4 ms·

Eh, isn't that why language was invented? Late Stephen Hawking would've had a hard time with body language and even intonation. Fortunately, we have words that

by bserge 6y ago

Eh, isn't that why language was invented? Late Stephen Hawking would've had a hard time with body language and even intonation. Fortunately, we have words that convey exactly what we want.

Retric 6y ago
Edit: To your point, physical disabilities are meaningful, but hawking is in large part known for his difficulties communicating not being rude. Etiquette still applies to the written word for example. Anyway, you can’t speak without interrupting the speaker, but you can gesture. Similarly, people don’t constantly walk around repeating I am angry/sad/happy/etc. Etiquette is a constant framework and channel of communication where spoken language is for specifics. The words you say can be less important than the volume, timing, etc of how you say them. Grunts may work assuming they fit in with social conventions. The grammar of etiquette is similarly important. Prisoners may fight each other, but the vast majority of the time their doing something else. Fail to communicate well, and it may just get you killed. PS: Though I may be overusing the etiquette as language analogy, it’s a very close fit.
MereInterest 6y ago
> Fortunately, we have words that convey exactly what we want. Words can be just as fuzzy as body language. Sometimes, this can be done intentionally, for dramatic effect (e.g. "The duke yet lives that Henry shall depose"). English can have syntactic ambiguity, which limits the understanding of a phrase. In the sentence "I saw the man on the mountain with the telescope.", was I using a telescope to see the man on the mountain, or did I observe that the man on the mountain was himself looking through a telescope? [0] Whether words are to be taken literally or metaphorically depends entirely on the context and the audience. Heck, the same word can be functioning both literally and metaphorically within the same sentence [1]. In the sentence "He took his hat and his leave", the word "took" is literal in the phrase "took his hat", but metaphorical in the phrase "took his leave". There's an entire class of errors [2] related to encoding of thoughts to speech not matching the decoding of speech to thoughts. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntactic_ambiguity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntactic_ambiguity [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeugma_and_syllepsis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeugma_and_syllepsis [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberrant_decoding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberrant_decoding Edit: This may have come off a bit harsh, but that was not my intent. I had the same understanding ten years ago, that the uncertainty of communication can only be shackled by the rigidity of language. I found that I had built my house upon sand, for there is nothing sturdy to be found within language, and seekers will find only chaos and descriptivism.
- ywei3410 6y ago
  Good answer! Wittgenstein’s philosophical work also adds an extra critique to this view of language. [1] https://philosophyforchange.wordpress.com/2014/03/11/meaning-is-use-wittgenstein-on-the-limits-of-language/ https://philosophyforchange.wordpress.com/2014/03/11/meaning...
- kwhitefoot 6y ago
  > metaphorical in the phrase "took his leave" How so? Surely "took his leave" is quite literal, meaning he left. See https://www.lexico.com/definition/take_one%27s_leave https://www.lexico.com/definition/take_one%27s_leave

by bserge 6y ago

Eh, isn't that why language was invented? Late Stephen Hawking would've had a hard time with body language and even intonation. Fortunately, we have words that convey exactly what we want.

Retric 6y ago

Edit: To your point, physical disabilities are meaningful, but hawking is in large part known for his difficulties communicating not being rude. Etiquette still applies to the written word for example. Anyway, you can’t speak without interrupting the speaker, but you can gesture. Similarly, people don’t constantly walk around repeating I am angry/sad/happy/etc. Etiquette is a constant framework and channel of communication where spoken language is for specifics. The words you say can be less important than the volume, timing, etc of how you say them. Grunts may work assuming they fit in with social conventions. The grammar of etiquette is similarly important. Prisoners may fight each other, but the vast majority of the time their doing something else. Fail to communicate well, and it may just get you killed. PS: Though I may be overusing the etiquette as language analogy, it’s a very close fit.

MereInterest 6y ago

> Fortunately, we have words that convey exactly what we want. Words can be just as fuzzy as body language. Sometimes, this can be done intentionally, for dramatic effect (e.g. "The duke yet lives that Henry shall depose"). English can have syntactic ambiguity, which limits the understanding of a phrase. In the sentence "I saw the man on the mountain with the telescope.", was I using a telescope to see the man on the mountain, or did I observe that the man on the mountain was himself looking through a telescope? [0] Whether words are to be taken literally or metaphorically depends entirely on the context and the audience. Heck, the same word can be functioning both literally and metaphorically within the same sentence [1]. In the sentence "He took his hat and his leave", the word "took" is literal in the phrase "took his hat", but metaphorical in the phrase "took his leave". There's an entire class of errors [2] related to encoding of thoughts to speech not matching the decoding of speech to thoughts. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntactic_ambiguity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntactic_ambiguity [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeugma_and_syllepsis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeugma_and_syllepsis [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberrant_decoding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberrant_decoding Edit: This may have come off a bit harsh, but that was not my intent. I had the same understanding ten years ago, that the uncertainty of communication can only be shackled by the rigidity of language. I found that I had built my house upon sand, for there is nothing sturdy to be found within language, and seekers will find only chaos and descriptivism.

ywei3410 6y ago
Good answer! Wittgenstein’s philosophical work also adds an extra critique to this view of language. [1] https://philosophyforchange.wordpress.com/2014/03/11/meaning-is-use-wittgenstein-on-the-limits-of-language/ https://philosophyforchange.wordpress.com/2014/03/11/meaning...
kwhitefoot 6y ago
> metaphorical in the phrase "took his leave" How so? Surely "took his leave" is quite literal, meaning he left. See https://www.lexico.com/definition/take_one%27s_leave https://www.lexico.com/definition/take_one%27s_leave