Understanding Language

Article: understanding language

An interesting article I have just read talks about the common understandings across the world. It states that world wide, all humans understand to cry when sad and laugh when happy or something is funny. The only difference is the language used to describe the feelings, emotions and objects is what changes. There is a human nature to feel, be and exist in a certain way, but why does language change anything? what happens if we remove language, communicating would be made so much simpler as we fully understand the relevance to objects, emotion, time etc.

Joshua Hartshorne writes:

'Starting with pioneering work by Joseph Greenberg, scholars have cataloged over two thousand linguistic universals (facts true of all languages) and biases (facts true of most languages). For instance, in languages with fixed word order, the subject almost always comes before the object. If the verb describes a caused event, the entity that caused the event is the subject ("John broke the vase") not the object (for example, "The vase shbroke John" meaning "John broke the vase"). In languages like English where the verb agrees with one of its subjects or objects, it typically agrees with the subject (compare "the child eats the carrots" with "the children eat the carrots") and not with its object (this would look like "the child eats the carrot" vs. "the child eat the carrots"), though in some languages, like Hungarian, the ending of the verb changes to match both the subject and object.' 

The idea is that the order, understanding and processing of language is exactly the same across all humans. We all understand the relevance of anything in the right order, it is just the sounds made when spoken which differs. It is possible to make a universal language based on this theory, allowing for the most common sounds for each words to be used for best understanding of the language, and easiest access of learning - much like what the 'Esperanto language' (previously mentioned) attempted. That said, there is still a vast difference between cultures, opinions, and many other factors which makes language a barrier. By removing language, do you remove this problem? Although people will not be able to communicate any where near as complex ideas as they can with language, the fundamental understanding of human behavior and emotion will allow people to understand one another. 

Spoken and Unspoken

Spoken and Unspoken TED talk

The talk speaks about writing being a ‘lateral invention’ and that there is a recurring ‘bleed between speech and writing’. The more language develops, the more it is unified with the way we speak; we begin to speak as we text and communicate over technology. It used to be that ‘when someone gave a speech, it was common to speak like writing’. It is only logical that you might write like you speak. This transition has been generated over a long period of time and was by no means predictable. Material didn’t allow the transition so easily, it slowed the transition as it was harder to write, type and communicate the way in which we speak. That said, our spoken language has evolved too, which allows us to text as we would speak. It is synergy between both language and written language which has created these new forms of communication. Now we have phones, which allow us to write like we speak, with speak and commerce in conversation that is easy.

However, there is an overarching idea that this transition of language feels like something has gone wrong, that text speech is wrong. Perhaps this is a good thing, language changes under the radar and constantly. At what point did language such as ‘lol’ become integrated into both written and spoken language? It’s core meaning being ‘laughing out loud’, but if you are aware of the substrate of texting, lol no longer means laughing out loud, it is subtler. NO ONE LAUGHS, we aren’t laughing when we use it, it has been our own thing over text conversation. LOL – it’s like a marker of empathy – ‘Pragmatic particles’. It has adapted and become its own meaning which is indescribable.

These conventions are actually quite sophisticated, linguistic breakdown of how to explain words such as ‘lol’ and ‘like’ is far more difficult than any other word to explain. The language we are using in texting is linking back into our everyday language. A brand new layer of language will only continue to grow with the development of technology, is texting going to interfere with real life communication? What aspect of the social effect of texting is most concerning? Does the distance of the phone allow for meanness to be easier? For bullying to be more accessible as the conversation doesn’t take place face to face?

What we are seeing is a new way of writing, the writing of how we speak, as well as people still writing like expected. Texting is evidence of a balancing act and expansion of bilingual language, how it can be beneficial to learn multiple languages. Most people nowadays understand how to write like spoken as well as more traditional writing. Where did this linguistic miracle happen? How did the youth of our population create this linguistic brilliance in which we now write and communicate? Homo sapiens are the only ones ever to evolve language.  A complicated argument put forward by Mark cable suggests that “other animals don’t have anything to speak about”. Language allows for trade and was crated for this purpose. There are thousands of different languages – 7-8 thousand languages universally. Yet the greatest variance of language is where people are most tightly packed together. Papa New Guinea has 800 different languages.

We use language to draw rings around our groups, to protect our knowledge, wisdom and skills. We evolved in a way which wouldn’t allow us to communicate with each other. It is instinctively a marker of identity and homeland. We have created language to allows us to communicate, yet by created language we have built more barriers between the world. When meeting new people, we initially ask: are they part of our group? Or an out of group member? It is hard to learn a language to the extent at which we can pass as fitting in to a group. This just doesn’t happen. The accent, idioms and colloquial terms vary too often to keep up with knowing the language like anyone else. As soon as we move outside the tribe, we treat people wrong, as sub human. We have a tendency to treat our kind well.

Globalisation now raises a burden; these languages create a barrier for co-operation. Why is it that there are some forms of universal understanding? Time measurement is universal around the world – seconds, minutes, hours. Yet language is not. Will everybody also speak English in the future? 10 languages account for 50% of all speakers on earth. We are losing our linguistic diversity at an increasing rate. We lose 30 languages every year. 2 billion people speak English as their 2^nd language. Inevitably there will be a single language universally at some point. At where English is at now, we have to bet that English will become the only spoken language at some point in the future.

Still thinking about the English language, there is one key aspect which makes it difficult for other language to understand. That is the subjunctive mood. It is a tool to be used like a pair of glasses, when used at the right time can be focused, when the wrong time can be blurry.

The subjunctive allows us to see in to the future, as well as the past and imagine what could have happened - a time space machine of could and should. Other cultures believe it is a pointless exercise in pondering what could have happened.

This lack of the subjunctive was part of a resilience and being able to meet the world head on. But looking forward has potential to move the world forwards, and think about things which don’t exist, and are able to propel progress forward.

An interesting piece of history involved the naming of George Washington and his title as the leader of the US. The title ‘president’ was put forward as an option to make sure the title did not connote an immense power, but more an opportunity to create reason and sense in the world. The word was designed almost to humiliate him, and not show his power. But whatever title he has, it would have acquired the same reputation it has now. The title doesn’t sound that humble at all, reality and history have endured the title with grand stature. 147 nations have a president because they want to sound like the US. Reality changes words far more than words can have change reality.

We shape language more that it shapes us. History changes language – when you find out what a word used to mean you treat that word differently, after knowing the history of where that word derived from.