the role of language

[fela fan]

How would you know or express anything outside of L. Fela? Smiles? Is that going to create a body of knowledge that it's possible to transmit? Have you really only just now worked out what your thumb is for?

But what you can't express outside of language you just keep to yourself. I know we're social animals, but we can still do things just by ourselves. Call it inner contentment if you like, but language cannot do it full justice!

I've not reread what i posted earlier (it was a few months ago!) but i did call language a double-edged sword. What i'm thinking now is that of course we have got where we have today because we developed language. But i now believe we have reached the point where it is holding us back, and is blocking us from realising our full potential. And that to me is no more war.

Language more than anything is responsible for constant war. Yet it has also been the tool for us to free ourselves.

In a word, like everything in the human constructed world, 'duality'. The only way forward is to recognise this duality and eliminate it. That elimination process can only occur outside of language.

 

[NoEgo]

Language does not keep up with the evolution of consciousness.

 

[poco loco]

It's all about confusion over definitions.

What, only one confusion and multiply definitions, yeh, ok

 

[bellator]

To a theory

I know someone in work that is totally screwed up.
Someone who thinks that ghosts walk amongst us etc..
She is a person who I cannot look or neither talk to any more. A selfish ***!!£ up woman.
Now people come up to me everyday and say-"Oh look at **** singing and getting on with her life etc.
Has anyone of you known such a selfish (and I could go into it) person?
Somebody that is totally selfish, two faced and evil (I know this makes no sense to some people) but to those that it does please let me know.
But a very clever actress on the outside?

 

[fela fan]

Language does not keep up with the evolution of consciousness.

That's interesting. Certainly there are things i understand, for want of a word (!), that i find myself unable to put into specific language. However, interestingly when i speak to mates who understand the same kind of thing, we are able to use language to explore the topic.

The interesting thing to me is that possibly we can make language catch up (for i believe i agree with your proposition), but maybe first that evolution of consciousness needs far greater numbers of people to recognise what's going on, and how our consciousness is evolving.

But therein lies the connundrum: at this juncture in time humans seem to have limited their world to what can be labelled by language. The new language that does appear each year seems to me to have come into the lexicon due to advances in technology, not the human mind/soul/heart.

And so, if we limit our lives to the languages we have developed, we block our own progress on that front.

However, being optimistic, maybe once we have gone as far as we can with technology, maybe we'll turn to matters of consciousness and 'spirituality'. And then, perhaps, we'll find the language. Or maybe by that time it'll have been too late!

 

[editor]

I forgot to listen

But I haven't forgotten to ban you. Again.

 

[gurrier]

Jeez, this thread is a proper disaster zone.

 

[fela fan]

Jeez, this thread is a proper disaster zone.

Well, get off it then.

 

[118118]

I know someone in work that is totally screwed up.
Someone who thinks that ghosts walk amongst us etc..
She is a person who I cannot look or neither talk to any more. A selfish ***!!£ up woman.
Now people come up to me everyday and say-"Oh look at **** singing and getting on with her life etc.
Has anyone of you known such a selfish (and I could go into it) person?
Somebody that is totally selfish, two faced and evil (I know this makes no sense to some people) but to those that it does please let me know.
But a very clever actress on the outside?

LOL. Odd. Yet strangely therapuetic <stares into the distance> LOL

 

[kyser_soze]

fela, what do you actually propose to replace language?

I don't agree with your original assertion (what is this 'universal truth' that 'nature knows' but because we have to use langauge to describe nature we can never know?)

Are you suggesting comunication through art (which ultimately comes back to langauge), music, maybe smell?

Language can be limiting, but as Dub says it's benefits far outweigh it's negatives. The other thing as well is that I assume you're talking about English here, not other languages? A linguist I know has said on a number of occassions that different languages are better at expressing certain concepts - abstract, practical etc - so are you simply saying that it's one language or ALL language?

Like I said, I disagree with your assertion, because we can use langauge to counter the lies and bullshit that others tell.

So, my questions:

What is this universal truth (and don't give me some hippy bollocks about 'it's in nature' - what does it refer to? What it the question that it's the answer to? I suspect you don't know but hey)

What do you suggest we use in place of language?

 

[fela fan]

No mate, nothing to replace language at all. I'm after a wider recognition as to the limits that having our language (whichever one it is, my argument is not about language x or language y, just language per se) places us under.

"Like I said, I disagree with your assertion, because we can use langauge to counter the lies and bullshit that others tell."

But here you've hit it in a nutshell: not only can we use language to counter the lies, but it is language in the first place that provided those lies. And if we have a wider recognition of language and its boundaries, and what lies beyond, then perhaps those lies in the first place would be harder to tell, coz they'd be easier to unravel.

And it might be easier if you moved away from a default of thinking i don't know things, it might make these exchanges more profitable. Having said that the answer to your main question is to do with our unconsciousness. What we fail to learn by suppressing it.

In a nutshell mate, i'd say it's the battle between, at one end, doing and saying exactly as one pleases, and at the other end trying hard to say and do the things we think society wants from us. To be able to do the former to any degree, we need to gain an awareness.

Now if that is not the answer, not an acceptable answer, then we can easily explore things further. But you first have to get over your handicap of the label you have applied to me! It's limiting, and that is exactly what language is.

But it's far better than not having one, coz with patience and time any two well-disposed people can come to a shared agreement.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

No animal on earth has the linguistic capabilities of human beings. It is truly the one thing that seperates us from lower animals. Animal communication is a reality, and we might even talk in terms of bird dialects, or whale pod accents, of turn-taking and telegraphing. There are monkey calls for bird's flying overhead, and other calls for snakes on the ground, so animals diplay discrete meaning their vocalisations - but put a snake in the air, or a bird on the ground, and there is no call for that because the essential human trait of creativity is lacking.

I'm not devaluing animals when I say that, just stating a linguistic and anthropological truth. Animal communication is a fascinating area, and one well worthy of study (which I have) but to compare the human ability with the animal is to misunderstand the gulf between the two..

I think it's possible that apes, etc possess the brain faculty necessary for communication, but not the appropriate musculature etc for complex vocalization. This tends to be proven by the gorilla that can use sign language.

 

[fela fan]

fela, what do you actually propose to replace language?

I don't agree with your original assertion (what is this 'universal truth' that 'nature knows' but because we have to use langauge to describe nature we can never know?)

Are you suggesting comunication through art (which ultimately comes back to langauge), music, maybe smell?

And now that my cells are beginning to work... let's analyse this to exemplify further.

Firstly you tell me you don't agree with my original assertion, then immediately after you're asking me questions about it. Is that not a contradiction, entirely language-led? If you're not sure about what i'm saying, how can you disagree with so forthrightly ("i don't agree with your original assertion")? And was i asserting anything? I don't know, i've not reread it yet. But was it my assertion or your interpretation? Or both?

Secondly, by these very questions, you've missed the main thrust of what i'm questioning: and that is NOT anything to do with replacing language.

It is to analyse the role of language in our societies, and whether we are not just freed by having it, but that very freedom carries limitations, carries boundaries. And if that is the case, then i want to go beyond language, coz i want real freedom. Freedom with boundaries is not freedom.

And i reckon that that freedom is only attainable outside of language. And that necessitates, amongst other things, an undestanding of the role nature has in our lives. It is the antidote to the human-constructed world. A world that for many is only understandable through language.

And that is not doing justice to the miracle that is me or you or any human being.

 

[maomao]

I think it's possible that apes, etc possess the brain faculty necessary for communication, but not the appropriate musculature etc for complex vocalization. This tends to be proven by the gorilla that can use sign language.

There are gorillas that can imitate individual symbold but to date not one gorilla has satisfactorily demosntrated the use of anything approaching syntax.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

There are gorillas that can imitate individual symbold but to date not one gorilla has satisfactorily demosntrated the use of anything approaching syntax.

I believe that Koko had something like 1500 'words', and was able to string them together into at least phrases.

 

[fela fan]

now then kyser...

I say that language, although the thing that separates us from other animal forms and therefore is apparantly what makes us better, is actually a double-edged sword.

It shapes our perceptions, create boundaries, and allows us to be manipulated by those who have ulterior (negative) motives.

...

Real truth lies outside of language. No?

... here is my original assertion along with a second, more specific, one.

Like i just said, our exchanges would be more profitable if we started from the point of wanting to understand more. It's my opinion that you don't get to read what i say with full attention, coz you've first seen who wrote it. I could be wrong, and no probs if i am.

But nowhere at all, in that first post, nor any others, have i even begun to talk about replacing language. That is just nothing to do with my thinking.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Actually, it's only 1000.


Koko has a sign language vocabulary of over 1000 words, which she uses in complex statements and questions. Most of these signs are standard American Sign Language (ASL), but some are either invented or slightly modified by Koko to form what we call Gorilla Sign Langue (GSL), or "Gorilla Speak." This section will help you become familiar with GSL, and thus to learn to communicate both with Koko and those who know ASL.

http://www.koko.org/world/signlanguage.html

 

[maomao]

I believe that Koko had something like 1500 'words', and was able to string them together into at least phrases.

Lexical ability and syntax are completely different things and we knew gorillas have well developed lexical abilities anyway. It's true that Koko on accasion managed to utter 'eat banana' but she also regularly managed to utter such meaningful sentences as 'banana eat' 'banana eat banana' and 'banana banana eat'. The people who looked after Koko had a vested interest in making sure that it was 'eat banana' the public heard.

 

[fela fan]

I believe that Koko had something like 1500 'words', and was able to string them together into at least phrases.

Stimulus response.

But what the fuck have monkeys got to do with this? This thread is about the role of language in the human world.

Those animals will never achieve language as in the variety humans have. They simply don't need to.

 

[maomao]

I don't trust 'www.koko.org' btw. Give me 20 minutes here, I do actually have work to do.

 

[Barking_Mad]

You only have to look into a gorillas eyes to know that theres far more that joins us together than divides us.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Lexical ability and syntax are completely different things and we knew gorillas have well developed lexical abilities anyway. It's true that Koko on accasion managed to utter 'eat banana' but she also regularly managed to utter such meaningful sentences as 'banana eat' 'banana eat banana' and 'banana banana eat'. The people who looked after Koko had a vested interest in making sure that it was 'eat banana' the public heard.

Koko has a sign language vocabulary of over 1000 words, which she uses in complex statements and questions. Most of these signs are standard American Sign Language (ASL), but some are either invented or slightly modified by Koko to form what we call Gorilla Sign Langue (GSL), or "Gorilla Speak." This section will help you become familiar with GSL, and thus to learn to communicate both with Koko and those who know ASL.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Stimulus response.

But what the fuck have monkeys got to do with this? This thread is about the role of language in the human world.

Those animals will never achieve language as in the variety humans have. They simply don't need to.

I was challenging the first sentence in your first post.

"I say that language, although the thing that separates us from other animal forms and therefore is apparantly what makes us better, is actually a double-edged sword.

It shapes our perceptions, create boundaries, and allows us to be manipulated by those who have ulterior (negative) motives."

 

[maomao]

Koko has a sign language vocabulary of over 1000 words, which she uses in complex statements and questions. Most of these signs are standard American Sign Language (ASL), but some are either invented or slightly modified by Koko to form what we call Gorilla Sign Langue (GSL), or "Gorilla Speak." This section will help you become familiar with GSL, and thus to learn to communicate both with Koko and those who know ASL.

The statement in bold is incorrect. Or is everything on the internet true?


Some slightly better links:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030328.html
http://www.csicop.org/articles/koko/
http://www.littletree.com.au/koko.htm

 

[Barking_Mad]

I was challenging the first sentence in your first post.

"I say that language, although the thing that separates us from other animal forms and therefore is apparantly what makes us better, is actually a double-edged sword.

It shapes our perceptions, create boundaries, and allows us to be manipulated by those who have ulterior (negative) motives."

Exactly, so why believe the choice of language of so few who hold so much power?

(apologies for going slightly off topic, just a thought)

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

The statement in bold is incorrect. Or is everything on the internet true?


Some slightly better links:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030328.html
http://www.csicop.org/articles/koko/
http://www.littletree.com.au/koko.htm

Did you read your own links?

From Straight Dope:

But their case started looking stronger in 1990, when researcher Emily Sue Savage-Rumbaugh of Georgia State University presented evidence of language development in a bonobo chimp named Kanzi. One of the more telling complaints made about gorillas like Koko who communicated via sign language was that they often babbled, producing long, apparently meaningless strings of signs. Their handlers would then pluck a few lucky hits from the noise and declare that communication had occurred. Savage-Rumbaugh got around this problem by teaching Kanzi to point to printed symbols on a keyboard, a less ambiguous approach. She claimed that the ape demonstrated a rough grasp of grammar using this system. What's more, when presented with 653 sentences making requests using novel word combinations, Kanzi responded correctly 72 percent of the time--supposedly comparable to what a human child can do at two and a half years old.

Today, from what I can tell, scientific opinion is divided along disciplinary lines. Many researchers who work primarily with animals accept or at least are receptive to the idea that apes can be taught a rudimentary form of language. Linguists, on the other hand, dismiss the whole thing as nonsense. Personally I'm happy to concede that the boundary between animal and human communication isn't as sharply drawn as we once thought.

 

[maomao]

Yeah, I read my links. I presented a spread of evidence and opinions rather than the website of some lady who says her pet gorilla can talk. Make your own mind up; I'd have to see the full write up on the Kanzi stuff before I could express a definite opinion but given the stuff those people have come out with in the past I'm not overly hopeful.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

But what if it is proved that a particular animal has such capabilities such as intentions, mind-reading and so on, would we then grant linguistic capabilities to it? As philosopher John Searle put it, "`85. imagine a class of beings who were capable of having intentional states like belief, desire and intention but who did not have a language. What more would they require in order to be able to perform linguistic acts? The first thing that our beings would need to perform illocutionary acts is some means of externalising, for making publicly recognisable to others, the expressions of their intentional states. A being that can do that on purpose, that is, a being that does not just express its intentional states but performs acts for the purpose of letting others know its intentional states, already has a primitive form of speech act."

This is the point animal language researchers are trying to get across to the sceptics. They say that the critics hold it as a logical truth that language capability is found in humans alone. So, no matter how much evidence Savage-Rumbaugh or Penny Patterson might amass, the sceptics will never accept that Kanzi or Koko are actually speaking. Why? Because they are animals.

No one is trying to say that these apes use language with the same dexterity as humans do; certainly they are no match for humans. In the book Apes, Language, and the Human Mind, Savage-Rumbaugh says that although Kanzi is far behind humans in linguistic skills, yet he has shown that he understands abstract concepts, and can understand the meaning behind complex sentences, and can also indulge in playacting and pretending. His favourite pretend game centres around imaginary food. He pretends to eat food that is not really there, to feed others imaginary food. He pretends to find it, to take it from other individuals, to give it back to them, and to play chase and keep-away with an imaginary morsel. He will even put a piece of imaginary food on the floor and act as if he does not notice it until someone else begins to reach for it, then grabs it before they can get it.

Whether Kanzi and Koko have acquired language skills or not, only further research will tell, but their achievements should not be ignored, just becuase they happen to be animals.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2003/20031109/spectrum/main2.htm

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Yeah, I read my links. I presented a spread of evidence and opinions rather than the website of some lady who says her pet gorilla can talk. Make your own mind up; I'd have to see the full write up on the Kanzi stuff before I could express a definite opinion but given the stuff those people have come out with in the past I'm not overly hopeful.

But why dismiss out of hand the possibility that some organisms other than humans have linguistic capability?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Exactly, so why believe the choice of language of so few who hold so much power?

(apologies for going slightly off topic, just a thought)

Because language isn't necessarily dictated by those who hold power.