language is inadaquite for communication: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Language » language is inadaquite for communication » language is inadaquite for communication

language is inadaquite for communication
speech is lacking, humans require a different style of communication

language is inadaquite for communication

OutOfMyMind
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 20, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 3

Posted 03/20/08 - 06:42 AM: Subject: language is inadaquite for communication	#1
Our entire culture revolves around our language. It let's us communicate and express ourselves and possibly enables us to think sanely. But it also limits us. Have you ever had difficulty expressing yourself to someone because you couldn't tell them how you felt? Language creates a barrier between people, in more than that way too. Language also creates barriers within people. It limits our ability to feel emotion. When babies are born they are a relativly blank slate. As they grow the pick up on the emotions and words for the emotions from their parents. But by doing this they are molded and lose capacity to feel things that they don't have words for. So possible emotions are lost with the knowledge of language. A new form of communication that preserves these lost baby emotions and enables easier comminication between people should be fabricated.
_____________________ Dust in the wind.

Makarismos
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 454

Posted 03/20/08 - 01:47 PM:	#2
How many people do you know with no language? Or perhaps you�ve read accounts about the emotionally diverse, open minded, social people that exist with no language? Forgiving this oversight, perhaps we can construct an argument for your position based upon the limit of language:- 1) Any language has a finite/limited ability to express sentiment. 2) Possible sentiments are limitless. 3) C1 (1+2) Language cannot express all sentiments. I would suggest that this is Prima Facie true - however languages ability to evolve and change over time allows it to overcome (1). Cheers

Floyd
Cool

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Dec 16, 2003
Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 1964

Last Blog: Poverty Book of the Day: The Support Economy

Posted 03/21/08 - 12:44 PM:	#3
The brightest minds usually coin a lot of new words and phrases. If you can think it, you can communicate it. The people who teach a person to communicate, teach the person how to think. But if the person's mind is capable and the person uses it, then the person will be able to advance the language even further--helping us even further specify certain ideas for more accurate, specific, and clear explanations, understandings, and communications.
_____________________ Short and to the point. \| Online Philosophy Club \| Book & Reading Forums \| My Philosophy Articles "Only the descent into the hell of self-knowledge can pave the way to godliness." ~Immanuel Kant

oxumoron
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 21, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 8

Posted 03/22/08 - 03:04 PM:	#4
Outofmymind! Thank you for the subject suggested. The problem as you have expressed it apeals to our internal sense of justice. There are means of expressing oneself that are not verbal one. Such are music and painting. for example. And yet they have their limitations too. As languages they are as inadequate. Have you ever felt the inability of an artist to express oneself by means of colors and lines? Have you ever felt the pangs of a musician unable to give birth toa music that lives within him but can't be blessed with expression? As to the language proper I think that the difficulty in expression arises not only from inability to express but from the deformation. For example: we find a word supposed to express our feeling, but the irony is that our thinking that we know the meaning of the found word is only an illusion. Inadvertently, without our being conscious of that the found word entails the meanings and connotations that are quite alien to our illusion of knowing this word and to what we want to express. But if we ignore this horde of alien undertones of meaning accompanying the found word our whole being does not, can not. It can't help accepting what the found word entails. Then comes the internal shock: the discrepancy between what we wanted to say and what we feel expressing it in clothes of found words. The question is: what is the cure? Or even: Is there a cure? The most interesting question. I would like to hear again from you.

apachama
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 8

Posted 03/26/08 - 08:13 AM:	#5
As has been stated, painting, dance, etc are all non-verbal means of expression. But in all of those cases expression relies on the skill of the expressor. The same is true with language. You seem to be assuming that language limits us by compartmentalising our feelings into words. I find it equally likely that language frees us the means to express anything at all. Have you ever had that feeling of desiring something, but not being sure what it is you want? Once you define it as thirst, nicotene craving, a habit you haven't fulfilled, etc, it has shape and fits into the rational scheme of things. It can be expressed, weighed up, discussed and dealt with in relation to other concepts. To exist in the stage before the the formation of a concept doesn't sound particularly liberating compared to extending one's vocabulary.

if.isaac.then
good student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 13, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 9

Posted 05/15/08 - 10:32 PM:	#6
Maybe our language revolves around our culture, instead of the other way around. In that case, we might consider the possibility that it is the culture, which is imposed upon us and our language, that is the limiting factor in our ability to communicate emotional content. Emotional content is fairly standard across cultures, though. Emotional content is an array of physiological responses to external contingencies. What does differ across cultures is the way emotions are expressed, and I think this speaks more to your point. If our culture doesn't allow us to properly express ourselves we don't "lose the capacity to feel things", we express the emotions in other ways (often in unhealthy ways). As freud might of said, we displace our emotional content. But, why should we need a new form of communication? Why can't we improve the one we have? (By the way, we communicate huge amounts non-verbally, and alot of this goes on below the awareness of either the sender or the receiver) This all begs the question of what sorts of expressions of emotion are smiled or frowed upon by society. Men and women, for example, vary in the degree to which they are able to properly identify the emotional content of themselves and others. Some of this difference might be the result of biological underpinnings, but a good portion of variation in empathy between men and women is most likely due to social factors. This being the case, I would suggest that it isn't always the case that language fails. If one group of people that speaks a certain language is better at indentifying and verbalizing emotional content than another group that speaks the same language, then it isn't the language that's faulty. Edited by if.isaac.then on 05/15/08 - 10:41 PM
_____________________ "microsoft office home and student 2007 offers familiar programs with essential tools to create documents, spreadsheets, and presentations." -gates et al

essence
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 08, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 11

Posted 05/16/08 - 01:08 AM:	#7
Hello fellow philosophers of language. I agree with the OP's statement of the limitations of language. I also agree with other posters who have said that we can work with language and improve upon it; by being very clear in our expressions, we can work with what we have and eventually get our meanings across. This requires a lot of work, however. Additionally, as has been pointed out, connotations and associations are attached to language that make our intended meanings obscure to others. This is due both to culture and personal experience. Thus I would add to the thought pool the idea that successful communication with others relies on the skill of the communicator, to be sure, but also with the skill of the listener. The most talented communicator, in other words, may be thwarted by a listener whose preconceived notions of a topic and the possible things that can be said on that topic filter the intended message of the speaker. A further proposition I would add to the mix is, not only does culture limit what may be expressed in a language, but it often acts as a means of changing the actual thought process of language users. Looking at the English language, for example, we find that only recently has the idea of using first person feminine pronouns to speak of general cases emerged. Historically, when speaking of any one person we would use "he". This could be replaced by "he or she", yet such a construction is cumbersome. I try to vary between "he" and "she". I make an effort to do this, because I see that language often acts subconsciously to influence our perceptions. It can easily be demonstrated that we have existed in a male dominated society for a relatively long time. This is manifested in the ways that we use language. One way that we can highlight this issue -if we truly value the equality of both men and women- is to remove this bias from our speech patterns. My observation is that by having this bias within the language itself, we subliminally promote that bias in the consciousness of the users of that language. A similar cultural example of deep level language-thought interactions is found in the Hawaiian language. In Hawaiian, possessive pronouns (call them possessive adjectives if you like) like "my" and "your" do not exist because there was no sense of individual ownership of anything -all belonged to the community including children. This is especially the case with land. In the Hawaiian religion, it was understood that the land or "aina" is the mother of all people. When European people -with their own cultural perspectives- subsequently occupied that land and put it up for sale, it is no wonder that even those Hawaiians who had money did not rush to buy any land as this was akin to actually selling or buying your mother. The result is that very few Hawaiians have any land at all and even the one bastion of old Hawaii that still exists, the island of Ni'ihau, is actually owned by the Robinson family. A further thought to share has to do with findings from those who research human communication. I don't have this research in front of me at the moment, but can track it down for any who are interested in reading it. According to this research, about 80% of the content of all human speech interactions consist of nonverbal communication such as body language and facial expression. As I have been engaged in teaching English to speakers of other languages for the last 15 years or so, this makes perfect sense. In many cases I have worked with learners -typically refugees- from multiple linguistic and cultual backgrounds who know close to zero Englsh. Despite the lack of a common language or culture, however, I have learned how to teach English to these students quite successfully. As the experience of most language learners in the US has been mostly a teacher speaking in English to them about the language, and then trying to get them to use the language, many of them ask me how I can do that. I do that by creating context and providing the language that fills it, and that context is created through non-verbal communication. My point, however, is that language (in the linguistic sense of the word), though clearly of great importance -or I wouldn't have job, is of less significance in human communication than most would initially assume. In light of all this, and regardless of the skepticism that surounds it, I would advocate teaching children how to become aware of their thoughts and feelings, and the thoughts and feelings of others as a means of improving human communication above and beyond language. A great deal of groundbreaking research into this has been done in neuroscience, and psychology in so far as it has been demonstrated that people who are sensitive to the emotions of themselves and others are more successful in their careers and their personal lives as this makes them better communicators and listeners. It has also been shown that merely observing a picture of a face exhibiting an emotion actually triggers that emotion in the observer at the level of the brain, as if they themselves were experiencing the emotion. A book called Social Intelligene by Daniel Goleman highlights much of this research.

essence
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 08, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 11

Posted 05/16/08 - 01:09 AM:	#8
Hello fellow philosophers of language. I agree with the OP's statement of the limitations of language. I also agree with other posters who have said that we can work with language and improve upon it; by being very clear in our expressions, we can work with what we have and eventually get our meanings across. This requires a lot of work, however. Additionally, as has been pointed out, connotations and associations are attached to language that make our intended meanings obscure to others. This is due both to culture and personal experience. Thus I would add to the thought pool the idea that successful communication with others relies on the skill of the communicator, to be sure, but also with the skill of the listener. The most talented communicator, in other words, may be thwarted by a listener whose preconceived notions of a topic and the possible things that can be said on that topic filter the intended message of the speaker. A further proposition I would add to the mix is, not only does culture limit what may be expressed in a language, but it often acts as a means of changing the actual thought process of language users. Looking at the English language, for example, we find that only recently has the idea of using first person feminine pronouns to speak of general cases emerged. Historically, when speaking of any one person we would use "he". This could be replaced by "he or she", yet such a construction is cumbersome. I try to vary between "he" and "she". I make an effort to do this, because I see that language often acts subconsciously to influence our perceptions. It can easily be demonstrated that we have existed in a male dominated society for a relatively long time. This is manifested in the ways that we use language. One way that we can highlight this issue -if we truly value the equality of both men and women- is to remove this bias from our speech patterns. My observation is that by having this bias within the language itself, we subliminally promote that bias in the consciousness of the users of that language. A similar cultural example of deep level language-thought interactions is found in the Hawaiian language. In Hawaiian, possessive pronouns (call them possessive adjectives if you like) like "my" and "your" do not exist because there was no sense of individual ownership of anything -all belonged to the community including children. This is especially the case with land. In the Hawaiian religion, it was understood that the land or "aina" is the mother of all people. When European people -with their own cultural perspectives- subsequently occupied that land and put it up for sale, it is no wonder that even those Hawaiians who had money did not rush to buy any land as this was akin to actually selling or buying your mother. The result is that very few Hawaiians have any land at all and even the one bastion of old Hawaii that still exists, the island of Ni'ihau, is actually owned by the Robinson family. A further thought to share has to do with findings from those who research human communication. I don't have this research in front of me at the moment, but can track it down for any who are interested in reading it. According to this research, about 80% of the content of all human speech interactions consist of nonverbal communication such as body language and facial expression. As I have been engaged in teaching English to speakers of other languages for the last 15 years or so, this makes perfect sense. In many cases I have worked with learners -typically refugees- from multiple linguistic and cultual backgrounds who know close to zero Englsh. Despite the lack of a common language or culture, however, I have learned how to teach English to these students quite successfully. As the experience of most language learners in the US has been mostly a teacher speaking in English to them about the language, and then trying to get them to use the language, many of them ask me how I can do that. I do that by creating context and providing the language that fills it, and that context is created through non-verbal communication. My point, however, is that language (in the linguistic sense of the word), though clearly of great importance -or I wouldn't have job, is of less significance in human communication than most would initially assume. In light of all this, and regardless of the skepticism that surounds it, I would advocate teaching children how to become aware of their thoughts and feelings, and the thoughts and feelings of others as a means of improving human communication above and beyond language. A great deal of groundbreaking research into this has been done in neuroscience, and psychology in so far as it has been demonstrated that people who are sensitive to the emotions of themselves and others are more successful in their careers and their personal lives as this makes them better communicators and listeners. It has also been shown that merely observing a picture of a face exhibiting an emotion actually triggers that emotion in the observer at the level of the brain, as if they themselves were experiencing the emotion. A book called Social Intelligene by Daniel Goleman highlights much of this research.

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.