What do you think?
Rate this book
Cambridge Introductions to Philosophy
An Introduction to the Philosophy of Language
In this textbook, Michael Morris offers a critical introduction to the central issues of the philosophy of language. Each chapter focusses on one or two texts which have had a seminal influence on work in the subject, and uses these as a way of approaching both the central topics and the various traditions of dealing with them. Texts include classic writings by Frege, Russell, Kripke, Quine, Davidson, Austin, Grice and Wittgenstein. Theoretical jargon is kept to a minimum and is fully explained whenever it is introduced. The range of topics covered includes sense and reference, definite descriptions, proper names, natural-kind terms, de re and de dicto necessity, propositional attitudes, truth-theoretical approaches to meaning, radical interpretation, indeterminacy of translation, speech acts, intentional theories of meaning, and scepticism about meaning. The book will be invaluable to students and to all readers who are interested in the nature of linguistic meaning.
340 pages, Hardcover
First published December 30, 2002
24 people are currently reading
128 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
June 11, 2013
As for introductory books (of which I feel like I've read quite a lot recently, maybe due to recalling writing much about introductory works in my reviews here as of late) this one stands out for me. The typical approach I've encountered elsewhere always seems to involve something along the lines of trying to outline the central issues of the subject and then to say something of the division of the subject into different parts which deal with different kinds of questions (as for example, an introductory book on epistemology might do by dividing the subject into the areas of definitions of knowledge, skeptical challenges, epistemic value and so forth) or which involve different increasingly advanced extensions or variants of basic theoretical frameworks (as one might do in an introductory book on logic in dealing first with the propositional calculus and then deal with the predicate calculus, other possible extensions and variations, all the while treating the two different aspects of syntax and semantics, or proof theory and model theory, for these different calculi). In this typical approach, the subject is mainly divided into these different areas which are then dealt with, one after the other, with many citations in some books, dealing with the different views expressed by different authors, and no citations at all or very few in other books, relying instead of the author's own views on how to best present the central questions of the subject to a newcomer.
In Morris' introductory work, with which we are concerned at the present, we certainly do find a general characterization of the subject in the beginning, but the division of the rest of the book is not motivated by any division of areas claimed to be central within the subject, but rather by considering some central texts on the subject. Every chapter deals with one or two texts that form the basis of the chapter, and then goes on to attempt an explanation of these texts with a critical eye. The texts are given one or more possible interpretations, with the implications of those interpretations dealt with so that the reasonableness of the views expressed in the texts is challenged. In evaluating the texts, Morris relies on both his own conclusions and the views expressed by others in other publications which can be relevant to the evaluation in, it seems to me, in one of two ways: (1) they can be texts which are written in direct response to the main texts of the chapter; and (2) they can be alternative views that need be considered in order to come to any conclusions at all regarding the plausibility of the views expressed in the main texts.
Morris performs this task, of explaining these important texts and the things needed to be taken into consideration both in understanding and evaluating them, expertly, leaving little to be desired either in the way of presentation or the argumentation (or, indeed, in pedagogical terms), but there is still something in the approach which I find somewhat confusing. It is not that there is no overall structure to the book, the central theme could be said to be meaning (and maybe it's the central theme of philosophy of language overall) and there is a progression in the issues dealt with: first comes a theory of language based on Locke which is used, it seems, mainly as a target which had to be dealt with before the modern conception of language within philosophy was formed; then comes Frege who lays out perhaps the basis for a treatment of language on philosophical terms with which every later philosopher has to deal; and after that, the book goes on to deal with more and more complications to the picture of meaning proposed by the Fregean account in a way that leads to a progression in complication regarding the issues, with several directions to precious chapters of the book.
My problem with the approach is rather that in focusing the chapters on specific texts dealing with rather specific issues, the overall structure is obscured. I found that I as a reader was left with a confusion, after reading the book, regarding the question of what the major areas are within the subject of the philosophy of language, regarding how to divide the subject into different areas in the way for which I found myself to be able to account after reading William's introduction to epistemology. The subject seems now to be very messy and without clear distinctions between different considerations within it. There's a certain obviousness to this statement: any subject will, on a closer look, refuse to be divided neatly into different separable areas, the areas will all interconnect. Though this will certainly be the case, my attempt at explaining why this statement was obvious relies upon the phrase "on a closer look". As a simplification, introductory books tend to do divide their subjects into such areas, while also (at least in good introductory books) noting that the areas will in fact interconnect and that this will be encountered during the reading of the text. Nevertheless, I think such broad simplified divisions serve a purpose, at least pedagogically: they structure the subject so that one feels that one can account for different kinds of questions dealt with within the subject. After reading Morris, I feel no ability to divide the philosophy of language into any such areas, it all seems to be about meaning, in some sense of the word, and in that it seems to involve a lot of discussions about how meaning is generally to be understood (are we speaking only of reference or is Fregean Sense also relevant?), how a theory of meaning is supposed to look in general, and how interpretation and translation fits into this picture. This last example might seem to be something different than the others, but really only comes up in trying to deal with meaning. So it all is concerned with meaning, and lots of different specific question concerning meaning, but Morris does nothing to show how these different questions could be divided into different areas.
These complaints might not have anything to do with Morris specifically, it might be that philosophy of language is different from, for example, epistemology in just this sense: that it refuses such division. If indeed this is the case, Morris should have noted as much in his introduction, but I remember no such commentary. Furthermore, the focus on specific texts can lead the reader to feel like the issues dealt with in the book are those specific texts rather than the more general issues dealt with in those texts. Perhaps the focus should instead have been on these different issues where the discussion of these issues within the philosophy of language could be exemplified by certain important and influential texts, after having the author try to first clarify the issues at hand at a more general point than that arising from a focus on a specific text at the outset. Concerns such as this leads me to feel somewhat critical towards the book as an introduction because it fails to supply the reader with a general understanding of the structure of the subject, but while I still feel like I've gotten a really well presented and argued account of some of the seemingly central issues within the philosophy of language, I still feel inclined to say that it was in some way a good introduction. I therefore feel a bit divided as to what to think of the book overall, it's really good, but I'm not sure the approach is well suited for an introductory text. Four out of five stars it is, then. It comes highly recommended, but if (or rather, when) I read another (or several other) introductory book (or books) on the philosophy of language which do approach the introduction of the subject in the way which I would prefer, I might be more inclined to recommend them as introductions to the subject than the current text.
In Morris' introductory work, with which we are concerned at the present, we certainly do find a general characterization of the subject in the beginning, but the division of the rest of the book is not motivated by any division of areas claimed to be central within the subject, but rather by considering some central texts on the subject. Every chapter deals with one or two texts that form the basis of the chapter, and then goes on to attempt an explanation of these texts with a critical eye. The texts are given one or more possible interpretations, with the implications of those interpretations dealt with so that the reasonableness of the views expressed in the texts is challenged. In evaluating the texts, Morris relies on both his own conclusions and the views expressed by others in other publications which can be relevant to the evaluation in, it seems to me, in one of two ways: (1) they can be texts which are written in direct response to the main texts of the chapter; and (2) they can be alternative views that need be considered in order to come to any conclusions at all regarding the plausibility of the views expressed in the main texts.
Morris performs this task, of explaining these important texts and the things needed to be taken into consideration both in understanding and evaluating them, expertly, leaving little to be desired either in the way of presentation or the argumentation (or, indeed, in pedagogical terms), but there is still something in the approach which I find somewhat confusing. It is not that there is no overall structure to the book, the central theme could be said to be meaning (and maybe it's the central theme of philosophy of language overall) and there is a progression in the issues dealt with: first comes a theory of language based on Locke which is used, it seems, mainly as a target which had to be dealt with before the modern conception of language within philosophy was formed; then comes Frege who lays out perhaps the basis for a treatment of language on philosophical terms with which every later philosopher has to deal; and after that, the book goes on to deal with more and more complications to the picture of meaning proposed by the Fregean account in a way that leads to a progression in complication regarding the issues, with several directions to precious chapters of the book.
My problem with the approach is rather that in focusing the chapters on specific texts dealing with rather specific issues, the overall structure is obscured. I found that I as a reader was left with a confusion, after reading the book, regarding the question of what the major areas are within the subject of the philosophy of language, regarding how to divide the subject into different areas in the way for which I found myself to be able to account after reading William's introduction to epistemology. The subject seems now to be very messy and without clear distinctions between different considerations within it. There's a certain obviousness to this statement: any subject will, on a closer look, refuse to be divided neatly into different separable areas, the areas will all interconnect. Though this will certainly be the case, my attempt at explaining why this statement was obvious relies upon the phrase "on a closer look". As a simplification, introductory books tend to do divide their subjects into such areas, while also (at least in good introductory books) noting that the areas will in fact interconnect and that this will be encountered during the reading of the text. Nevertheless, I think such broad simplified divisions serve a purpose, at least pedagogically: they structure the subject so that one feels that one can account for different kinds of questions dealt with within the subject. After reading Morris, I feel no ability to divide the philosophy of language into any such areas, it all seems to be about meaning, in some sense of the word, and in that it seems to involve a lot of discussions about how meaning is generally to be understood (are we speaking only of reference or is Fregean Sense also relevant?), how a theory of meaning is supposed to look in general, and how interpretation and translation fits into this picture. This last example might seem to be something different than the others, but really only comes up in trying to deal with meaning. So it all is concerned with meaning, and lots of different specific question concerning meaning, but Morris does nothing to show how these different questions could be divided into different areas.
These complaints might not have anything to do with Morris specifically, it might be that philosophy of language is different from, for example, epistemology in just this sense: that it refuses such division. If indeed this is the case, Morris should have noted as much in his introduction, but I remember no such commentary. Furthermore, the focus on specific texts can lead the reader to feel like the issues dealt with in the book are those specific texts rather than the more general issues dealt with in those texts. Perhaps the focus should instead have been on these different issues where the discussion of these issues within the philosophy of language could be exemplified by certain important and influential texts, after having the author try to first clarify the issues at hand at a more general point than that arising from a focus on a specific text at the outset. Concerns such as this leads me to feel somewhat critical towards the book as an introduction because it fails to supply the reader with a general understanding of the structure of the subject, but while I still feel like I've gotten a really well presented and argued account of some of the seemingly central issues within the philosophy of language, I still feel inclined to say that it was in some way a good introduction. I therefore feel a bit divided as to what to think of the book overall, it's really good, but I'm not sure the approach is well suited for an introductory text. Four out of five stars it is, then. It comes highly recommended, but if (or rather, when) I read another (or several other) introductory book (or books) on the philosophy of language which do approach the introduction of the subject in the way which I would prefer, I might be more inclined to recommend them as introductions to the subject than the current text.
Read
April 24, 2008I had to read this for my philosophy course, and it was not exactly pleasant. It was hard to keep track of things, lots of back and forth, maybe a little too academically written... I don't know, found it hard to read at least. Would've needed an extra month on it if I didn't have the lectures as well.
July 15, 2016
cũng kiếm được cuốn intro hay để đọc analytic philo rồi
November 19, 2008
A very helpful introduction to the main themes in 20th century analytic philosophy of language, this book provides a broad overview of the major pieces in a way that is accessible seemingly regardless of your particular level of philosophical aptitude; as with all introductory philosophy books, however, this too has moments where the author's opinions weigh heavily on his exposition often painting plausible positions in a lower light than that in which they actually stand. It is a nice work, but should be read along side the source texts that Morris cites in each chapter as many of the nuances are lost in his exposition, and to be sure, your own mind should be made up on the issues only after reading the primary texts.
September 27, 2012
Not incredibly impressed. If you a going to write an introduction, it shouldn't be filled with your personal philosophy unless you are writing an introduction to your philosophy. This book is wrought with ideas and concepts that are far from introductory. Unfortunately, they are not compelling or intelligible enough to warrant a reading specifically to discover insight either.
We shall see what the last few chapters do, but if the current trend is not positive.
We shall see what the last few chapters do, but if the current trend is not positive.
January 12, 2023
I finally finished this babe after months. I often wished I was a great author like Morris because he made it SOO easy to understand the most abstract topics. I believe this is an excellent book for introduction to the philosophy of language and is very neatly written. I realized too late that I was not really interested in the philosophy of language, but even then, I enjoyed reading this book.
March 9, 2025
I used this book for a BA course on philosophy of language that I inherited to teach. It is certainly fit for the purpose and is very accessible. I would have given it a much better rating if I was a student first encountering many of the topics discussed. But there are reasons not to go for a higher rating: the arrangement of the topics, the focus of the book entirely on semantics (except for perhaps a chapter on Speech Acts), and ignoring the non-anglophone and non-analytic traditions are a few coming to mind. But still, I think this is a really good coursebook to use, especially for the earlier stages of a BA course (I used it to teach second year students).
March 2, 2023
kaipa tää oli ihan käypä aloituskohta kielifilosofiaan, mutta eipä tässä mitään erityistä sattunut olemaan. selkeydestä plussaa!
morrisin omat tulkinnat sekä selkeyttivät että välillä hämmensivät sitä, mikä oikeasti kuuluu teorioihin
morrisin omat tulkinnat sekä selkeyttivät että välillä hämmensivät sitä, mikä oikeasti kuuluu teorioihin
May 12, 2022
Presents Frege somewhat confusingly
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews