Language Barrier

[Interbane]

A good place to start in understanding language is to consider how it originated. The capacity for language seems to have come simultaneously with our capacity for deliberation. To express thought, to oneself or to another, is to require that thought to be of an expressible format. The ability to communicate with others is a bridge to communicate with ourselves; the eventual progression allows us to forego the need for communication to go out our mouths and back into our ears. The 'closing of the loop' here still requires us to use the expressive format, vocal, subvocal, physical.

[Trish]

Spoken words are only a part of communication. Non-verbal cues, body language, tone, intensity, to name a few, effect the message being conveyed. Being a very smart person able to overcome information loss is only part of it. Being sensitive to these other clues also gives a greater understanding of the intent of the message, or the true feelings of the speaker. This can also hinder oral communication.

This reminded me so much of growing up in Miami as a gringa with many latino friends, especially Cubans. Even Cubans will tell you they tend to speak loudly and rapidly even when discussing something as mundane as a grocery list. They can even hold entire conversations with both people talking over each other. To most Americans this can be considered an aggressive stance when speaking and instantly puts people on guard. One tempo and volume in one culture can mean something completely different in another.

[Interbane]

giselle: "Some people have amazing memories for language"

Sorry, this was in context with the rumor chain game. Not only is misinterpretation a problem, but also memory of the event. Only with a ubiquitously perfect memory would memory not be a problem. We are simply accustomed to it's fallibility.

[Grim]

A pain in my leg is wordless just as are emotions. Intuition is wordless isn't it?

Ow my leg hurts. Something doesn't feel right.

Some people would argue that the goal is to put everything human into words. The depth of our language is impressive, to undermine its power or significance would be a mistake. The point was made that communication does not have to be verbal I would add: or even human.

I can't imagine how anyone could realistically see language as a fundamental hindrance to communication.

[Thrillwriter]

Grim wrote:

Ow my leg hurts. Something doesn't feel right.
Some people would argue that the goal is to put everything human into words. The depth of our language is impressive, to undermine its power or significance would be a mistake. The point was made that communication does not have to be verbal I would add: or even human.

With all do respect, I believe you missed my meaning entirly, or perhaps I did not state exactly what I meant (which is precisely the point).

I was saying that I can say my leg hurts, but to what extent, for how long, or where you would not know or could not even fathom. It is not your leg. Communication is vital to our existence, yes. I agree whole heartedly. However, the limits are there. Communication is only as good as the person who is on the receiving end. How do you put 'a pain' into words that another person can truly understand unless they experience the same exact pain? Or even grief. No one can feel the same grief another person feels, so how would you put that into words exactly? How could you possibly know the pain I am in day in and day out. I can tell you I'm in pain, yes. But unless you experience it for yourself ... you really can not fully understand my meaning of the word pain.

Please tell me what words you would use to make me feel the same as you if say a loved one very close to you died? I can empathize. As a friend I could be there for you, but I could never fully understand the pain and grief you are suffering. It is internal to you only. And I know of no Word(s) that can describe it to another human being.
I am however interested in your thoughts. So please, by all means, convince me.

[Penelope]

Grim: Does our thought change language or does the language change our thoughts?

Language can 'manipulate' our thoughts and perceptions. Repetition of rhythmic phrases, can make us remember.....entrench patterns of thought into our synapses (brain patterns).....I not like this thought.....I am not a computer....don't wish to be programmed.

Rhetoric is a powerful tool.

Also the use of imagery is powerful.....a study of advertisements shows how we can be 'influenced'. Words can create the image, but a picture is worth a thousand words......and a picture created/manipulated into our minds is worth ten thousand words.

[giselle]

A picture may be worth a thousand words because it can eliminate vagueness related to the signified concept. Some 'concepts' are just more exact and less open to interpretation. If I say 'four' then its pretty clear what this signifies but if I say 'tree' then immediately there is need for clarification since there are many types of trees in order for the listener to form the correct picture. The words four and tree are both simple, straightforward terms but really its the underlying concept that is fuzzier in the case of tree, that is, the concept of 'four-ness' is clearer than the concept of 'tree-ness'.

[Penelope]

giselle: The words four and tree are both simple, straightforward terms but really its the underlying concept that is fuzzier in the case of tree, that is, the concept of 'four-ness' is clearer than the concept of 'tree-ness'.

Yes...it is the syntax....I think...

If the four is the four horsemen of the apocalypse....then one is filled with dread.

If it is 'four calling birds'.....or four gospels...then one has a feeling of assurance.

If the Tree is the tree of life....then that is re-assuring.

If it is the Tree of knowledge....then rather less so.

Association of ideas....

[realiz]

giselle said:

If I say 'four' then its pretty clear what this signifies

It depends just where you are saying this, shouting it on a grassy field would give it quite a different meaning.

[giselle]

fuzzy four-ness? ok, ok that's what i like about booktalk, way too many clever people in one place .. but is it not true that the fuzziness of four (or tree) arises from the concept (or mutliple concepts) not the word itself .. hmm, maybe next time i'll pick 'seven', or 'dog'.