I’m a realist. I think there is a world beyond words and that the aim and purpose of (at least some parts of) language is to describe that world. Of course, not all parts of language need serve this purpose. For instance, perhaps the aim of poetry is to encourage ways of thinking where the connection to reality is far from central, so that to charge poetry with failing to provide an accurate description of reality would just be to miss the point.

Still, I think that language evolved as a means of conveying information, of making claims about the world, and that much of what we do with language today still has ‘describing reality’ as its job description. To my mind, this seems like an evidently reasonable claim, and it seems to have a fair amount of intuitive appeal, so why might one think otherwise? Why might someone think that language doesn’t describe reality at all?

Well, one thing that might prompt us towards a less realist view is the recognition that language is a human construct: the connection between any linguistic sign and some aspect of the world is a contingent one, and it comes about because of the kinds of creatures we are and the kinds of practices we engage in with that sign. It is unarguable that the word ‘cat’ in English only refers to cats (if it does at all) because we have a practice of using the word in that way. Furthermore, it’s also a truism to note that in language we can and do adopt many different perspectives: the glass of water can be described in the language of chemistry (H₂O), via its affordances for action (something drinkable), in terms of its aesthetic or emotional appeal, etc.

___

"If we want to navigate our world successfully we had better hit upon a language that captures those things that impinge on us."
___