Wittgenstein Language-game and Ontologies


Published on

Presentation about Wittgenstein's language-game and identifying similarities and issues in relation to Ontologies.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Language is made up of sentencesSentences are propositions made up of wordsWords have state of affairsSentences have a sense i.e. they are determinatePropositions in different languages can be broken down to elemental logical propositionsLogical propositions are mutually exclusive
  • We have picture in our minds and we explicate them in the form of thoughts, propositions or even symbolic representations (Chon)
  • There are different classifications of language-game 1) Pure and impure language-games 2) Primary and Secondary Language gamesRules are in-built within language gamesRules do not necessarily decide whether the players are playing the game in the right or wrong wayLanguage-games do not have common characteristics but are similar to each other based on the family resemblance conceptLanguage-games are played for particular forms of life associated with people
  • Wittgenstein Language-game and Ontologies

    1. 1. Aravind Sesagiri Raamkumar
    2. 2.  Who is Ludwig Wittgenstein? Why is Wittgenstein’s work part of this presentation Overview of Wittgenstein’s major works Language-game concept and its uses Introduction to Linked Data and Ontology Relationship between Language-games and Ontology Discussion
    3. 3.  Austrian-English 20th century philosopher (1889 – 1951) Regarded as one of the most influential philosophers of the 2oth century Fought in World Main Themes: Language and Mathematics War I & II Main Works: Tractatus Logico- Philosophicus, Philosophical Investigations Worked as a teacher for
    4. 4.  Coz it was suggested by Also because I wanted to explore the philosophical origins of Linked Data particularly Ontologies  Possibly in trying to critique it!
    5. 5. L Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (1922) A Philosophical Investigations (1953) Rationalistic Thinking N Pragmatic Thinking Deconstructing LanguageCriticizes his own mentor Bertrand Russell G Understanding Language Criticizes St Augustine and Descartes Main Topics: Language and Picture U Main Topics: Language-game, Private theory, Ethics A languages, Family Resemblance, Rules G E
    6. 6. True FalseLanguageSentences Propositions John is a bachelor Words John is Propositions Propositions John is a man unmarried Elemental Logical Elemental Logical Logical Logical Propositions Propositions Proposition Proposition Mutually exclusive Question: What is the source for these propositions?
    7. 7. Thought Drawing MotionLogical Picture Symbolic vs or Physical
    8. 8.  Refuting St.Augustine on his assumptions about Language 1) Language is uniform 2) The meaning of words are taught by means of ostentation 3) All words have object as their meaning
    9. 9. Builders game Children’s primitive Giving orders and language obeying them “Language is an activity pursued by us, one with purpose” Language has different application areas Different language-games in different areas Different types of sentences – Commands, Assertions, Questions and so on…
    10. 10. LANGUAGE GAMES
    11. 11.  Different classifications of language-game 1) Pure and impure language-games (George Pitcher)  Pure -> Only words  Impure -> Non-linguistic activities activities are essential  Refuted! 2) Primary and Secondary Language games (Hintikkas)  Primary - Essential and self-sufficient language games  Seconadary - Parasitic on primary language-games  Imagine “cause and effect” situations
    12. 12.  Language-games and rules  Rules are not necessary for all language games Formal vs Factual aspect of language Language-games and forms of life "The basic form of language-game is the one that we act“  Forms of life can refer to activity  A form of life is constitutive of the meaning or life of signs.  Its non-linguistic form gives linguistics signs a place in the “marketplace” Normative nature of language-games  Not bothered about the symbols but the grammar of expression and its intention
    13. 13.  To tackle and solve language related philosophical problems – “Tool for deconstructing language” To refute the claim that we learn meanings of words by their definition but by their usage – “Practice makes a man perfect” To construct “Objects of comparison” to look at language To showcase the essentiality of language in our daily lives – “a conclusive remark”
    14. 14. Forms of lifeRules Language- Non- linguistic Grammatical Surveyability games activities Linguistic expressions
    15. 15. Linked Data “Let’s just link the data inside the Semantic Web documents” “We are going to make the computers understand real world objects so that they really answerArtificial Intelligence our search queries“We are going tomake the computerintelligent enough todo all our work” Tacit knowledge and machines?
    16. 16. lives in born in Web ofDocuments Web of Data
    17. 17. model the communication inside a particular domainOntology model the domain itself is friends with ponders fears about is at odds with
    18. 18. FOAF Open Graph Protocol
    19. 19. 1) Ontology (or vocabulary) of a particular domain comprises of one or more language games used in that domain2) The class hierarchy in ontologies are similar to the language deconstruction from TLP – slight digression from lang-games3) The rules in language games are similar to the rules that can be built on top of ontologies to make inferences4) Since Language games operate at a abstract level, they can be used to compare two linguistic activities similarly ontologies help in comparing domains5) Language games in some sense, can be seen to represent our discussions in natural languages through formal language, Ontologies do the same, since machines can understand only formal languages
    20. 20. Major Issues Minor Issues Who decides the rules?  Expert vs Amateur modeling Universality aspect  Versioning issue Issue with currency  How can computers ‘practice’ which is the Truth aspect most important thing in rule following? Issue with homonyms in a conversation  German to English translation issue with Wittgenstein’s writing – Possible! Rules or certain parts of them can be only partially explicated -Case for intransitive  (Ondrej) mentions the problems associated understanding with constructing language-games in literature meaning ontologies constructed Verbal explication of rules may lead to over literature may not be the best option incorrect interpretation (Johannessen)  Another Wittgenstein needed to philosophize Tacit knowledge articulation? about human-computer communication? Issue with completeness and autonomy
    21. 21.  Language is very important in life as its mastery is related to :-  Understanding our own emotions (recognition),  Playing a part in a team, convey things meaningfully and  Finally in deciding the rules of the game! Deciding the boundary of language-game might be difficult with the interwoven nature of current realities  How granular and how expansive can a language-game be? Echoing other scholar’s opinion that language games are one of the best tools in solving philosophical problems related to language Why isn’t “Communication” thought of being an essential characteristic of language?
    22. 22. End of the presentation language-game!Lets head over to the post-presentation Q&A language-game 
    23. 23.  Preparatory studies for future regularization of language* Purporting a new theory for language Constructing language models with essential (common) characteristics Implying games that are just for lollygagging
    24. 24. Aaberge, T. (2007). The Semantic Web in a philosophical perspective. From The ALWS Archives: A Selection Of Papers From The International Wittgenstein Symposia In Kirchberg Am Wechsel, 0. Retrieved from http://wab.uib.no/ojs/agora-alws/article/view/953/602Aaberge, T., & Akerkar, R. (2012). Ontology and Ontology Construction: Background and Practices. IJCSA, 9(2), 32–41.Beran, O. (2007). Language games of literature. From The ALWS Archives: A Selection Of Papers From The International Wittgenstein Symposia In Kirchberg Am Wechsel, 0. Retrieved from http://wab.uib.no/ojs/agora-alws/article/view/961Bienert, R. F. (1996). Wittgensteins concept of a language-game. University of Toronto (Canada)). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, , 327 p. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/304328297?accountid=12665. (304328297)Frohmann, B. (2004). Deflating Information: From Science Studies To Documentation. University of Toronto Press. Retrieved from http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=rQhgnaGsohsCGarrett, B. (2001). Wittgensteins Private Language Arguments. From The ALWS Archives: A Selection Of Papers From The International Wittgenstein Symposia In Kirchberg Am Wechsel, 0. Retrieved from http://wab.uib.no/ojs/agora-alws/article/view/815/328Johannessen, Kjell S. (1992): "Language, Computer Sciences and Tacit Knowledge". In: Wittgenstein and Contemporary Theories of Language. Edited by Paul Henry and Arild Utaker. Working Papers from the Wittgenstein Archives at the University of Bergen 5. pp. 28-44.Tejedor, C. (2011). Starting with Wittgenstein. Bloomsbury. Retrieved from http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=ZrHoHgAACAAJZöllner-Weber, A. (2007). Utilizing OWL for Wittgenstein’s Tractatus. From The ALWS Archives: A Selection Of Papers From The International Wittgenstein Symposia In Kirchberg Am Wechsel, 0. Retrieved from http://wab.uib.no/ojs/agora-alws/article/view/959