As this blog will be constructed from language it feels like one of the first topics we should address. Most of the ideas presented in these passages are not original but are echoes of Wittgenstein, Berkley and presumably many other great thinkers. This is a summary of my interpretation of thier ideas.
Language is a chaotic blend of art and logic. As we use it as our primary medium of communication it becomes very difficult to objectively analyse and discuss, yet that is the aim of this essay. We use language to describe every thing from specific instructions to how we feel which is fairly remarkable when one contemplates the vast difference between these things and the many others we use language to express and explain.
Maths is pure logic and may be used to express things very precisely or make proofs however it cannot be used to describe emotion. At the opposite end of the spectrum imagine music (without words) which can convey emotion so perfectly yet cannot explain or describe to any extent. Both of these examples of maths and music are languages of a sort in that they allow some form of expression, which is what English or any other spoken language really is. Although maths and music are more limited in scope than spoken languages in that they may only describe certain things, when they describe those things they do so far more efficiently and exactly than spoke language is able.
I describe the mix of art and logic in spoken languages as chaotic as there are no rules regarding how the language functions accordingly when describing specific things or feelings. As individuals we are only able to intuit the meaning of another individuals choice of words. When they speak we cannot exactly know their meaning in the same way we understand 2+2=4. We cannot know weather to receive their speech as we would receive and interpret music or if we are to take it as a logical premise for analysis. We tend to make assumptions based on a variety of criteria and assume a meaning which fits the description and most of the time this is sufficiently accurate.
To further complicate the idea of spoken language we must accept that often the words are not the only relevant stimulus to interpreting a meaning. A person will have a vast array of body language and facial expressions accompanying any speech. They will also use tone, rhythm, pitch and other vocal tricks to accentuate certain meanings. Some of these “vocal tricks” are cultural, some may be personal, and they will enhance understanding to those familiar with them but obscure it from those who are not. One may argue that this effect only applies to language when it is spoken person to person. When just reading text from a page there is no body language or vocal effects on the words, they are just words in an order.
Certainly this argument has merit as it becomes increasingly easy to misinterpret someone in text or even over the phone when compared to when in the person however context plays a significant role. A sentence may appear to mean one thing in a certain context and a completely different thing in another. The most important thing to observe about the context of text is who wrote it. If a person you are familiar with (such as a friend or family member) is the author then you can imagine the text being spoken by them and are able to see more of the potential interpretations for the text. Even when the person is unfamiliar to you a mental image of that person will be building up as the text is read. After a while readers may feel they are getting to know the style of the author and are better suited to intuit meaning. This is not to say they are correct, more that they are able to see more of the possibilities for the meaning of any given sentence. It does help explain why reporters and commentators use a specific kind of language which is neutral and open to limited misinterpretation.
The concept of meaning is very important in language. What is meaning? Meaning may not be described in terms of 2+2=4, it is not tangible and cannot be modelled or described with a wave function (yet) which leaves us only able to paint pictures of it and construct analogies. I should like to say meaning is the mental picture of what we wish to express before we select the most appropriate words to describe that image. Language is a tool humans have constructed to suit our needs and environment. It is a tool used to communicate approximate meaning which suggests that we are unable to directly communicate meaning, we must first translate it into some form that may be observed (by any sense receptor) of another. Meaning is a mental process that happens prior to the expression of that meaning (the question as to weather it is chemical, conscious, unconscious or any combinations of those is an intriguing subject but not one that needs fully exploring here).
I should like to extend the analogy of language as a tool and now say it is in fact a vast workshop full of various tools. Hammers, saws, screwdrivers etc are the words in the language. Each task performed in this workshop is the expression of a meaning and to complete the task effectively requires the use of tools. Some tools are used regularly for most tasks such as the vice and some are far more specific and are rarely dusted off for use. The more commonly used tools are either used in tasks that are done more regularly or find uses in a variety of different tasks. Each new task is unique and specific yet each of the tools is rigid and unchanging. Each new task must make use of the available tools to successfully complete it. It is down to the user of the workshop to ensure they have stocked all the correct tools and manipulated them with skill in order to clearly express a meaning.
This analogy extends well in drawing a lot of comparisons to the use of language however the area I wish to focus on at this stage is the rigidity of the tools or words. When tightening a screw one searches for the best fit of their available screwdrivers. A few may serve to complete the task but it is likely one will be the most snug a fit and make the task easiest and less likely to go wrong. The screwdriver ultimately chosen and used in this example was not made specifically for that screw, it was made for all screws similar to the one in question, it may work better or worse for any other similar screw.
The important elements of that extension of the analogy to note are that meaning is always unique and has limitless variations yet we have only a finite number of fixed words to express that meaning. A word covers a spectrum of meanings based on the context of the expression and the experiences of the recipient. Words are non specific which has significant ramifications where there is use of language, some positive and some not. The positive aspects are related to intangible expressions of emotion and art. They also add a great depth to humour. A purely logical language would have no poetry. The problems with having non-specific words is that it is hard to be exact when using them. This can cause difficulties in law, philosophy, politics and so forth. These ways of thinking and communicating require the application of logic to be useful. They also require unanimous correct interpretation by all involved. It is hard to productively use logic when there may be multiple possible interpretations of words and sentences (I use “possible” in this sense to say; one of the correct interpretations in terms of the rules of the language but not the one corresponding to the expressed meaning).
Before we look for how we may put this knowledge to use or remedy any problems that have arisen from how languages have developed we shall explore one other aspect of languages that may cause issue. We have asserted that language is a tool devised by humans for expressing meaning. Its advantages over other forms of expression, its ability to combine with them and its diversity in scope of expression quickly (in evolutionary terms) made it our primary means of communication. We are so used to interacting with one another using language that when we express thoughts to ourselves we tend to use language to do so. When this is the case it becomes very easy to overlook assumptions you have made about reality that are actually ramifications of the way language is used. To say it another way it is very hard to think “outside” of words.
I have shown some of the inadequacies of language when requiring exact descriptions, the non-specific nature of many words not capturing the dynamic nature of meaning. The assumptions I refer to arise from how language came into being as a tool to facilitate social interaction and the survival of the species. Language is often the most convenient way to express a meaning. By taking less time time to express something it allows more time to be spent on other activities. X+X+X=Y expresses the same meaning as 3X=Y, the latter is a short hand way of expression. It allows time and effort to be saved while conserving the meaning. Language has tended to find ways of expressing the most commonly required meanings in the quickest, easiest and most efficient manner. The argument here is not that words and sentences are necessarily shortening (however I suspect there is evidence to support this being the case, take for example the speech used in text messaging) but that the development of words has come about to short hand meanings.
Take an example of a field full of cows. The word cow is a word equivalent to the 3 in 3X=Y. Rather than describe each cow in the field separately as in the X+X+X=Y example, we can simply group them together with one word - “cows” and easily refer to them with little chance of misinterpretation. The ability to create a word in order to concisely express meaning that a language has in this example is very useful but it is also where assumptions begin to creep in. No two cows are identical, even those that are of the same genetic make-up and could be said to be biologically the same cannot ever have occupied the same position in space and so will have had different experiences and must be described differently if to be done so exactly. Rarely is their occasion to require the exact description of a cow, I use this example to illustrate how through language we have invented a concept, that of a cow in this case. Things that we may describe as a cow, like meanings are each unique and fall across part of a spectrum which blends continually with other concepts we may have. For example, the concept of a broader category such as “animals” or an adjacent category such as
“buffalo”.
As we interpret expressions of meaning based on our own individual experiences the invented concepts such as cows or Englishmen can become unfairly associated. The word Englishman can be shorthand for referring to a great number of different people. Should your experience of Englishmen be a purely negative one you may judge it reasonable to think this description can apply to each new encounter of the word, you may even subconsciously do it. If we had no notion of the concept of Englishmen which is a ramification of language short hand we would have no ability to pre-judge any person labelled as such. Groupings may be a useful descriptive tool but are meaningless in the real world and can become dangerous when used as a way of association.
I am by no means suggesting that to “fix” language we must do away with all words that cannot be defined and all short hand grouping words. This would be a cultural and logistical disaster however it would be irresponsible to highlight these issues without offering some form of solution to the problems or some practical use for the knowledge. Certainly awareness of the issues will help people reduce the amount they are themselves misinterpreted by more considered use of language and also allow them to have different perspectives on how and why a word is used and therefore what may reasonably inferred from that word. This kind of understanding regarding language seems of much greater importance than grammar, spelling, punctuation and the classic groupings of words we use (verbs, nouns etc.) as it aids the understanding of meaning which is after all, the original aim of language.
Again you may well argue that spelling, punctuation and grammar do all aid understanding, which is true, but I would argue that it is to a much lesser extent than those discussed in this essay. It is only to the person who uses perfect spelling, punctuation and grammar themselves, that is important that these are also used for their benefit when trying to understand language. These elements are far more cultural tradition than a required necessity, the benefit in their use is creating uniformity (which is good for exact uses of language but less applicable to artistic forms) more than anything else. It may be seen to alienate certain members of society who do not have the ability or inclination to learn these rules.
To appropriately “fix” language the areas that conflict need to be isolated and dealt with according to their aims. Broadly I would categorize the uses of language as “emotional and sensory description” and “formal logical analysis and rules”. I have freely mixed the use of these kinds in this essay and hopefully it has not impaired the understanding of the reader. For the former category of language use the ideal situation is one where the most words are available to choose from and the grammatical rules and confines regarding the use of those words are kept to a bare minimum. For the latter category the exact opposite is the case in that you want as few a words as possible and that each word should have a specific and definable meaning (not used in the same context as meaning something prior to expressing it). Words like happiness are not found it the latter category. This categorising of language is important as it highlights the main cause of misinterpretation in the present use of language. People interchangeably swap between exact language and (what I shall refer to as:) the artistic form, it is up to the observer to asses which form it is that is being used. As we have only one word to describe “language” it is not always obvious that we use our language for two distinct roles.
In a Utopian society there would be two languages that probably use the same symbols and words. The everyday language used by people would be a vast amalgamation of all the various human languages. It would be used in all forms of art and every day exchanges between people. In this language people could express rules or things for logical analysis however it would not be as precise as it could if expressed in the second language. The second language would only be used for specific purposes, namely the law of the land, political mandates, philosophical propositions, areas of science and so forth. The whole aim of this small, exact language is to limit interpretation. With a bi-lingual system in place humanity is afforded the best of both worlds. The issues a single, cover-all approach to language throws up are tackled while the application of language is enhanced. The only remaining task is to construct the exact and specific formal language that is logically consistent which can be used....
The Foundations of Mathematics
This type of deconstruction analysis may also be performed on another of our other main tool for expression. Maths is arguably more important than our native tongues, it has all the facets of our second language in-built and this brings us great comfort. Maths can be relied on yet do our assumptions and preconceptions delude us in this medium more than they do in language? Fortunately that is a discussion for another day!
