IS THERE TRUTH IN LANGUAGE?

Seven Falls, South Cotabato, Philippines

Language is usually understood as a medium used to represent how the reality is, that is, what is and what is not the case. In his work Language, Truth, and Logic (1936), Alfred Jules Ayer limits the meaningful statements to those which are empirically verifiable and those which are self-evidently true or false. Every sentence or statement, therefore, tells either truthful or false facts with empirical verification as the ultimate basis. Thus, it is not surprising when he concludes that religious and metaphysical statements are meaningless as they are neither empirically verifiable nor self-evidently true or false. It is understandable why Ayer, best known for his “logical positivism”, arrives to this conclusion for he limits knowledge and consequently language to sense- data perception. 

Maria Cristina Falls, Lanao del Norte, Philippines

Ayer espouses the sense-data theory which states that we never see or directly perceive material objects but only sense-data or sense perceptions.In his other work, The Foundation of Empirical Knowledge (1940), he contends that statements about material objects can be translated into statements about sense-data. Thus to Ayer, there is a legitimate talk of material things. On the other hand, that talk becomes illegitimate or a misconception exists when such objects are taken as “behind” or “beyond” what appears to the senses. Ayer then limits the truth in language to mere sense-data or sense perception.

Lulugayan Falls, Northern Samar, Philippines

John Langshaw Austin criticized this argument of Ayer. Do all statements necessarily imply the truth? Do words should represent truth at all times? Without denying that some sentences or utterances state a fact, Austin argues that not all statements have truth-values. Statements or utterances like how much is this?, do this!, excuse me!, please don’t do that, I am sorry, etc. are neither true nor false since these do not describe a situation or reality. They do not therefore have truth-values, but the positivists could not deny that these commonly used expressions mean something.  Thus, Austin maintains that we human beings do not use words just to represent how things are, but we also use language to ask questions, to give an order or command, to tell jokes, to persuade others, to give advice, to make suggestions, to insult others, to intimidate, to comfort, to make promises, to express one’s feelings, to express a wish and so forth. In his posthumously published work, How to Do Things with Words (1962), he claims that uttering sentences like those above is to state neither truth nor falsehood, but to perform a kind of action which he calls “illocutionary act”.

Pagsanjan Falls, Laguna, Philippines

By asserting that not all utterances have truth-values, does Austin deny the existence of truth in language? No, Austin does not deny the possibility of truth in language. He simply rejects the idea of limiting truth in language to purely empirical verification. He just wants to prove that human language is not totally limited to sense-data perception as what positivists have alleged. Limiting the truth in language to purely empirical evidence or verification could result to subjectivism and skepticism and would impede any philosophical discussion. In his other posthumously published work Sense and Sensibilia (1962), Austin insists that words like illusion, delusion, looks, appears, and seems allow us to express reservations about our commitment to the truthof what we are saying, and that the introduction of sense-data adds nothing to our understanding of or the ability to talk about what we see. We can say then that Austin tries to combat linguistic skepticism and relativism.This challenge led Austin to formulate the three-fold distinction of the different forms of what he calls “speech-act”. 

The speech- act theory of Austin is indeed a great help in combating linguistic skepticism and relativism. By affirming that we do not just describe a reality when we utter words, Austin upholds the rich complexity of language. By denying that linguistic truth is the strict correspondence of language to material things, he defends the immaterial dimension of language. 

Tapplia Falls, Ifugao, Philippines

In his speech-act theory, Austin holds that in saying a performative utterance the speaker does not only utter something but performs an action as well. If actions or habits make us who we are, then we can deduce also that language can transform a person just like an action. By saying some words, a person could change his being just like a priest who promised the vows of obedience and celibacy during his ordination or a couple who exchanged marriage vows on their wedding day. Language could turn a person into someone else. We call someone liar who habitually lies or label somebody a gossipmonger who spreads gossip.  The simple baptismal words transform a particular person into a Christian. Insulting words could start a fistfight or even a war.

Language has indeed a powerful effect, both positive and negative. Limiting our knowledge and language to sense- perception is to deny this potential and some of human beings most common realities like love, trust or faith, freedom, etc. Language, like human thought, is unlimited or even infinite for it transcends empirical reality. Is there truth in language? We human beings are seekers of truth, and we reason out with language as our tool. To deny or limit truth in our language is to limit the capacity of our intellect. As consequence we deny the very vocation of man, which is to attain knowledge of the Ultimate Truth.

John Langshaw Austin