this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2023
139 points (99.3% liked)
chat
8468 readers
50 users here now
Chat is a text only community for casual conversation, please keep shitposting to the absolute minimum. This is intended to be a separate space from c/chapotraphouse or the daily megathread. Chat does this by being a long-form community where topics will remain from day to day unlike the megathread, and it is distinct from c/chapotraphouse in that we ask you to engage in this community in a genuine way. Please keep shitposting, bits, and irony to a minimum.
As with all communities posts need to abide by the code of conduct, additionally moderators will remove any posts or comments deemed to be inappropriate.
Thank you and happy chatting!
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Wow thank you very much for this insightful response Frank. It's very interesting.
I'd like to ask a question: Is it possible your definition of when communicating becomes language is human-centric or even really frank-centric? Like the definition or the observance might be faulty? For example because birds have a single sound that says "predatory bird" rather than a string of sounds, we've decided the thing that's communicated is not complex enough to warrant a language definition.
Like we say it's not complex, but really "predatory bird is over us, fly down" is a lot of information to convey
Language specifically means manipulating symbols to convey abstract information. It's not the same as using simple signals to communicate. Dogs barking, African wild dogs sneezing, birds singing, frogs bellowing, cuttlefish changing skin color, all those things are communication. But they can generally only convey one specific piece of information. Communication becomes language when you can combine symbols to convey abstract meaning.
One example of the difference between animal communication and language - A lot of animals can say "There is danger". But they can't say "There is danger over there" or "There was danger" or "there will be danger" or "There is danger behind you". They have a signal for danger, but they can't combine that signal with other abstract ideas to convey more detailed information. They can't talk about something that isn't present, ie "I saw danger there last week".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language#Distinctive_features_of_human_language
Basically, what we're doing is vastly, vastly more complicated and flexible than what we've observed in any animals to date, to the point where using the same term for human language and animal communication is more misleading than helpful. And like I mentioned - We're starting to find instances where some animals may be doing some language like things, but to date we haven't ID'd anything that can really be termed language in the way that humans use it. That doesn't mean there isn't a lot of complex communication going on, but so far what we've found doesn't work the way human language does or use the same features.
Something to think about - Langauge requires a lot of very specific cognitive processes tied to specific parts of the human brain. People can, and do, lose the ability to use language all the time. Conditions like aphasia result in the inability to use words. Folks can still think just fine, but somewhere between the thinking and the making speech something is broken. And there are many, many other conditions that can impair language use. One way to learn about a thing is to observe it when it breaks. Humans are very specialized in language usage, but we can lose that ability relatively easily. Most other animals never had it at all, lacking the highly specialized brain structures that humans use for that purpose.
That's really neat, thanks so much for sharing your knowledge