Two Functions of Language

Abstract

For many years scholars have debated the question of the source of meaning in language. In this article Carol Feldman advocates the view that meaning is necessarily dependent upon the communicative function of language and examines the objections,particularly those of Noam Chomsky, to this view. She argues that while Chomsky disagrees with the idea that communication is the essential function of language, he implicitly agrees that it has a function. Feldman discusses in detail Chomsky's examples of noncommunicative functions of language and maintains that each of his examples represents fundamentally communicative uses. Contrary to Chomsky, she concludes that the meaning-determining rules of language can only be understood by reference to the function of communication.