Menu: Home :: go to Journal :: switch to Russian :: switch to English
You are here: all Journals and Issues→ Journal→ Issue→ Article

Nature of human’s communication

Annotation

The nature, possibilities and limits of human communication with reliance on philosophical method of the late L. Wittgenstein is considered. Critical analysis of the classical model of communication in which language is perceived as a means of information transfer or storage tank meaningful content is provided. The article refutes the basic assumptions of the classical concept of communication to explain the conditions of successful communication. The first is related to the concept of materialization values; meaningful contexts are interpreted as defining the essence to be transmitted undistorted way from the source to the recipient. The second assumption is related to the notion of derivative status corresponding language. Studies in the philosophy of language, numerous studies have provided us with arguments to refute these assumptions and, accordingly, the classical model of communication. In this context it is particularly important for us is L. Wittgenstein's philosophical reflections on the nature of meaning and language, which serve as a strong argument against the traditional and generally accepted explanation of the essence of the communicative process. L. Wittgenstein critically reinterpreted the traditional understanding of the relationship between meaning and use, and free from the concept of value as external rules governing the use of language. The value is not determined by external use; on the contrary, the use determines the value. As a result, the values if they are not regarded as a specific effect are somewhat unstable and uncertain. On the one hand, the use of language can be changed, then these changes lead to changes in the values of the words; on the other – because the use is not solely determined by external factors, it is reasonable to assume the presence of some degree of uncertainty values. Based on Wittgenstein’s perspectives, it is clear that the traditional theory of communication contain latent error. From the viewpoint Wittgenstein communication capability depends on general practice. This means that the success of the communication of different communities or cultures requires us so-called “participant perspectives”, i. e. should be familiar with the forms of other human groups to understand them. In the absence of community life forms understanding becomes impossible.

Keywords

communication; value; L. Wittgenstein; use; language game; form of life; adherence to the rule; understanding

Full-text in one file

Download

UDC

316.37

Pages

13-17

References

1. Gnatyuk O.L. Osnovy teorii kommunikatsii. M., 2012. 2. Vitgenshteyn L. Filosofskie issledovaniya // Vitgenshteyn L. Filosofskie raboty: v 2 ch. M., 1994. Ch. 1. 3. Kuayn V. Ontologicheskaya otnositel'nost' // Sovremennaya filosofiya nauki: znanie, ratsional'nost', tsennosti v trudakh mysliteley Zapada. M., 1996. 4. Silva R. The possibility and limits of communication: a Wittgenstein Perspective // Philosophy of the Information Society: Papers of the 30th International Wittgenstein Symposium. Kirch-berg am Wechsel, 2007. Vol. 15. 5. Vitgenshteyn L. O dostovernosti // Vitgenshteyn L. Filosofskie raboty: v 2 ch. M., 1994. Ch. 1. 6. Wittgenstein L. Zettel. Oxford, 1981. 7. Medvedev N.V. Problemy kommunikatsii v kontekste “yazykovykh igr” // Vestnik Tam-bovskogo gosudarstvennogo tekhnicheskogo universiteta. 2004. T. 10. № 2.

Received

2014-10-30

Section of issue

Questions of theory and methodology

Для корректной работы сайта используйте один из современных браузеров. Например, Firefox 55, Chrome 60 или более новые.