2 of 4

Write now Article Tools

Page 2 of 4

interconnected and have "blurred edges" (Cf. 71). 3. Language is complicated; more so than it may first appear. What we can derive from this is that language, and the analysis of it, bears close inspection.

8. I suggest that we take Wittgenstein's own advice when we ask ourselves "What does he mean?" This would be something akin to what he says at 340: "One cannot guess how a word functions. One has to look at its use and learn from that." Let us look at how Wittgenstein himself uses the analogy between language and games.

9. We should begin with a caution as well as a very general statement of what he has in mind when using the term language-game. In 130 he says "Our clear and simple language-games are not preparatory studies for a future regularization of language, as it were first approximations, ignoring friction and air-resistance. The language-games are rather set up as objects of comparison which are meant to throw light on the facts of our language by way not only of similarities, but also of dissimilarities." The moral of the story is not to get carried away with the term at the expense of what the analogy between language and games can tell us.

10. Consider for example all the various ways Wittgenstein characterizes words themselves. This will perhaps make clearer what I meant in point one above; that language is an activity. Words are variously compared with tools (11), handles (12), and chess pieces (108). In the Philosophical Grammar Wittgenstein says things like "language is a collection of very various tools." "I said the meaning of a word is its role in the calculus of language. (I compared it to a piece in chess)" (Cf. PI 563). All these suggest that words and language are things we use in activity. "Language is an instrument" (569).

11. One of the most striking statements of this theme occurs in Culture and Value where he says "words are deeds" (p. 46e, Cf. PI 546).

12. Again in the Philosophical Grammar Wittgenstein says: "When one means, it is oneself doing the meaning; similarly, it is oneself that does the moving. One rushes forward oneself and one can't simultaneously observe the rushing. Of course not. Yes, meaning something is like going up to someone" (Cf. PI 457).

13. What this brings up is another interesting point of connection between language and games. A language without users is like a game without players. Consider 204: "As things are I can, for example, invent a game that is never played by anyone But would the following

• << previous page
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• next page >>

Add your voice

Know something about Wittgenstein's notion of grammar?
We want to hear your view. Write now!