Language and Thought

[gubba]

G'day folks,

Encouraged by a single voice I'm opening a new thread on language by asking whether we can form a consensus towards some workable definitions of this(these?) concept(s). As the quote from Wikipedia notes, LOL, this should leave the field wide open!


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
As with any complex, emergent concept, language is somewhat resistant to definition. It consists of representations and some manner of grammar. Many languages use gestures, sounds, pictures, or words, and as sets of symbols, aim at communicating concepts, ideas, meanings, and thoughts, though the problem of linguistic vagueness often rears its head when we try to distinguish between these aspects.

Not too prescriptive by any means I'd say. My Collins English Dictionary 4th edition 1998, has a go at being more authoritative with its first two entries:
1. a system for the expression of thoughts, feelings, etc. by the use of spoken sounds or conventional symbols
2. the faculty for the use of such systems, which is a distinguishing characteristic of manas compared with other animals

As good a start as any perhaps, but how best can we clarify our usage of the term? Should we basically rely on recursive, contextual usage, or should we nearly always attempt a suitable sub-definition? I favour the later, pedantic as I can be.

Bumab suggested we might also explore the interplay or influence of "language" on our thought processes (my paraphrase). Now that's a little chestnut I've struggled with before and it calls for some clarity of expression! cheers gubba

[bumab]

Those two definitions seem to be saying that language is simply a symbolic representation of thought- but since they leave open the definition of symbols and thoughts, it's still fuzzy and indeterminite.

How about I make this strong statement:
"Language is a manifestation of a universal thought process, equivalent in scope and subject to all humans, but with different symbols used in different settings to better cope with the particular environment."

Rip that one apart- I know there are problems with it, but it seems like a more focused way to start- making the equation have a single variable (symbols) rather then two (thoughts and symbols), if you will. Is the human "thought language" universal, and if not, how does that manifest itself in language, or how has language influnced those differences?

[pgrmdave]

I would think that language must have the following characteristics:
1 - be able to convey ideas - the main purpose of a language

2 - be reproducable - without being reproducable, no two things could communicate

3 - be purposeful - be created with reason, i.e. light, while displaying the first two characteristics, is not created with the purpose of communication

There may be more, or this may be too inclusive, but for now, this makes sense to me.

[Fishteacher73]

The idea that both language is altered by culture AND culture altered by language is interesting. As illustrated in Orwell's 1984, contol of language = control of thought. It was once said (by whom I cannot recall) that analysis of a culture's language paints a reasonably accurate picture of the broad personality of that culture. Warring cultures have more terms for types of wars/conflicts/violence than those that are predominantly peaceful for example. This is less true today with the globalization of media and ideas, but I think it is valid for isolated cultures.

As to a specific deffinition of language..... A system used to transfer information between individuals.

Originally Posted by bumab

"Language is a manifestation of a universal thought process, equivalent in scope and subject to all humans, but with different symbols used in different settings to better cope with the particular environment."

This assumes that only humans have language. This has been shown untrue. This also is assuming that culture does not alter language and it is not part of the perpetuation of that culture. So the exact mechanism of language varys from individual to individual (ie connoatation as opposed to dennotation). The final part makes no sense IMO, essentailly changing the color of a rock makes it no more or less useful, so the variations in language to be better for a specific environment must be varied by more than just different symbols.
Sorry, did not mean to trash you r def. but just examined it...I could be off base as well. The def. seemed a bit limited in its scope and homoginized cultural variances that I feel are illustrated by language variances (not to mention species variance).

My 2 sense.

[bumab]

Originally Posted by Fishteacher73

The idea that both language is altered by culture AND culture altered by language is interesting. As illustrated in Orwell's 1984, contol of language = control of thought. It was once said (by whom I cannot recall) that analysis of a culture's language paints a reasonably accurate picture of the broad personality of that culture. Warring cultures have more terms for types of wars/conflicts/violence than those that are predominantly peaceful for example.

I wonder what influence the language has over children born into that culture...

Originally Posted by Fishteacher73

This assumes that only humans have language. This has been shown untrue.

Good point...

Originally Posted by Fishteacher73

The final part makes no sense IMO, essentailly changing the color of a rock makes it no more or less useful, so the variations in language to be better for a specific environment must be varied by more than just different symbols.

I was thinking more along the lines of the multiple words for snow by Eskimo's- the environment was different. Or, to use your example, the multiple words for war and conflict in warring cultures, not usefulness of the object. Sorry for not being clear.

Originally Posted by Fishteacher73

Sorry, did not mean to trash you r def. but just examined it...I could be off base as well. The def. seemed a bit limited in its scope and homoginized cultural variances that I feel are illustrated by language variances (not to mention species variance).

No apologies neccessary. I don't neccessarily subscribe to that definition, I simply put it forth as a starting place for discussion. I think that definition is limited in scope, and does ignore the influence of the language on the culture and thought processes of the individuals involved. I really don't know if humans can claim to have a universal thought process either...

[Fishteacher73]

Originally Posted by bumab

I wonder what influence the language has over children born into that culture...

What influence it has may be difficult to determine, but the influence must be there. As much as environmental factors do affect development, the manner in which information is presented and the specific connoataions of said method must have some sort of impact.

[bumab]

Originally Posted by Fishteacher73

As much as environmental factors do affect development, the manner in which information is presented and the specific connoataions of said method must have some sort of impact.

I wonder if one could study folk brought up in a culture that was markedly different to the language spoken at home, like Mandarin in the US, or English over there. Would you find a significant difference in behaviors or attitudes as a result of the difference in language?

That all hinges on the premise that I think "in English" and others think "in Swedish" or "in German" or whatever.... Anybody know anything about that idea?

[Turtle]

Bumab said, "I wonder what influence the language has over children born into that culture..."
___Noam Chomsky did considerable research into language acquisition in children & concluded that we are "hard-wired" for language. For example, at an early stage of infancy, all children coo & babble in exactly the same way regardless of which culture they were born into.

[bumab]

True. So it seems we start out with some universal "language" of sorts. What effect on our thought patterns does the language we first learn have?

[Fishteacher73]

Yet depending on the language and the emphasis and connotation of wors must build a framework. For many languages the "bad" words usually deal with religion/damnation/devil type stuff while in english they are much more along vulgar lines (bodily wastes/sexual). This subtle bias must cause some associations with their counterpart, ie what is bad sex or blasphemy.