Language and Institutional Facts

LAN Mei

Philosophy of Science and Technology,University of Science and Technology of China,Hefei,230026,China

School of Foreign Languages and Cultures,Southwest University of Science and Technology,Mianyang,621000,China

[Abstract] Social facts,especially institutional facts,are based on brute facts,which is concluded by Searle as “X counts as Y in Context C”.Smith argues against the formation by claiming and proving that some institutional facts are “free-standing Ys” because some institutional facts are created based on no physical or brute facts.They both take language as a preexisting background in the construction of social reality.This research aims to argue the preliminary role of language in constructing institutional facts in terms of the symbolization and representation function of language itself.The speech act declaration creates the fact by representing it with symbols.How human beings impose status functions on specific brute facts or create the deontic powers out of no physical objects are in the same logic as how human beings impose meaning on symbols that constitute our language.

[Keywords] language;speech acts;institutional facts;deontic power

Introduction

When John Searle first built his theory of social ontology,he put forward a view of the facts in the society,namely the construction of social reality.In Searle's early speech act theory,the shaking of our larynx is making a social fact and thus social facts are physically-backed.He believes that language and the mind are natural phenomena of human beings.He takes all the institutional facts relying on physical or brute facts,and this logic is consistent with his early theory of philosophy of language and mind—biological naturalism.The institutional facts are created upon brute facts with collective intentionality,language(declaration speech acts),and status function imposition,Searle's whole system thus is biologically natural.His theory on the creation process of institutional facts “X counts as Y in context C” applies to explain how human beings create social realities.Barry Smith challenged this formula that brute facts are not the basis for constructing institutional points(2003:285).They both debate on some ontological issues and achieved a new stage in the social ontology—the free-standing Y.This is a step forward in Searle's social ontology that speech acts,especially declarations,are more fundamental in the creation of institutional facts than the natural world.Language,as speech acts,shows a more real effect during the construction of social reality.That forwarded step by Smith indicates some new clues that this world is natural is not merely because we construct the society based on the physical world as “X count as Y in context C.” In the case of “free-standing Y,” an institutional fact can be created collectively by human beings without any of the alleged“brute facts” from Searle.What indeed makes the free-standing-Y institutional facts,in which deontology means rights and obligations,has been a newly ontological question.In the fundamental place,language is the core of the construction of social reality.This paper aims to work on how language creates institutional facts as language itself is an institution created by human beings at the beginning of human civilization.

I.Social Ontology by Searle and Smith

Social ontology is about the fundamental problem of the society:how are the social realities created,to a general extent,and what is the nature of social reality(Searle,1997)?A college,a government,a title as a professor,and such are social realities.They carry quite a different feature from physical reality—human beings involved,invisible,created,revised,and abolished by symbolized language.Searle explains the institutional reality with a simple set of three fundamental concepts:collective intentionality,the ability to impose status functions on objects,and constitutive rules to create Status Functions(Searle,1997).Collective intentionality is an animal characterized ability to cooperate to achieve a goal,this exists not only among human beings but also in some other animals as the basis for social reality,and social facts are what involve collective intentionality.As long as human beings or other animals can work together,then based on collective intentionality,they can build a concept of “society.” However,human beings can impose something more profound on objects—Status Function(Searle,1997).Status Function not simply means the “tool” feature imposed on the objects;it means the ongoing rights,obligations,duties,and responsibilities that are collectively accepted or agreed upon on the imposed status.This Status Function imposition process applies to Searle's famous formula “X counts as Y in context C.” The X,an object or a person,counts as having a status Y in a context C,and Y carries certain functions in virtue of the collective acceptance or agreement of that status(Searle,1997).

Human beings create institutional facts by imposing status functions,which also constitute the institutional facts when they are collectively accepted and agreed upon.How can we make something the case by representing it in the case? Searle reemphasized the core concept of how language works in the construction of social reality.Institutional realities are created by repeatedly representing something the case by saying it is the case and applying the formula “X counts as Y in context C.” This application can never stop,and the Y can be a new X in a new institutional fact creation.All institutional facts mean status functions are assigned to certain persons or objects,and such status function ontologically means a deontic power—positive rights or power and negative obligations and duties.Deontic powers elaborate on the structure of human civilization by creating and maintaining power relations among people.“I announce you husband and wife” creates an institutional fact of a marriage,in which the husband and wife have their duties,obligations,and responsibilities to the household-they have together while enjoying the rights and benefits in marriage.The rights and,more vividly,obligations give them reasons to conduct their actions by what Searle says is deontic power—desire-independent reasons for actions(Searle,2007).These reasons override the prior desire to do something by intuition,like animals seeking food when hungry.

II.Smith’s “Free Standing Y”

Barry Smith,in a conversation with Searle,developed the theory of the construction of social reality(Smith,2003).According to Searle's formula “X counts as Y in context C,”Smith summarizes three components of Searle's social ontology:certain physical objects,certain cognitive acts or states in virtue of which such physical objects acquire certain special sorts of functions,these functions themselves,and contexts in which the given cognitive acts or states are influential(Smith,2003).Smith takes Searle’s theory correct but incomplete because,in the case of some social phenomena,there is no corresponding value for the term X.Smith takes Searle's famous example of money to reject Searle's allegedly universal formula “X counts as Y in context C,” because,in the modern situation,there is no need for any physical base for the money in one's bank account.What Searle mentioned early in his construction of social reality,“there has to be some physical realization,a brute fact—even if it is only a piece of paper or a blip on a computer disc—on which we can impose an institutional form of status function.Thus,there are no institutional facts without brute facts(Searle,1995).” Smith reanalyzes the money in the bank account,and the transaction between accounts does not rely on any physical objects,but the money concept is fulfilled during the transaction.Besides,the money concept is seen in the cases of property rights,debts,claims,obligations,and other the like relational phenomena in the social world(Smith,2003).Relational social objects can exist even in the absence of all pieces of paper and in the absence of all blips and records of any form(Smith,2003).Smith also criticized Searle's “tricky” formula does not explain works of music either.The score or note of the music does not count as the work,but they are a record of the music,which is analogous to the bank record of the money.Smith does not even agree with the performance count as the work either.Along with the cases of money,property right,and music,Smith also mentioned the fiat border of some districts in the US as his opposition to Searle's “X counts as Y in context C” that a fiat border is not dependent on any physical object as the brute fact.Smith's challenge infers a full metaphysical point of view to what Searle has been advocating—there is only one natural world.

Searle's social ontology is about the nature of the logical structure of the facts created by human beings or human-like animals,namely the social facts,institutional facts in particular rather than what Smith pointed out at the very beginning of his view on Searle’s theory—social objects.Obviously,in Searle‘s theory,objects and reality or facts are very different;objects can be categorized as social and non-social on Smith’s account.As a result,there are two categories of objects.However,in Searle‘s social facts or institutional facts,there is only one object,but with two levels of facts—epistemologically natural and ontologically social.A piece of paper is physically a piece of paper consisting of atoms as a natural fact and also a 20-dollar bill as a social fact.A piece of paper,this object,can be constructed as a 20-dollar bill in the US.This is the base of Searle‘s theory—naturalism:there is only one world,and this is not extensional.An object is taken as a social fact because it’s imposed with certain status functions with a collective recognition or acceptance in the context where this object exists,in which the status function is not the original function of the object according to its physical nature.The collectively accepted status function is what makes it social.

What they argue most is the formula “X counts as Y in context C”.Smith pointed out that certain cases have what he put as “free-standing Y terms” where there is only status function but no physical object.Some institutional facts have the status function imposed by collective intentionality but do not need any physical base as the X in Searle‘s formula.Money in today’s world is a vivid example that does not need to be paper bills or metal coinage but still functions as money with its functions of medium of exchange,store of value,and measure of value.A company has certain duties and rights with the location of the office,the rooms,tables,and computers,or even the stockholders and the corporate representatives,but the company itself does not have to be a physical object.Searle highly recognizes what Smith points and he grants Smith‘s view:there is indeed a “count as Y” but there is no X,which counts as Y(Smith,2003).You can easily imagine a society that has money without having any currency at all(In China,payments are widely and simply made by smartphone via scanning QR code).Going back to the case of money,Searle revised his analysis on money,which is his favorite example of the formula “X counts as Y” where he recognizes that with the development of technology transactions between accounts,paper bills or metal coins are not necessary for the conception of money.All we need to have money is a system of recorded numerical values whereby each person has assigned to him or her a numerical figure,which tells at any given point the amount of money they have,and they can then use this money to buy things by altering their numerical value(Searle,2006).People can also redeem money in cash from the numerical figures in the account they have,but the currency is not essential to the existence or functioning of money(Searle,2006).Then,we have to rethink the social ontology of money;what gives it the account of money while it does not need any physical base? What is it based on? Money is a status function,a matter of deontic power that one has to conduct the function of money—buying merchandise,paying debts,and storing it in the account as the treasure.Anyone who has money has such powers.In such cases,no currency(a paper bill or metal coin)is involved.The former physical bearer of such power used to be the currency in the case of money,but now the bearer of the power is the transactions and numerical changes in the account that symbolizes the amount of money.This deontic power arises from institutional facts and also exists as a constitutive rule in the creation of institutional facts.People collectively accept the power in virtue of the institutional status that they impose on it.This is a big step forward in developing the theory of social ontology that human creates social facts and institutional facts are under the development of technology,which in turn,is another big proof of Searle’s standing point—naturalism.

III.Questions and My Solutions

Searle and Smith‘s debate focus on the logical structure of the social facts:whether there is one object both natural and social or two categories of objects,one natural and the other social;whether there needs to be a physical object as the brute fact X;whether the context C works to cultivate Y.Searle and Smith‘s debate achieves something meaningful to the construction of social reality that the most important process during the construction is the imposition of status function.The imposition of status function by human beings takes language for granted.What I want to make clear is if there is not necessarily an X as a base,then how Y is constructed? How is the status function imposed on Y? If it is,what deontic power does it implies,and what elements constitute institutional facts constitute in language as well?

Searle repeats his well-known naturalism that language is a natural development from biological intentionality and language itself is biologically natural as well.Language represents the state of affairs in the natural world and creates institutional facts.Language is the presupposition of the existence of other social institutions.Language itself is an institution,and language evolution development is the process of contractual and institutional facts construction.Why can language be the presupposition of the institution while the language itself is an institution as well? Searle describes the logical structure of society using three concepts:collective intentionality,the assignment of status function,and constitutive rules and procedures(Searle,2006).

Language represents the external world and it connects our mind with the external world,but not only this,it represents our mind as well.We can either say or write “It is snowing” to represent a current state of affairs in the external world,and we either say or write “I feel blue to see it’s snowing” to represent a subjective feeling.Furthermore,language can represent not only what is the case but also what was the case,what the case will be,and what they would like to be the case.“X counts as Y in context C” is originally an elaboration of the language system.Uttering such and such sounds counts as sentences,sentences as a speech act,and speech acts as making promises.Likewise,writing down such and such symbols counts as an explicit contract of expressing a semantic meaning of the representation of the external world,internal mind,or even the representation of both(declarations).When we create something ontologically subjective but epistemologically objective,we think differently from other animals that we need to represent what we think with symbols or sounds or whatever we can to make it collectively accepted or recognized.Two examples go as follows.I play a ball game with my dog,and he gets the ball as I throw it to him.I score each catch one point.It turns out that my dog has no idea how many points he gets.When I play a ball game with my 6-year-old son,he gets the ball as I throw it to him.I score each catch one point.It turns out that my son knows clearly that his catch adds the points I score him.In this case,he has a full understanding of the “X counts as Y in context C” that each catch counts as 1 point in the context of the ball game he plays with me.The difference in the above two examples tells us human beings create institutional reality while other animals cannot.The points my son sees in the ball game come from each of his physical movements of catching the ball.He can see two levels of the facts—catching the ball and getting the score while my dog can only have the capacity to perceive the sheer physical facts that he catches the ball.The score is not physically but institutional as an agreement between my son and me while we are playing the ball game.In such a case,language(whatever symbols we employ to represent the facts)helps to build our minds at the very beginning of our perception and continues to construct some possible reality by helping us make strategies and plans.

Language has syntax in its grammar,which iterate some words and sentence patterns to express different meanings in a different context.Institutional facts are an iteration of the formula “X counts as Y in context C” or “free-standing Y in context C,” which develop into a series of interlocking institutional facts,as Y can be another “X2” in a new context C2,this development goes upward indefinitely and expands.The language gets complexity when the grammar tends to be more detailed and complicated.Besides,the structure of society gets more logical and well organized when there are more institutions constructed.Language‘s complexity is in virtue of how civilized the society where the language is prevailing.Language is a constitutive rule in the construction of institutional facts;reversely,language evolves and develops in a more institutionalized community.Language,or we say,the representation of what the capacity of language does infect our recognition or perception of a brute or physical fact is also processed as the recognition or perception of an institutional fact.Gaining points by catching the ball is a linguistically communicated fact between two human beings,and my son acquires that very quickly while my dog has no idea about the points due to his lack of the capacity for language.Therefore,human beings create institutional facts with language capacity,which helps human beings to use symbols—language in a broad sense to impose status and function on objects,people,behavior,or even nothing physical.

We perceive things as they are both in virtue of their physical features and institutional facts.The ball game mentioned above is only between my son and me.The status of an institutional fact must be collectively accepted and then can perform its functions.Language works to let the institutional facts be known and recognized widely by the public.A room in a university can be a classroom for classes or an office or a meeting room for meetings or lectures and talks.The function of the room depends on what purpose people have when they build and decorate it.Then such and such status functions are also matters of deontic powers.A classroom is a place for having classes,while an office is a private space for a professor or administrative to work in.Such status functions exist with their deontic power—rights and duties,responsibilities and obligations.No animals can recognize such deontic power because they don't have language—a linguistic system of symbols to represent something they wish to have over the brute form.A room for an animal is simply a space where they can get in from the door,and in such space,they can walk,play and sleep.But they have no idea about having a class in a classroom or having a meeting in a meeting room or working in a private office.As a result,they do not know the rules they should obey when they get into a classroom,a meeting room,or an office.They do not have such deontology.A leading dog is trained to recognize a classroom and have the capacity to lead a blind man to the exact room he needs to go,but the dog is just taught to respond rather than to have a full understanding of what a “classroom” is.By having languages,human beings acquire the existence of anything of their two-level facts by the featured linguistic institution.

IV.Conclusion

There are full of facts and realities in this world;we perceive and acquaintance those in virtue of our capacity of having a mind that perceives.Human beings are different from other animals,which embodies the ability to create facts that are ontologically subjective but epistemologically objective.These constructed facts,institutional facts,in particular,have language as a constitutive part that represents something the case by saying it is the case.The language itself is an institution that carries the basic concepts of a Searlean theory of institutional facts—collective intentionality,status function assignment,and constitutive rule.Language and institutional facts together advance each other and construct human civilization.