Re: Re: more Re: [unrev-II] Thinking about communicating

From: Garold (Gary) L. Johnson (dynalt@dynalt.com)
Date: Mon Aug 20 2001 - 17:53:16 PDT

  • Next message: Jack Park: "[unrev-II] Taxonomies and Topic Maps: Categorization Steps Forward"

    Whether language shapes the ability to think or the world view may be open
    to question, but the concepts that underlie a language can certainly affect
    the nature of thought and absolutely impact communication.

    As an example of this, look at the problems that some people experience
    moving from a relatively simple computer language like BASIC or FORTRAN to a
    modern object oriented language like C++ or Java. Or a different linear
    language such as FORTH.

    The languages are not so dramatically different as to cause a problem, but
    the paradigms *are* dramatically different. Moving from a primitive BASIC
    that has no true subroutines and only global variables to a fully OO
    language provides challenges not only in language but in the fundamental
    concepts and structures that those languages manipulate.

    A language without regular expressions is far more difficult to use for
    processing text than a language that has regular expressions integrated into
    the language.

    We write small languages of all sorts all the time because it allows users
    to be more productive in the domain that the language is designed to handle.

    Consider any specialist jargon -- there isn't likely anything that
    specialists can discuss in jargon that couldn't be discussed in ordinary
    English -- with about 20 to 50 times the number of words.

    When the discussion gets more precise and more detailed, we have to move to
    specialized formal languages to make real progress -- logic, mathematics,
    formal languages.

    Consider trying to work with the details of quantum physics without calculus
    and tensors.

    I run into the situation at work that people don't realize that the
    specification documents that we work on need to be as precise (unambiguous,
    correct, complete) as the code they are trying to specify, just at a
    different level of detail.

    The hypothesis that language shapes thought has always been obvious to me,
    but then I don't know the formal statement of the Sapir/Whorf hypothesis.
    There is clearly an issue of degree in that language rarely makes it
    impossible to think about things, but it can certainly facilitate or hinder
    the ability to manipulate symbols and the concepts to which they refer.

    Thanks,

    Garold (Gary) L. Johnson

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Peter Jones" <ppj@concept67.fsnet.co.uk>
    To: <unrev-II@yahoogroups.com>
    Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 3:06 PM
    Subject: Fw: Re: more Re: [unrev-II] Thinking about communicating

    > Actually, I'll just extend my thinking a bit, as I've just had a rather
    odd
    > insight come to me.
    >
    > Imagine two proto-humans together, one is showing the other how to build a
    > spear. In order to communicate how to build it, the 'teacher' only needs
    to
    > demonstrate, point, and go "Ug" (= "See?").
    > And the learner can just look, nod, and go "Ug" (= "Yes, I see how").
    >
    > Q: So when do the specific labels for things need to come into play in
    human
    > language?
    > A: When two people need to communicate about something *that is not
    present
    > in the context they are currently in*.
    > Q: How the heck did human beings make that leap, because it takes two to
    > tango, as they say?
    > A: Well, it would seem that people started to label things uniquely by
    > demonstration in groups, and the prior provision of labels provided for
    the
    > opportunity to talk about things out of context.
    > Q: So the proto-linguistic learning capacity must have been present in
    more
    > than one proto-human at a time in order for the communicative act to make
    > any sense?
    > A: Yes, it was driven by evolution. Communication between members of a
    group
    > provides better protection against predators.
    > Q: Why did they start to do that, if we make the assumption that necessity
    > is the mother of invention?
    > And why didn't the predators just win all the time instead?
    > Weird.
    > Did Steven Pinker (or another) cover this already?
    >
    > On a different thread, enriching thoughts about the visual and
    > communication, maybe language gives rise to difficulties of communication
    > because of its *poverty* not its richness.
    > I.e. English, or whatever language, is still a pretty feeble abstraction
    > (for the sake of this line of thought).
    > Or, maybe people don't really learn the full content of meanings when they
    > learn the language, they just learn the bits they need as reflexes as they
    > go along. So perhaps more complete methods of learning are needed, or,
    even
    > further enrichment of communication that goes beyond the mere word as
    > printed on the page, so that the full extent of intent of meaning is
    > available to both writer and reader.
    >
    > Cheers,
    > Peter
    >
    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: "Peter Jones" <ppj@concept67.fsnet.co.uk>
    > To: <unrev-II@yahoogroups.com>
    > Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 9:00 PM
    > Subject: Re: Re: more Re: [unrev-II] Thinking about communicating
    >
    >
    > > bcl (forwarded) wrote:
    > > >The
    > > >distinction, however, between 'language' and 'idea' is non existant.
    > >
    > > I might be grievously misconstruing what bcl meant here, but as I read
    it
    > I
    > > disagree wholeheartedly with the sentence above. Ideas are often prior
    and
    > > different in nature. Just because they can be expressed in language does
    > not
    > > mean they are necessarily not distinct.
    > > When I am building a tool, say, creating the first spear ever, is my
    > > thinking visual imagination or verbal?
    > > As someone who has personally creatively solved many a motorcycle
    > rebuilding
    > > problem employing only synthetic visual imagination I argue strongly for
    > > that distinction.
    > >
    > > >The idea of a 'meme' can discussed in terms of chunks of language
    > > >which spread around, translate, morph, degrade, die, etc.
    > >
    > > Yes, but a 'meme' can also be demonstrated.
    > >
    > > Some might say that the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is untestable purely
    > because
    > > no two people have the same CPU.
    > >
    > > Others might say, "Look not to language but to the world," and emphasise
    > the
    > > power of visual metaphor in crossing the divides of understanding.
    > >
    > > Cheers,
    > > Peter
    > >
    > >
    > > ----- Original Message -----
    > > From: "Jack Park" <jackpark@thinkalong.com>
    > > To: <unrev-II@yahoogroups.com>
    > > Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 2:41 PM
    > > Subject: Fwd: Re: more Re: [unrev-II] Thinking about communicating
    > >
    > >
    > > > Forwarded from an Unrev user who has problems with yahoo groups.
    > > >
    > > > >From: "earth"
    > > > >henry:
    > > > >
    > > > > >1. Steven Pinker, linguist and psychologist, now at MIT, doesn't
    > think
    > > > > > much of the Whorfian hypothesis. Writes he in his 1994 book,
    > > > > >"The Language Instinct," that "there is no scientific
    > > > > >ebidence that languages dramatically shape their speakers' ways of
    > > > > thinking."
    > > > > >(p.58), which is called, I gather, linguistic determinism.
    > > > >
    > > > >Well, sure. Thats why its called the Whorf (/ sapir) hypothesis, not
    > the
    > > > >Whorf Fact ;] Half my undergrad major was linguistics, for context.
    > > > >Its clear that Pinker is reacting against some of the muddled
    thinking
    > > > >that was constructed around an ill-conceived hypothesis in the 60's,
    > > > >70's and 80s..
    > > > >
    > > > >But 'scientific evidence' is difficult to gather on this topic since
    > > > >decisive experiments are extremely hard to devise.
    > > > >
    > > > >It seems intuitively obvious that language shapes behaviour,
    > > > >but proving that is another matter altogether.
    > > > >
    > > > >I, for one, am certain that in the softer-senses the whorf hypothesis
    > > > >is correct: that language (even diction) shapes behaviour. The
    > > > >distinction, however, between 'language' and 'idea' is non existant.
    > > > >The idea of a 'meme' can discussed in terms of chunks of language
    > > > >which spread around, translate, morph, degrade, die, etc.
    > > > >
    > > > >Meme's (Ideas) shape behaviour and it is quite obvious to me
    > > > >that the language used to describe Ideas are key to the behavioural
    > > > >shifts. A mantra I came up with in college, however, when studying
    > > > >all the various sciences, analytical fields of various flavors was:
    > > > >
    > > > >"Just because there's a word for it doesnt mean it exists."
    > > > >
    > > > >This was in reaction to the absurd proliferation of naming of
    > > > >hypotheses, 'syndromes', literary bits, scientific findings, etc.
    > > > >It was clear that having a word for various things, in itself,
    > > > >changed people's behaviours around things. Self identifying
    > > > >with various diseases is a reasonably good example. People are
    > > > >sometimes presented with a word which describes a syndrome
    > > > >or set of symptoms or disorder and can sometimes decide that
    > > > >it fits them and self identify. Through learning that niche-word,
    they
    > > > >will often change their behaviour.
    > > > >
    > > > >I've noticed this myself as I've developed a host of words for
    > > > >different types of insomnia :]
    > > > >
    > > > >But, again, building a set of definitions and logical structure and
    > then
    > > going
    > > > >on to prove the whorf hypothesis is more work than I have time for at
    > > > > the moment :)
    > > > >
    > > > >happy august 2001,
    > > > >
    > > > >bcl
    > > > >----------
    > > > >please do not post my email address on a public website, newsgroup,
    > > > >or similar bot-open location
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > Community email addresses:
    > > > Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com
    > > > Subscribe: unrev-II-subscribe@onelist.com
    > > > Unsubscribe: unrev-II-unsubscribe@onelist.com
    > > > List owner: unrev-II-owner@onelist.com
    > > >
    > > > Shortcut URL to this page:
    > > > http://www.onelist.com/community/unrev-II
    > > >
    > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
    > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Community email addresses:
    > Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com
    > Subscribe: unrev-II-subscribe@onelist.com
    > Unsubscribe: unrev-II-unsubscribe@onelist.com
    > List owner: unrev-II-owner@onelist.com
    >
    > Shortcut URL to this page:
    > http://www.onelist.com/community/unrev-II
    >
    > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
    >
    >
    >

    ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
    Secure all your Web servers now: Get your FREE Guide and learn to: DEPLOY THE LATEST ENCRYPTION,
    DELIVER TRANSPARENT PROTECTION, and More!
    http://us.click.yahoo.com/VihfLB/nT7CAA/yigFAA/IHFolB/TM
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

    Community email addresses:
      Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com
      Subscribe: unrev-II-subscribe@onelist.com
      Unsubscribe: unrev-II-unsubscribe@onelist.com
      List owner: unrev-II-owner@onelist.com

    Shortcut URL to this page:
      http://www.onelist.com/community/unrev-II

    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Tue Aug 21 2001 - 18:58:49 PDT