Is language really a public thing?

[Ben_Sinner]

There is a common belief that language is a public thing. “Private” language is considered absurd.

…but ultimately, don’t we give our own private interpretation for each word we are taught?

For example, the word “evil” will mean something else to me than someone else.

 

[seagal]

The only reason we have language at all is our need to communicate with other people. If you were the only person in the world you wouldn’t develop a language because there would be no need.

 

[Flopfoot]

It can have other purposes en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_speech

 

[johnnyt3000]

Language is taught by our elders as passed on to us. Depending on where we are, we are further educated in it. For the United States, that would be English. I should point out that it is important for a sovereign Nation to have a uniform language. We need a quick and precise way of communication for everyday things.

 

[GEddie]

Language is inherently public. It exists to join human beings.

While some words can have confusing “nuances”, most do not.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Rhubarb]

I struggle with language a lot. My semantics and pragmatic classes were the toughest things I had done before graduate seminars. I’m moved by Wittgenstein’s beetle - when it comes to words I really have no way of knowing that the words we share in common have the same meanings. Adding on more tricky things like sarcasm, hyperbole, irony, slang, etc. to a language makes hammering down a semantic theory even more difficult.

But, we all communicate perfectly well, more or less. Even if we can’t be sure of each other’s meanings, we can act and operate as if we do. Language very well might be public due to the reliable way we use it - it’s just so far we don’t have a model that adequately describes or accounts for the publicness of it.

 

[Ben_Sinner]

There are things that concern me.

Sometimes I fear that maybe when I was in my developmental ages, I misinterpreted all the words, gestures, facial expressions, etc. used to communicate…thus my knowledge and reason is out of whack.

For example if someone looks at me, points there finger at a dog and say “dog”.

Eventually I might assume “this is a dog”

But maybe I misinterepreted them.

Maybe pointing at the object means something else…maybe there is no correlation between the pointing and “this is”…maybe my reason falsely interpreted that as “this is”

and maybe “dog” to them really means cat, etc.etc…you see where I’m getting with this?

…or possibly the other way around. Maybe my knowledge, reason, communication strategies are accurate, but everyone else in life misinterprets them.

Basically I would be disconnected from the rest of humanity…and maybe even have moral theology all wrong as well since language is a huge factor in my knowledge of the gospel.

 

[abucs]

The only reason we have language at all is our need to communicate with other people. If you were the only person in the world you wouldn’t develop a language because there would be no need.

I wonder if there was no language until it was created by God’s creatures?

I wonder if in some respects language is foreign to God?

I wonder if language gives structure to our thinking or impedes it?

Regards.

 

[John_Lazarus]

I wonder if there was no language until it was created by God’s creatures?

I wonder if in some respects language is foreign to God?

I wonder if language gives structure to our thinking or impedes it?

Regards.

If I understand it correctly, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis* posits that language does limit/structure language – if there is no word for it, there is no concept (think of Orwell’s Newspeak). OTOH, it seems that generally we are good at coining words fro new situations/objects/concepts. So, I dunno.

*As opposed to the Sapir-Worf hypothesis, which posits whether language is impeded by a bat’leth to the skull.

 

[abucs]

If I understand it correctly, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis* posits that language does limit/structure language – if there is no word for it, there is no concept (think of Orwell’s Newspeak). OTOH, it seems that generally we are good at coining words fro new situations/objects/concepts. So, I dunno.

*As opposed to the Sapir-Worf hypothesis, which posits whether language is impeded by a bat’leth to the skull.

Thanks John, I’m now busy typing up “Sapir-Whorf hypothesis” in google.

 

[beleg]

Sometimes language is a private artistic endeavor, such as the creation of constructed languages. There are plenty of people who make languages just for fun - take Tolkien for example, who wrote an essay on it called “A Secret Vice”.