Language and Thought

[gubba]

G'day folks,

 

Encouraged by a single voice I'm opening a new thread on language by asking whether we can form a consensus towards some workable definitions of this(these?) concept(s). As the quote from Wikipedia notes, LOL, this should leave the field wide open!

 

 

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

As with any complex, emergent concept, language is somewhat resistant to definition. It consists of representations and some manner of grammar. Many languages use gestures, sounds, pictures, or words, and as sets of symbols, aim at communicating concepts, ideas, meanings, and thoughts, though the problem of linguistic vagueness often rears its head when we try to distinguish between these aspects.

 

Not too prescriptive by any means I'd say. My Collins English Dictionary 4th edition 1998, has a go at being more authoritative with its first two entries:

1. a system for the expression of thoughts, feelings, etc. by the use of spoken sounds or conventional symbols

2. the faculty for the use of such systems, which is a distinguishing characteristic of manas compared with other animals

 

As good a start as any perhaps, but how best can we clarify our usage of the term? Should we basically rely on recursive, contextual usage, or should we nearly always attempt a suitable sub-definition? I favour the later, pedantic as I can be.

 

Bumab suggested we might also explore the interplay or influence of "language" on our thought processes (my paraphrase). Now that's a little chestnut I've struggled with before and it calls for some clarity of expression! cheers gubba

[bumab]

Those two definitions seem to be saying that language is simply a symbolic representation of thought- but since they leave open the definition of symbols and thoughts, it's still fuzzy and indeterminite.

 

How about I make this strong statement:

"Language is a manifestation of a universal thought process, equivalent in scope and subject to all humans, but with different symbols used in different settings to better cope with the particular environment."

 

Rip that one apart- I know there are problems with it, but it seems like a more focused way to start- making the equation have a single variable (symbols) rather then two (thoughts and symbols), if you will. Is the human "thought language" universal, and if not, how does that manifest itself in language, or how has language influnced those differences?

[pgrmdave]

I would think that language must have the following characteristics:

1 - be able to convey ideas - the main purpose of a language

 

2 - be reproducable - without being reproducable, no two things could communicate

 

3 - be purposeful - be created with reason, i.e. light, while displaying the first two characteristics, is not created with the purpose of communication

 

There may be more, or this may be too inclusive, but for now, this makes sense to me.

[Fishteacher73]

The idea that both language is altered by culture AND culture altered by language is interesting. As illustrated in Orwell's 1984, contol of language = control of thought. It was once said (by whom I cannot recall) that analysis of a culture's language paints a reasonably accurate picture of the broad personality of that culture. Warring cultures have more terms for types of wars/conflicts/violence than those that are predominantly peaceful for example. This is less true today with the globalization of media and ideas, but I think it is valid for isolated cultures.

 

As to a specific deffinition of language..... A system used to transfer information between individuals.

 

"Language is a manifestation of a universal thought process, equivalent in scope and subject to all humans, but with different symbols used in different settings to better cope with the particular environment."

 

This assumes that only humans have language. This has been shown untrue. This also is assuming that culture does not alter language and it is not part of the perpetuation of that culture. So the exact mechanism of language varys from individual to individual (ie connoatation as opposed to dennotation). The final part makes no sense IMO, essentailly changing the color of a rock makes it no more or less useful, so the variations in language to be better for a specific environment must be varied by more than just different symbols.

Sorry, did not mean to trash you r def. but just examined it...I could be off base as well. The def. seemed a bit limited in its scope and homoginized cultural variances that I feel are illustrated by language variances (not to mention species variance).

 

My 2 sense.

[bumab]

The idea that both language is altered by culture AND culture altered by language is interesting. As illustrated in Orwell's 1984, contol of language = control of thought. It was once said (by whom I cannot recall) that analysis of a culture's language paints a reasonably accurate picture of the broad personality of that culture. Warring cultures have more terms for types of wars/conflicts/violence than those that are predominantly peaceful for example.

 

I wonder what influence the language has over children born into that culture...

 

 

This assumes that only humans have language. This has been shown untrue.

 

Good point...

 

The final part makes no sense IMO, essentailly changing the color of a rock makes it no more or less useful, so the variations in language to be better for a specific environment must be varied by more than just different symbols.

 

I was thinking more along the lines of the multiple words for snow by Eskimo's- the environment was different. Or, to use your example, the multiple words for war and conflict in warring cultures, not usefulness of the object. Sorry for not being clear.

 

Sorry, did not mean to trash you r def. but just examined it...I could be off base as well. The def. seemed a bit limited in its scope and homoginized cultural variances that I feel are illustrated by language variances (not to mention species variance).

 

No apologies neccessary. I don't neccessarily subscribe to that definition, I simply put it forth as a starting place for discussion. I think that definition is limited in scope, and does ignore the influence of the language on the culture and thought processes of the individuals involved. I really don't know if humans can claim to have a universal thought process either...

[Fishteacher73]

I wonder what influence the language has over children born into that culture...

 

What influence it has may be difficult to determine, but the influence must be there. As much as environmental factors do affect development, the manner in which information is presented and the specific connoataions of said method must have some sort of impact.

[bumab]

As much as environmental factors do affect development, the manner in which information is presented and the specific connoataions of said method must have some sort of impact.

 

I wonder if one could study folk brought up in a culture that was markedly different to the language spoken at home, like Mandarin in the US, or English over there. Would you find a significant difference in behaviors or attitudes as a result of the difference in language?

 

That all hinges on the premise that I think "in English" and others think "in Swedish" or "in German" or whatever.... Anybody know anything about that idea?

[Turtle]

Bumab said, "I wonder what influence the language has over children born into that culture..."

___Noam Chomsky did considerable research into language acquisition in children & concluded that we are "hard-wired" for language. For example, at an early stage of infancy, all children coo & babble in exactly the same way regardless of which culture they were born into. :hihi:

[bumab]

True. So it seems we start out with some universal "language" of sorts. What effect on our thought patterns does the language we first learn have?

[Fishteacher73]

Yet depending on the language and the emphasis and connotation of wors must build a framework. For many languages the "bad" words usually deal with religion/damnation/devil type stuff while in english they are much more along vulgar lines (bodily wastes/sexual). This subtle bias must cause some associations with their counterpart, ie what is bad sex or blasphemy.

[niviene]

I agree with that - in all of the languages I have studied, they don't consider so much to be a vulgarity that we do. We are one of the most (if not the most) censored country/ies on this planet. In other countries, it's ok to show nude people on TV; they talk about human excrement, and that's not considered "vulgar" as it is here, in the US... however, for other langues, the statement "Go to hell" or even accusing someone of not being Catholic (or, insert other religion here...) is considered much more "vulgar".

 

I especially like Turtle's post about how all infants babble in the same manner. I have often been fascinated by people of other languages that I see with infants and looking at them and being able to think that this baby could be any other American baby... even when I speak to her parents in another language. It would be interesting to study how a child learning two languages develops - I know of one couple in particular who is about to have a child, he speaks English, she speaks Spanish, and I wonder how the child will deal and which language will be easier for her... and what kinds of effects this will have on learning for her in her lifetime. Have you any links to any studies, or do you even know of any? I would love to read about this... I can't imagine that studies have not been done in this field....

 

It seems like not just words but tonal communication is of major importance, too. I see that in my dog if my tone is different, he can tell whether I am playful or angry with him. I think that children understand that tone of the "no" much eariler than the concept of what "no" means.

 

I also think that body language communicates a lot...especially in our youth. Obviously that is true for animals, in my opinion.

[Fishteacher73]

That is one of the major issues with autism. The individual does not interpert much of the "auxiliary" information durring verbal communication (Many autistic individuals are avid readers, though) such as expression, inflection, and body language.

[Turtle]

___Ergo Fish, my love of Hypography. I would never talk to strangers as I do you all here. I have few friends & I love that they visit infrequently, but regularly. I can hardly bear any small talk or looking someone in the eye, or feeling that I have to feign interest, while I look for an escape route.

___No less most peoples' discomfort in having to talk to me either as any short encounter & it quickly becomes apparent to others that this is no ordinary conversation as I begin to pitch & turn & scuff & look away while at the same time talking about some arcane math or my wagon or such.

___Now to the idea of a cultures' effects on language, this is where the tire meets the road. Parents, siblings, nation, & no end of variables clearly affect language (to clarify, I mean spoken language). Add to that one's own lingual perceptions as they grow, & there just is no explaining it simply.

___In regard to this thread title, I think spoken language is necessary for optimal thought & reason. :hihi:

[gubba]

G'day folks,

 

Fishteacher seems to recognise a primacy (?) for human language in his discussion, a sentiment I'd endorse for each of us because of our genetic predisposition to speech. Some basic linguistic assertions on language acquisition:

 

1. There's a window of opportunity (quite large) in early childhood to acquire language EASILY. Chomsky emphasised the staggering intellectual achievement language usage is, yet any child can master their own tongue by the age of 5 to 6, usually earlier. (this is the basis of his "hardwiring" thesis)

 

2. This language that we can absorb is the spoken word, not its written derivatives. Literacy is not hardwired into our brains otherwise all english speakers would be able to spell LOL. Linguists [at least in the 80's] never tired of stating that the language is AS SPOKEN and that that spoken form is the core of linguistic concern.

 

3. Language consists of a range of distinct sounds that we can articulate with our mouths. We chose an arbitory number of these sounds, varying for each distinct language (no language utilises all the possibilities available), and assign a discrete meaning to each of these sounds. Then we learn patterns of sound organisations (grammer) that enable us to use these limited number of sounds (syllables {I'm collapsing theory atrociously here}) to express whatever we chose and are capable of dreaming of. All this by the average age of five!

 

4. Linguists rightly stress the arbitoriness of our choices of actual sound usage from the range available, we are NOT hardwired as an english or any other language speaker. The precise language we acquire is culturally determined not genetically for:

 

5. We teach ourselves our own first language (sorry mums and dads). All we need is to be exposed to a language. To be deprived of access to a language during our childhood will ensure that we will not master language efficiently later in life. When exposed to language at the right time our predisposition kicks in and we actively work out our own first language. Biology gives us the ability to acquire language, culture gives us the language we learn.

 

 

Apologies for the spiel above but in there lies a stress on the arbitoriness of any language which I happen to think is an essential ingredient in the concept of language. I liked a lot in bumab's definition of language but hesitate to claim universality for any concept. Besides, when we're talking of language are we referring to just the one idea or to a related multitude? Perhaps we should be satisfied with a few working definitions or guidelines?

 

On language and thought it is certainly true that our vocabulary helps frame our discussion but I'm more than tired of extreme relativism in nearly all its forms. Be cognisant of the variations within our languages and of the likelihood of uninformed misunderstandings by all means, but the simple fact that we can learn each other's lingo puts the lie to any claim of seperate realities etc. etc. cheers gub.

[Fishteacher73]

It has been shown that infants can learn "baby sign language" before they develop the motor skills for speach.

 

As per #3, Gubba..

Do most languages have apoximately the same number of vocal sounds in the language, just a different selection from the whole of possabilities or does this avry as well?

[C1ay]

The entry from the Oxford dictionary says:

 

language • noun

1 the method of human communication, either spoken or written, consisting of the use of words in a structured and conventional way.

2 the system of communication used by a particular community or country.

3 the phraseology and vocabulary of a particular group: legal language.

4 the manner or style of a piece of writing or speech.

5 Computing a system of symbols and rules for writing programs or algorithms.

 

It seems a little more inclusive than some of the other definitions. I particularly like number 2. Language is much more than just sound or written symbols. When a bee does a dance at it's hive to communicate directions to a field of flowers it is using a system of communication defined by the community. An male iguana does the same when he bobs his head up and down to communicate that he is dominant.

 

Like these animals, humans use quite a bit of body language as well, some are loosely suggestive in meaning and some quite refined and defined. The motions of the conductor for an orchestra or the flagman giving directions to a plane, ship or crane operator. Language is much more inclusive than just sounds or symbols.

 

Is it a part of thought though? That would be hard to answer. I think many animals have thought but I think they fall far short of humans with vocabulary. Bees don't seem to use any speech at all, they communicate with dances and yet, a bee sees a field of flowers and some internal process causes it to plan and execute a trip back to the hive to communicate the location to others. Is this thought? Does it require any defined language? These are tough questions.

 

Ants offer some different examples to consider. Scouts leave the nest in search of food or enemies. Is the urge to do this hardwired or the result of some thought process? Does the ant think about which way it will go or just randomly stumble across the landscape? At any rate I think we can say that it is done with purpose, we just do not know if it is a thoughtless result of hardwiring. In the end though, the finds what it seeks and then lays down a chemicsal trail back to the nest and communicates chemically what it has found. The nest then dispatches warriors or foragers accordingly. Clearly the use of a language understood by the colony has occured. I think it is also clear that the ant used some thought in it's journey. Perhaps it passed a small food source that was not worth the effort and decided to look for more or it saw warning signs from a larger colony and altered it course. Is that the result of language or simply languageless thought?

 

IMO, language is a utility used for communication. I do not think it is necessary for thought even though we probably use language quite a bit in our thoughts. Speaking for myself I know I will even speak verbally to myself as part of the thought process sometimes. There are times though where I think about things that I have no words for, images in my mind, and those are not dependant on any language.

 

I'll have to think on this some more to see what else I might add....

[Turtle]

___I will go for number 1 in your list C1ay & leave aside the bugs & other creatures, but take up the idea of community among humans. A few posts back I said, "In regard to this thread title, I think spoken language is necessary for optimal thought & reason." While it may be true as you say, that we have thoughts that transcend language, in order to commune socially we must all share thoughts having agreeability. Red is red, rot ist rot.

___As to the body language, it is important of course & very powerfull in communicating important stuff; it cannot however communicate beyond a line of sight as a shout of instructions or other vocal communication may.