SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Kilikya Felsefe Dergisi / 2026 / Sayı: 2

THE DISCIPLINARY EMERGENCE OF PHILOSOPHY OF LANGUAGE FROM PHILOSOPHY: A SYSTEMATIC -CONCEPTUAL REVIEW FROM 1879 TO THE PRESENT

DİL FELSEFESİNİN FELSEFEDEN AYRILIŞI VE DİSİPLİNLEŞME SÜRECİ: 1879'DAN GÜNÜMÜZE SİSTEMATİK-KAVRAMSAL BİR TARAMA

Fatih Torun(Kafkas Üniversitesi)0000-0002-2860-0863
Pages
279–307
Publication Date
2026-10-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

While the Bhartṛhari tradition offers a distinctive path of dialogue with the analytic tradition in India, Turkish reception unfolds in three relatively passive waves (1949–1980, 1980–2000, 2000-present).

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Although questions concerning language have been discussed within philosophy since antiquity, philosophy of language began to take shape as an independent sub-discipline with the publication of Frege's Begriffsschrift in 1879.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study maps the disciplinary dynamics of the analytic tradition in philosophy of language (the Frege-Russell-Wittgenstein-Quine-Kripke line) from 1879 to the present through a systematic-conceptual review.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:While the Bhartṛhari tradition offers a distinctive path of dialogue with the analytic tradition in India, Turkish reception unfolds in three relatively passive waves (1949–1980, 1980–2000, 2000-present).
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:2011 Verileri
⚙️Variables:dil felsefesi · analitik felsefe · disiplinleşme

Abstract

Although questions concerning language have been discussed within philosophy since antiquity, philosophy of language began to take shape as an independent sub-discipline with the publication of Frege's Begriffsschrift in 1879. The roughly one-and-a-half-century trajectory of this disciplinary formation has not yet been mapped comprehensively. This study maps the disciplinary dynamics of the analytic tradition in philosophy of language (the Frege-Russell-Wittgenstein-Quine-Kripke line) from 1879 to the present through a systematic-conceptual review. It proposes and applies a PRISMA-based historical-thematic review protocol (TT-PRISMA-PoL). Two major international indexes (Web of Science Core Collection and Scopus) and additional regional databases were searched in English, German, Turkish, and Hindi using keyword queries; 79,056 raw records were obtained from the two international indexes prior to deduplication. The findings bring together seven historical periods (Emergence, Logical Positivism, Ordinary Language, Naturalist, Externalist-Pragmatist, Contemporary, and Turkey-axis reception) and eight thematic clusters (meaning, reference, truth conditions, logical form, speech acts, modality, translation-indeterminacy, and conceptual engineering). Approximately two-thirds of all publications belong to the post-2011 period, while the conceptual engineering literature has more than doubled since 2018, reaching 207 records in 2025. The Turkish-language share remains around 0.2% in both indexes, and the dialogue between Turkish and Indian philosophy of language is consistently confirmed as near-zero across two independent databases. While the Bhartṛhari tradition offers a distinctive path of dialogue with the analytic tradition in India, Turkish reception unfolds in three relatively passive waves (1949–1980, 1980–2000, 2000-present).

Özet

Dil felsefesi, felsefe içinde antik dönemden beri tartışılan bir konu olmakla birlikte, Frege'nin 1879 tarihli Begriffsschrift adlı eseriyle bağımsız bir alt-disiplin olarak şekillenmeye başlamıştır. Yaklaşık bir buçuk yüzyıllık bu disiplinleşme sürecinin haritası bugüne dek bütüncül biçimde çıkarılmamıştır. Bu çalışma, analitik dil felsefesi geleneğinin (Frege-Russell-Wittgenstein-Quine-Kripke çizgisi) 1879'dan günümüze uzanan disiplinleşme dinamiklerini sistematik-kavramsal bir tarama yoluyla haritalamayı amaçlamaktadır. Yöntem olarak PRISMA temelli bir tarihsel-tematik tarama protokolü (TT-PRISMA-PoL) önerilmiş ve uygulanmıştır. İki uluslararası indeks (WoS Core Collection ve Scopus) ile on bir farklı veri tabanı İngilizce, Almanca, Türkçe ve Hintçe sorgularla taranmış; iki uluslararası indeksten yineleme öncesi 79.056 ham kayıt elde edilmiştir. Bulgular, yedi tarihsel dönem (Doğuş, Mantıksal Pozitivizm, Sıradan Dil, Naturalist, Externalist-Pragmatist, Çağdaş ve Türkiye eksenli alımlama dönemleri) ile sekiz tematik kümeyi (anlam, gönderme, doğruluk koşulu, mantıksal form, söz edimi, modallik, çeviri-belirsizlik, kavramsal mühendislik) birlikte değerlendirmektedir. Yayınların yaklaşık üçte ikisinin 2011 sonrasına ait olduğu, 2018 sonrasında kavramsal mühendislik ekseninde yıllık yayın sayısının iki katından fazla artarak 2025'te 207'ye ulaştığı tespit edilmiştir. Türkçe yayın oranı her iki uluslararası indekste %0,2 düzeyindedir. Türkiye-Hindistan dil felsefesi diyaloğu ise iki bağımsız veri tabanında sıfıra yakın değerlerle doğrulanmaktadır. Bhartṛhari geleneğinin analitik gelenekle diyaloğu Hindistan'da özgün bir yol sunarken, Türkiye'deki üç dalgalı alımlama (1949–1980, 1980–2000, 2000-bugün) görece pasif bir konum sergilemektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Torun, F. (2026). THE DISCIPLINARY EMERGENCE OF PHILOSOPHY OF LANGUAGE FROM PHILOSOPHY: A SYSTEMATIC -CONCEPTUAL REVIEW FROM 1879 TO THE PRESENT. Kilikya Felsefe Dergisi, Sayı: 2, 279–307. https://doi.org/10.67011/kilikya.1957291

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (79)

  1. Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2004). Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  2. Akarsu, B. (1998). Dil-Kültür Bağlantısı. İstanbul: Remzi Kitabevi.
  3. Aksu-Koç, A, and Slobin. D. (1986). “A Psychological Account of the Development and Use of Evidentials in Turkish.” In Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, edited by Wallace Chafe and Johanna Nichols, 159–167. Norwood, NJ: Ablex,.
  4. Alackapally, S. (2002). Being and Meaning: Reality and Language in Bhartrhari and Heidegger. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
  5. Altınörs, A. (2001). Anlam, Doğrulama ve Edimsellik. İstanbul: Alfa Yayınları.
  6. Altınörs, A. (2003). Dil Felsefesine Giriş. İstanbul: İnkılap Kitabevi.
  7. Altınörs, A. (Ed.). (2008). Analitik Felsefe. İstanbul: Say Yayınları.
  8. Altuğ, T. (2001). Dile Gelen Felsefe. İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
  9. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  10. Ayer, A. J. (1936). Language, Truth and Logic. London: Victor Gollancz.
  11. Beaney, M. (Ed.). (2013). The Oxford Handbook of the History of Analytic Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  12. Becher, T., & Trowler, P. R. (2001). Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Cultures of Disciplines. 2nd ed. Buckingham: Open University Press.
  13. Bhattacharyya, S. (Ed.). (2004). Word and Sentence: Two Perspectives — Bhartrhari and Wittgenstein. New Delhi: Sahitya Akademi.
  14. Bourget, D, and David J. C. (2023). “Philosophers on Philosophy: The 2020 PhilPapers Survey.” Philosophers’ Imprint 23, no. 11: 1–53.
  15. Brandom, R. (1994). Making It Explicit: Reasoning, Representing, and Discursive Commitment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  16. Cappelen, H. (2018). Fixing Language: An Essay on Conceptual Engineering. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  17. Carnap, R. (1928). Der logische Aufbau der Welt. Berlin: Weltkreis-Verlag.
  18. Carnap, R. (1934). Logische Syntax der Sprache. Vienna: Springer.
  19. Chalmers, D. J. “Verbal Disputes.” Philosophical Review 120, no. 4 (2011): 515–566.
  20. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  21. Csató, É. Á. (2000). “Turkish MIŞ- and IMIŞ-Items: Dimensions of a Functional Analysis.” In Evidentials: Turkic, Iranian and Neighbouring Languages, edited by Lars Johanson and Bo Utas, 29–43. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  22. Davidson, D. “Truth and Meaning.” Synthese 17 (1967): 304–323.
  23. Davidson, D. (1984). Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  24. Denkel, A. (1981). Yönletim: Dil Felsefesinde Bir Konu. İstanbul: Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
  25. Dummett, M. (1993). Origins of Analytical Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  26. Frege, G. (1879). Begriffsschrift, eine der arithmetischen nachgebildete Formelsprache des reinen Denkens. Halle: Verlag von Louis Nebert.
  27. Frege, G. (1884). Die Grundlagen der Arithmetik: Eine logisch-mathematische Untersuchung über den Begriff der Zahl. Breslau: Wilhelm Koebner.
  28. Frege, G. “Über Sinn und Bedeutung.” Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik 100 (1892): 25–50.
  29. Ganguli, H. K. (1963). Philosophy of Logical Construction: An Examination of Logical Atomism and Logical Positivism in the Light of the Philosophies of Bhartrhari, Dharmakirti and Prajnakaragupta. Calcutta: Sanskrit Pustak Bhandar.
  30. Glock, H.-J. (2008). What Is Analytic Philosophy? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  31. Gökberk, M. “Felsefe Bakımından Dil.” İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Türk Dili ve Edebiyatı Dergisi 3, no. 1-2 (1949): 177–191.
  32. Gözkân, B. “Frege ve Aritmetiğin Temelleri.” In Gottlob Frege, Aritmetiğin Temelleri, translated by Başak Gözkan, 13–73. İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 2008.
  33. Grice, H. P. “Meaning.” Philosophical Review 66, no. 3 (1957): 377–388.
  34. Horwich, P. (1990). Truth. Oxford: Blackwell.
  35. İnan, İ. (2013). Dil Felsefesi. Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi Açıköğretim Fakültesi Yayınları.
  36. Kaplan, D. “Demonstratives.” In Themes from Kaplan, edited by Joseph Almog, John Perry, and Howard Wettstein, 481–563. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.
  37. Kripke, S. (1980). Naming and Necessity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  38. Lepore, E., & Stojnić, U. (Eds.). (2024). The Oxford Handbook of Contemporary Philosophy of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  39. Lewis, D. (1973). Counterfactuals. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  40. Lewis, D. (1986). On the Plurality of Worlds. Oxford: Blackwell.
  41. Lycan, W. G. (2008). Philosophy of Language: A Contemporary Introduction. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.
  42. Matilal, B. K. (1985). Logic, Language and Reality: Indian Philosophy and Contemporary Issues. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
  43. Matilal, B. K. (1990). The Word and the World: India’s Contribution to the Study of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  44. Matilal, B. K. 2002. “What Bhartrhari Would Have Said about Quine’s Indeterminacy Thesis.” In The Collected Essays of Bimal Krishna Matilal: Mind, Language and World, edited by Jonardon Ganeri, 333–342. Oxford: Oxford University Press,.
  45. Matilal, B. K., & Chakrabarti, A. (Eds.). (1994). Knowing from Words: Western and Indian Philosophical Analysis of Understanding and Testimony. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
  46. McDowell, J. (1994). Mind and World. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  47. Miller, A. (2007). Philosophy of Language. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.
  48. Mohanty, J. N. (1966). Gangeśa’s Theory of Truth. Santiniketan: Visva-Bharati.
  49. Mohanty, J. N. (1992). Reason and Tradition in Indian Thought. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  50. Özcan, Z. (2014). Dil Felsefesi I: Mantıkçı Paradigma. Ankara: Sentez Yayıncılık.
  51. Özcan, Z. (2016). Dil Felsefesi II. Ankara: Sentez Yayıncılık.
  52. Özcan, Z. (2018). Dil Felsefesi III: İkinci Wittgenstein’da Gramer Paradigması. Ankara: Sentez Yayıncılık.
  53. Page, M J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., et al. “The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews.” BMJ 372 (2021): n71.
  54. Patnaik, T. (1994). Sabda: A Study of Bhartrhari’s Philosophy of Language. New Delhi: D.K. Printworld.
  55. Patnaik, T. (2014). Kālaśakti: Bhartṛhari’s Philosophy of Time. New Delhi: D.K. Printworld.
  56. Plunkett, D. and Burgess A. (2013) “Conceptual Ethics I-II.” Philosophy Compass 8, no. 12: 1091–1110.
  57. Putnam, H. (1975). “The Meaning of ‘Meaning’.” In Language, Mind and Knowledge, edited by Keith Gunderson, 131–193. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press,
  58. Quine, W. V. O. (1951) “Two Dogmas of Empiricism.” Philosophical Review 60, no. 1: 20–43.
  59. Quine, W. V. O. (1960). Word and Object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  60. Quine, W. V. O. (1969). Ontological Relativity and Other Essays. New York: Columbia University Press.
  61. Rorty, R. (Ed.). (1967). The Linguistic Turn: Essays in Philosophical Method. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  62. Russell, Bertrand. (1905). “On Denoting.” Mind 14, no. 56: 479–493.
  63. Ryle, G. (1949). The Concept of Mind. London: Hutchinson.
  64. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  65. Shukla, V. M. (2021). Meaning in Bhartrhari’s Vakyapadiya. New Delhi: D.K. Printworld.
  66. Soames, S. (2003). Philosophical Analysis in the Twentieth Century. Vol. 1, The Dawn of Analysis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  67. Soames, S. (2003). Philosophical Analysis in the Twentieth Century. Vol. 2, The Age of Meaning. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  68. Soykan, Ö. N. (2002). “Wittgenstein Felsefesi: Temel Kavram ve Sorunlar.” Cogito, no. 33.
  69. Soykan, Ö. N. (2006). Wittgenstein: Yaşamı, Felsefesi, Yapıtları. İstanbul: Birey ve Toplum Yayınları.
  70. Stalnaker, R. (1999). Context and Content: Essays on Intentionality in Speech and Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  71. Strawson, P. F. (1950). “On Referring.” Mind 59, no. 235: 320–344.
  72. Tarski, A. (1933). Pojęcie prawdy w językach nauk dedukcyjnych. Warsaw: Towarzystwo Naukowe Warszawskie.
  73. Tarski, A. (1944). “The Semantic Conception of Truth and the Foundations of Semantics.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 4, no. 3: 341–376.
  74. Whitehead, A. N. (1910–1913), and Bertrand Russell. Principia Mathematica. 3 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,.
  75. Whitley, R. (1984). The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  76. Williamson, T. (2007). The Philosophy of Philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell.
  77. Wittgenstein, L. (1921). “Logisch-Philosophische Abhandlung.” Annalen der Naturphilosophie 14.
  78. Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical Investigations. Translated by G. E. M. Anscombe. Oxford: Blackwell.
  79. Csató, É. Á. (2000). “Turkish MIŞ- and IMIŞ-Items: Dimensions of a Functional Analysis.” In Evidentials: Turkic, Iranian and Neighbouring Languages, edited by Lars Johanson and Bo Utas, 29–43. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.