S aipsniai / A icles 331
NAGLIS KARDELIS
Vilniaus uni e si e as
ORCID id: o cid.o g/0000-0002-2179-3754 Di ec ions o
academic esea ch: philosophy o language,
philosophy o an iqui y, philosophy o he Middle Ages, philosophy o eligion.
This Regula ion shall en e in o o ce on he wen ie h day ollowing ha o i s publica ion in he O icial Jou nal o he Eu opean Union.
KALBA IR TIKROVĖ
The ela ionship be ween language and eali y is he mos in e es ing and di icul
p oblem in he philosophy o language o sol e. I has many aspec s, because eali y
i sel is pe cei ed and old di e en ly in di e en con ex s o philosophical
analysis. Thus, i is possible o in es iga e wha we would call he inne eali y o
he language i sel […] he immanen na u e o he language, which mani es s
i sel a a ious le els o language-science analysis. The wo ld o language, which
opens up om he pe spec i e o language as a closed sys em, in e nal, and
judged in e nally in e ms o he language i sel , is comple ely di e en om he
wo ld, which opens up wi hin he bounda ies o he language i sel . The inhe en
u h o he language does no coincide wi h he u h ha is e ealed beyond he
limi s o he language i sel , which he language is called o speak and abou which
i mus epo . The u h o a wo d, like he u h o he wo d i sel , is di e en
om he u h o he eali y o he hing behind i : o example, cla i ying he
e ymology o a wo d o ano he , e ealing he u h o he wo d abou he hing
i e e s o, we do no know he u h abou he hing i sel , abou he hing ha exis s ou side he language, al hough he language can gi e us aluable insigh s in o how we should hink abou he hing.
O he e's ano he example: al hough he immanen eali y o language […] he
eali y o wo ds […] clea ly delinea es he dis inc ion be ween objec i i y and
p ocess, he dis inc ion be ween noun and e b a he le el o mo phology seems
o accu a ely show he dis inc ion be ween objec s and p ocesses ha exis s
beyond he limi s o language i sel , ye i canno be conside ed o be an essen ial
[…] wi hou local e o s and co ec ions […] cha ac e is ic o he philosophy o
language, since i is be e han he mo e complex, s ange and mnemonic
expe ience opens up:
NAGLIS KARDELIS
332 Ac a Linguis ica Li huanica LXXXIV Di e en e en s […] is an illusion o
e e yday human expe ience, albei e y powe ul.
By he way, his is jus one conc e e example ha we wan ed o d aw a en ion
o he ac ha in he inne eali y o he language i sel - he eali y o wo ds,
hei meanings, hei mo phological and syn ac ic o ms - he e a e no " u hs"
apa in i su iesa apie už kalbos ibų egzis uojan į pasaulį. Tai, ką pa adin ume
ha e eal hemsel es - we would no ha e s udied he inne eali y o he
language i sel - linguis ic philosophy (unless we we e big ans o Heidegge ) - bu
he ela ionship be ween language and eali y is called philosophy. Howe e , i is
wo h acknowledging ha he philosophy o language is also in e es ed in how he
linguis ic wo ld iew is es ablished in language and how language e lec s and
depic s he eali y beyond language a di e en le els o i s sys em.
Ne e heless, he mos in e es ing hing o philosophy is he adically aised ques ion o he ela ionship be ween language and eali y.
Philosophe s, in conside ing his ques ion, some imes s ike a wo ex emes,
which we will now b ie ly discuss and c i icize. The i s ex eme is ela ed o he
iew ha he eali y o speech exis s, bu i is no e lec ed in speech a all, o i s
linguis ic image is comple ely dis o ed and inadequa e. Some philosophe s who hold
his iew iew iew eali y and language as wo disconnec ed essels: in he belie
o hese hinke s, i is no ha man has no access o eali y a all - he will ha e he
oppo uni y o expe ience i h ough he senses o he body, especially he ongue
- bu wha he speaks o , especially he abs ac , emo ed om he con en o
eason, is no e en a dis o ed image o he eali y o speech, bu a he a
pseudo- alsi y. Such an app oach ine i ably leads o a suspicious, skep ical, and
e en nihilis ic iew o language, wi h he expec a ion ha i will e e be able o
unlock he dep hs and sec e s o he eali y behind language o p o ide he powe
o philosophical insigh . The p oblem is ha he language is no able o communica e
kaip, saky ume, iloso iškai i egzis enciškai neįgalios, e inimas y a ydingas
loginiu a ž ilgiu, nes susidu ia su neį eikiamais idiniais p ieš a a imais.
wi h he wo ld, and he e o e, i he language is no able o communica e wi h he
wo ld, hen i is impossible o he philosophe s o unde s and he wo ld, and he
philosophe s a e no able o communica e wi h he wo ld, because he language is
no able o communica e wi h he wo ld. Simply pu , i he speake we e comple ely
disabled in hese espec s, she would no e en be au ho ized o communica e he
disabili y. I is clea ha by o mula ing such heo ies o language disabili y
h ough language and linguis ic hinking, namely language […] abo e all linguis ic
hinking […] becomes he measu e o he commonali y o non-commonali y o
language and linguis ic eali y and […] language in he pe son o he hinking and
speaking philosophe […] he a bi a o using his measu e. He who is bo n blind is
no able o see.
Kalba i ik o ė
Language and des iny alue he di e ence be ween sigh and blindness, jus as
one who does no eel as e canno pe cei e and de ine he di e ence be ween
as e and helplessness. In c i icizing his adical app oach o he ela ionship
be ween language and eali y, one migh ask a sligh ly di e en ques ion: i no
language, wha is i ha makes a philosophe capable o expe iencing he inabili y
o language and o communica ing he knowledge o i o o he s? The assump ion
ha language and eali y a e indeed a kind o wo-way con e sa ion, as well as
he o he assump ion ha he philosophe , despi e his inabili y o speak,
ne e heless has some o he access o eali y, le 's say jusles o non-discu si e
[…] non-language […] in ui ion powe , s ill emains unclea how such a philosophical
inabili y is able o communica e o o he s he knowledge o he inabili y o speak.
Thinke s who conside speech and eali y o be wo un ela ed hings ace ano he
insu moun able con adic ion. I he iew is held ha , despi e he inabili y o
language o open up eali y, man s ill has sensual access o i , he unexplained
pa adox becomes he image y o language, he media ing powe o he
ep esen a ion o sensual imp essions in he medium o linguis ic signs: a e all, i
is a well-known u h o e e y poe and p ose w i e ha in he line o speech i
is possible o imi a e sensual imp essions di ec ly in he ly ics, d amas and wo ds
o he no el. Because i we assume ha language, as i is adically an isocial, has
no hing o do wi h emo ion, i becomes unclea how i becomes possible in speech -
albei indi ec ly, in a media ed way - o con ey sub le emo ional imp essions
accu a ely and unambiguously. I we acknowledge ha i is he senses ha gi e us
access o eali y, we mus also ine i ably acknowledge ha i is p ecisely in he
way and o he ex en ha speech, like he senso y imp essions o a symbolically
media ing medium, is able o imi a e he senses, ha i - along wi h he
non-media ed senses hemsel es - also gi es us some, albei weak, access o he
eali y o speech.
By he way, as a sepa a e p oblem ha a ises o philosophe s who ha e
adically sepa a ed he plo s o language and eali y, i is wo h conside ing he
ques ion o whe he i is possible o expe ience he senso y imp essions
hemsel es in an absolu ely pu e, non- e bal way. I is e y likely - o a he , i is
beyond doub - ha a pe son expe iences senso y imp essions so s ongly and
abundan ly no only because o he heal h and s eng h o he senses
hemsel es, bu also because o he an isocial "colo " o "p ejudice" ha hese
imp essions a e gi en by he media ing powe o he senso y expe ience o
language: he physical expe ience associa ed wi h memo ies, he spon aneous
imagina ion o c ea i i y, he p ojec ions o he u u e, he play o igu es o
e en jus he abs ac hough o he momen .
NAGLIS KARDELIS
334 Ac a Linguis ica Li huanica LXXXIV This Regula ion shall en e in o o ce on he wen ie h day ollowing ha o i s publica ion in he O icial Jou nal o he Eu opean Union.
Al hough we canno e i y his di ec ly, i is e y likely ha he media ion and
ampli ica ion o he an isep ic […] symbolic […] senso y imp essions p o ided by
language makes e en senso y expe iences mo e in ense, iche and mo e
exp essi e han hose o non-speaking li ing beings. Language and linguis ic hinking
allow us o e lec on emo ional expe iences, o ma el and enjoy he s eng h and
ichness o emo ional imp essions. This p i ilege is no g an ed o beings who
canno speak and hink in language. On his occasion i is wo h no ing ha e en
hose hinke s who o e es ima e language and g ea ly o e es ima e he senses,
a e ascina ed by he powe o he senso y expe ience i sel , as, by he way, he
o e emphasized gap be ween he non-senso y language and he supe -senso y
language is he abili y o communica e o o he s h ough language and no h ough
he senses, in ui i ely, elepa hically o o he wise. I is clea ha i is language,
and no emo ions hemsel es, ha gi e hinke s who deny he powe o language
he powe o pe cei e clea ly and o e lec he imp essi eness o emo ional
expe ience h ough hough . So in ac , we can' e en say ha access o he
anscenden al eali y is p o ided by he pu e senses alone. I would be mo e
co ec o say ha he access o eali y ha is gene ally a ailable o man is
p o ided no so much by he pu e senses hemsel es o by he pu e language i sel , bu a he by language and he senses wo king oge he in a uni ied human expe ience.
The second ex eme o he e alua ion o he ela ionship be ween language and
eali y is he iew ha " ue" eali y does no exis a all, and i s illusion is buil in a
language beyond which he e is no hing a all. This app oach is mos o en
associa ed wi h pos mode nis philosophy, which has been g ea ly in luenced by he
s uc u alis s' and pos s uc u alis s' desi e o analyze language as a closed
sys em, each elemen o which is de ined by i s ela ionship o he o he elemen s,
a he han by wha is o could be ou side ha sys em. S uc u ally analyzing he
unc ioning o language as a uni a y and closed sys em, i is no necessa y o
assume ha any hing exis s ou side his sys em, because all he elemen s o he
language sys em unc ioning a a ious le els can be clea ly de ined based on he
ela ionships o hese elemen s wi h o he elemen s o he sys em.
The linguis s who ep esen s uc u alism ha e explained how he elemen s o
he lowe le els o he language, such as phonemes, whose phonological iden i y
is de ined no isola edly, bu in ela ion o o he elemen s o he same le el, he
pos -s uc u alis s and pos -mode nis s ha e been ex apola ed o highe
le els o he language sys em, ela ed o meanings and meanings. In he
pos mode nis iew, he meaning o a linguis ic sign a any le el, such as a wo d,
a ises om ce ain di e en ial di e ences ha de ine he ela ionships o
signs in he sys em, and no om he ela ionship o he sign's signi icance o
he exis ence o he o he language's signi icance in eali y, because, as
pos mode nis s claim, he iden i ies o he signi ica es, based on he adi ional
iew,
Kalba i ik o ė
Language and des iny 335 exis s apa om language, which is an illusion caused
by he e y mo emen o signi icance in he medium o language.
By adop ing he pos mode nis in e p e a ion o he na u e o language, we
should pe cei e language as " la " and s ic ly "ho izon al" - in o he wo ds, as a
syn ac ic sys em, and he subjec i ely expe ienced " e ical" le el o seman ic
language, which de ines he ela ionship o language o he bounda ies o i s ime,
is he illusion o a cons an linguis ic mo emen , a ising om he "ho izon al"
le el o syn ax. Le 's ake a e y simpli ied example o a hypo he ical language
sys em consis ing o h ee elemen s […] a, b, and c[…]. Acco ding o he usual
classical app oach, he meaning o he linguis ic elemen a in such a h ee-elemen
sys em is de e mined by i s ela ionship o i s co espondence A in he linguis ic
eali y. The meanings o he elemen s b and c, espec i ely, a e de e mined by
hei ela ionship o hei non- e bal equi alen s B and C ( he capi al le e s a e
ma ked wi h he co espondences o he elemen s a, b and c o he language ha
exis in he non- e bal eali y, emphasizing hei g ea e on ological eali y
compa ed o he elemen s ha exis in he language i sel , ma ked wi h lowe
case le e s). Acco ding o his pos mode nis iew, he meaning o elemen a o a
language would be uniquely de ined by i s ela ionship o elemen s b and c; he
meaning o elemen b […] i s ela ionship o elemen s a and c; he meaning o
elemen c […] i s ela ionship o elemen s a and b.
Acco ding o pos mode nis s, his is p ecisely how "ci cula ly" he meanings o
wo ds used in e e yday speech (and in gene al in any language) a e es ablished:
ha is, he meaning o he wo d " ee" is es ablished no as he esul o a
ce ain sound o g aphical signi icance o he ela ionship wi h he g eene y o
he language, bu as he esul o he ho izon al ela ionships o he wo d " ee",
ha is, wi h he wo ds "di la", "dang", "saul" and so on. Re u ning o he
conside a ion o he ela ionship be ween language and eali y, we could ask how,
based on he pos mode nis concep o he na u e o language, he meaning o he
wo d "language" i sel is es ablished in speech. Unlike o he languages, which use
wo ds ha exis in he language sys em […] as a pa o a ce ain scope […] as
singula […] aškiniai[…] elemen s o smalle scope poaibiai, in he case o he wo d
[…]kalba[…] his elemen o he language […] as a pa o he wo ds […] coincides wi h
he whole o he wo ds aibe. This means ha in o de o de ine language
pos mode n, we would ha e o look o o he elemen s in he language i sel as in
he la ges se o language elemen s ha would allow us o de ine he meaning o
he wo d language in a ci cula way. We would immedia ely encoun e an unsol able
pa adox: such elemen s, while being ou side he bounda ies o he wo d
"language", would s ill ha e o be inside he language as a sys em ha includes all
he smalle elemen s. Ob iously, his would be impossible […] we would no be able o
ind such elemen s in he language sys em i sel as he la ges […] all he o he elemen s

NAGLIS KARDELIS
336 Ac a Linguis ica Li huanica LXXXIV
ap ėpiančios – aibės iduje, nes kalba jau iš anks o ap ėp ų bei į auk ų iską,
I don' know wha you can say abou i .
So i we wan o de ine he wo d "language" in he pos mode nis ci cula way, we ha e
o ind some hing ha exis s no as an elemen wi hin he language sys em i sel , bu
as an independen hing ha exis s ou side o i , based on he basic pos mode nis
elemen as, ku į galė ume pasi elk i kaip kalbos apib ėžimo a spi ies ašką. Ta-
p o ision (o a leas he mos adical e sion o his p o ision), ou side o language
he e is no hing and he e o e ou side o language he e a e no ex e nal elemen s ha
could become a e lec ion o he ci cula i y o he wo d. So based on he logic o he
pos mode nis a gumen i sel , in o de o de ine he meaning o he wo d "language",
and he e o e o unde s and wha language is, he e mus ine i ably be no only
language, bu some hing beyond he limi s o language i sel , no ma e wha i is o
wha i is called. Assuming ha he e is no hing beyond he bounda ies o language, i is
necessa y o ecognize ha in his case i is no longe possible o pe cei e and de ine
language based on i s ela ionship wi h wha is beyond i s bounda ies, which would mean
ha i would no longe be possible o de ine i in any way, and he e o e i would no be
possible o unde s and wha language is in gene al. In his case, language would simply be
all ha exis s, i would coincide wi h eali y and would be eali y i sel […] and, by he
way, because o he coincidence o eali y and language, his eali y would be less
illuso y, because simply he e would be no measu e o i s eali y o non- eali y. As we
ha e jus shown in he a gumen , he pos mode nis belie ha he e is no hing beyond
he bounda ies o language, and ha eali y i sel is an illusion a ising spon aneously in
he mids o language, based on he pos mode nis concep ion o how meaning is
c ea ed in he sys em o language, ine i ably leads o he conclusion ha i he e is
no hing beyond he bounda ies o language ha would p o ide a leas one ex e nal
poin o e e ence o ying o de ine he meaning o he wo d. Then we ha e o
ecognize ha language is eali y, because i is all ha exis s. Thus, ue eali y,
despi e he belie o pos mode nis s ha i is me ely a linguis ic illusion, should in his
case be ecognized as a way o desc ibing he uni e se o hings ha eally exis , ha
a e no hidden and ha canno be de ined.
paisan o, kad ji su ap ų su kalba, nes kalba i ik o ė bū ų iesiog du ski ingi
Pa adoxically, he pos mode n denial o he eali y o eali y, based on a
speci ic concep ion o how meaning is c ea ed in language, e eals i sel as
analy ically con adic o y and sel -denial.
Kalba i ik o ė
Language and des iny, in ela ion o any eali y ha exis s beyond i s bo de s, as a
con ex o pe cep ion and de ini ion b oade han language i sel , mus ine i ably
be hough o as a angible eali y […] in ac as he only eali y. The c i icism o
bo h ex eme iews o he ela ionship be ween language and eali y should gi e us
hope. We ha e o conclude ha he e y ac ha we -- al hough pe haps no
en i ely clea ly -- unde s and wha language is, as well as he o he impo an ac
ha we need i as a b idge ha connec s us, he speake s, no only wi h each
o he , bu also wi h wha sepa a es language, clea ly indica es a leas h ee
hings: i s , ha language and he eali y beyond language a e di e en om
each o he , because i hey we e, we wouldn' e en need language. Secondly, ha
language and eali y, hough di e en om each o he , a e no en i ely sepa a e,
o i hey we e en i ely sepa a e, language would no longe be use ul o us as a
b idge connec ing us o wha is beyond i . Thi dly, language, howe e ich, is always
poo e han he eali y ha su ounds i , because i i we e as ich, we would
wan o s ay inside he language and no wan o go beyond i .
Deli e ed on 17 May 2021
NAGLIS KARDELIS
Vilniaus uni e si e as
Facul y o Philosophy
Uni e si y o Vilnius g. 9/1, LT-01513 Vilnius,
Li huania This is a lis o uni e si ies in Li huania by numbe o s uden s en olled.