, Umrson & Warnock (1979), a ‘word’ is something that has meaning, but its meaning makes more sense when used in a sentence. However, “the meaning of the word” is often used in day to day conversation. For instance, one can ask about “the meaning of the word rat,” when answering the question one can explain the syntactic of the word ‘rat’ or describe the experience situations with a “rat.” Thus the meaning of the word is not specific; rather it depends on the specific interpretation of a particular individual. The general question “what is the meaning of a word” can be interpreted to mean nothing in particular, it is a form of generalization and can be regarded a fallacy.
Austin, Umrson & Warnock (1979) consider “what is the meaning of a word” a nonsense question on its own. People have different interpretations of words, and some interpretation makes sense while others do not make sense. The authors use the example of the following sentence, “the cat is on the mat, and I do not believe it” to show that a sentence/phrase/ word can make sense when analyzed using syntactic, but it still lacks a meaning (Austin, Umrson & Warnock, 1979 p. 7). Having explored the challenge of interpreting “the meaning of a word,” the authors talk about the problem of analyzing philosophy based on the meaning of words. Philosophers use different words to mean different things, concepts or ideas. When philosophy is analyzed by explaining the meaning of the words without relating them to the context, there is a possibility of misinterpreting the message.
The article focuses on the problem of the “the meaning of a word,” an important issue in philosophy and cognitive psychology. Interpreting the work of philosophers can be challenging sometimes, some interpret philosophic works using words used independently to understand the work of a philosopher. Interpreting a philosophical work using words is a hectic process, and yet it can render the work meaningless. The article is a comprehensive analysis of the problem of “the meaning of a word.”The article does not make much sense in the beginning, but the authors clarify the subject of the article using various relatable examples. The authors use deduction to arrive at the conclusion that “the meaning of a word” is a nonsense question on its own because it is not specific, and yet people have different interpretations of words.
The article also addresses some of the errors made philosophers in the past when discussion the problem of “the meaning of a word.” Most philosophers often confuse the problem of “the meaning of a word” with “the meaning of a sentence.” A sentence is made up of words, and it has a distinct meaning unlike a single word. By addressing some of the flaws made by researchers on the same issue, the research article has some form of credibility. The authors conclude that “the meaning of a word” is a misleading phrase on its own. Additionally, the meaning of “words” in society tend to be confused, when one is asked the meaning of something, they tend to give the components of the “word” rather than its meaning.
Notably, the article is a complete analysis of the problem, but if fails to give a solution to the problem. The biggest flaw of the article is that the authors describe the nature of the issue extensively, but fail to give a solution to the problem. There are individuals who analyze articles and philosophical works by analyzing individual words. The scope of the article should have been extended to include the potential solutions to the problem of “the meaning of a word.”The authors should have suggested effective ways of interpreting the meaning of words.
Austin, Umrson & Warnock (1979) admit that the issue has been studied by philosophers and other researchers in the past because it affects philosophy, cognitive psychology and humanities in general (Crary, 2002). Nonetheless, the knowledge from the article will act as the foundation for addressing the problem. The article describes the problem of “the meaning of a word” in detail, it describes it in a way that can be easily understood. Once the problem is well understood, it will be easy to solve it.
In conclusion, the problem of “the meaning of a word” is one of the controversies in philosophy that can be attributed to language. Language enables philosophers to share their ideas, however, it can be limiting in certain occasions as seen in the examples used in the article. In an attempt to solve the limitation of the language, some choose to analyze philosophical works on the basis of the words used. This is a tedious process, and it leads to a lot of generalization as seen in the article. “The meaning of a word” is an ambiguous question that has no specific answer, eventually people choose to attach meaning to words based on their preferences. Without a clear definition of “the meaning of a word,” there is no point in analyzing philosophical works on the basis of the words used in the paper.
References
Austin, J.L., Urmson, J.O. & Warnock, G. J. (2003). The Meaning of a Word. Philosophical Papers.
Crary, A. (2002). The Happy Truth: JL Austin's How To Do Things With Words. Inquiry , 45 (1), 59-80.
