CC BY
9PHILOSOPHICAL SCIENCES
THE INTERACTION BETWEEN LINGUISTICS AND PHILOSOPHY
Seyidov R.
Ataturk University, Institute of social sciences Department of Basic Islamic Sciences PhD of religion sciences in Arabic Language and Rhetoric
orchid: 0000-0001-7757-1272 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7049632
Abstract
Philosophy of science asks what includes as proof in science, how speculations are tried, what the idea of logical information is, and without a doubt whether there are any reasonable faculties in which logical information can be recognized from non-logical information. Thus, philosophy of arithmetic solicits what the nature from scientific request is, and philosophy of the sociologies asks to what degree the sociologies are particular from the normal sciences. Philosophy of phonetics is corresponding to these undertakings: it solicits what the nature from etymological request is; the thing that the object of request is; the thing that includes as proof in etymology; how speculations are tried; to what degree the techniques embraced in the different parts of semantics are corresponding to those of the characteristic sciences. This article is both topical and chronicled; my significant point is to empower all individuals intrigued by language and theory to discover associations with their own subjects of study while presenting the field of philosophical examinations about language.
Keywords: philosophy, language, idea of language, rules of language, theory, ordinary language philosophy.
Introduction
Like such a large number of sciences, semantics began from reasoning's rib. It arrived at development and achieved full freedom just in the twentieth century (for instance, the primary etymology division in the UK was established in 1944); however investigate which we would now characterize as phonetic (particularly prompting speculations from contrasting various dialects) was absolutely completed a lot before. The connection among reasoning and semantics is maybe suggestive of that between a good old mother and her liberated girl, and is unquestionably deviated. Furthermore, however from theory's rib, exact examination techniques have guaranteed that semantics has developed (similarly as on account of the more well known rib) into something a long way from taking after the first bit of bone.
Another side of a similar asymmetry is that while phonetics centers solely around language (or dialects), for reasoning language appears to be less unavoidable -theory of language being only one branch among many. Nonetheless, during the twentieth century this asymmetry was generously decreased by the supposed etymological turn1, experienced by various scholars - this turn was because of the acknowledgment that as language is the widespread mechanism for our getting a handle on and adapting to the world, its examination may give the way in to all other philosophical controls.
With respect to the working techniques, we could maybe picture the contrast between a scholar of language and an etymologist by methods for the accompanying metaphor. Envision two specialists both requested to research an obscure scene. One contracts a helicopter, secures a flying creatures eye perspective in general scene and draws a harsh, yet thorough guide. Different takes a camera, a composing cushion and different instruments, and strolls around, taking pictures and making notes of the sorts of rocks, plants and creatures which he finds. Whose way is the more sensible?
All things considered, one needs to state, not one or the other, for they appear to be correlative. Also, in like manner, contemporary research inside way of thinking of language and etymology are comparatively reciprocal: though the savant takes after the aviator (attempting to make sense of language's most broad standards of working, not giving a lot of consideration to subtleties), the language specialist takes after the walker (giving overwhelming consideration to subtleties and working a moderate and careful way towards speculations). What's more, similarly as the endeavors of the two scientists may in the end unite (if the flyer refines his maps enough and the walker raises his requests to a specific degree of speculation), so the etymologist and the rationalist may locate their individual examinations meeting inside the domain of observational, however exceptionally broad standards of the working of language.
Tragically however, such gatherings are regularly full of common errors. The logician is persuaded that what is significant are standards, not unforeseen peculiarities of individual dialects, and disparages the etymologist for attempting to respond to such inquiries as what is a language? with exact speculations. The etymologist, then again, disparages the savant for sitting in an ivory tower and attempting to disclose to us something about dialects, the experimental wonders, without giving due consideration to their genuine natures.
Philosophy of Linguistics and of Science
Philosophy of etymology is regularly alluded to by different names. One of these is 'establishments of etymology.' Because these inquiries concern the idea of estimating in semantics, i.e., have speculations themselves as their object of request, the undertaking is frequently alluded to as metatheory (hypothesis about speculations). Another term utilized is 'procedure,' since the inquiries vitally concern the idea of etymological technique (in spite of the fact that the term 'system' is likewise utilized in a progressively explicit way, while talking about, for example, the manner by which
a specific examination is done). Here, possibly deceptive expressed issues will be managed, which will give somewhat more insight concerning the sorts of issue which emerge in philosophy of semantics.
1. Philosophy of Linguistics and of Language The terms 'reasoning of semantics,' 'theory of language,' and 'etymological way of thinking' are not equivalent words, despite the fact that there are addresses which they share. Philosophy of language (see Devitt and Sterelny 1987) is a part of reasoning which manages the connection between language, information, and reality. It asks, for example, regardless of whether it is conceivable to make an efficient differentiation between these three spaces, whether and to what degree 'the truth' is language-subordinate. To think about the connection between language, reality, and information is to think about the idea of semantic importance. Along these lines, there is no unmistakable isolating line between semantic hypothesis and philosophy of language. Etymological way of thinking indicates a way to deal with reasoning which has risen in the advancement of twentieth-century theory, particularly in the English-talking world. It looks to address conventional philosophical inquiries in another manner, by getting some information about philosophical terms themselves and the manner in which they are utilized. Along these lines, with old style issues like 'the psyche/body issue,' it is held that quite a bit of what was taken to establish the issue emerged from the very terms utilized; if scholars inspected the terms themselves, it is guaranteed, issues like this may well essentially disintegrate. The 'semantic turn' in reasoning put philosophy of language considerably more at the focal point of theory than it had been beforehand. A focal figure in semantic way of thinking is Ludwig Wittgenstein. His thoughts on, for example, what it is to observe a standard of a language (see Wittgenstein 1958, Kripke 1982), are similarly all around depicted as having a place with any of the three fields that have been characterized. A few researchers, for example, Baker and Hacker (1984) have endeavored to utilize crafted by Wittgenstein to show that hypothetical etymology basically has no object of request. Others, for example, Itkonen (1978) have utilized Wittgenstein to help the view that hypothetical etymology has an object of request, however is self-governing as for neighboring orders. Wittgenstein looked to show that the thought of private language was indiscernible, that the idea of a standard of language can be given an intelligible understanding in particular if the individual speaker isn't considered in segregation from his discourse network. This is the contention against 'private language/Itkonen has attempted to show that Chomsky's origination of phonetic the truth is commensurate to the case that there might be private standards of language, and is consequently mixed up. Chomsky (1986) has answered that Wittgensteinian doubt about guidelines as speaker-inside states is basically a rendition of the refusal to propose fundamental substances for watched conduct.
2. Methods of reasoning of Linguistics As in many regions of theory, 'isms' possess large amounts of the 'reasoning of semantics.' (The section Foundations of
Linguistics portrays five of these: psychologism, Plato-nism, behaviorism, traditionalism, and instrumental-ism.) Katz (1981) diagrams three fundamental situations in philosophy of phonetics: authenticity, nominalism, and conceptualism. Some analysis on the connection between these terms, and degree to which they cover, is in this way important. One can adjust Katz's terms to those refered to in the Foundations of Linguistics passage. For Katz (1981), 'authenticity' signifies Platonic authenticity. This is hence not so much identical to authenticity in philosophy of science. There, pragmatist translations of hypothetical develops expect that they relate to extratheoretical substances. Consequently, Chomsky is a pragmatist in the last sense, however not in the Platonic sense: he takes phonetic speculations to allude to extra-hypothetical states (mental states), yet not to Platonic conditions of issues. The term 'authenticity' in philosophy of language has a fairly more extensive sense than a similar term in philosophy of science: while authenticity in philosophy of language concerns terms when all is said in done, logical authenticity concerns logical terms. Nominalism denies that there are semantic substances well beyond the noticeable, carefully physical, checks on paper and commotions noticeable all around which numerous etymologists take to be appearances of language, as opposed to language in essence. It is, subsequently, an instrumentalist position. Firmly identified with this position are experimentation and the variant of observation known as behaviorism; they share the view that it is simply the perceptible marvels which comprise the object of request in semantics. Chomsky isn't an empiricist right now, he denies that perceptible conduct comprises the object of etymological request. The term 'conceptualism' as utilized by Katz (1981), is proportional to the term 'psychologism' (as portrayed in Foundations of Linguistics. It indicates a position which asserts that phonetic articles are speakerinternal conditions of undertakings (i.e., mental states). Chomsky (1995) is the most popular promoter of this position. His is an internalist logician of etymology, in that the object of semantic request is, for him, carefully mind-interior in an extraordinary sense: it is an explicitly etymological intellectual state which contains a 'stark' computational strategy, grave in the feeling of having restricted access to perceptual frameworks of conduct. The objects of request are a geneticallyencoded, explicitly semantic beginning intellectual state and the individual 'last states' (alluded to casually as 'knowing a language') which are said to be signs of that underlying state. In spite of his affirmed internalism, Chomsky seems to permit that detectable conduct might be said to be semantic since it is presentation to 'phonetic experience' ('essential etymological information') which is said to trigger the change from beginning to definite state. The connection between interior etymological psychological states and recognizable outer conduct is, for Chomsky, one of disguise/externalization. It is doubtful that this origination of the connection undermines any endeavor at radical internalism, since, in permitting that language might be disguised one is, ostensibly, surrendering that it might be mind-outside. An
elective origination of the connection between profoundly interior language and the detectable results of speakers' conduct is given by Burton-Roberts (1994), who guarantees that the last are created in help of truly speaking to the previous, without themselves being phonetic. Thus the connection is traditional.
Ordinary Language Philosophy
'Ordinary Language Philosophy' is the title sometimes given to the views developed at Oxford by J. L. Austin and those influenced by him, or associated with him, in the period 1936-60.
The Debt to J. L. Austin
Austin (1957) prescribed English-talking logicians to examine the implications and employments of English words because the conventional language of the English discourse network typifies 'the acquired understanding and keenness of numerous ages of men.' By discovering what qualifications are certainly present in the English jargon of some nontechnical action, for example, that of rationalizing, one is certain, he stated, to find something worth knowing, anyway much one may likewise need to contemplate the important specialized necessities of law or brain research. Subsequently, one would do well to start by counseling some genuinely brief English lexicon, in order to make a total rundown of the terms pertinent to the picked subject. Right now, may maybe go over such realities as that a high level of the terms associated with pardons end up being verb modifiers (as though most reasons depend not on what has been done yet on the way, perspective, and so on., in which it was finished). In quest for such a request, one may likewise anticipate 'the enjoyment of disclosure, the joys of collaboration, and the fulfillment of agreeing.' Austin (1962) applied this origination of theory to significant issues in pragmatics just as in semantics. He recognized the locutionary demonstration of saying something (e.g., It's cold), the illocutionary demonstration acted in saying it (e.g., mentioning the listener to close the window), and the perlocutionary demonstration accomplished by saying it (e.g., convincing the listener to close the window). This part of his work was additionally created after Austin's initial demise by J. R. Searle (1969) and others. It ought to be seen, in any case, that normal language reasoning, in Austin's style, need not be restricted to issues about the wording and structure of regular, nontechnical discourse. Achinstein (1968; 1983) demonstrated how it tends to be conveniently applied additionally to specific issues in philosophy of science. He differentiated what he called the 'positivist' way to deal with these issues with his own. Positivists, for example, Quine (I960) and Hempel (1965), needed to supplant the real semantic systems of science by as far as anyone knows predominant ones—methodology that are coherently perspicuous. Be that as it may, Achinstein himself needed to describe them as they may be. Along these lines, on his view, clarification, for instance, was to be dissected as a particular sort of illocutionary act, and not as a lo-cutionary demonstration that declares, state, a covering law, as Hempel's model proposes.
The Limits of Ordinary Language Philosophy
The articulation 'common language' is along these lines to be comprehended right now meaning typical
language, regardless of whether specialized or nontechnical. Yet, neither Austin nor his supporters would have concurred with Naess (1947) that the correct route for scholars to seek after their investigations into normal language is by utilizing the procedures of supposition surveying and measurable information assortment that have been created in humanism and social brain research. Right now, Austinians' disposition toward semantics and pragmatics might be 36 contrasted and Chomsky's demeanor toward linguistic structure. Like Chomsky, they looked for, as a result, to describe fitness, not execution. They planned for building a steady and sound romanticizing of conventional utilization, not an arrangement of its genuine practice that incorporates every one of the malapropisms, solecisms, and different inconsistencies that in reality happen. They were consequently receptive to the instincts of language-speakers, as opposed to the insights of individuals' semantic practices, as their essential wellspring of significant data. Conventional language theory has now and then been called 'Oxford Philosophy'; yet this is a misnomer. A few noticeable Austinians lived in Oxford for just a couple of years, fundamentally as understudies, (for example, Searle and Achinstein), and built up their philosophical thoughts along these lines in the USA, while Austin himself had a few unmistakable partners at Oxford who were not changed over to his method for doing reasoning, (for example, Ryle, Kneale, Strawson, Dummett, and Williams). Wittgenstein's later way of thinking (1953; 1956, and so forth.) is now and again viewed as a type of common language reasoning; however this also is a mix-up. Wittgenstein's perspectives were unquestionably not impacted by Austin, since they started to build up quite a long while prior; and Berlin (1973: 11) expresses that Wittgenstein's perspectives had little impact on Austin's circle. In addition, there were additionally significant contrasts between the two philosophical approachs. Wittgenstein didn't see his philosophical musings as being applicable to a specific common language, and from the beginning they were distributed in both English and German adaptations. In any case, Austin unequivocally declared to possess himself with English, regardless of whether a significant number of his comments about English could have been coordinated by relating comments about other characteristic dialects. Wittgenstein thought of every single philosophical hypothesis as emerging from the bewitchment of human knowledge by language, and he unquestionably dismissed that he himself was upholding any sort of philosophical hypothesis or speculation. In any case, Austin believed that some philosophical hypotheses-basically his own-were right. Wittgenstein's suggestion to request the utilization of a word, not its significance, would in general haze the contrast among semantic and commonsense issues, while Austin looked to show the significance of that distinction.
3. Achievements
Customary language reasoning had two head accomplishments. To begin with, it constrained each one of the individuals who went into any sort of discourse with its supporters to keep a sharp eye open for fine subtleties and nuances of phonetic use, which they may
some way or another have ignored, in the article or analysis of philosophical contentions. Second, it gave the main productive arrangement of thoughts for the establishments of pragmatics. Be that as it may, it lost its front line during the 1960s, alongside other inflexible types of phonetic way of thinking.
Philosophy of Language in the Twentieth Century
In the Twentieth Century, Logic and Philosophy of Language are two of the couple of territories of reasoning in which scholars gained undeniable ground. For instance, even now a large number of the preeminent living ethicists present their hypotheses as fairly increasingly unequivocal forms of the thoughts of Kant, Mill, or Aristotle. Conversely, it would be obviously crazy for a contemporary savant of language or philosopher to consider herself working in the shadow of any figure who kicked the bucket before the Twentieth Century started. Advances in these controls make even the most unaccomplished of its specialists endlessly more refined than Kant. There were past periods in which the issues of language and rationale were examined widely (for example the medieval period). Be that as it may, from the point of view of the advancement made over the most recent 120 years, past work is all things considered a wellspring of fascinating information or incidental understanding. All deliberate speculating about substance that fulfills contemporary guidelines of thoroughness has been done accordingly.
The advances Philosophy of Language has made in the Twentieth Century are obviously the aftereffect of the striking advancement made in rationale. Not many other philosophical controls picked up as much from the improvements in rationale as the Philosophy of Language. Over the span of introducing the principal formal framework in the Begriffsscrift, Gottlob Frege built up a proper language. Consequently, scholars gave thorough semantics to formal dialects, so as to characterize truth in a model, and along these lines portray intelligent outcome. Such thoroughness was required so as to empower philosophers to do semantic verifications about proper frameworks in a conventional framework, in this manner furnishing semantics with indistinguishable advantages from expanded for-malization had accommodated different parts of arithmetic. It was nevertheless a short advance to regarding common dialects as increasingly complex renditions of formal dialects, and afterward applying to the investigation of characteristic language the methods created by philosophers keen on demonstrating semantic outcomes about proper speculations. Expanded formaliza-tion has yielded profits in the Philosophy of Language like those in arithmetic. It has empowered rationalists to give better and progressively productive definitions and qualifications.
Progress in Philosophy of Language and rationale has decidedly influenced neighboring orders, for example, transcendentalism and meta-morals. Along these lines, a few logicians have imagined that Philosophy of Language was a "first way of thinking", as Descartes saw what we would now call "epistemology". Yet, the way that Philosophy of Language has advanced fundamentally doesn't imply that it furnishes us with a first
way of thinking. One can perceive that a control has propelled more than others without feeling that it holds the way in to all progression. The Twentieth Century was the time of "semantic way of thinking", not on the grounds that all or even most philosophical issues have been settled or broken down by advance to language, but since regions of reasoning that included significance and substance turned out to be vastly increasingly complex.
It is hard to expound on the advancement of the Philosophy of Language in the Twentieth Century without coming to back to the last pieces of the Nineteenth, for the tale of the insurgency in rationale and reasoning of language that happened in the only remaining century starts with crafted by Gottlob Frege. Frege's undertaking was not mainly aimed at language; it was somewhat basically epistemological (see "The Birth of Analytic Philosophy"). Frege set out to show that the certainties of number juggling were systematic in nature, by getting them from the adages and meanings of rationale. So as to complete this undertaking, Frege expected to show that the hypotheses of number juggling could be gotten from the hypotheses of rationale without advance to any engineered (non-expository) advance. To show that his findings accomplished this objective, Frege contrived a conventional language for completing his confirmations. The conventional language took into consideration the portrayal of a lot of exact syntactic changes, every one of which was an occurrence of an absolutely sensible derivation rule. Frege's anxiety with utilizing regular language to complete his evidences was that common language was excessively unclear and uncertain to permit the portrayal of exact syntactic changes that communicated examples of absolutely coherent deduction rules.
In the Begriffsschrift, Frege says astoundingly small regarding how his conventional language is to be deciphered. As opposed to the advancement of the sentence structure, Frege's couple of comments about substance are run of the mill of the pre-current time. For sure, it is anything but difficult to think about Frege's gullible origination of substance as being essentially about signs, instead of an extra-etymological reality. To start with, Frege famously takes the character connection to be a connection between signs (area 8). Besides, Frege's later ontological differentiation among capacity and contention is exhibited as a qualification between articulations (see Section 9). Be that as it may, an articulation may either be seen as the capacity or the contention of a sentence, with the goal that what later is an ontological qualification currently reflects simply how we capture either the substance or the introduction of the substance (Ibid.). Frege speaks in rather reshaped terms of Begriffliche Inhalt, however here too there is a lot of perplexity and lack of definition. We are never determined what an Inhalt [content] of any articulation is, and Frege possibly alludes to when two sentences have the equivalent Inhalt (when they have the equivalent "möglichen Folgerungen" [possible consequences]). Some contemporary logicians (for example Brandom (1994, p. 94)) have attempted to add back to Frege's confounded comments about Begriffliche Inhalt some dubious current regulation about inferential
semantics. In any case, Frege didn't right now have complex contemplations about substance; for sure, no settled convention about substance that fulfilled Fre-gean guidelines of lucidity and meticulousness was to develop until the mid 1890s.
It is educational to consider what driven Frege to a basically present day perspective about substance. As Frege began to build up the logicist venture, he received the Platonist position that math is about a freely existing space of dynamic items, in particular numbers, and dismissed the formalist see that number-crunching is about signs. There are two sections to the logicist task: inferring the hypotheses of number juggling from coherent standards, and indicating that the ideas of number-crunching are legitimate ideas. Frege took the way that numerical terms work as solitary terms in number-crunching to be indisputable proof that numbers are objects. His logicism in this manner incites him to distinguish consistent items that are the numbers. The initial segment of the logicist venture additionally necessitates that the syntactic changes on articulations of the Be-griffsscrift express derivation decides that are unquestionably coherent. So Frege is directed to the venture of giving a thorough understanding to his conventional framework for two reasons. To start with, he is demonstrating realities about numbers, not realities about signs. This position powers Frege to be increasingly explicit about the connection among signs and what they are about, since he denies the formalist see that number juggling is just about signs. Also, he needs to guarantee that the syntactic changes express advances that are occasions of really sensible derivations. This thusly constrains him to build up a hypothesis of substance for his proper language.
Frege's exceptional syntactic accomplishment in the Begriffsschrift of 1879 was to land at a documentation that spoke to prevailing upon quantifiers and factors (see "Birth of Analytic Philosophy"). Frege's exceptional semantic accomplishments happened later. Frege (1966, Part I) gave a compositional semantics to the Begriffsschrift documentation. In his fundamental paper "On Sense and Reference" (Frege1993a), he additionally segregated a progression of riddles and subjects that gave a great part of the preparation to Twentieth century theory of language.
Conclusion
During the 1960s and 1970s, scholars began to abuse the assets of semantic hypotheses for formal dialects in the investigation of common language meaning. A proper language varies from a characteristic language in having a basic, obviously characterized sentence structure. To maintain a strategic distance from the complexities of normal language punctuation, a significant number of these savants gave semantic speculations for pieces of regular language controlled in different augmentations of the language of first-request predicate rationale, (for example, the language of evaluated modular rationale, or the language of intensional rationale). Obviously what we decipher when we comprehend sentences of characteristic language are the structures of those sentences, not the sentences of some controlled proper language. So the importance for the undertaking of giving a hypothesis of significance for
regular dialects of semantic speculations for different augmentations of the language of first-request rationale isn't totally clear. In any case, during the 1960s, work by etymologists, specifically the etymologist Noam Chomsky, started to show that regular dialects, similar to formal dialects, had syntaxes that could be portrayed officially. Chomsky's work made the venture of moving the devices of the rationalist to the examination of importance extensively progressively tractable. On the off chance that regular dialects have an orderly sentence structure, at that point there is no snag to imitating the formal semantic venture legitimately for normal dialects. Utilizing the exploration of contemporary linguistic structure, one could speak to what the objects of common language translation were, utilizing the instruments of semantics one could decipher them, and utilizing the standards of talk portrayed by Grice, one could clarify divergences among use and significance. It took various years for logicians to ingest the exercises of grammar. However, since an evident reality about significance might be expected either to the grammar of a given sentence, its semantics, or general realities about language use, the contemporary rationalist of language must ace every one of the three parts of examination. The disclosure that the ideas of reference and truth could be utilized to give a hypothesis of significance for common language, together with the twin advancements of sentence structure and pragmatics, have settled a significant number of the basic questions of mid-century reasoning of language. It is hard to contend that setting affectability undermines the task of giving an efficient hypothesis of reference and truth for regular language when the best models of setting affectability request to reference in giving the implications of contextsensitive articulations (as in Kaplan's thought of character). It is hard to contend that dubiousness undermines this task, when modern semantic hypotheses for ambiguous articulations have been created (for example the supervaluational semantics for dubiousness created in Fine (1975)). The very highlights that are utilized to provide reason to feel ambiguous about the probability of formalization are consistently the following test for the undertaking of formalization. Thus, consideration has moved to giving the significance of specific rationally fascinating developments with regards to characteristic language (of which the conditionals writing is nevertheless a particularly intriguing model). Certainly, in a portion of these written works, logicians disappointed with the immovability of the issues presented by the pertinent developments have attempted to draw more extensive ethics, and some of the time inside this structure supplications to come back to the negative frames of mind towards the possibility of an orderly hypothesis of importance have been progressed (for example Schiffer's powerful (1987)). All things considered, cries of dissatisfaction with the trouble of specific developments have not been met with far reaching cynicism, and the program of giving an efficient record of the hypothesis of importance has proceeded.
When a large number of the fundamental issues were settled, an immense measure of work was delivered in reasoning of language and (particularly) its
nearby relative in phonetics, the field of semantics. It is inconceivable even to give a guide to the abundance of work that has been done over the most recent thirty years on qualifiers, anaphora, determiners, mass terms, plurals, descriptive words and gradability, modals, tense, angle, and different subjects. As far as subtleties, since the 1970s a lot of that sub-some portion of the examination of regular language implying that has been directed by scholars been given to point by point contentions regarding different developments about whether a Gricean reaction can represent the marvels that goes past a basic semantic investigation, or whether a progressively intricate semantic hypothesis that consolidates setting affectability semantically (as in Stalnaker's examination of conditionals) is conceivable. For each development we have talked about, there are promoters of each view. Typically, a portion of these debates occur on a meta-level, with promoters of a non-semantic record of the wonders contending that a Gricean or semi Gricean mechanical assembly does significantly more clarifying than is normally perceived, and supporters of semantic records contending for more prominent mindfulness to the subtleties of characteristic language importance and structure. Be that as it may, there is an all-encompassing understanding even between most disputants at this meta-level -the general understanding is significance and use ought to never be conflated, and that any satisfactory record of importance on a very basic level utilizes the ideas of reference and truth.
References
1. Achinstein P 1968 Concepts of Science: A Philosophical Analysis. Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, MD
2. Achinstein P 1983 The Nature of Explanation. Oxford University Press, New York
3. Austin J L 1957 A plea for excuses. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 57: 1-30 Austin J L 1961 Philosophical Papers. Clarendon Press, Oxford
4. Austin J L 1962 How to Do Things with Words. Clarendon Press, Oxford
5. Baker G, Hacker P 1984 Language, Sense, and Nonsense. Blackwell, Oxford
6. Berlin I 1973 Austin and the early beginnings of Oxford philosophy. In: Warnock G J (ed.) Essays on J L Austin. Clarendon Press, Oxford
7. Burton-Roberts N 1994 Ambiguity, sentence and utterance: a representational approach. Transactions of the Philological Society 92: 179-212
8. Chomsky N 1986 Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use. Praeger, New York Chomsky N 1995 Language and nature. Mind 104: 1-61
9. Devitt M, Sterelny K 1987 Language and Reality: an Introduction to the Philosophy of Language. Blackwell, Oxford Hkonen E1978 Grammatical Theory and Metascience. Benjamins, Amsterdam Katz J J 1981 Language and Other Abstract Objects. Blackwell, Oxford
10. Frege, Gottlob (1993): "On Sense and Meaning", in Geach, Peter and Black, Max Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege (Oxford: Basil Blackwell): 56-78.
11. Frege, Gottlob. (1989) "Anlam ve Yönletim Üstüne" Felsefe Tarti§malan.
12. Graff, Delia (2001): "Descriptions as Predicates," Philosophical Studies 102(1): 1-42. Hale, Bob and Wright, Crispin (1997): A Companion to the Philosophy of Language (Oxford: Blackwell Press).
13. Hempel C G 1965 Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science. The Free Press, New York
14. Kripke S A 1982 Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language: An Elementary Exposition. Blackwell, Oxford Wittgenstein L 1958 Philosophical Investigations. Blackwell, Oxford
15. Naess A 1947 Interpretation and Preciseness. Universitets Studentkontor, Oslo
16. Philosophy of Language. Routledge Taylor and Francis Group. Thompson, Geoff. (2009) Key Ideas in Linguistics and the Philosophy of Language. edt. Siobhan Chapman and Christopher Routledge. Edinburgh University Press.
17. Quine W V O 1960 Word and Object. Technology Press, Cambridge, MA
18. Searle J R 1969 Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press, London
19. Wittgenstein L 1953 Philosophical Investigations. Basil Blackwell, Oxford
20. Wittgenstein L 1956 Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics. Basil Blackwell, Oxford
