The Dimension View Of Metalanguage And Its Philosophical Stand

The present dissertation attempts to offer a dimension view of ML and present its philosophical stand on three controversial but very important topics of philosophy of language: a) the relation between language and reality; b) the relation between language and mind; c) language imperfection. On each topic, this dissertation offers a new perspective.The whole dissertation consists of seven chapters which can be divided into four parts. Part One encompasses the first two chapters and provides the research background. Chapter 1 is a general introduction to the whole dissertation, pinning down a working definition of ML, making clear the rationale and objectives of the study and dealing with some brief methodological preliminaries and the whole structure of this dissertation. In a broad sense we define ML as any language item, either natural or artificial, which at least presupposes the existence of a language unit. Particularly in language use, ML is defined as any language use in which language users consciously deal with another language use in a certain context Chapter 2 reviews the previous studies on ML both in linguistics and philosophy, which paves the way for our argumentation of the dimension view of ML.Part Two (Chapters 3-5) , based on the previous philosophical and linguistic studies of ML, proposes and expounds a dimension view of ML. Chapter 3 presents an overall picture of the dimension view and provides the theoretical foundation and guidance for the rest chapters. According to this dimension view, ML is a dimension of language, speech and mind and without this ML dimension language is language no longer and language use will be impossible.This dimension view of ML is further documented by the dialectic relationship between ML and language imperfection, as is discussed in Chapter 4．We hold that ML and language imperfection form a contradictory pair of thesis and antithesis. It is this pair's dialectical development that drives language to get developed and enriched into the state as it is (i.e., synthesis in Hegelian terminology). Thus we argue that both language imperfection and ML are inseparable properties of language. Lack of either will deprive the existence of language.Chapter 5 explores the nature of the mind-operative component of metalinguality in speech. We argue that mind playing a leading and decisive role in the metalinguistic operational process is metalinguistic in nature because mind is linguistic biologically and metaphysically. The workings of human mind, according to our active-passive-symbol hypothesis, are various metalinguistic operations of active symbols on passive ones. If our mind's working constitutes a metalinguistic dimension, our speech with a mind-operative component has to be metalinguistic, thus confirming our dimension view of ML.Employing the dimension view of ML discussed in Part Two, Part Three (i.e., Chapter 6) investigates the relationship between language and reality. Owing to its ML dimension, language is constructive in the sense that ML dimension in language makes human linguistic behavior social, symbolic, active, linguistic and recursive and reflects an inter-negotiation and inter-transformation between man and world, objectivity and subjectivity, individuals and social system. Because of the constructive nature of our representational modes and also because the notion of reality is complex, language and reality do not correspond with each other in a one-to-one manner. The reality represented by language is constructive through various metalinguistic operations. However, we hold that this constructed reality, which has been roughly classified in this dissertation into two kinds: cookie-cutter reality and mangrove-effect reality, is constrained by the external reality and presupposes the dimensions of reality which have been established by language.It can be seen that Part Two and Part Three are logically connected: Part Two analyzes the features of the ways in which we use our words and our mental symbols-the features involving others' words, mind's operation and context. Part Three accounts for how those features in interaction produce the link among mind-independent states of affairs, thoughts and language use. Thus Part Two and Part Three constitute a naturally logical sequence.In Part Four, the concluding chapter, we summarize the contributions of the study and discuss the theoretical and philosophical implications and the limitations of the dissertation. In addition, some suggestions are proposed for future work.The philosophical stand by the dimension view of ML on some controversial philosophical topics is summarized as follows:(1) Our dimension view of ML shows that philosophical treatment of ML as only a relation between language components (i.e., ML as a language component speaking of another one), like Tarski, Carnap and Russell did, does not present the whole picture of ML. Also, ML concerns other non-linguistic elements such as mind and context as well as the interaction between these linguistic and non-linguistic elements. Only when all these factors are considered can we make clear how ML works.(2) In terms of the relationship between language and reality, we hold that language and reality do not have a one-to-one correspondence; instead they are related in a complicated manner. Only when we understand the constructive nature of language and make it clear in what sense we use the term reality, can we make a good start to discuss the relationship between language and reality.Our view about the relationship between language and reality is an attempt to steer a moderate path between linguistic realism according to which language mirrors reality, and linguistic idealism according to which reality mirrors language. Our view that the reality accessible to us is constructed by various metalinguistic operations, constrained by the external reality, and at the same time presupposes the dimensions of reality, rejects linguistic realism but does not admit linguistic idealism.(3) As regards our view about the relationship between language and mind, avoiding the extreme views (which hold that language and mind are either the same or unrelated), we hold a modest view, arguing that animals have thoughts but only human beings can carry off-line thinking which involves language. We, as language-using animals, use language not only for communication but also for thoughts. Holding any extreme views about the relationship between language and mind is on a dangerous way to irrationality.In addition, our active-passive-symbol hypothesis that human thinking is a kind of metalinguistic operations of active symbols (say, syntax) on passive symbols (say, mental words) shows that there is no central processor in our brain to work on LOT (language of thought). It is LOT itself that metalinguistically operates on and interacts with itself when we think.(4) Our view of self-rescue of language provides a new perspective to understand language imperfection. We argue that language imperfection is a necessary component of language and the key resource for the enrichment of our language and any attempt to cure language imperfection or to replace the imperfect language with an ideal one, as the analytic philosophers did, will remove the nature of language.Above all, the chief creative work in this dissertation can be summarized as follows: a) we offer a dimension view of ML in a systematic way, holding that ML is a dimension of language, speech and mind; b) we offer a new perspective on the constructive power of language which, we hold, is rooted in the ML dimension of our representations; c) employing the dimension view of ML to examine the relationship between language and reality, we find a moderate path which rejects linguistic realism but does not embrace linguistic idealism, holding that the reality accessible to us is constructive by various metalinguistic operations, but at the same time, is constrained by the external reality and presupposes the dimensions of reality; d) we tentatively classify the constructed reality into two kinds: cookie-cutter reality and mangrove-effect reality; e) we present a new perspective on language imperfection which has been a controversial topic in philosophy of language, holding that language imperfection is a necessary component of language and the rescue of language imperfection comes from language itself, which exhibits a Hegelian dialectics; f) we put forward a new perspective on the relationship between language and mind, holding that human mind is metalinguistic and its workings constitute a series of metalinguistic operations of LOT dealing with itself. No Central Processor is needed. In the metalinguistic operations, mental syntax as active symbols triggers and manipulates the passive mental symbols including mental words, conceptual schemas or even the active symbols themselves. Through metalinguistic operations, we have acquired various thoughts.