Language Barrier

[Interbane]

I am not a psychologist, yet I have a theory about psychology... or is it sociology? Anywho, 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 I write down my more complex thoughts, I'm able to sit back for a moment and figure out how to best translate those thoughts to words. In a conversation, the person I'm talking to would not have the patience.Two apparent bottlenecks that I see are accuracy and rate of data exchange. The average person knows 60,000 to 70,000 words. Many of which they have the wrong meanings for or an altered meaning for - that is accuracy. Data exchange is the reasoning that people think faster than they talk, so the bottleneck in any conversation is language. I wrote this a while back and just read it... it's kinda interesting."Thought is infinitely variable, and spoken language tries to stuff those thoughts into a bottle to transfer from human to human. The listener uncorks that bottle and applies the words to his brain, but his interpretation is slightly altered from the true intent of the speaker. A very smart person can overcome that barrier of information loss that is inherent in language and reverse engineer what is said to gather the truth of what the speaker intends. That does not mean that language is more beneficial to smarter people... in fact, it's more of a hindrance. A very smart person can think extremely rapid thoughts, but when he tries to convey them, he's limited by the pace of language or the inaccuracy of some of the words he uses. That makes it inevitable that people are prejudiced to the intelligence of everyone around them, unless they understand the concept on this page."It's basically saying that until you sit down with someone and talk about some very difficult to understand stuff or do very tough logic problems, their intelligence will only shine through to a certain degree. Well, just thought I'd share that with you guys. I'm no psychologist and have never even studied the stuff, so be easy on me if this can be learned in Psych 101.

[Dissident Heart]

I think Language is certainly one barrier to communication, as it is also an essential bridge. But some problems and solutions do not require a verbal syntax with linguistic form in order to communicate meaning, purpose, and value.In some contexts, thinking that simply "spelling out the issue" is the solution- is actually counterproductive.Words are tools, and like all tools, they are limited...and when used inappropriately or for the wrong purposes, they are more harmful than productive.Examples are legion: describe the smell of a rose, the sound of Mozart, the touch of a long lost friend, the jubilation of youth at play, etc...gifted wordsmiths might point in the right direction, even offer a brief glimpse, but will not get you there.To get there, you have to do it...not simply say it, or write it, or read it.

[Laser Harbor]

This is just like rumors; well sort of.

Interbane said: "Thought is infinitely variable, and spoken language tries to stuff those thoughts into a bottle to transfer from human to human. The listener uncorks that bottle and applies the words to his brain, but his interpretation is slightly altered from the true intent of the speaker"

Rumors start off one way, but after contact with numerous human beings who phrase the story in their own words (which becomes and endless cycle) the story comes to be something completely different then originally planned.

[Laser Harbor]

Funny isnt it. As soon as I hit the submit button my mind start to twist and turn and I begin to wonder...


Is that what you meant? or did I just prove your arguement that people interpret thoughts differently?

[Interbane]

Proof is eternally elusive, like building a tower to your favorite star. You hit the nail on the head though. Reading isn't a passive action. While reading, you're also interpreting and associating what you're reading with what's already in your head. Reading is to actively interpret, and in the process what you gain from the text is slightly different than it's purest intent. To then take that and relay it to others is to add the same small bit of error and magnify any deviation from the original intent. Written text is slightly more reliable since it's down on paper and therefore objective. Any verbal exchange not only has the problem of the interpretive error, but also the frail memories of the people listening.

[Laser Harbor]

Now you tell me I cant build a building to my favorite star! After all these years!

Good topic though. I never really took the time to think about it.

[Grim]

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

There is much to say on this topic I would start with the most essential. Language is the brain method for breaking its association with the image of or direct presence of an object or emotion. Rather than your mind being consumed with the image of a light bulb or the lamp you can think "light bulb, lamp got it" and move on to other language based thoughts. Before language the relationship was much more personal and significant. When you define something you begin ordering everyday objects or events into the definition and so your depth of definition is constantly growing.

A well designed argument would make the language used to express it perfectly clear and would reduce the need for semantical second guessing. I don't assume to think that you mean that an expansive vocabulary is a bad thing.

More later.

[Thrillwriter]

A question along these lines would be to ask if knowledge exists without words? A pain in my leg is wordless just as are emotions. Intuition is wordless isn't it?
I often feel that I stifle my intuition because I have to restrict it to a meaning that is commutable via words that already exist. Yet, if I give my intuition a new word not formally known, it will be meaningless to anybody but myself because I cannot pass my intuition on without words. Or can I?
Are words just methods of communication and due to the fact that they have to reach a broad spectrum of 'ear' types. Are they of neccesity generalisations?
If they are generalisations then they will undoubtedly restrict our functions in some way. My happy will not be the same as your happy. I would say though that words are only likely to restrict us if we treat them as more than they are, which is methods of communication. Perhaps the real danger is over identification with words.
Perhaps we have to keep a subjective freedom and accept that our communication will not be absolute but only general.

[giselle]

interbane

Any verbal exchange not only has the problem of the interpretive error, but also the frail memories of the people listening.

Some people have amazing memories for language, perhaps a throw back to our days as an oral society. And did I read somewhere that you have a new baby? Congratulations!

A quote from Ferdinand de Saussure on language:

Some people regard language, when reduced to its elements, as a naming process only – a list of words, each corresponding to the thing that it names. This conception is open to criticism at several points. It assumes that ready-made ideas exist before words… it does not tell us whether a name is vocal or psychological in nature; finally it lets us assume that the linking of a name and a thing is a very simple operation – an assumption that is anything but true. But this rather naïve approach can bring us near the truth by showing us that the linguistic unit is a double entity, one formed by the associating of two terms.
We have seen in considering the speaking-circuit that both terms involved in the linguistic sign are psychological and are united in the brain by an associative bond. This point must be emphasized. The linguistic sign unites, not a thing and a name, but a concept and a sound-image. The latter is not the material sound, a purely physical thing, but the psychological imprint of the sound, the impression that is makes on our senses.
(From a Course in General Linguistics, Ferdinand de Saussure, 1916)

[realiz]

Interbane said:

The listener uncorks that bottle and applies the words to his brain, but his interpretation is slightly altered from the true intent of the speaker. A very smart person can overcome that barrier of information loss that is inherent in language and reverse engineer what is said to gather the truth of what the speaker intends.

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.

Written communication does have the advantage of giving the communicator time to arrange thoughts so they will be better understood, or really say what is intended, but it also loses something by this process. Good writers are always striving to put emotions and a'voice' into their writing. With really good writing the reader can almost hear and feel the message.