THE CONVENTIONALITY OF LANGUAGE USAGE IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF ARISTOTLE

Year 2021, Issue: 32, 123 - 138, 09.12.2021

Kadir Kütükoğlu

https://doi.org/10.53844/flsf.932688

Abstract

What is the significance of Aristotle’s distinction between human language and natural language? What role does it play in his philosophy of language and the general history of semantics? First of all, it can be claimed that a language is a complex unit characterized by convention with a group of signs. Notwithstanding essential variations, Aristotle’s theory of signs as a means of communication that relies on spoken sounds is connected with the symbols of affections in the soul. Based on his observations, Aristotle argues, whereas other animals can only communicate with voices to reveal painful and pleasant things, only human beings can use language by convention to make apparent the good and the bad, the right and the wrong. From this viewpoint, it can be understood that language is a synthetic pattern or compound structure that is unique to human beings.

Keywords

Aristotle, convention, language, word, sign, symbol

ARISTOTELES FELSEFESİNDE LİSAN KULLANIMININ UYLAŞIMSALLIĞI

Abstract

Aristoteles’in insana ait olan lisan ile doğal dil arasında yapmış olduğu ayrımın önemi nedir? Bu ayrım, onun dil felsefesinde ve genel anlambilim tarihinde nasıl bir rol oynar? İlkin, lisanın bir grup simge vasıtasıyla uylaşımsal olarak ayırt edici özellikte olan girift bir birlik olduğu dile getirilebilir. Birtakım temel çeşitlemelere karşın, Aristoteles’in simgeler teorisi, konuşulan seslere dayalı bir iletişim aracı olarak ruhta içkin olan etkilenimlerin sembolleriyle bağlanak halindedir. Aristoteles, gözlemlerinden hareketle, diğer hayvanların sadece acı ve haz verici şeyleri belirtmek için seslerle iletişim kurabildiğini, ancak yalnızca insanların uylaşım sayesinde, iyi ve kötü olanı, doğru ve yanlış olanı görünür kılmak için lisan kullanabildiğini ileri sürer. Bu açıdan bakıldığında, lisanın insana özgü yapay bir model veya bileşik bir yapı olduğu anlaşılabilir.

Keywords

Aristoteles, uylaşım, lisans, sözcük, simge, sembol

References

• Aristotle, “De Interpretatione”, The Complete Works of Aristotle, ed. Jonathan Barnes, trans. J. L. Ackrill, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ 1995, ss. 72-101.
• Aristotle, “History of Animals”, The Complete Works of Aristotle, ed. Jonathan Barnes, trans. d’A. W. Thompson Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ 1995, ss. 774-993.
• Aristotle, “Metaphysics”, The Complete Works of Aristotle, ed. Jonathan Barnes, trans. W. D. Ross, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ 1995, ss. 1552-1728.
• Aristotle, “Nicomachean Ethics”, The Complete Works of Aristotle, ed. Jonathan Barnes, trans. W. D. Ross & J. O. Urmson, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ 1995, ss. 3718-4010.
• Aristotle, “On The Soul”, The Complete Works of Aristotle, ed. Jonathan Barnes, trans. J. A. Smith, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ 1995, ss. 641-692.
• Aristotle, “Parts of Animals”, The Complete Works of Aristotle, ed. Jonathan Barnes, trans. W. Ogle, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ 1995, ss. 994-1086.
• Aristotle, “Poetics”, The Complete Works of Aristotle, ed. Jonathan Barnes, trans. I. Bywater, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ 1995, ss. 2316-2340.
• Aristotle, “Politics”, The Complete Works of Aristotle, ed. Jonathan Barnes, trans. B. Jowett, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ 1995, ss. 1986-2129.
• Aristotle, “Problems”, The Complete Works of Aristotle, ed. Jonathan Barnes, trans. E. S. Forster, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ 1995, ss. 1319-1527.
• Aristotle, “Sense and Sensibilia”, The Complete Works of Aristotle, ed. Jonathan Barnes, trans. J. I. Beare, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ 1995, ss. 693-713.
• Aristotle, “Sophistical Refutations”, The Complete Works of Aristotle, ed. Jonathan Barnes, trans. W. A. Pickard-Cambridge, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ 1995, ss. 278-314.
• Aygün, Ömer, The Middle Included: Logos in Aristotle, ed. John Russon, Northwestern University Press, Evanston, IL 2017.
• Barnlund, Dean C., “A Transactional Model of Communication”, Foundations of Communication Theory, ed. Kenneth K. Sereno & C. D. Mortensen, Harper & Row, New York, NY 1970, ss. 83-102.
• Berlo, David K., The Process of Communication, Holt, Rinehart & Winston Publishing Company, New York, NY 1960.
• Boger, George, “Aristotle’s Underlying Logic”, Handbook of the History of Logic, eds. Dov M. Gabbay & John Woods, Elsevier B.V., NX Amsterdam 2004, ss. 101-246.
• Budrevičius, Algirdas, “Semiotic Insights into Aristotle’s Theory of Being: Definition and Model of Sign”, Informacijos Mokslai, Cilt: 62, 2012, ss. 113-135.
• Dance, Frank E. X., Human Communication Theory: Original Essays, Holt, Rinehart & Winston Publishing Company, New York, NY 1967.
• Eco, Umberto, The Limits of Interpretation, Indiana University Press, Indianapolis, IN 1994.
• Hudry, Jean-Louis, “Aristotle on Language and Universal Proof”, The Road To Universal Logic, Studies in Universal Logic, eds. Arnod Koslow & Arthur Buchsbaum, Springer International Publishing AG., Cham 2015, ss. 267-281.
• Kasabova, Anita & Marinov, Vladimir, “Aristotle on Verbal Communication: The First Chapters of De Interpretatione”, Empedocles: European Journal for the Philosophy of Communication, Cilt: 7, Sayı: 2, 2016, ss. 239-253.
• Kretzmann, Norman, “Aristotle on Spoken Sound Significant by Convention”, Synthese Historical Library, Cilt: 9, D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht 1974, ss. 3-21.
• Lasswell, Harold D., “The Structure and Function of Communication in Society”, The Communication of Ideas: A Series of Addresses, ed. Lyman Bryson, Harper & Row, New York, NY 1948, ss. 37-51.
• Locke, John, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, ed. Kenneth P. Winkler, Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., Indianapolis, IN 1996.
• Plato, “Meno”, Plato: Complete Works, ed. John Madison Cooper & D. S. Hutchinson, trans. G. M. A. Grube, Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., Cambridge, MA 1997, ss. 870-897.
• Quarantotto, Diana, “Aristotle on the Differences in Material Organisation Between Spoken and Written Language: An Inquiry into Part-Whole Relations”, Elenchos, Cilt: 40, Sayı: 2, 2019, ss. 333-362.
• Rescher, Nicholas, “Truth, and Necessity in Temporal Perspective”, The Philosophy of Time: A Collection of Essays, ed. Richard M. Gale, MacMillan Press Ltd., London 2000, ss. 183-220.
• Schramm, Wilbur L., “How Communication Works”, The Process and Effects of Mass Communication, ed. Wilbur L. Schramm, University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL 1954, ss. 3-26.
• Shannon, Claude E. & Weaver W., The Mathematical Theory of Communication, University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL 1948.
• Syamales, Maiti & Sadhukhan, Sweety, E-Commerce & Business Communication, McGraw Hill Education (India) Private Limited, Gautam Buddh Nagar, Noida, UP 2020.
• Walz, Matthew, “The Opening of ‘On Interpretation’: Toward a More Literal Reading”, Phronesis, Cilt: 51, Sayı: 3, 2006, ss. 230-251.
• Westley, Bruce H. & MacLean, Jr. Malcolm S., “A Conceptual Model of Communications Research”, Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly (JMCQ), Cilt: 34, Sayı: 1, 1957, ss. 31-38.
• Zirin, Ronald A., “Aristotle’s Biology of Language”, Transactions of the American Philological Association, Cilt: 110, 1980, ss. 325-347.