Talk:Philosophy of language

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articlePhilosophy 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
November 25, 2006Good article nomineeListed
November 15, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article
WikiProject iconVital articles: Level 4 / Philosophy C‑class
WikiProject iconPhilosophy of language has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Philosophy. If you can improve it, please do.
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.


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

General Comment: A very good text, thanks to all contributors. This is to my opinion how a good entry should be. One critic: in the section about formal approaches it says:"While most philosophers, including Frege, Alfred Tarski and Rudolf Carnap, have been more or less skeptical about formalizing natural languages,..." This should be substantiated with sources.Heiko242 (talk) 07:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

I've removed the large section on continental philosophy, which was just talking about various parts of that tradition that involve happen to involve language. - car chasm (talk) 14:48, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Philosophy of language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:49, 7 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]