Wittgenstein: From Words to Games
Wittgenstein’s Influence on Modern Linguistics
Having had some reactions and feedback for an article I published on Substack, “Wittgenstein’s Language Game: Not Everyone Agrees”, I thought I should also publish on here the first article, previously published on Medium.
Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889–1951), one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century, left a profound mark on how we think about language. Although he was mainly a philosopher, his ideas have influenced linguistics, altering perspectives on meaning, use, and the social nature of language. Today, Wittgenstein’s concepts, particularly his notion of language games and his argument that the meaning of a word lies in its use, form a foundation for much of modern linguistics, from pragmatics to sociolinguistics.
Wittgenstein’s views evolved from an abstract, rule-based understanding of language to a dynamic, context-driven approach. I want to show how his ideas challenged static definitions of meaning, dismissed the notion of private language, and underscored the importance of social context in shaping communication. Through these shifts, Wittgenstein showed that language is not just a means of representing reality but a tool we actively use to navigate and interact with the world. His influence lives on in linguistics, reshaping how we study language as a lived, shared human practice.
Wittgenstein’s Early Views and Shift
Ludwig Wittgenstein’s early work, especially in his 1921 book, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, presented a highly structured, formal approach to language. He believed that language mirrored reality and that words corresponded directly to objects or states of affairs in the world. This idea, often referred to as the picture theory of language, suggested that language was a logical structure that could represent facts clearly and unambiguously. According to Wittgenstein’s initial view, if language adhered to logical principles, it could reveal the world’s truths and resolve philosophical problems by clarifying how words connect to the world
However, in the 1930s, Wittgenstein began to question this rigid approach. His return to philosophy after nearly a decade away marked a profound transformation in his thinking. Moving away from the belief that language simply reflects reality, Wittgenstein began to see it as an active, socially embedded practice. This shift is most evident in Philosophical Investigations, published posthumously in 1953, where he dismisses the notion of language as a static logical system. Instead, he proposes that language is fluid and meaningful only within the contexts in which it is used. This radical change in perspective laid the groundwork for many modern linguistic theories, underscoring the limits of treating language as merely representational.
Wittgenstein’s transition from the picture theory to a pragmatic, use-oriented view of language marks one of the most significant philosophical shifts in the 20th century. By rejecting the notion that language’s purpose is to describe reality precisely, he invited us to consider language as a form of human activity, with meaning derived from its application in specific forms of life. This insight paved the way for linguists to explore language beyond syntax and semantics, focusing instead on its dynamic role in social and cultural practices.
Language as a Tool: Meaning Through Use and Language Games
Wittgenstein’s later philosophy marked a departure from the view of language as a static, logical structure. He introduced the concept of language games, where language is seen not as a system that mirrors reality but as a tool used within specific social contexts to serve various purposes. In this view, words do not have fixed, intrinsic meanings; instead, meaning arises through the ways words are used in everyday life. This shift marked a fundamental rethinking of language: rather than a system for mirroring reality, language became a tool used in specific contexts to achieve various purposes.
For Wittgenstein, “the meaning of a word is its use in the language.” This insight highlights that meaning is context-dependent and shaped by specific social practices, or forms of life. Consider the word “game.” Traditionally, one might try to define it by listing essential characteristics, like competitiveness or rule-following. Yet Wittgenstein observed that no single definition fits all uses of the word “game.” Chess is competitive and rule-bound, while a game of catch may be neither. This flexible, practical approach shows that meaning is not about static definitions but emerges from use within varied contexts. Let me explain with two examples:
First, in a military setting, when an officer says “Stand to attention!”, the phrase is more than a simple command, it is embedded in a form of life that includes hierarchy, discipline, and protocol. For a soldier, these words trigger both a physical response and express military values of respect and order. Someone shouting at you “Stand to attention” in a pub, would be unexpected and surprising! The context could lead you to think it is a joke (e.g., stag do) or an aggressive invitation to fight but most certainly not expressing military values of respect and order.
Consider also “swipe right”. The (adverbial) phrase has meaning in today’s digital dating culture. It would have been meaningless fifteen years ago, but now it is instantly understood within the context of dating apps. It is not just about the physical action of moving your finger across a screen: it carries meanings of attraction, potential connection, and participation in today’s dating practices. “Swipe right” has meaning only within this particular social context and technological form of life.
This concept has had profound implications for linguistics, especially in fields like pragmatics and discourse analysis, where the focus is on how language functions in real-world situations. By framing language as something we do rather than a mere structure we use, Wittgenstein encouraged linguists to investigate how people create meaning through interaction. In a language games, meaning is not inherent in words themselves; it emerges from their use within specific social contexts. This understanding opened the door to examining language in relation to social practices, power dynamics, and cultural norms.
Words acquire meaning within specific language games, embedded in complex social practices. This approach contrasts sharply with theories that view meaning as located in fixed definitions or as a product of private mental images. Wittgenstein argued that meaning is inherently public, rooted in shared human practices and the ways we use language in daily life. He also emphasised that language games are fluid and often overlap. A military command could turn into a joke if repeated ironically in a casual setting, or a story might incorporate commands to shape the narrative. This fluidity is crucial to Wittgenstein’s later philosophy: language games are not isolated from one another but intersect in our daily lives, revealing language as a dynamic, adaptable tool woven into the forms of life that constitute human experience.
The Private Language Argument
One of Wittgenstein’s most influential contributions is his private language argument, which challenges the idea that language could be purely private, that is to say understood only by the individual using it. Previously, philosophers like René Descartes and John Locke viewed meaning and understanding as inherently tied to individual mental representations. The “Augustinian” view was one that sees language as merely a tool for naming objects and mental states. In Philosophical Investigations, Wittgenstein argued that for language to have meaning, it must be rooted in shared, public criteria. Words, he claimed, derive their significance not from private, inner experiences but from the external, communal practices in which they are used.
Wittgenstein illustrated this with the example of a person trying to create a language to describe their own inner sensations, such as pain, in a way that only they could understand. He argued that such a private language would be meaningless because there would be no way to verify whether the words were used consistently. Without public criteria or shared usage, it would be impossible to establish whether “pain” today is the same as “pain” tomorrow. Language, he suggested, requires an external standard for consistency; otherwise, it devolves into unintelligibility.
This argument reshaped ideas about meaning, challenging theories that root language in private mental states. It also influenced fields like psychology and cognitive science, pushing scholars to consider language as fundamentally social. By emphasising shared, public criteria, Wittgenstein highlighted the inherently communal nature of language and meaning. His argument has profound implications for understanding how language functions as a bridge between individuals, rather than a solitary, internal tool.
Context and Forms of Life
In his later philosophy, Wittgenstein introduced the concept of forms of life to highlight how meaning is inseparable from the social and cultural contexts in which language is used. For Wittgenstein, language is not an abstract system detached from human activity but a practice that takes on meaning within specific ways of living, or forms of life. These forms of life encompass the customs, beliefs, and interactions that define a particular community. Language, in this view, is woven into the routines and practices of everyday life, with meaning emerging from its role within these shared activities.
Consider how the phrase “good morning” functions across different contexts. In a casual office environment, it may be a polite greeting to start the day, while in a formal setting, it could serve as a mark of respect. In each case, the phrase takes on different shades of meaning based on the context and the implicit social rules governing the interaction. Wittgenstein argued that language must be understood within these specific forms of life, as meaning cannot be separated from the practices and assumptions of the people using it.
This idea has greatly influenced sociolinguistics and ethnolinguistics, where researchers examine how language reflects and reinforces cultural norms and social identities. By focusing on language as part of a lived experience, Wittgenstein’s forms of life encourage scholars to see meaning as something constructed and negotiated within specific communities. This approach underscores language’s role in shaping, and being shaped by, the collective patterns of human life, suggesting that understanding meaning requires understanding the broader context in which language is embedded.
Wittgenstein’s Influence on Modern Linguistics
Wittgenstein’s later work has had a profound and lasting impact on modern linguistics, especially in fields that examine language as it functions in real-world contexts. By shifting the focus from static definitions to the practical, context-driven use of language, he laid the groundwork for various approaches that view meaning as fluid, situational, and deeply embedded in social practices.
Pragmatics and Contextual Meaning: Wittgenstein’s idea that “the meaning of a word is its use in the language” inspired the field of pragmatics, which studies how meaning changes based on context. Pragmatics examines phenomena like implicature, deixis, and speech acts; all concepts that align with Wittgenstein’s emphasis on language as an activity shaped by social norms. For instance ,
J.L. Austin’s theory of speech acts which analyses how people perform actions (like promising, ordering, or apologising) through language builds on Wittgenstein’s insight that language is a tool for social interaction rather than a simple conveyer of facts.
Discourse Analysis: Wittgenstein’s view of language as embedded in forms of life has influenced discourse analysis, which looks at how language functions in extended social interactions. Discourse analysts study language use within broader social and cultural contexts, exploring how meaning is negotiated and constructed in conversation. Wittgenstein’s focus on language games encouraged researchers to view language as interwoven with social practices, making discourse analysis essential for understanding how people use language to navigate complex social realities.
Sociolinguistics: The concept of forms of life has also impacted sociolinguistics, the study of language variation and social identity. By viewing language as inseparable from its social and cultural contexts, Wittgenstein influenced linguists like William Labov, who examined how language varies according to social factors like class, gender, and ethnicity. Wittgenstein’s insights encouraged sociolinguists to see language as a reflection of cultural norms and social identities, prompting the exploration of how language both shapes and reflects community practices.
Ethnolinguistics and Cultural Linguistics: Wittgenstein’s emphasis on understanding language within its specific forms of life has resonated with ethnolinguistics, which studies the relationship between language and culture. Ethnolinguists examine how language reflects cultural values, beliefs, and worldviews, echoing Wittgenstein’s idea that meaning is not universal but rooted in particular social practices. His philosophy has paved the way for linguists to study language as a culturally embedded phenomenon, sensitive to the unique forms of life of each community.
Wittgenstein’s ideas have reshaped linguistics by encouraging us to focus on language as a living practice, deeply entwined with human activity. By framing language as a collection of “games” embedded in various forms of life, he shifted attention from rigid definitions to the dynamic ways in which people use language in everyday interactions. His emphasis on context, social interaction, and cultural embeddedness has expanded our understanding of meaning, positioning language not as a fixed system but as a flexible, adaptive tool central to human life. His influence continues to drive research across linguistic disciplines, inspiring a view of language that honours its complexity and its connection to the social world.
Ultimately, Wittgenstein’s insights remind us that language is not simply a means of describing reality but an essential part of human practice, shaping and being shaped by the social and cultural contexts in which it operates. His legacy continues to inspire linguists to look beyond words and structures, to the deeper patterns of life and interaction that give language its meaning. But, as with most new idea or concept, not everyone will agree.
In another article , I look into some of the major criticisms leveled against Wittgenstein’s concept of language games and his broader contributions to linguistics.
Wittgenstein’s Language Game: Not Everyone Agrees.
Ludwig Wittgenstein revolutionised the philosophy of language by challenging traditional theories of meaning and focusing on how language functions in social contexts. In a previous article — From Words to Games: Wittgenstein’s Influence on Modern L…
©Antoine Decressac — 2024.
Introductory Guides to Wittgenstein:
Grayling, A. C. Wittgenstein: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press, 2001. Part of the “Very Short Introduction” series, this is a brief, accessible overview of Wittgenstein’s life and key ideas. Ideal for newcomers to Wittgenstein.
Pitcher, George. The Philosophy of Wittgenstein. Prentice Hall, 1964. A beginner-friendly guide that covers Wittgenstein’s major philosophical contributions, with particular attention to language and meaning.
Hacker, P. M. S. Insight and Illusion: Themes in the Philosophy of Wittgenstein. Oxford University Press, 1972. This book explores common misunderstandings of Wittgenstein’s philosophy and clarifies his approach to language and thought. Helpful for those interested in debunking myths about Wittgenstein’s work.
Thank you
I will argue that the claim that “meaning cannot be separated from the practices and assumptions of the people using it” is false if we are referring to the meaning of words in a spoken language, and the ‘assumptions’ in question are not synonymous with the common meaning of words (which would make the claim trivial).
Words must have general meaning beyond any unique context for them to be intelligibly ‘used’ in a context; otherwise all spoken languages would amount to a ‘private language’, therefore unintelligible.
We could extend the idea of language to include phenomena, but then the same limitation applies: phenomena must be commonly understood to the intelligibly and consistently identified when perceived in any unique context.
So, I argue that the sense of words and phenomena can be separated from the particular, situational context and individual assumptions; the uniqueness of the context can be meaningfully identified (make sense) only in terms that are already meaningful in general, verifiable/refutable, whereas individual assumptions about meaning may be wrong (refuted), which requires a standard of meaning. As such, there is nothing about any unique context that has excess meaning beyond the general terms of identification in a unique, situational configuration. Any augmentation of the general meaning that may arise from a situation is an intentional, creative action of a language user who intends to persuade other users (in standard terms) to accept and integrate their proposed augmentation into the standard.