Language Barrier

[Interbane]

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

I someone proposed that, I say we blacklist them! Language is a vehicle, but the vehicle has a speed limit and has to stay within the lanes.


There are a couple takes on the ambiguity of words and how to clarify. I'll copy/paste some stuff below on prototype theory. Also, some philosophers say that to correctly understand a word, the word must be taken in context with the rest of the sentence in which it's used. Both of these clarifiers may be used together.

Wikipedia:

"Prototype theory is a mode of graded categorization in cognitive science, where some members of a category are more central than others. For example, when asked to give an example of the concept furniture, chair is more frequently cited than, say, stool. Prototype theory also plays a central role in linguistics, as part of the mapping from phonological structure to semantics.

As formulated in the 1970s by Eleanor Rosch and others, prototype theory was a radical departure from traditional necessary and sufficient conditions as in Aristotelian logic, which led to set-theoretic approaches of extensional or intensional semantics. Thus instead of a definition based model - e.g. a bird may be defined as elements with the features [+feathers], [+beak] and [+ability to fly], prototype theory would consider a category like bird as consisting of different elements which have unequal status - e.g. a robin is more prototypical of a bird than, say a penguin. This leads to a graded notion of categories, which is a central notion in many models of cognitive science and cognitive semantics, e.g. in the work of George Lakoff (Women, Fire and Dangerous Things, 1987) or Ronald Langacker (Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1/2 1987/1991).

The term prototype has been defined in Eleanor Rosch's study "Natural Categories" (1973) and was first defined as a stimulus, which takes a salient position in the formation of a category as it is the first stimulus to be associated with that category. Later, she redefined it as the most central member of a category."

The deeper down the rabbit hole we go, the more closely our understanding of language resembles a compression algorithm for reality.

[Penelope]

Has anyone else had the feeling on BT, that we really can 'feel ' the person behind the posts? Or is it just me?

We only know one another through the written word....and yet our personalities come through......

I do look at ages....and 'sometimes' gender...

But I know the ones with whom I feel comfortable...(I had to think for a minute here) and, also the ones with whom I feel 'pleasingly' uncomfortable.

No, it isn't 'all' about words.

[Grim]

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.

No, I understood what you meant, but does that have to do with language or the nature of pain? I think it would be a mistake to take a something like language and attempt to compare it to man as some type of answer for everything, or pick at its failing for being unable to. Of course I can't measure pain or emotion and write it into word format, of course I can't quantify the nature of 'idea' or 'thought' or any appropriately named abstraction in word alone, but does that really mean that it is a hindrance for communication? Considering the format here I seriously think not.

Animals use communication to syncronize their life cycles. Does their inability to do abstraction mean that their communication is flawed? Are you saying that the ant is less ant-like for not grasping something like 'what is not is not'? Perhaps in a biological sense the success of a language could be measured in its ability to do the basic task of communication - coordination.

I think that the nuances of language are a beautiful thing, incidentally I always kind of disliked numbers or at least was never fascinated by them the way I am with words.

[giselle]

on nuanced language and other related points and examples above, I agree, we could ask with equal validity to the usual 'picture worth a thousand words' .. how many pictures would it take to be 'worth' a few well chosen words? Or ... how many paintings would it take to be worth one good poem?

[Penelope]

giselle:

on nuanced language and other related points and examples above, I agree, we could ask with equal validity to the usual 'picture worth a thousand words' .. how many pictures would it take to be 'worth' a few well chosen words? Or ... how many paintings would it take to be worth one good poem?

You have made me think about art....reflecting life. Well, art, as in fine art..paintings, can 'illuminate' life can't it?

I am not thinking about the 'sometimes opaque' impressionist paintings.

Say, a still life of something as mundane as a cabbage. But a talented painting can really show the cabbageness of a cabbage...so to speak.

A painting can be a real celebration of life....just as it appears to the eye.

Poetry is more often a reflection of our emotions and our response to life is it not?

The ordinary written word....as we have here on BT....is even more illuminating to me....because, the need to write something in words...really concentrates the mind. And so long as we can keep being 'honest'....often at the expense of being 'polite'....and forgive and understand one another....then I think perhaps this correspondence on here, is the most valuable of all. Oh My! Do I sound pontificating???

Pretentious, Moi??? Well, I don't mean to be....exit stage left...muttering.

[Interbane]

Grim: "Of course I can't measure pain or emotion and write it into word format, of course I can't quantify the nature of 'idea' or 'thought' or any appropriately named abstraction in word alone, but does that really mean that it is a hindrance for communication?"

The lens through which to view this is in comparison to the ideal. The ideal would be perfect fidelity telepathy. Pain another feels you would feel also, identically. It was within this context that rate of communication and rate of thought aren't equal as IQ increases. Rate of communication lags behind.

I enjoy contrasting concepts or characteristics against their ideal. Conceptualizing the ideal is always a pleasure as well, it's like daydreaming with reality. In contrasting with the ideal, you gain better understanding of a concept.

There are many problems with the idea, so I propose it as little more than food for thought. So many great minds have already tackled the problem that whatever I've posted is backseat driving anyways. The best way to discover where your ideas need more enlightenment are to throw something out there then talk about it. After all this chatter, I might purchase one of the books I've run across while 'wikipedia'ing some of you awesome booktalkers responses.

[realiz]

The ideal would be perfect fidelity telepathy. Pain another feels you would feel also, identically

Can you imagine the horror of this? Walking along the street and having to feel the pain and anguish of everyone you meet? People who are very empathetic, which is a close as you can come to this, often have very depressing lives, either that or they have to surround themselves with happy, pain-free people.

This is one reason why happy people are popular.

[Thrillwriter]

Grim wrote:

Some people would argue that the goal is to put everything human into words.

I think we are in agreement to the fact that communication whether literal or implied is important. I was trying to make the point that, as you so eloquently wrote, (some people .... everything human into words), would be improbable. Some things just can not be expressed in words.

The 'pain' and 'grief' was just a paradigm for subjects that would be difficult to put into words for another person to understand. I don't know how else to convey to you, my point of view.
Apparently, I am not able to express my view plain enough. Some things just can not be expressed in words. That is all I am saying.

[Grim]

The 'pain' and 'grief' was just a paradigm for subjects that would be difficult to put into words for another person to understand.

But it is easy enough for me to say "I am sad," 'I feel grief right now" and be understood, if more depth of explanation is needed there are many words to express it. "I feel so sad, I have optimism for the future though." There is nothing that makes what I say anything less than a perfect communication. What more would anyone what to know about the feelings of another person? It is when you start to say "this is what sadness then optimism is" that things get confusing (or at least contested) but is that confusion really a problem of language?

Like I said I know what you meant. Please don't just repeat what you have already said without regard to another persons response, it just means that I have to stop and correct you a second time by repeating what I have already said!!! I always feel it is important to get the fundamentals straight before moving on.

Does our inability to express perfectly highly abstract and personal abstractions mean that we should feel that language its self is some fundamental of this inhibited expression? I think not.

[Thomas Hood]

I've been thinking about some reasons why it is so difficult to explain things to people when the thought that I am trying to explain is so clear to me in my head. My thoughts come out well when I write them down, but they do not come out so well when I am conversing.

When you talk, you think like a Yooper. Yoopers are in a world of their own. When you write, you write according to the standards of modern American culture.