Talk:Philosophy of language

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Philosophy of language was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
November 25, 2006 Good article nominee Listed
November 15, 2009 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Linguistics (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Philosophy of language task force.
 
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Philosophy of language:
  • Requests
  • Expand
    • "Continental" philosophy of language. (Skubicki)
    • Ordinary Language Philosophy
    • Mind and Language
    • Social Semantics
    • Pragmatism and meaning (consequences)
    • Rhetoric
  • Sift through talk page for more "to do" needs.

Incoherence[edit]

The theorists section is, as of now, very confused. It does list some theorists, but most entries seem to be about theories, which is something else. I don't want to restructure it myself, since I'm unsure of what it was intended for in the first place -- theories or theorists. Nonetheless, it can't be left as it is, as its present state doesn't make any sense. -- Miai

Fair enough. Done and done. Lucidish

Early Modern period[edit]

In the Philosophy of language#Early Modern period, there is a problematic statement: "Language began to play a central role in Western philosophy in the late 19th century, especially with Port Royal in France..." The Logic of Port-Royal was first published in 1662, whereas in the 19th century there was no Port-Royal at all. --Sokoljan (talk) 00:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC) I suggest this whole section be completely started over. Apart from the Port Royale and other mistakes, important developments (Locke, Leibniz, Condillac!) are not even mentioned - and the Early Modern period is usually taken to go roughly up to Kant. Kierkegaard is not early modern. Wadh27NK (talk) 10:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

External links[edit]

Is it references or external links? Pls someone clean this up --Aleksd (talk) 07:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Needs an overhaul[edit]

The article looks like it is in pretty bad shape because "philosophy of language" is defined very broadly. The article should be limited to analytic philosophy. Is there any published precedent for including continental philosophy in an overview of the philosophy of language? It seems like this article includes a variety of language related topics in philosophy instead of focusing on "philosophy of language" as its conventionally defined. Conventional philosophy of language is clearly given too little attention here. Wittgenstein is only mentioned twice and the Tractatus isn't mentioned at all. I think this article should look much more like the IEP article.

Is anyone opposed to refocusing this article? Are there published sources that justify the broad definition of philosophy of language used here?--Bkwillwm (talk) 18:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Where are Indian and Eastern[edit]

Not a single quote from Panini, Pingala, Kumarila Bhatta, Jaimini, Murari, Prabhakara &c. Not even mention of theory of Sphota, Shabda Advaita, Shabda dvaita e.t.c. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pratpandey13 (talkcontribs) 14:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)