Review of Wittgenstein’s Language Game
Theory
FU Cai-yun
（Department of Foreign Language, Chien-shiung Institute of Technology, Taicang 215411, China）
Abstract: Considered by some to be the greatest philosopher of the 20th century, Wittgenstein is
also a master of philosophy of language. His language game theory, metaphorically, is the study of
language on the orbit of philosophy, including meaning as use theory and family resemblance
theory, and probes into the variety and practice of language use, which is of great significance to
foreign language teaching.
Key words: language game theory; meaning as use theory; family resemblance theory; foreign
language teaching
1 Introduction
“Linguistics is the study of language according to certain principles developed during this
century”(Simpson, 1979). Philosophy should be one of such principles. As a matter of fact,
language has always been the interest of philosophers; linguistics and philosophy have an
outstandingly intimate relationship. Modern linguistics comes into shape at the turn of 20th
century, which is the very time at which linguistic turn emerges in the realm of philosophy. That
may not just be a coincidence.
However, “Historically, our domestic study of language lacks philosophical thinking and
theoretical establishment. Since the Qian and Jia Reign of the Qing Dynasty, linguists have nearly
forgotten philosophy, emphasizing demonstration rather than thinking; preferring sensibility to
sense; not good at theorizing the methods that are utilized. Up to now, in the realm of linguistics,
there still exists the trend of neglecting the establishment of theories. There are few linguists who
know philosophy and can combine philosophy and linguistics in the study of language, which may
be the main reason why linguists find it hard to propose new thoughts and approaches. We can say
that our philosophers concern little about linguistics, while our linguists have less philosophical
knowledge compared with philosophers’ neglecting the knowledge of linguistics, while our
linguists have less philosophical knowledge compared with philosopher’s neglecting knowledge
of linguistics.”（许嘉璐，1999）From this point of view, linguists should attach greater importance
to the philosophy of language, for given the different starting points of linguists and philosophers,
each has his own approach to language, which is mutual-heuristic. Philosophy can provide
linguists with not only a new perspective, more importantly, a more profound thinking on
language.
Considered by some to be the greatest philosopher of the 20th century, Wittgenstein is also a
master of philosophy of language. His view on language should be invaluable resources or
1
reference points for those who study language. However, it seems that attentions to his opinions
on language mainly come from philosophers, rather than linguists. It is especially true to our
domestic linguists. As linguistic turn of philosophy is the main task of philosophy in the past
decades, philosophical turninglanguage. This paper consists of four parts: the first part is the the
background and birdview of language games theory, the second one is its main properties , the
third one its representative theories, and at last, this paper, based on the conclusion of language
game theory, put forward its proposal on domestic study of language.
2 Background and birdview on language game theory
Language is always Wittgenstein’s main concern both in his earlier and later philosophy. In
fact, it is his attitudes towards language (exactly speaking, ordinary language) that distinguish his
later philosophy from the earlier one.
In his earlier representative works A Treatise on Philosophical Logic, Wittgenstein holds that
language possesses an underlying logical structure, “only the proposition has sense; only in the
context of a proposition has a name meaning”(A Treatise on Philosophical Logic,3.3). He is full of
skepticism towards ordinary language, and attempts to establish an idealized artificial language.
However, in his observation and analysis of how children learn their native language, he points out
that though there exists for each word a corresponding idea, if we think of words out of context, it
is impossible to uphold this view. The words “A black cat came upon the scene” is understood
differently if one thinks of it as telling a story, a reporting of an event, or a forming of a
hypothesis.
Wittgenstein’s point is that it is only through a knowledge of the context that a statement is
made in can we understand it. There is no logical structure which we can rely on to give us
meaning, so we must look at the way language is used in everyday speech. It is wrong for us to
observe an idealized language opposite to ordinary language; if we do so, it seems that ordinary
language, which is completely true, can be replaced.(Wittgenstein, 转引自：穆尼茨, 1986: 322)
We can see that Wittgenstein starts to propose a radically different view on language, and in his
later works PI (Philosophical Investigations) he introduces the key concept of language games.
At the beginning of the PI, Wittgenstein quotes Augustine’s Confessions to describe a certain
model of learning language. According to this model, a person learns language by “ostensive
definition” of the term. This is one traditional outlook on language, which gives us a particular
picture of the essence of human language”, based on the idea that “individual words in language
name objects” and that “sentences are combination of such names”. Then Wittgenstein introduces
us another outlook on language in PI( 2) (PI (2) stands for the second section of Philosophical
Investigations) :
“…let us imagine a language…The language is meant to serve for communication between a
builder A and an assistant B. A is building with buildstones; there are blocks, pillars, slabs, and
beams. B has to pass the stone in the order in which A needs them. For this purpose they use a
language consisting of the words‘block’,‘pillar’,‘slab’,‘beam’. A calls them out, B brings the
stone—which has learnt to bring at such-and-such a call—conceive of these as a complete
primitive language.”
Now we can see that Wittgenstein on longer considers words and sentences as the expression
and representation of objects. Instead, he takes them as an act with certain rules, which is similar
to a game. The builders’ language game illustrates that part of the Augustian picture of language
might be correct, but is strictly limited. In PI (7) he introduces the term “language game”.
“In the practice of the use of language(2) (the language mentioned in the second section), one
2
party calls out the words, the other acts on them…I shall call the whole(of language), consisting of
language and the actions into which it is woven, the ‘language games’. We can also think of the
whole process of using words in language (2) as one of those games by means of which children
learn their native language. I will call these games‘language games’… ”
In In PI (23) Wittgenstein says “Here the term ‘language games’is meant to bring into
prominence of the fact that the ‘speaking’ of language is part of an activity, or part of form of
life. ”
From what are quoted above, we can sense that the term “language games” has several
related meanings. In fact, some scholars have started to study the family of related meanings. Here
this paper won’t study it further. Instead, what it wants to point is:
3 Main properties of language games theory
First, Wittgenstein’s choice of the term “games” to describe the different contexts in which
language is used is one of many metaphors which he employs. This notion is based on the over-all
analogy between languages and game, assuming that we have a clearer perception of what games
are. Just as one cannot give a final and essential definition of “games”, so we cannot find “what is
common to all these activities and what makes them into language or part of language” (PI (65)).
Inspired by this thought , Wittgenstein creates a new term “family resemblance”(which will be
discussed in the paper).
Second, Wittgenstein points out that language games are a part of a broader context termed
by himself—form of life. “…the ‘speaking’of language is part of an acitivity, or part of form of
life” (PI (23)). So, ordinary or daily life is the home of language. Language is no longer a logical
system vis-a-vis the experimental world; language and experience belong to the same world, and
both of them are parts of ordinary life.
Third, the concept of language games points at the rule-governed character of language. This
points out the conventional nature of this sort of human activity, rather than entail strict and
definite systems for everyday and each language game. This suggests that Wittgenstein also
emphasizes the nature of conventionality of language.
At last, language games are diverse. In PI (23) Wittgenstein speaks of the multiplicity of
language games, which results from various forms of life:
“Give orders, and obeying them;
Describing the appearance of an object, or giving its measurement;
…
Asking, thanking, cursing, greeting, praying…”
In summary, Wittgenstein uses the term “language games” to mean: language is made up of
various “games” which have their own rules; the “speaking” of language is part of an act or part of
form of life. To understand the meaning of words, one not only needs to know the conventional
usage of them but also to pay attention to their pragmatic use. Various languages are just similar to
each other. Based on these thoughts, Wittgenstein puts forward the famous theories: “meaning as
use” theory and “family resemblance”, which are to be discussed in the next part.
4 Representative ideas in language games theory
（1）Meaning as use theory
Traditional theories of meaning in the history of philosophy were intent on pointing to
something exterior to the proposition which endows it with sense. As early as 1933, in his works
The Blue Book, Wittgenstein made great effort to challenge these dogmas: “if we had to name
anything which is the life of the sign, we should have to say that it was its use”(The Blue Book,
3
4). In PI (43), he expresses this idea more clearly. “For a large class of cases—though not for
all—in which we employ the word ‘meaning’ it can be defined as thus: the meaning of a word is
its use in the language”. This statement is a sign of change from a conception of meaning as
representation to a view which looks to ‘use’ as the hinge of the investigation. “Don’t think but
look!( PI (66))” is Wittgenstein’s new perspective to investigate meaning. Not to prescribe the
usage of words, just as prescriptive linguists do; but to describe the using of them in particular
cases, which seems to have the same studying orientation with descriptive linguists. In fact, more
than just describing the language use, in the investigation of meaning, Wittgenstein emphasizes a
lot the speaker’s/ writer’s intention. “If the intention were removed from language, the whole
usefullness of language would collapse ”(Wittgenstein, 转引自：江怡, 1998: 23). From this point
of view, intention is the base of the usefulness of language and so should be fundamental to
interpret the meaning of words and sentences. Does “box” mean “fight” or “a cardboard
receptacle”? Is it an instruction to “box something up ” or “begin to fight”? All of these depend on
what the speaker/writer intends to mean.
That is valuable and heuristic. Many semanticists have adopted this approach. Cognitive
semanticists agree that, besides the conventional meaning, words have the pragmatic meaning; in
the process of studying the pragmatic meaning, the speaker’s/ writer’s intention can not be exempt
from consideration.
（2）Family resemblance theory
Many pre-Wittgenstein thinkers (such as Nietzche, James, etc.) have rejected traditional
philosopher’s “craving for generality”. They hold that we cannot find something which all things
have in common, but only some aspect of one thing is similar to that of another thing, each with
its own particularity. However, it is not until Wittgenstein expresses clearly the concept of “family
resemblance” that “family resemblance” becomes well-known to scholars. In PI (23), Wittgenstein
presents us an astonishing list of “regular” language games (which inculdes, e.g. Giving orders
and obeying them; Reporting an event; and so on), and Wittgenstein, looking without thinking,
couldnot find something which all games have in common and concludes that all the members of
the extension “games” share only a family resemblance, just as you share your father’s nose, but
your mother’s eyes, and your uncle’s chin. Likewise, presumably, for language games, one
language game is like each of two others, which are themselves basically unlike.
Whether Wittgenstein, using the concept of “family resemblance”, has solved the
philosophical problem of “generality”, we will leave it to be studied by philosophers. But it is no
doubt that this concept has blazed a new and heuristic way in thinking, along which many
scholars, including philosophers and linguists, have studied and obtained great achievements. For
instance, the term “family resemblance” per se has been adopted into cognitive linguistics; still in
cognitive linguistics, category theory and prototype theory also benefit from this theory. Our
domestic scholar Yuan Yulin (袁毓林), in his study of the category of word class (1998), also used
this theory.
（3）others
In addition to “meaning as use” theory and “family resemblance” theory, Wittgenstein also
puts forward other opinions on languages, such as “on private language argument”, “natural
understanding vs sufficient analysis” etc. Due to the limited knowledge of the author, this paper
will not discuss them. However, compared with the above two theories (meaning as use theory and
family resemblance theory), other opinions of Wittgenstein on language have drawn less attention
of linguists both at home and abroad. This is maybe partly because of the former persist neglect of
4
Wittgenstein by linguists; partly because some of his other statements on language are more
difficult to understand. Yet they carry more interest for his followers.
5 Conclusion
“Wittgenstein is the first person who perceives the world by systematically studying
language. In this sense, he can be considered as the founder of philosopher of language”(陈嘉映，
2003:156). Wittgenstein’s thoughts on language have many essences for language teaching. His
language games theory (including many sub-theories, such as “meaning as use” “family
resemblance” etc.) , though studying language in the orbit round philosophy, has greatly
influenced many other world-famous linguists, and so have great academic value. In pragmatic
sense, language games theory is heuristic to second language learning and teaching. In this theory,
Wittgenstein lets us think of “patty-cake, patty cake, baker’s man”, or think of “this little piggy
went to the market, this little piggy…” What is distinctive about such children’s games is that they
can be learned without the children knowing the words’ meaning. The words can be memorized
along with specific actions corresponding to the words. That is the case of children learning their
native languages. For most people, who find it hard to learn well a second language, they should
learn from children and acquire second language competence through putting words and sentences
into practice. Second language teaching should involve more and more pragmatic settings and
situations.
Reference：
[1] SIMPSON J M Y.A First Course in Linguistics[M]. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press,1979.
[2] 许嘉璐.语言哲学对话·序[M].于根元等著.北京:语文出版社,1999.
[3] WITTGENSTEIN L.The Blue and Brown Books.转引自 M K 穆尼茨.当代分析哲学[M].上海:复旦大学出版
社,1986.
[4] WITTGENSTEIN L.Philosophical Remarks.转引自江怡.维特根斯坦——一种后哲学文化[M].北京:社科文献出版
社,1998.
[5] 陈嘉映.语言哲学[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2003.
维特根斯坦语言游戏说综述
付彩云
（健雄职业技术学院 外语系，江苏 太仓 215411）
摘
要：语言哲学大师维特根斯坦是 20 世纪最伟大的哲学家，他在哲学轨道上探讨语言，提出了著名的语
言游戏说。该学说通过其代表性理论——意义即使用理论，家族相似性理论——全面探讨了语言运用的实践性和
多样性，对外语教学有着深刻的启示和广泛的意义。
关键词：语言游戏说；意义即使用理论；家族相似性理论；外语教学
中图分类号：H14
文献标识码：A
5
作者简介：付彩云（1981-）， 女， 河南商丘人，健雄职业技术学院外语系教师，研究方向为系统功能语言学与
外语教学。
6