3 ms·

Spoken and written language are one means of communicating ideas. I can communicate anger with my fist or love with a kiss (or vice versa). The subset of commun

Spoken and written language are one means of communicating ideas. I can communicate anger with my fist or love with a kiss (or vice versa). The subset of communication we call language is a systematization by which we can communicate specific ideas using a specific, mutually agreed-upon method. The method must be logical in its formation because otherwise it can't be sure it is understood by both parties.

bane 14y ago
I think the problem nollidge is having with your assertion is that language is likely better described as "probabilistic" rather than "logical". "The method must be logical in its formation because otherwise it can't be sure it is understood by both parties." Isn't true in any description of language. You can't be 0/1 sure that language will be understood by both parties. You can only make a guess that probably the way I'm producing communication symbols will probably be understood by the receiver. If the probabilities align, then communication has succeeded...but a 1:1 production-to-understanding ratio almost never happens. Receivers of communication understand some percentage less than 100% every time. But it's their own internal models of the language that let's them fill in the gaps. You as a communication producer hope that they are filling in the gaps with a model that's close enough to your model that everything works. And for the most part it does, we're pretty good at it, but miscommunication occurs dozens of times a day, every day for every daily set of communication events.
nollidge 14y ago
But I don't see a kiss as not-language: it's body language. It still requires agreement between the parties on what it means, and it doesn't require any logic to be understood - just a common psychological framework plus similar cultural experiences. And same with the raised fist. > The method must be logical in its formation because otherwise it can't be sure it is understood by both parties. Again I don't know what you mean by "logical". Logic is universal and absolute and doesn't change. But while languages each have an internal consistency, they're all very different from each other, and each of them evolves quite drastically given enough time. How could language have ever developed if it needed to be logical for it to be understood? Seems to me all you need is a bit of empathy and some dexterous body parts (fingers/arms, vocal cords/tongue) to build a real language starting from pointing and gesturing and grunting, none of which is at all systematic. Over time, I think modern languages developed that internal consistency because their users needed to express more and more complicated ideas. If the idea I'm conveying to you has lots of actors and actions and nuanced imagery in it, things have to be orderly and highly patterned-based or else I know that you will not understand. So we all mutually agreed on an arbitrary system for these things.

bane 14y ago

I think the problem nollidge is having with your assertion is that language is likely better described as "probabilistic" rather than "logical". "The method must be logical in its formation because otherwise it can't be sure it is understood by both parties." Isn't true in any description of language. You can't be 0/1 sure that language will be understood by both parties. You can only make a guess that probably the way I'm producing communication symbols will probably be understood by the receiver. If the probabilities align, then communication has succeeded...but a 1:1 production-to-understanding ratio almost never happens. Receivers of communication understand some percentage less than 100% every time. But it's their own internal models of the language that let's them fill in the gaps. You as a communication producer hope that they are filling in the gaps with a model that's close enough to your model that everything works. And for the most part it does, we're pretty good at it, but miscommunication occurs dozens of times a day, every day for every daily set of communication events.

nollidge 14y ago

But I don't see a kiss as not-language: it's body language. It still requires agreement between the parties on what it means, and it doesn't require any logic to be understood - just a common psychological framework plus similar cultural experiences. And same with the raised fist. > The method must be logical in its formation because otherwise it can't be sure it is understood by both parties. Again I don't know what you mean by "logical". Logic is universal and absolute and doesn't change. But while languages each have an internal consistency, they're all very different from each other, and each of them evolves quite drastically given enough time. How could language have ever developed if it needed to be logical for it to be understood? Seems to me all you need is a bit of empathy and some dexterous body parts (fingers/arms, vocal cords/tongue) to build a real language starting from pointing and gesturing and grunting, none of which is at all systematic. Over time, I think modern languages developed that internal consistency because their users needed to express more and more complicated ideas. If the idea I'm conveying to you has lots of actors and actions and nuanced imagery in it, things have to be orderly and highly patterned-based or else I know that you will not understand. So we all mutually agreed on an arbitrary system for these things.