For example, the Inuit Indians are said to have many more words for snow than we have, so when they see what we call 'snow' they see something different than English speakers do. Whorfians wonder whether you and I can break free of the grip that English has upon our minds. In our textbook, Steven Pinker argues that the Whorfians are mistaken. Our language does have grammatical rules. An appeal to rules in the course of discussing the regularities to be found in a natural language is as irrelevant as an appeal to the laws of Massachusetts while discussing the laws of motion.
Philosophers of language are interested also in the problem of machine language.
Instead, the problem is whether such a machine, if built, would properly be said to mean something by the sentences it puts out. Our course will be consider arguments on both sides of this controversial issue. Some experimenters claim to have taught a chimp to use and understand combinations of words the animal has not previously encountered and that this fact is a nail in the coffin of those who don't believe animals possess real language. Objecting to this line of reasoning, the critics complain that these same experimenters have misinterpreted the evidence and that upon closer examination the experimenters have committed the Walt Disney Fallacy, the fallacy of projecting complex mental beliefs, intentions, and attitudes to animals when in fact the animals don't really have them. Philosophers of language point out that it's helpful to look at traditional philosophical problems in a new way, through an analysis of the language used in stating those problems.