RE: Language; the Human Condition (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

seeksfemslave -> RE: Language; the Human Condition (2/9/2008 4:17:20 PM)

This is the first CM thread I have seen that has raised a question that I have never considered before. Brilliant.

I have come to the conclusion that without language thought about  things over and above our instinctual needs is impossible. Even when we respond to such needs can we be said to be thinking ?
So the question then arises how did language develop ?
Fucked if I know.

Maybe it was a very slow process of experiencing things and in some way associating mental/verbal activity with those things.
Thus when hunting for food someone in the group might hurt themselves and let out a cry of pain. Over time such a cry became associated with pain and eventualy the noise came to mean pain.
By jove I think I've got it Prof Higgins. lol

Didnt seem to work for Gorillas tho' did it. Since it would confer advantage natural selectioners should ask why Gorillas cant talk. But I dont suppose they will



outlier -> RE: Language; the Human Condition (2/9/2008 5:53:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord
The idea that language defines thought has been long discredited (by people studying cross-cultures), though I'm unsure as to how scientific this sort of investigation was.


I presume that what the OP was refering to when she said this:
quote:

charmdpetKeira
On top of that, a friend of mine posed a question to me, if I remember correctly, something like, “If it takes language to have a thought, how much are we limited by it?”


was the Whorf Hypothesis or as it is called, the Sapir–Whorf Hypothesis. 

The best summary I can find for current opinion about this is here:
http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/4110/whorf.html

If you have any evidence of it being discredited I would like to know about it.
It would be interesting especially since he formed it while doing cross cultural studies.  Although as you infer we all know that "scientific rigor" is very difficult
at best in the Social Sciences.

Thank you,
Outlier



heartcream -> RE: Language; the Human Condition (2/9/2008 8:51:39 PM)

Language can be very limiting at times. Music often says things before language does, as well as art, you know, painting, sculpture, photography. Some languages are likely to be less limiting at times. Spanish writing, translated into English is often more articulate and eloquent for me. More so than straight-up English at times. I love the written word, I love talking and verbal communication. Many folks have posted on these boards how, with out the person right there to add inflection, facial expression, body language and the like, things can be more easily misconstrued.

What I usually love about a great actor, is their ability to show what is going on inside of them with a look, a body movement. The way the light hits their eyes, the way their hair moves or does not. The way the lines in their face flex, frown and pulse. Inner essence may speak volumes at times, even when no sound does. Human touch may be another wordless language. All the senses have the ability to speak, receive and communicate.



seeksfemslave -> RE: Language; the Human Condition (2/10/2008 1:58:10 AM)

I also think that without language we would be able to think only in a very primitive way about our environment and our interaction with it.

Therefore I think language developed because primitives lived in groups, had instinctual needs, experienced each other and the environment and used rudimentary sounds for communication. Those sounds eventually developed via simple codes to sophisticated  generally understood language
As the linguistic skills developed so did the capacity for conceptual thought.
This would require the marvel that is our brain to have sufficient complexity

Again poking fun at evolutionsts the ability to conceptually think confers very little survival advantage in mans early history since the  group just piled in, killed for food then alpha types grabbed the best woman. or maybe even man for all I know.
The man that decided during the hunt to have a think wouldnt be able to communicate and would be thought a loafer and probably killed by his peers.
I know I am right lol



Zensee -> RE: Language; the Human Condition (2/10/2008 4:07:45 AM)

Some anthropologists think that small talk and gossip may have had a big hand in the increased importance and sophistication of language. Exchanges of physical grooming improves the cohesion of the troop in social animals. Chatting is a sort of vocal grooming of connections between the members of the group. Checking in, sharing news, sharing knowledge, negotiating status (making sure everyone knows their place). How'd that telecom ad go? Reach out and touch someone.

Vocal grooming is more efficient as social glue than the physical grooming because it engages several individuals at once. And you can do it while leaving your hands free for other tasks. And since females have a special interest in cooperating to assist in complex matter of child rearing, and having to teach social skills to the young ones, it seems possible that sophisticated language, involving abstract ideas, was evolved by the females moreso than the males.

Seeks - The survival and evolu... I mean development of our species is dependent on more subtle skills than ganging up on herbivores or raiding the campsite next door. Our capacity for abstract thought was a byproduct of increased demands upon language and / or of changes to the brain to accommodate it. It didn't arise to address a survival need but having occured it proved a potent accelerator of our evol.... development.

Just a thought.



Z.



seeksfemslave -> RE: Language; the Human Condition (2/10/2008 4:36:43 AM)

Like your last paragraph MrZ



LadyEllen -> RE: Language; the Human Condition (2/10/2008 5:00:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: charmdpetKeira

One of the biggest changes in my life has come from recognizing language triggered, emotional responses; words and phrases that set people off. 
 


Whats interesting I find is the effect of chanting ancient Germanic rune names. NB we're talking here about runes as symbol complexes denoting spiritual/cosmic truths, not the various confabulations of new age movements.

Whilst these rune names are rooted in ancient Germanic (and are the roots for many of our modern words), to our modern ears they are nonsense - not words we know, and so not really language as we use it on an everyday basis.

Yet, they can produce psychosomatic responses in the chanter. There is an argument that it is not the rune names themselves which produce this effect, but the chanting itself - however, different rune names produce different responses. There is also an argument that knowing what the rune names relate to and denote in terms of the rune (the meaning) is what will provoke related responses - but again, the same sort of response is forthcoming for each rune name even where the chanter lacks knowledge of the related rune meaning.

E



Aswad -> RE: Language; the Human Condition (2/10/2008 7:20:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

I also think that without language we would be able to think only in a very primitive way about our environment and our interaction with it.


Correction: without language, our minds don't evolve to the point where we have the desire or inclination to do so.
Once we're there, language is just a useful "enabling constraint" for some things, as Zensee mentioned.

quote:

Therefore I think language developed because primitives lived in groups, had instinctual needs, experienced each other and the environment and used rudimentary sounds for communication. Those sounds eventually developed via simple codes to sophisticated  generally understood language


Sign language is the same as vocal language. And a sign language was developed in Nicaragua just a few decades ago, from scratch, with nothing other than a few crude gestures and a desire to communicate. It doesn't take a bunch of generations. It takes children and a few months to a few years, depending on where you draw the line for calling it a language. Sound is a later addition, that appears to stem from the notion of doing sign language with your mouth, as well as imitating sounds from your environment. As the notion of sound as language settles in, you get used to the idea, and start using the sounds themselves, rather than the mouth signs and emulation.

The motivation is simply that you can't do much sign language while wrestling prey to the ground, and doing it with a spear or whatever in your hands could poke somebody's eyes out. Of course, putting down your weapon to indicate that a big animal is just around the corner seems rather counterproductive, too. Slightly later, Zensee's comments on grooming become relevant.

quote:

As the linguistic skills developed so did the capacity for conceptual thought.


Not really. Language is a sharable representation, that's all. More advanced sharing led to more advanced concepts.

Health,
al-Aswad.



Aswad -> RE: Language; the Human Condition (2/10/2008 7:31:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zensee

Vocal grooming is more efficient as social glue than the physical grooming because it engages several individuals at once. And you can do it while leaving your hands free for other tasks. And since females have a special interest in cooperating to assist in complex matter of child rearing, and having to teach social skills to the young ones, it seems possible that sophisticated language, involving abstract ideas, was evolved by the females moreso than the males.


Social skills don't generally need to be taught, as illustrated by the way the phrase "do as I say, not as I do" feels when you speak it. [:D]

But, yeah, gossip and social games among women are thought to have been critical; I seem to recall that at least one paper has put forth the idea that Sumerian was created principally by the females of our species. However, it also seems pretty evident that children are invaluable in the formation of language, and far more able to rapidly create a shared language that their adult counterparts. This is seen in pidgin formation, or even in the way kids will somettimes create spontaneous languages with each other. Nicaragua is another example.

Know how the boys generally like a good game of "let's see if we can hit the fast, dangerous animal, with a faster, sharp stone." ?
I hear they call it baseball, cricket, or whatever, these days... same thing: manipulating a projectile weapon. Great fun.
A lot of animals can take down a bunch of hunters with spears, but will be felled quickly by a stone to the head.

Language is a human instinct, and like most of our instincts, it is honed through the games children play.

Health,
al-Aswad.



seeksfemslave -> RE: Language; the Human Condition (2/10/2008 8:06:08 AM)

quote:

Aswad
Correction: without language, our minds don't evolve to the point where we have the desire or inclination to do so. ie think


Isnt this a bit catch-22.?
Not able to think therefore language cant develop.
No language limits our thinking development

My guess is grunts/gestures issued together being interpreted.
Grunts without gestures = a rudimentary language.
Then I would guess an exponential expansion in thinking capacity as requests for action which were transmitted  first as gestures then began to be equated with grunts or noises without the gestures.

A perfect example here is a dog who can rarely be made to look at something behind simply by pointing. A human would soon learn first by gesture and then by grunt that a tasty morsel was present or someone was stealing his woman.

I agree it is more likely that female nurturing of offspring had the major influence on language development.

Another dig at evolution, why has such high level abstract  reasoning capacity developed in humans
Unquestionably has zero survival benefit.



charmdpetKeira -> RE: Language; the Human Condition (2/10/2008 8:09:36 AM)

All very interesting, Lady E, definitely.
 
I hadn’t considered this aspect. It brings to mind how the word “goosfraba” was used in the movie “Anger management” and does actually seem to work for having a calming effect.

In trying to answer T’s question;

quote:

But then define language. When dogs bark at each other is that language ?


I came to realize, just about anything has the potential of telling us something, in its own terms, which makes for an extremely broad scope. I'm not quit sure where to draw the line, if one can be drawn; other then relative to conceptual. Doesn't narrow things down much.

I think I'm more confuesed now then when I started.

Thank you, everyone, for your replies. I’ll keep reading, deciphering, and trying to respond. It’s a lot to think about; I think. [8|]

k



Aswad -> RE: Language; the Human Condition (2/10/2008 11:39:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

Isnt this a bit catch-22.?
Not able to think therefore language cant develop.
No language limits our thinking development


Thought came first. Language brings it together and gives it form. Form becomes more intricate over time.

quote:

Another dig at evolution, why has such high level abstract  reasoning capacity developed in humans.
Unquestionably has zero survival benefit.


It doesn't need to have a survival benefit.
It just needs to not be a liability.
Clearly, it wasn't. Then.

Health,
al-Aswad.



luckydog1 -> RE: Language; the Human Condition (2/10/2008 1:53:33 PM)

What an interesting topic.  To get back to the OP.  The term limited is a half full or half empty kind of issue.  IF you have no language, having one is extremely freeing and opens up a wide range of mental abilities.  But at the same time a language does define things, and affects the perception of the World.  And only being fluent in one language is in many ways limited compared to someone who has fluency in more than one language Especially if they are dissimilar for example speaking Spanish, Italian, and French is more limiting thatn someone who speaks French and Inupiak.  I have only a  limited grasp of Spanish along with native English.  But a small example that I have noticed.  In English you can Play soccer or Play the guitar.  In Spanish you Jugar Futbol y Tocar la guitara.  It is a subtle but real difference.  I understand that in Navajo there is no word for I, everything is expressed as We.  It is a radically different way of viewing the world, including ourselves.

A Side Note, the last native Speaker of Eyak died last week, and another small language has died.  Taking away a part of our greater selves as a species.



ladyeleanor -> RE: Language; the Human Condition (2/10/2008 2:31:55 PM)

Language is certainly instrumental in our memory and storage processes as is forms the basis for a semantic and acoustic coding. We can see a word such as vertisomatism and even though we don't know what it means we have other words to compare it to so can remember it easier than we would be able to remember a Chinese character say that has nothing for us to compare it to. Limitations exist in so far as our vocabulary can prevent people expressing themselves as clearly as they might want to, but thoughts require an organisational system and language serves us very well in that regard.



Zensee -> RE: Language; the Human Condition (2/10/2008 2:37:37 PM)

Aswad - I suspect there is a sort of feedback loop between language and abstract thought. So it becomes a chicken and egg problem. At a point the symbol / word for the thing becomes almost as potent and real as the thing itself (returning to the OP and the power of words to hurt and heal).

Symbols can be manipulated in novel ways that objects cannot and leads to new uses for things. Also language allows us to make "things" out of immaterial concepts; feelings, values, behaviours. Certainly cultural and social skills are not simply verbalised to children and do not flow in one direction from parent to child but being able to put complec ideas about conduct into a few words must be a helpful skill. Telling the screaming kids to "play fairly" sounds like a simple idea but is actually remarkably complex considered in the context of the local notions of what fair is.

Children are hard wired to learn language (including sign language), up until about age 7. A sad experient many centuries ago demonstrated this. Some monks thought that if children were not exposed to speech or written words they would spontaneously begin using the universal language we all had prior to the divisions caused by the erection of the Tower of Babel. Unfortunately it simply left them mentally undeveloped for life.


Z.



Alumbrado -> RE: Language; the Human Condition (2/10/2008 2:46:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: outlier

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord
The idea that language defines thought has been long discredited (by people studying cross-cultures), though I'm unsure as to how scientific this sort of investigation was.


I presume that what the OP was refering to when she said this:
quote:

charmdpetKeira
On top of that, a friend of mine posed a question to me, if I remember correctly, something like, “If it takes language to have a thought, how much are we limited by it?”


was the Whorf Hypothesis or as it is called, the Sapir–Whorf Hypothesis. 

The best summary I can find for current opinion about this is here:
http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/4110/whorf.html

If you have any evidence of it being discredited I would like to know about it.
It would be interesting especially since he formed it while doing cross cultural studies.  Although as you infer we all know that "scientific rigor" is very difficult
at best in the Social Sciences.

Thank you,
Outlier


The S-W hypothesis is about a mutual relationship between cognition and language development. 

The OP seems to be implying that any level of thought requires complex language skills, and I don't think it is widely accepted that S-W supports that.
From your link:

"Most linguists who study the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis cite examples demonstrating why they either support the conclusions of Whorf and and Sapir, reject them, or are unsure of exactly what the hypothesis is about. It is commonly believed that the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis possesses some truth, but the extent to which it is applicable to all situations is questioned. Linguists generally support a 'strong' or a 'weak' interpretation. Linguists who study the hypothesis tend to cite examples that support their beliefs but are unable or unwilling to refute the opposing arguments. Examples exist that strengthen the arguments of everyone who studies the hypothesis. Nobody has gained significant ground in proving or refuting the hypothesis because the definitions of Sapir and Whorf are very vague and incomplete, leaving room for a significant amount of interpretation. "




seeksfemslave -> RE: Language; the Human Condition (2/10/2008 2:52:36 PM)

This topic has engaged my attention in a way that I find very satisfying I dont find the question that the OP posed very interesting in that "hurt feelings" can be engendered by threat whether physical or verbal.

Every night I go out and drink a few pints of beer and  enjoy the mild anaesthetic effect.
I also think about this that and the other.
How do I do that? By using language. I engage in a dialogue with myself.

So I am more convinced than ever that if our brains had not had the capacity to accommodate speech we wouldnt  be able to indulge in cognitive conceptual mental activity.
ie THINK.

Kill for food copulate and groom one another  YES. Think NO



Zensee -> RE: Language; the Human Condition (2/10/2008 3:11:25 PM)

Even more than that, seeks - some would say that our reality is created and maintained by that 'internal dialogue' you spoke of. Meditating to the point where that dialogue stops produces remarkable results. Unfortunately, as soon you bring that perspective back to the "real world" it changes yet again.

"Hey, guys! I'm meditating! Err... never mind."


Z.



seeksfemslave -> RE: Language; the Human Condition (2/10/2008 3:19:36 PM)

MrZ I agree with your first sentence but please expand the second bit 'cos I cant grasp what you are getting at.



charmdpetKeira -> RE: Language; the Human Condition (2/10/2008 4:25:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

What an interesting topic.  To get back to the OP.  The term limited is a half full or half empty kind of issue.  IF you have no language, having one is extremely freeing and opens up a wide range of mental abilities.  But at the same time a language does define things, and affects the perception of the World. 


Your post has come in a timely manner; I was just thinking about the possibility that I am defining the words language, thought, and experience, differently then some of the other posters. And if so, how it seems to make my scope of the terms broader, but limits my ability to communicate with them.

quote:

I understand that in Navajo there is no word for I, everything is expressed as We.  It is a radically different way of viewing the world, including ourselves.


Funny, I was just thinking about this very concept (I kid you not), along the lines of changing, “How are you doing?” to “How are we doing?”
 
I had used the term “we” inwardly with a dividing effect, at one point, to become more aware of my own trigger responses; and can see how using it in an outward sense has the potential to bring people closer together. We are just as concerned when we inquire about “we” as we are when we speak of “I”, where it changes the pivot point of one’s focus. On the other hand “I” implies exclusion.
 
Seeks,

quote:

I dont find the question that the OP posed very interesting in that "hurt feelings" can be engendered by threat whether physical or verbal.


My point was more towards the investigation of how hurt feelings can be avoided by realizing we are hurting ourselves.
 
All very good stuff though.
 
k



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625