Basic Aspects of Language Use In Logic


Background Analysis


   Man is a language-using animal. The ability to invent and use languages even in written forms is perhaps the most important characteristic which demarcates him from the rest of the animal kingdom.   The origin of human languages, like all prehistoric phenomena, is shrouded in the dark envelope of obscurity. The biblical stories of Adam naming creatures and Tower of Babel, for instance, are religious myths invented by the Jews to account for the emergence of different languages of the world. From a scientific perspective, it can be inferred that language is inextricably tied to human's sociality. Man, as it were, is a social animal and therefore requires a medium for communication with one another. Language is a tool invented by Man to solve this problem.
   Natural languages are the long term largely unintented result of evolution from the first signalling system in the form of gesticulations and inarticulate sounds. It appears that the increasing demands of social existence compelled prehistoric or early man to invent in an unplanned haphazard way the second signalling system we refer to as language. Indeed, we can reasonably conjecture that the complexification and crystallization of the natural languages that exist today.
   From the foregoing, it can be inferred that natural languages simply "grew" out of human social relations. Thus, no natural language is the product of conscious planning or deliberate construction. Like most human institutions whose history dates back to prehistory, human language is the product of both intended and largely unintended consequences of human actions and interactions.
   The execution of linguistic capability in Homo Sapiens is primarily manifested in the form of speech. The spoken mode was complemented, after many thousands of years, by the written mode which originated from ideographs. Both the spoken and written modes are objective and symbolic in character, for the foundation of all modes of linguistic expression is the representation of all kinds of ideas, feelings and things with acoustic or visual symbols. It follows that mutual speakers of a given language can grasp the information contain in a language. Similarly, those literate in a special language can decipher the information in a written symbol or symbols of that language. Nevertheless, the primacy of the spoken mode over the written mode is implied by the fact that it is possible to write in a language one cannot speak. Furthermore, the potentiality for language in Man is basically actualized and objectified through speech; writing is a later but very important evolutionary development from speech.


Uses of Languages


   Communication and thinking are two closely connected but distinguishable ways of using language. But in order to communicate or think, words are necessary and to communicate some information to others we could either talk to them or write it down for them to read. To think, one does not need another person since he may not communicate the result of his thoughts to someone else. Additionally, although thinking requires words and expressions we usually do so without uttering a sound or writing something down, or doing anything overt, that is, without communication.
   A natural language such as English, French, German and others performs several functions. To begin with, language is used for communicating facts and information. Propositions, as we saw earlier, are expressed in sentences of different languages, and may be true or false.
   Also, language can be used to express emotions and attitudes. Poets, for instance, use their poetry to express all kinds of feelings. Strictly speaking the criteria of truth and falsity apply in the evaluation of propositions, not to the expressive uses of languages as such. Again, when a lover whispers words of endearment to a loved one, when a believer recites the Apostles' Creed as a sign of devotion and when a labour leader exhorts his comrades by reciting aloud some paragraphs in The Communist Manifesto, the expressive use of language is emphasised in such cases.
   When the workers cheer the rousing speech of their leader, or when a lover uses poetic language to woo a woman, the language used not only expresses the feelings of the speakers, it is equally intended to arouse the same kind of feelings in the hearers. Furthermore, if a devout Muslim prays fervently to Allah in solitude, or a student of English writes poems which she shows to no one then the language employed merely expresses the emotions of the speaker, it is not intended to elicit a similar attitude in someone else.
   We often use language to make people do certain things, or to prevent them from doing some other things. A lecturer may say to a late-comer in his class "Get out!" A high-ranking officer in the army may command a junior officer to "Move on the double!" A doctor might request a nurse to pass the stethoscope to him. In all these, language is used to cause the activity of the indicated kind, to get the desired results, not for the purpose of conveying factual information or for evoking emotions. Language is also used interrogatively, and it can serve as a tool for analyzing language itself.
   There are several theories aimed at defining precisely the primary function and nature of human language. For instance the Austrian philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein posits that language is primarily a device that pictures the world. In his most important work Tractatus Logico-Phillsophicus, Wittgenstein argued that there are facts in the world and propositions are the pictures of facts. However, the pictorial theory, though ingenuous at the time provided an over-simplified and distorted account of language. In order to correct his earlier mistake, Wittgenstein suggested that language can be likened to games. Just as different games have different rules, each language game has its own criteria of meaning determined by the particular universe of discourse, or the particular language game under consideration.
   Another theory,the performative theory language, concentrates on the use of performative theory of language, concentrates on the use of performative verbs to highlight a subtitle aspect of language use. Clearly, when a magistrate or a pastor declares solemnly, at the end of a wedding ceremony, "I hereby pronounce both of you husband and wife", this assertion is not intended to be a mere report of what he is doing nor is it a report of some facts in the world. Rather it constitutes the performance of the very act of making two people husband and wife. Again, if were to say to S.B. Oluwole "I congratulate you, ma, on your professional appointment," those words actually constitute my performance of the action it seems to report. In general a performative assertion is an assertion which, when stated in appropriate situations, really performs the very act it appears to describe. We use assertions of this kind often because they enable us to meet some of the complex demands of our social existence.
   One of the most intriguing aspects of languages is the fact that many words and expressions have different emotional connotations. For example, in an electioneering campaign speech, a politician may describe his opponent as a "hard-core capitalist". Another politician could allege that his colleagues on the other side of the political divide are "abdurate radicals", whereas he himself is "an apostle of change". Recently, in Nigeria, a defeated candidate in one of the elections accused the other party of perpetrating "monumental rigging", but describes the latter's speech as "truly eloquent". A similar address by a member of the opposing political party is brushed aside as "bombastic". During the regime of Ibrahim Babangida, his lieutinants were fond of describing opponents of the regime as "extremist"; those who support it are "patriots". In the dispute between Iraq and the United states, American officials describe Saddam Hussein"s as "aggressive and provocative", and America's unnecessary air strikes on Iraq as "Justified deterrent". what an Arab may consider as a Jihad or holy war, an Israeli may term "terrorist". Nigerians that admire Babangida fondly call him "maradona"; others who do not see him as "an evil genius".
   Religion also provides a rich repertoire distorting influences of emotionally-laden words in communication. Adherents of the new Pentecostal churches springing up everywhere in the country consider increasing number of churches as evidence of "Holy Ghost anointing". Critics are likely to consider the phenomenon as the invasion of Christianity by "meretricious charlatans". A woman who has a strong conviction towards a definite system of religious beliefs is "fanatics" to those who disapprove of her religiosity, and "a sister in Christ" to those who approve it. An ardent church goer may be describe as a "a prayer warrior" by members of her church and a "frustrated" hypocrite" by a free thinker. In the same vein, a pastor might exhort his congregation to be "strong in faith", whereas a philosophy lecturer would advice his students to avoid being "shackled by a hackneyed creed". In all these cases the emotive meanings of the expressions hampers clear thinking o religious matters. Religion plays a key role in the lives of most Nigerians. This being the case, the religious uprisings in the country are pointers to the emotional well-spring of religion and the degree of influence it has over many people. Only a determined effort at a dispassionate examination of religion, most especially with regard to the truth value of religious claims, can lesson the danger inherent in religious disagreements.
    Emotions, generally speaking, make people act effectively. Consequently, anger, love, anxiety and others fall into this action-stimulating emotions. Any speech or piece of writing which contains a lot of emotionally-charged expressions can induce people to act in a manner contrary to the dictates of reason or in a manner that might surprise them later.
   But emotional speeches have a place in the schemeof things. It stipulates action when what is needed is to convince a group of people or the citizenry to do something they have already accepted as right or at least as neccessary. The emotional oratory of the erstwhile Biafran leader, Chief Emeka Ojukwu and Oko Okon Ndem during the civil war years, for instance, may be justified on the ground that the situation then demanded utmost perseverance and the taking of expedient actions for survival. In peace time, however, such a device could do more harm than good when what is required is level-headed responsible decision as to what is to be done. Nobody, as a matter of fact, will invite Chike Obi to write a differential equation as the opening speech in a launching organised by his towns people. By the same token, emotional communication is essentially out of place in discussions about the problem posed by Fermat's last theorem, the economics of privatization and other controversial issues which require scientific analyses for their effective solution. As the new millennium draws near, Nigeria requires a democratic government and democracy is effective if and only if the citizens acquire the habit of deciding issues by reason and consensus-building, instead of appealing to sentiments.
 Having reached a decision based on reason, they can put into its realization all the sentiments that were initially excluded during the decision-making process. When the attitude of reasonableness becomes predominent amongst the people, when Nigerians deal with issues dispassionately, the transformation of our present insane society into a sane one will be complete.
 Now, in scientific discussion concerning the regularities of occurrences in the objective world, truth is the regulative idea. The history of science demonstrate that emotionally-neutral language is the best suited for scientific research and communication in scientific communities. Thus, when a scientist labours hard to unravel the law of nature, he tries assiduously to avoid the use of emotionally-charged words and expressions. There is a sound methodological reason for this, Scientific method is pegged on objectivity, reason and facts, and the issue of emotionally-laden expression has no place in it at all. At any rate, the phenomenal world with which scientists deal is emotionally neutral, and neccessitates the application of mathematics, logic and experimental reasoning to make it intelligible. But in dealing with a controversial topics such as female circumcision, sex before marriage, political restructuring and the like, most people prefer the use of emotive language even though the matter may have aspects which are better handled scientifically. There is no good reason why the issue of female circumcision or sex before marriage cannot be discussed in a rational scientific spirit. But the penumbra of emotions which surrounds the issue vitiate the adoption of such method.
 Sometime ago, there was a debate on whether it is better to privatize government-owned enterprises or to allow the status quo to continue. Sometimes advocates of privatization, while defending privatization with good arguments, maintain that those who hold opposing views on the matter are ignorant Nigerians who which to turn the hand of the clock backwards in a world economy which has become increasingly private sector driven. Those that support the status quo argue that privatization is a ploy to sell off our national heritage to the rich. Emotionally-tainted expressions as "bureaucratic bottleneck" and "irresponsible license", make sane decision on the matter extremely difficult.
 Opinions polls ostensibly reveal the opinion of the public on different questions of the day. The recent opinion of the public on different questions of the day. The recent opinion polls about the Clinton/Lewinsky affair were conducted with questions that tended to favour a positive response to Bill clinton's continuation as American president. In Nigeria public opinion on the role of the military in politics is justifiably against military coups. But sometimes the questions asked tend to obscure the real issues at stake. For instance, when a journalist asks a respondent "But don't you think that the misbehaviour of politicians may justify a military coup?", he glosses over the fact that in Europe and America politicians act foolishly and yet the military there do not stage coups. Since politicians everywhere are not always rational, the alibi of the soldiers in Nigeria cannot convince anybody anymore.
 Most of the intra and inter-ethnic disturbances in the country are largely the result of brainwashing of people by the rich and the powerful in those places. The Aguleri-Umuleri problem, the ife-Modakeke disturbances, the shagamu and kano killings, the irrational ethnic cleansing in kosovo are the results of wholehearted acceptance of some irrational beliefs couched in emotional language.
 Because of the danger which emotive speeches pose to human civilization, we must be constantly on our guard against those rabblerousers who employ emotionally charged words in polital campaigns. All of us must be ready to shun the so-called political juggernauts" who habitually overuse emotionally laden expressions in their speeches. It is sad that many of our highly respected politicians are unable to reason calmly and objectively on most issues of vital concern to the people. They are so used to thinking in emotionally-coloured words that they find it extremely difficult to think in any other way. The best we can do in such circumstances is to remind ourselves that language has several uses. and apply the necessary caution whenever we listen to those whose stock-in-trade is of the character of a salesman. Additionally, we must acquire some skills in recognizing the subtle efforts of unscrupulous charlatans to "convince" us that shovel is not a shovel but a garden spoon! Of course, we can enjoy the emotions highlighted in the poems of Wole Soyinka,J.P. Clark, Chinua Achebe, Chritopher Okigbo, Obi Nwakamma and others. Nevertheless we must be prepared also to control our emotions so that they will not be hindrance to objective appreciation of the complex and daunting challenges we confront on a daily basis.

Classification

 The experiences that can be expressed in a natural language are virtually infinite even though a given language uses a limited number of basic linguistic elements. This implies that language must be anchored on a systematic and intelligible classification of experience. The manner in which classification is made depends on the interests of the users of a particular language, and on the subject-matter with which the language is to deal. In this connection, the classificatory scheme which is appropriate for one purpose may be inappropriate for another.
 Some philosophers maintain that things belong to natural classes. it is accepted generally that all warm-blooded animals belong to "a natural family" just as it is thought that all vertebrates belong to the class of animals. Yet there is controversy about which classification is natural and which one is artificial. Certainly, in order to classify a number of things as belonging to the same class we must pick out or select what we consider to be the class-defining characteristic possessed by all the members of the class. All the same, a particular classification may be deemed artificial since it is actually the classifier that selects the attribute on which the classification is based.
 In science, classification is important because class-defining attributes picked out as a basis for classification greatly differ in their fecundity as principles for systematizing our knowledge. A whale, for instance, lives in water. But biologists classify it as a mammal, not as fish. The reason is that inspite of superficial resemblances to the fish family, the fact that a whale has mammary glands and suckles its young, something which no fish has nor does, is more significant in understanding the biology of whales. Experience based on some biological theories have thought biologists to consider certain characteristics as more revealing than others in the quest for a well-grounded understanding of living things.
 It is not even true, as good old inductivists would have us believe, that science is a discipline concerned with the classification of facts gathered through experience. Scientists do not really gather facts first, and classify them later, for some classification is presupposed in any in any scientific collection of facts. What matters most in a research situation is to identify that characteristic in objects under investigation which provides the deepest insight into the nature of the objects themselves. It is clear that no "logic of discovery" can mechanical guide a scientist to the most significant attributes of a given collection of objects. Apart from "intuition", more knowledgeable person has a greater chance of identifying correctly the really significant attributes.
 At this Juncture, we make a distinction between classification and division. Some terms are used to represent the class of all things that share a common attribute, such a class may be called a genus. A genus contains or can be differentiated into, species. Thus the genus "insects", may be differentiated into the species "mosquito", "housefly", "bees", and the rest. The display of the different species in the same genus is known as logical division. Division begins with the summum genus, and ends with the infima species. Intermediate between these are the subaltern genera.
A division, from an extensional perspective, is the differentiation of a class into its constituent sub-classes. Here division is related to definition, since it demarks the boundaries of a sub-classes which a term denotes and allows one to analyse a genus into species. In classification objects are grouped into classes, and these classes into larger classes. A few rules guiding classification will be formulated presently. These rules, we should say, are applicable to division as well:
1. A classification must be exhaustive. This rule ensures that every species in the genus is taken account of, and also that individuals that belong to a class can be properly classified.

2. The constituent species of the genus must be mutually exclusive. For classification to work at all; objects that are so classified should actually belong to those classes as distinct elements, and to no others in the same hierarchy.

3. Finally classification must be based at every stage on a single principle.

 Some philosophers have argued that these rules represent an ideal, and are more suitable for the sciences in their infancy. Be that as it may, proper classification of any subject matter is possible only after a rigorous study of the issues and problems in that subject. This is true especially in the sciences, although there are many occasions when a previously unknown or unpredicated phenomenon is observed which necessitates a drastic reworking of our theoretical system. In science, of course, classification is always under-girded by a theory and when a scientific revolution takes place the theoretical framework changes, together with the classificatory scheme associated with it. Therefore we can never be completely certain that the classification we are using at the moment is exhaustive, since a novel phenomenon may emerge which renders our principle of classification inoperative. Scientific revolutions, in general, do not promote the rigidification of classificatory scheme.
 Although we have highlighted some of the difficulties of classification especially in the sciences, other problems can rise as a result of misclassification. The word "goat", for instance, denotes a class of animals clearly different from others. It is a word about which there is general agreement concerning its usage, and its meaning is clear to everyone. Other expressions, unfortunately, do not admit of this kind of straightforward understanding. The expression "beautiful" embodies a slippery concept. There is no general agreement regarding its meaning. Again the word "democracy" engenders debate because its meaning is imprecise. Someone may consider the kingdom of Jordan a democracy, because the country has a parliament, another may think otherwise because the kingdom has an established hereditary monarchy. Some Christians these days argue the perplexing thesis that Christianity is not a religion but "a way of life", Every religion is "a way of life", no doubt. But we still find it useful to use the word "religion" to differentiate a particular form of believe from others. Christianity is one of such belief systems which we classify under religion. The purported redefinition of Christianity is a mere verbal trick, a linguistic muddle so to speak.
 From the foregoing, a class word can be useful if it picks out things on the basis of a specifiable and objective characteristic or a complex of these. Otherwise the process would fail to help as get rid of confused thinking. This situation is clearly evident when serious misunderstandings arise in contexts where differences in the way we use words are mistaken for differences of option about matters of fact. One may find, for example, two people arguing about the pornographic content of home videos. One of them says that any home video film which contains lustful pictures about sex is pornographic. Her opponent argues that it is only when the sexual act is actually portrayed that anything can be truly called pornographic. In the heat of the argument, none of them realises that their disagreement is a verbal one about how the word "pornographic" is to be used. Perhaps the argument was started after both of them had watched a home video. The pictures it contains remain unchanged, but the way they are to be described is the problem.
 Dipolar expression or paired-words such as extraversion /introversion, insanit-sanity, and wealthy-poor are basically used for classifying things. But serious mistakes arise when they are understood as denoting clearly defined classes. The personality typology of extraversion/introversion, to take just one example, represents extremes within which the characterology of individuals can be slotted. Just as no individual is completely introverted, none is completely extroverted, none is completely extraverted. Between the two extremes competent psychologists such as H.J. Eysenck and R.H. Thouless have constructed some scale showing the intermediate gradations involved here. confused thinking results from ignoring this property of continuous variation. in practical matters this confusion may degenerate into quarrels.
 Generally people are convinced that they and their friends are paragons of sanity whereas their enemies or those whose beliefs differ radically from theirs are plainly irrational. In this way racial and religious intolerance is encouraged. We cannot expect those under the influence of prejudice to act rationally when they disagree with other people who are also convinced about the superiority of their own race or religion. A more humorous example is a situation where two friends are arguing about who is bearded and who is not. Mr. Ishiokpukpu, one of the disputants asks his friend whether a man with three hairs on his chin can be described as bearded . Mr. Uma, the other disputant, is likely to say "No" to the question. Assuming that the debate goes on until Uma's addition of a fortieth hair elicited an affirmative answer from Udu. The problem here is that if Udu accepts that a man with firty hairs on his chin can be described as bearded, the implication is that a man with thirty nine hairs is not bearded! But it is ridiculous to say that the difference between "bearded" and "not bearded" lies in a single hair. Still, the process of adding a hair at a time would eventually make up a beard. We can say then that the difference between a beard and no heard is like the difference between sanity and insanity; both are two extremes which exhibit continuous variations from one to the other without entailing a razor-sharp distinction.


Definition: Types, Functions and Difficulties

Language, as we have argued previously, is a system of intelligible symbols for objects, thoughts and feelings. Objects, thoughts and feelings, epistemologically speaking, are inseparable from language. Again, if language is to perform efficiently the different tasks for which it can be used, there is need to fix the meanings of the words we use. Every human being is born into a social world, a world of language usage in which a lot of expressions have more-or-less fixed meanings. Whenever we use a word which our listener does not understand, we may be asked to define it. There are several ways of defining words. We may do so by enumerating the sort of things that belong to the class, assuming that the word we are defining is a class word. We may for example define the word "insect" by saying that an insect is such a thing as mosquito, housefly, ect. Now consider the word "square" We cannot define it by the method of enumeration. Thus, we have to define it by stipulating the property which any plane figure must have in order that it can be described as a square. Granted this, we can define it as an equilateral rectangle. Technically the word or expression to defined is called the definiendum, whereas the expression used to define it is the definiens.
 Definition by enumeration is of limited value. It is always partial, since no such definition can exhaust the number of potential members of the class designed by the definiendum. Additionally borderline cases are difficult to handle by using the method of definition by enumeration. But it is useful way of making the meanings of certain expressions clearer. Philosophy, as we all know, is difficult to define, especially to the layman. sometimes, it is defined by scholars as a critical reflection on the most general features of nature, man and society. This definition that perfectly straightforward. to the philosophy student, may not be so to another person who is not acquainted with the subject. But if you mention the writings of J.I. Omoregbe, P.O. Bodunrin, C.S. Momoh, L.C.Onyewuenyi, Karl Marx and others, he might begin to understand what philosophy is all about.
 Definitions perform several functions. To begin with, they can be used to reduce vagueness in our communication. We also use them to stipulate the meanings of new terms and eliminate ambiguities. Moreover, people define certain words to stir emotions and influence attitudes, while scientists and scholars in general use definitions for theoretical reasons.
 It follows that there are different types of definitions for the various ends for which definitions are needed. A lexical definition for instance, is used for the purpose of stating the meaning which an expression, the definiendum, has already, Dictionaries provide a good example of materials that contain lexical definitions. A lexical definition is accurate if it reports truly the way a particular word is used; that is, the meaning attached to the definiendum and established by usage. When a lexical definition fails to state accurately the meaning which a given word is supposed to have then it fails to eliminate the ambiguity of that word. Some definitions are used to reduce the vagueness of terms and expressions. We call such definitions precising definitions. There is a distinction between ambiguous and vague expressions. A term is deemed ambiguous within a given context does not point to the one intented. We regard a term as vague when there are borderline cases such that it cannot be easily ascertained whether the term is applicable to a situation or otherwise. Precising definitions figure prominently in law courts, most especially when judges have to decide on a law which contain vague expressions. In the celebrated election petition filed by the late Chief Obafemi Awolowo against the declaration of Alhaji Shehu Shagari as the president-elect in 1979, the crux of the argument was the precise meaning of two-third of nineteen. The court gave a precising definition of two-third of nineteen, with the help of the renowned mathematician, Chike Obi, which settled the matter in favour of Alhaji Shagari. Cases of this nature, as we stated earlier, are regularly encountered in the law courts. The law courts sometimes set aside a legislation on the ground that its terms are so vague that those under its jurisdiction cannot be expected to be able to obey the law itself.
 Theoretical definitions are usually employed by scholars in order to foster comprehensive understanding of whatever subject matter they are dealing with. When, for example, Bertrand Russell defined "event" as "the irreducible minimum in the analysis of physical phenomena". he is defining the difiniendum within the concext of a philosophical theory. When a physicist defines momentum as "the product of mass and velocity", or a chemist defines a molecule as "the smallest part of a substance which can take part in chemical reaction", these definitions are always within the framework of one scientific theory or another.
 Theoretical definitions can also be used by politicians and informed critics of government. Looking at the diverse political structures of different countries labelled "democratic", a critic may raise the fundamental questions: Which nations of the world today deserves to be called "democratic"? What are the minimum standards of probity, accountability and transparency which must be met before that appellation is used to describe the political system of a country? When questions such as these are discussed by knowledgeable and enlightened people, the quest is for theoretically adequate definitions of the concepts involved.
 In addition, some definitions are merely stipulated. A stipulative definition can be introduced by an innovator who brings in a new concept either for convenience reasons of or for security purposes. Mathematicians and scientists use stipulative or nominal definitions to express cumbersome ideas in simpler and more staightforward formulas. An overwhelming number of these definitions are formulated as proposals to interpret the definiendum as what is meant by the definiens. This implies that a stipulative definition is neither accurate nor inaccurate, neither true nor false, but may be too complicated or obscure to be useful to anyone. Inspite of this stipulative definitions sometimes help to make communication of ideas easier and more economical.
 Emotive definitions, also known as persuasive definitions, are meant to influence the attitudes of people. Definitions of this sort do not convey information. Rather, they elicit the positive emotions of approbation and ecceptance, or the negative ones of disapproval or rejection. A socialist who wishes to promote the ideals of socialist ideology might define socialism as "Democracy extended to be economic field."