Talk:Philosophy of language

message: The theorists section is, as of now, very confused. It does list some theorists, but most entries seem to be about theories, which is something else. I don't want to restructure it myself, since I'm unsure of what it was intended for in the first place -- theories or theorists. Nonetheless, it can't be left as it is, as its present state doesn't make any sense. -- Miai
: Fair enough. Done and done. Lucidish
General Comment: A very good text, thanks to all contributors. This is to my opinion how a good entry should be. One critic: in the section about formal approaches it says:"While most philosophers, including Frege, Alfred Tarski and Rudolf Carnap, have been more or less skeptical about formalizing natural languages,..." This should be substantiated with sources.Heiko242 (talk) 07:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incoherence 

message: In the Philosophy of language#Early Modern period, there is a problematic statement: "Language began to play a central role in Western philosophy in the late 19th century, especially with Port Royal in France..." The Logic of Port-Royal was first published in 1662, whereas in the 19th century there was no Port-Royal at all. --Sokoljan (talk) 00:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early Modern period 

message: The article looks like it is in pretty bad shape because "philosophy of language" is defined very broadly. The article should be limited to analytic philosophy.  Is there any published precedent for including continental philosophy in an overview of the philosophy of language? It seems like this article includes a variety of language related topics in philosophy instead of focusing on "philosophy of language" as its conventionally defined. Conventional philosophy of language is clearly given too little attention here. Wittgenstein is only mentioned twice and the Tractatus isn't mentioned at all. I think this article should look much more like the IEP article. 
Is anyone opposed to refocusing this article? Are there published sources that justify the broad definition of philosophy of language used here?--Bkwillwm (talk) 18:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the large section on continental philosophy, which was just talking about various parts of that tradition that involve happen to involve language.  - car chasm (talk) 14:48, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs an overhaul 

message: Not a single quote from Panini, Pingala, Kumarila Bhatta, Jaimini, Murari, Prabhakara &c. Not even mention of theory of Sphota, Shabda Advaita, Shabda dvaita e.t.c.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pratpandey13 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where are Indian and Eastern 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Philosophy of language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://bib.irb.hr/datoteka/446878.rec_PUPOVAC.PDF
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130618031552/http://internalism.googlegroups.com/web/Putnam%20-%20The%20meaning%20of%20%27meaning%27.pdf?gda=twdJY1oAAABFSTngQf24Sy1RD7yNn1iVgy3Odg0ZctAT1N_Bh2qhdGG1qiJ7UbTIup-M2XPURDQe1sJTwbuelxnpaL6JzH4yeFMfiRQRvg6UTOJgQe0faGtRc9Sp7hcxNJ_gjwZr8bQ to http://internalism.googlegroups.com/web/Putnam%20-%20The%20meaning%20of%20%27meaning%27.pdf?gda=twdJY1oAAABFSTngQf24Sy1RD7yNn1iVgy3Odg0ZctAT1N_Bh2qhdGG1qiJ7UbTIup-M2XPURDQe1sJTwbuelxnpaL6JzH4yeFMfiRQRvg6UTOJgQe0faGtRc9Sp7hcxNJ_gjwZr8bQ
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060424165706/http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~jasoncs/routledge.pdf to http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~jasoncs/routledge.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:49, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified