Concerning Wittgenstein’s Rejection of Private Language

By | April 27, 2010

Recently I stated in writing my general agreement with Ludwig Wittgenstein’s view that a ‘private language’ is not a tenable idea. Upon reading this, one of my correspondents expressed opposition by stating his view that we can discern ideas in certain writers which are not entirely communicable (and which could comprise a language). He wondered whether these wouldn’t count as counter examples to Wittgenstein’s thesis.

Besides my correspondent, other people disagree with the conclusion that a ‘private language’ is impossible; they find this to be a controversial and doubtful claim. After all, they argue, can’t a person have certain ideas, and even some ‘words’ expressing those ideas, which he never discloses to anyone else? Couldn’t he mentally retrieve these ideas and privately held ‘words’ when he desires or requires them? Don’t some artists, poets, and composers have ideas which only they fully comprehend and which they attempt to express in their art? Can’t we call such privately held ideas a ‘private language’?

Other examples which might qualify as ‘private language include those religious experiences called speaking in tongues (Pentacostals?) in which the ‘speaking’ seems to be nothing but gibberish but which the speaker claims as the Holy Spirit ‘speaking’ through him. Would this be a ‘private language’?

One more candidate as a private language is the case in which all speakers of a language have died except for one person who knows the language, can speak it and understand it perfectly; but nobody else understands a word. (This actually happens with some small native American cultures which gradually die out.) Wouldn’t this be case of a ‘private language,’ private to the one survivor?

Before I reply to my correspondent and to these purported counter-examples to Wittgenstein, I need to do a simple exposition of Wittgenstein’s claim regarding private languages.

The notion of a private language is taken up by Wittgenstein in Part I of his Philosophical Investigations. As with most ideas in philosophy, you can find some philosophers who agree with him and others (e.g. the English philosopher A.J. Ayer) who disagree with Wittgenstein’s view that a private language is impossible. Let’s see what we make of this important issue in philosophy of mind and that of language.

What does Wittgenstein contend with regard to the issue of private language? Based on my study of his remarks on the issue (mostly in his book, Philosophical Investigations) and my reading of some of the vast commentary on his philosophy, the main point concerns the meaning of terms. For any language to function in communicating and expressing ideas, concepts, thoughts, etc., the words and sentences of that language must have a relatively stable meaning, and this requires that users of that language observe rules of meaning. This means that we should be able to make sense of cases in which we get the meaning right and those in which we don’t. In other words, the notion of a rule seems to imply the possibility of correct and incorrect usages. And the notion of meaning implies the application of some rule.

Wittgenstein asks whether the application of a rule makes any sense with regard to a putative private language, one exclusive to the subject alone. How could the private individual, without any objective reference to other speakers or to a rule book or to some standard apart from his own private impressions, make any sense of getting a meaning right or getting it wrong? He argues that this makes no sense when applied to a strictly private context.

The important point is that one try to conceive of this ‘private’ language as strictly or completely private. When one attempts this it becomes evident that one must refer to standards or rules of meaning outside the private ‘stage’ to make any sense of following the rules, and to make any sense of getting the meaning of the words right, and to make sense of the possibility of making errors in our use of words; and thus to make any sense of the very notion of a language.

This is how I interpret Wittgenstein’s position, which I find rationally compelling. The very idea of language implies inter-personal communication and expression. Even the most subjective poets and mystics, when they attempt to express their inner most experiences, must rely on some form of language that can at least partly be understood by others. This implies the observance of some rules of meaning, which implies a social practice. Others, besides the private thoughts of the speaker-writer, are essential to the practice.
(The etymology of the word “language” itself, the Latin “lingua” refers to the tongue, thus to speech. With the invention of writing this function of the tongue includes also the hand, whether manipulating a pen or a keyboard. In any case, whether speech or writing, language is a way of inter-personal communication and expression. It is a social phenomenon, not at all a strictly private, mental one.)

Others disagree with this view; but, frankly, I cannot make much sense of their position. It is true that individuals claim styles of expression which nobody really understands and which therefore might be called a ‘private language’ of sorts. But this would be using the word “language” in an extended, metaphorical sense. It would be the type of expression and ‘language’ which you’re free to take anyway you please. My view is that a ‘language’ which one is free to take any way one pleases is not any kind of language at all. Even the most secret, cryptic code requires at some stage rules of interpretation. Otherwise, it would not have any function as a means of communication and inter-personal expression.

On reading this, my correspondent raised a question about the language used by writers like Nietzsche, for example, who in his famous book Thus Spoke Zarathustra, refers to Zarathustra’s eagle and serpent: “What is Nietzsche alluding to by these images? Could it be the Apollonian and Dionysian dualistic forces? Or is it a reference to different aspects of creation?” The point the questioner is making concerns the notion that Nietzsche’s language in that work is private to him in the sense that we cannot be sure of all the aspects of his meaning.

This raises an interesting issue about the writings of people like Nietzsche. How exactly (if “exactly” even applies) do we interpret all the allusions, metaphors, imagery, analogies, etc.? This makes for much interpretive work for scholars and other writers (e.g. Walter Kaufmann offers excellent interpretations of Nietzsche). Yes, this style of writing, like much literary, poetic work, raises interesting problems of interpretation and meaning. Consider the centuries of debate over different interpretations of religious texts (Old Testament, New Testament, the Koran, etc.). Most great works of literature have multiple levels of meaning; and it takes good critics and scholars to give good interpretations of all that the writer is about. And there will always be a variety of different, even opposing, interpretations.

But these facts about literature do not say anything about the possibility of a strictly private language; at most they remind us that any individual can keep certain things private and not give full expression to his exact meaning. (Maybe he really intends to express ambiguity and a degree of vagueness? After all, in literature these surely have their function.) I doubt that Wittgenstein would deny any of this. Writers like Franz Kafka and Martin Heidegger often claimed that nobody truly understood them. We might then say that an important part of what they meant to say remained private to them. But this is simply a version of a secret or something I cannot reveal to others, for one reason or another. Sometimes I cannot reveal it because I lack the words or the talent (e.g. the talent of a Shakespeare) to express what I really mean. Sometimes I choose to keep my ideas obscure and hard to interpret. But notice that none of this requires a “private language” as such. In fact, it presupposes language as a tool of my culture by which I express my ideas and experiences to others, and sometimes intentionally impose limitations on the extent of that expression.

The private language issue is a conceptual issue. It simply asks that one think carefully about what language entails; and then try to apply this to a strictly private phenomenon or experience, one limited to the individual’s immediate experience and making absolutely no reference to anything beyond that. Wittgenstein argues that when you engage in this though experiment you will find that the notion of a strictly private language is ultimately an untenable one. A poet or a Nietzsche who writes works in which they attempt to express their ideas to the reader are not engaged in a private language. How could they be? In philosophy, the notion of a language that purports to be private might be applied to Descartes in his Meditations when he purports to reduce all his thinking just to his private ideas, with no reference whatsoever to material world. A metaphysical idealist, who claims all reality is nothing but ideas present to his mind (solipsism?) also purports to engage in private “meaning” (viz., language), insofar as he tries to express his strange perspective of things. But Wittgenstein would argue that Descartes and the idealist really do not accomplish what they claim to do. I agree.

Finally some quick replies to the purported counter-examples posed at the beginning. First let’s consider the one that asks whether a person can have certain ideas, and even some ‘words’ expressing those ideas, which he never discloses to anyone else. Could this count as a private language? No, not in the primary sense of the word “language.” People can keep different secrets they never disclose to anyone, and even invent some private technique by which they remember to themselves these secrets. But as soon as they attempt to communicate these or try to express them to others, some form of language is required; and it cannot be ‘private’ in the strict sense of that term. Second, we have the case of speaking in tongues, which nobody can understand. At best, others can surmise that the person is having a highly emotional, religious experience in which they give expression to some feeling or other. But so long as none of this makes sense to others (there’s no translation key), this also fails as a language of any kind, private or public. Third, the case of one, lonely surviving speaker of a language that is dying out does not prove the reality of a private language either. It is an accident of history that only one person can speak and understand the language; but the language is a public one. There were accepted rules of usage that members of the tribe recognized and applied, and which the one surviving member of that unfortunate tribe also accepts, understands, and could apply should there be a situation calling for its use. These are the hallmarks of a public language, not a private one.

I conclude that Wittgenstein was correct in arguing that the notion of a private language is untenable.

24 thoughts on “Concerning Wittgenstein’s Rejection of Private Language

  1. john mize

    A solipsist (if any exists) would have a private language.

    1. jbernal Post author

      John, do you think that solipsism is a philosophical viable position? But, as a thought experiment, I think that Wittgenstein would deny that a private language makes any conceptual sense. Even if we posit a solipsist taking notes for himself, the notion of a rule-following language cannot be consistently spelled out.
      How would the solipsist ever distinguish between I recall X and and I think I recall X? Or between I have correctly used term T or I have misused term T? Language and meaning would reduce to anything he imagined; and those are neither meaning or language.

      “Language,” unless you change the concept altogether, is a social phenomenon; it presupposes human interaction. The thought experiment regarding a lonely, isolated ‘solipsist’ precludes all that. But it is just a game some philosopher’s play with themselves: nothing more.

      1. john mize

        Hi Juan. Thanks for your comments. I agree with you that solipsism is not a viable position. I raised the issue to show what I believe is a Wittgensteinian point about what a language is. Using his ideas about family resemblances or cluster concepts, must we not say the same things about "languages" as we say about "games," namely that there is no essence? You seem to think that communication is the essence of language, but there is also the function of expression (among other definitions of language), sometimes to oneself rather than to another, as when I mutter to myself, "eesah" when exerting myself. I am not attempting to communicate anything to anyone, nor have I been taught the use of that term. It is my natural sound similar to a grunt made by others. Up until now, when I have explained to you my use of that expression, the sound of "eesah" has been a private expression in my private language. Now that I have communicated my usage of that expression it is no longer private, but it seems to me that it was previously. I have others which are still private. Thus it seems to me that there exists private language.

        1. philosophylnge

          John, yes, in the example you give one would have to say you have a private expression which you keep to yourself and know (only you know) when it is appropriate to use. Granting this much and granting that this would be enough to claim a "private language," your point is well taken. I'm not sure how Wittgenstein would have handled your example. I'm inclined to say that — rather than a private language — you private term is more akin to a secret you keep to yourself. There are things — feelings, ideas, even secret sounds or expressions — that a person can keep secret. Someone might say, they're private to him. But I'm not convinced any of this is sufficient to claim a private language as such.

          I'm not sure I think of 'language' as having an essence, although I think any example of language involves some inter-subjectivity. (* see below) Even if I only talk to myself, I use a tool whose primary purpose is social interaction. Even such exotic 'languages' as the language of pure mathematics and computer languages involve social interaction at some point, it seems to me. (I tempted to say that all languages have both some kind of syntax and rules of semantics; but you could probably find exceptions.) Language is not just a tool for communication. As you point out, language also is used for expression. Other uses: deception, intimidation, instructions, ordering, ceremony, praying, etc. But all involve some sort of inter-subjectivity, and most some social interaction.

          *I don't know if Wittgenstein ever considered the suggestion that language, like games, is a family of intersecting activities. Suppose I deny that language has an essence. I can still delineate the borders of the family of languages. The same is true regarding games. Denying an analysis in terms of essence does not rule out our ability to delineate the family of games. Even if there is no essence, games of all kinds differ from legal court proceedings.

  2. Margarete Monica

    Hello there! I know this is kinda off topic but I was wondering if you knew where I could locate a captcha plugin for my comment form?

    I’m using the same blog platform as yours and I’m having difficulty finding one?
    Thanks a lot!

  3. Super Real

    This offers them the opportunity to secure an opportunity to prove themselves
    once again and make probably the most in
    the prevailing offers Super Real they provide bad credit loans, no credit
    loans, and good credit loans i want to take out a loan – again, all you
    may need is id as well as a way to pay back everything you borrow i want to take out a loan.

  4. Katharine Neddo

    I like the helpful info you provide in your articles. I will bookmark your weblog and check again here frequently. I am quite sure I

  5. Eugene Party Bus

    constantly i used to read smaller articles that as well clear their motive, and that is also happening
    with this post which I am reading here.

  6. homepage

    This issue is already being carried out by the Commons transport select committee that a sharp increase in claims and costs.
    Chris Fisher, 28, is the new audience marketing director
    at homepage. Instead, what the ruling is likely to appeal to inexperienced drivers as well as increased
    taxes and insurance premiums. First, the people who drive
    really badly all the time the car is driven and let insurers tailor
    the cost of each claim is going up and up. It’s the main reason for
    the rise in motor premiums.


    Thank you a whole very good offer for supplying all of us remarkably
    terrific possiblity to go by way of from this web world-wide-web site.
    It might be at all periods so outstanding and filled with an unbelievable
    time for me and my workplace mates to acquire a have a look at your blog post relating to
    the the extremely minimum thrice for every single total full full week to comprehend the most
    up-to-go out with tactics you have. To not mention, I’m also definitely fascinated with regards to the astounding concepts you serve.
    Chosen 1 particular aspects inside this posting are undoubtedly the finest
    I’ve truly acquired.

  8. Rosann Herdt

    Hiya, I am really glad I have found this information. Nowadays bloggers publish just about gossips and net and this is actually frustrating. A good web site with interesting content, this is what I need. Thank you for keeping this web-site, I’ll be visiting it. Do you do newsletters? Can not find it.

  9. Isidro Finchum

    I precisely wanted to thank you very much again. I am not sure what I could possibly have sorted out in the absence of the entire concepts contributed by you directly on this situation. It actually was a real daunting concern for me personally, nevertheless finding out the very professional avenue you solved that forced me to weep for delight. I am just thankful for the advice and thus hope you are aware of a great job you were doing training others via your webblog. Most probably you have never encountered all of us.

  10. Get The Facts

    I just could not go away your site prior to suggesting that I really loved the usual information a person provide on your visitors? Is gonna be again ceaselessly to check out new posts

  11. Keitha Yarish

    Its like you read my mind! You seem to know a lot about this, like you wrote the book in it or something. I think that you could do with some pics to drive the message home a little bit, but other than that, this is magnificent blog. A great read. I’ll certainly be back.

  12. Morris Dembo

    wonderful issues altogether, you just received a new reader. What might you recommend about your post that you made a few days ago? Any sure?

  13. Jeanice Debacker

    Thank you, I’ve just been looking for info approximately this subject for ages and yours is the best I’ve came upon so far. However, what in regards to the bottom line? Are you sure concerning the source?

  14. thor 2 film streaming vf

    Hey this is kinda of off topic but I was wondering if blogs use WYSIWYG editors or if you have to manually code with HTML. I’m starting a blog soon but have no coding experience so I wanted to get guidance from someone with experience. Any help would be greatly appreciated!

  15. it consulting denver

    A few things i have observed in terms of computer memory is the fact there are requirements such as SDRAM, DDR and many others, that must match up the requirements of the motherboard. If the computer’s motherboard is fairly current and there are no computer OS issues, changing the memory literally takes under a couple of hours. It’s one of the easiest computer upgrade methods one can picture. Thanks for sharing your ideas.

  16. amanet tezaur bucuresti

    With havin so much content and articles do you ever
    run into any problems of plagorism or copyright infringement?
    My website has a lot of completely unique content I’ve either written
    myself or outsourced but it looks like a lot of it is popping it up all over the internet
    without my permission. Do you know any ways to help protect against content from being ripped
    off? I’d definitely appreciate it.

  17. comanda on line

    Pretty great post. I just stumbled upon your weblog and wanted to
    say that I’ve truly loved browsing your weblog posts.
    After all I’ll be subscribing to your feed and I’m hoping you write again soon!


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *