The Lure of Linguistification

Strawson’s well-known dictum identifies a classic example of what I call “linguistification.” Although I don’t think he was quite right, I do think he was on to something.1 I’ve noticed numerous cases in which philosophers have attributed to linguistic expressions properties that are actually characteristic of people in using these expressions. Language itself can be misleading in this regard. Eating utensils don’t eat, and dining rooms don’t dine. So perhaps so-called referring expressions don’t refer (in at least some cases). There are lots of other things that linguistic expressions are often said to do but generally don’t do. I will identify a variety of such things and try to explain the lure of linguistification and why it should be resisted. Think of linguistification by analogy with personification: attributing linguistic properties to nonlinguistic phenomena. For my purposes, it also includes attributing nonlinguistic properties to linguistic items, treating these properties as if they were linguistic. Linguistification is widespread. It has reached epidemic proportions and needs to be eradicated.