The present thesis combines philosophical and linguistic analysis of the concept of language to compare the ideas of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s later period and the foundational ideas of cognitive linguistics. The notion of family resemblances is taken as a starting point of the comparison, since it was first introduced by Wittgenstein and then used by Eleanor Rosch in the beginning of the development of cognitive linguistics. The later Wittgenstein’s philosophy of language is analyzed through the development and transformation of his concepts from the early period to the later. Seven most important ideas of his later period are identified and explained with the aim of properly understanding his philosophy of language. Likewise, a general overview of cognitive linguistics is presented. Different definitions are combined with the description of the development of the field from its beginnings to present a coherent picture. Much emphasis is put on the early experiments in this field, i.e., that of Paul Kay, Brent Berlin, and Eleanor Rosch, which helps identify the foundations or the most basic ideas and principles of cognitive linguistics and its conceptualization of language. Categorization as a process is put into focus because it presents and ideal ground for the comparison of the two views of language – Wittgenstein’s and that of cognitive linguistics. The last section examines five main clashing points between the two and presents their opposing views with the aim of analyzing similarities and differences. With the help of the analysis of meaning and categorization as philosophical and cognitive objects, the thesis tries to answer the question of how Wittgenstein would have reacted to the concept of language as presented by cognitive linguistics. The research and conclusions confirm the initial hypothesis that despite seeming similar at first and both using the concept of family resemblances, the later Wittgenstein’s conceptualization of language and that of cognitive linguistics are completely different and present opposing views.
|