African Studies, Essays, Publications

The social and philosophical function of language

Ontology, purpose and functionality of language

The role and functionality of language is manifold. The discourse of reason is the function and meaning of Greek logos. The primary meaning of word is language which attempts to communicate feelings or intention since communication of all realities are expressed in the here and now. The structuring of words most often becomes equivalent to the conferring of meaning and expressions. Man who is logos has the capacity to enhance the functionality of his expressions. Language gives reference to the expression of man; language purposefully communicates expressions; Language give meaning and offers intelligibility-letting human feelings and emotions appear (freigben); letting be (begennen lassen); meaningfulness (Bedeutsamkeit) becomes identified with the totality of reference. Language interprets Desein.  But constitutionally man who is logos is inescapably time-bound, historical, contextual, linguistic and relative. Therefore man’s ultimate interpretation, his philosophy is necessarily historical and culture-bound, relatively to his environment and worldview. His environment often prescribes the terminology, provoke the questions and predetermine the answer (Okere, 1983). Based on the above argument, one can make a clear distinction between man and animals. When objects perceived by animals are pleasant or painful, they make a sort of affirmation or negation and then pursue or avoid the object. This experience is so with human beings. True to all linguistic understanding, to feel pain or pleasure is to act towards what is good or bad. Man who is logos always asserts or denies a thing to be good or bad and avoids or pursues it. Above all, Man who is logos can speak and express his view or opinion. He can make what is not present manifest through words so that another can see, hear or perceive it. Through communication man expresses what he meant or what affects him. Through language man communicates rational words which build, praise or destroys another. Gossip is conveyed through the medium of word or language. That is why there exists in man common meaning and concepts.In human world, language and communication is unique because of its rational nature. The rational nature of language distinguishes human language from animal whispering or signals. In the animal world language is expressive in signs. Although human language on one hand takes place in signs, they are not rigid. Human language is variable both in the sense that there are different languages and in the sense that within the same language, the same expression can designate different things or different expressions at the same time. Even in the scriptures, it is significant that the Old Testament story of creation, the naming of the animals by man was done through the word.  Also, creation narrative indicates human dominion over created things (Gen 2:19-20). The story of the tower of Babel (Gen.11) indicates the fundamental significance of language for human life. The hubris for humanity, the attempt to overcome the boundaries ordained by God, consisted in the construction of a city with a tower reaching the heavens, challenging the supremacy of Yahweh, the “I am of the Judeo Christian religion.” Beyond ancient criticism, the deity has to descend from the heavenly dwelling even to catch a glimpse of this product of human arrogance, otherwise called the divine monologue. This monologue could be attributed to divine response where God confused the language of men and dispersed the builders in anger and frustration. This passage demonstrates radical ambivalence about the works and achievement s of human civilization.  The towel of Babel was a primitive technology of man towards civilizing his utopian dreams.  The wonder of the Babel contradicts the ancient notion that human civilization emanated from Egypt, in the building of the pyramids. There are innumerable African philosophers including Western Scholars like Barry Hallen, Thomas Hodgkin who have done great work in African history and culture as well as the universally accepted statement that Africa is the cradle of civilization, which reflectively is not devoid of linguistic rationality.Shading a light into the Enlightenment era, the question of the origin of language was posed in a different way. Enlightenment position on language was a wholesale rejection of traditional belief and institutions. J.C Justine’s response on the wisdom of traditional belief on language is more likely to be correct than the ideas of an individual philosopher. Nevertheless, the question and origin of language in the Enlightenment era was sought in the nature of man instead of in the biblical story of creation. Post Enlightenment era saw language as natural to man. Language for them was essentially human with man being essentially a linguistic king or linguistic professor. These attributes make man (homo logos) in the human society a linguistic being. A characteristic of a linguistic society is that it has a diversity of human linguistic structures.In our own era, the study of hermeneutics has cast a new and decisive light to our understanding of language. Proponents of linguistic evolution support the position of Gadamer. A principal contribution of Gadamer (1979) to hermeneutical studies is the clarification of understanding as an event that in its very nature is trans-subjective. It means that what take when an expression is communicated is an understanding, mediation and transformation of the past and the present. Gadamar add that language and the understanding of transmitted meanings are not two processes but one and the same thing. According to this era, understanding is perceived as fusion of horizons and it’s essentially a linguistic process. If the above arguments are correct, we would logically say that our horizons are given to us pre-reflectively in our languages. Man who is a linguistic being possesses his entire world view linguistically. This makes words the subject matter of language. A subject matter that is inexplicable with reality. The limits of my understanding coincide with the limits of our common languages. We use language to express what we know and understand. We use language to express ourselves before another in our families, schools, neighborhood, churches and communities. We use language to teacher and receive response from our students. We use language to engage is a dialogue with our physicians. We use language to engage in counseling. We chat in one language by voicing our feelings and making our anxieties felt. We use language to facilitate in group and therapies. We make calls using English or Spanish as a medium of universal communication. The business of Desein is summarized in language. The world and human persona are always there as the subject matter of a particular language community. The world without a language community is non existent. Therefore, every language community has a peculiar ways of expressing itself which is not easily translatable into other languages. Every culture has a language through which they communicate meaning, symbols and emotion. English, German, French, Italian, Spanish, Greek and Hebrew are major international languages that are distinguished from national dialects. All these languages have social and significant functions to those who use them as a medium of conveying thoughts. I have come to believe that no one has the capacity to know everything in his own language. This is the more reason why any claim to know a particular language in totality as it is in itself would be a contradiction as much as it would amount to a claim to know something as it cannot be known. All languages have one thing in common; they are real. They are not repugnant to one another; there realities always arise from one source or an ultimate support or reality.Merton (1949, 1967) admitted that social function refers to observable consequences and not subjective disposition (aim, motives, purpose). And the failure to distinguish between the objective sociological consequences and the subjective dispositions inevitably leads Desein to a confusion of functional analysis. Therefore the social function of language is to communicate meaning in a thought without room for confusion in functional meaning. Often times this thought is packaged in a word with significant cultural meaning. For instance, in Igbo language community of Nigeria, the word ukpa could simply be rendered in English as kitchen knife. But this does not bring out the authentic and cultural meaning or significance of the word. The same is true of other languages of the world. Greek and Hebrew languages are used by biblical writers/ interpreters to communicate the word of Yahweh in its original format as it was inspired to the original writers. Therefore Greek and Hebrew languages are password to the messages of the scripture. Some words in trying to convey meaning challenges the specific cultural significance. I therefore agree with Gadamar that those who are brought up in a particular linguistic community and cultural tradition see the world in a different light from those who belong to other traditions. There were genuine assertions by some social analysts that each of the existing languages or social institutions in general were irreplaceable for the fulfillment of a variety of social functions, and that such functions could alternate and substitute for one another-hence the notion of functional alternatives, substitutes, and equivalents. At this juncture, it should be clear that language is not simply an instrument or a tool. Rather, language has its significance in conversation in the exercise and promotion and understanding between peoples. I make bold to say that we should not understand the process of communication as a mere action, a purposeful activity, a setting-up of signs. Language should not be a means to impose or transmit my will to another. Above all, language is a living process in which a community of life is lived out. Believe it or not, we must think of human language as a special and unique living process, in that in linguistic communication, word and human worldview is disclosed. This disclosure, this function of language means that language does not draw attention to itself but transparent to the realities that are manifested through it. For this reason, I do not consider invented some technological inventions of communication to be languages. They have no basis in the community of language or in human community called the social life. Technological medium of language and expression contradicts the neo-functionalist movement in sociology that was adopted as tradition rather than as method (Alexander, 1985). These contradictions do not project the essential function of language. It negates the obvious fact that the function of language lies in its  lessons/messages. To speak means to say what some other person understands. If this is the case, whoever speaks a language that no one else understands does not speak. To speak means to speak to someone who understands. To that extent, speaking does not belong in the sphere of the “I” but in the sphere of the “We.”(Gadamar, 1976)In conclusion, I wish to emphasize that language is a universal medium of understanding. Understanding therefore is essentially linguistic, but to be properly so, it must transcend the limits of any particular language. There is therefore mediation between the familiar and the alien. It is a fact that no language is a world in itself. That mean that language should not close itself against what is foreign to it, rather every language ought to be porous, and open to absorption of new ideas and contents. In this regard, the understanding of man’s linguistic community and his use of language ought to promote the relationship between him and others from other linguistic communities. No linguistic community is a world in itself. No linguistic culture is superior to another. It is only through openness to the other that every linguistic community can develops the dynamism that is inevitable in human development. Such openness contributes to authentic development of man who belongs to a particular linguistic community. We must submit that the universality and meditative power of language can help promote proper understanding among the various cultures of the world. Admittedly, this type of understanding though radical is inevitable for peace, harmony and tranquility.

Related Post