On the other hand, in regard to trees, an actual object out in the world we live in, there is a ton of objective information that we can fall back on pertaining to whatever language we choose and however the language we do choose is explored...semiotically?On the other hand [unlike other animal communication], humans are able to convey a variety of purposes and are able to symbolise elements of the world with words and language. This symbolism is brought upon by signs; Ferdinand de Saussure, a Swiss linguist, believed that language consisted of a signifier (symbol) and a signified (concept).
Thus the word “tree” symbolises the actual object in reality that is the tree, and in this symbol there consists the signifier: how the word is phrased or spoken which is different across various languages and the actual concept (signified) which represents the idea of a tree is.
Signifiers can generally come to the very same conclusions about whatever trees are being signified.
That is, until the discussion configures into a debate between the tree huggers and the lumber industry. What then is of significance? One side side deconstructing the other side based on which language deemed to be the most appropriate?
First trees. Now dogs.In Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, Ludwig Wittgenstein put forth a treatise on the exploration of the limits of language and thought. In this he developed his picture theory of language which stated that language paints a picture of reality. Propositions then represent reality in a certain way and this can either be true or false; for example the proposition that “there is a dog in the garden” is true if in fact there actually is a dog in the garden and is false if it is not the case.
How about this: Jim holds dog-fighting contests in his back yard out near the garden next to the oak tree where the dogs, trained to be savage beasts, battle viciously to the death. A "picture theory of language" here.