Our languages
04/04/16 04:43
Somewhere I heard that there are three distinct types of language that are unique to human expression. I am aware that we now know that other animals have forms of language, but this particular set of distinctions came from a time when it was thought that communication, at least by employing language, was unique to humans. The three types of language are: the language of words, grammar and sentences; the language of mathematics; and the language of music. Music, it was deemed, in this analysis, is the best at conveying emotional content. Mathematics, on the other hand is not able to convey emotion, but also is incapable of lying. It is the language of pure logic. Mistakes can be made in mathematics, but it is not possible to lie with mathematics. Words can convey many different types of human expression, including emotions and logic, but are less precise in their expressions of emotions and of logic.
Like all organizational systems, there are problems with this particular simplification. I have long believed that the visual arts are distinct from music, and may form another type of language, which, like music, excels in conveying emotion. Each of the three languages are far more complex than can be conveyed in a simple analysis and the languages can be combined. Music, can contain sung words. Mathematical problems can employ words in their expression. Written language can contain numerals and even notes. The languages are not distinct.
I think that in the original expression of the three languages of humans, it was also expressed that while there are many different languages of words, there is only a single language of mathematics. I think this was before the development of quantum physics and imaginary numbers, but the basic concept remains. Mathematicians who do not have a common spoken language can work on the same problem together by using the language of mathematics. Music, while having many different genres, also has an appeal that reaches beyond the limits of the language of words. An audience for a musical performance need not have a common spoken language to share in the meaning and appreciation of the music.
In my life, I have observed, and then dedicated a great deal of time and energy in making a distinction between two forms of the language of words: oral language and written language. In some aspects, they share common traits. Oral and written languages can have the same vocabulary, similar grammatical rules and similar concepts can be expressed. Formal speeches and papers can be read from written manuscripts. Such reading, however, can be dull and boring and often can lack the necessary expression to communicate well. Properly spoken, oral language contains more repetition, more run-on sentences, more sentence fragments and many other idioms that are not acceptable in written language.
Often when I transcribe a sermon that I have delivered orally, I find myself editing the words I spoke to translate them into a written document that communicates more clearly. Similarly, when I read from manuscripts, I frequently repeat, and make subtle changes to the grammar of the written document in order to make it sound better and to communicate with my audience more clearly.
Greek philosophy was most often pursued in oral form. Most of the great classical written documents that have come to us from Greek Culture are in the form of dialogue. Plato’s Phaedrus consists of a dialogue between Phaedrus and Socrates in which Socrates delivers a scathing criticism of written language: “He who thinks, then, that he has left behind him any art in writing, and he who receives it in the belief that anything in writing will be clear and certain, would be an utterly simple person, and in truth ignorant of the prophecy of Ammon, if he thinks written words are of any use except to remind him who knows the matter about which they are written.”
The basic concept was that true knowledge is contained within the educated person, not in the books one possesses or passes on. What one is able to speak comes from within and therefore is true knowledge, knowledge that is possessed.
The Romans, in contrast, were great at collecting writings into huge libraries and into volume after volume of history, philosophy and other scholarly writings. While Socrates sees spoken language as true language and writing as a poor substitute for speaking, Roman philosophers such as Seneca the Younger, Cicero and Lucretius were unafraid of recording their words in writing.
This distinction shows up in an interesting way in the written form which is available to modern scholars of ancient literature. The translations, or transcriptions of ancient Greek texts are frequently in rhyming poetry. Poetry is a memonic device. The rhyming and rhythm aid in the memorization of the text. Ancient oral traditions employed group memorization and were very accurate, often more accurate than written language in accurately conveying the original text. While all writing prior to the printing press was subject to errors in copying, group memorization insured accurate passing of the text from one generation to the next. Poetry assisted in the process of memorization of the text.
Such an analysis, however, is overly simplistic. There are great nuances in language that are conveyed in different forms. Both writing and speaking have their place in the exploration of reason, logic, rhetoric and the expression of the human experience. I have tried hard to cultivate both skills as a writer and as a speaker and have dedicated much of my professional career to expanding my skill in both arenas. This blog has evolved out of a desire to improve my skills as a writer. I assumed that writing an essay first thing each morning would help me become a better writer. I am not in a good position to evaluate whether or not I am improving, but I have developed some skills which make it easier to produce a written manuscript than was once the case.
Language has its limitations. I am not able to say everything that I am able to think. My writing falls far short of actual experience. Still it is worth pondering the power and the limits of language. It is clear that there is still much to learn.
Like all organizational systems, there are problems with this particular simplification. I have long believed that the visual arts are distinct from music, and may form another type of language, which, like music, excels in conveying emotion. Each of the three languages are far more complex than can be conveyed in a simple analysis and the languages can be combined. Music, can contain sung words. Mathematical problems can employ words in their expression. Written language can contain numerals and even notes. The languages are not distinct.
I think that in the original expression of the three languages of humans, it was also expressed that while there are many different languages of words, there is only a single language of mathematics. I think this was before the development of quantum physics and imaginary numbers, but the basic concept remains. Mathematicians who do not have a common spoken language can work on the same problem together by using the language of mathematics. Music, while having many different genres, also has an appeal that reaches beyond the limits of the language of words. An audience for a musical performance need not have a common spoken language to share in the meaning and appreciation of the music.
In my life, I have observed, and then dedicated a great deal of time and energy in making a distinction between two forms of the language of words: oral language and written language. In some aspects, they share common traits. Oral and written languages can have the same vocabulary, similar grammatical rules and similar concepts can be expressed. Formal speeches and papers can be read from written manuscripts. Such reading, however, can be dull and boring and often can lack the necessary expression to communicate well. Properly spoken, oral language contains more repetition, more run-on sentences, more sentence fragments and many other idioms that are not acceptable in written language.
Often when I transcribe a sermon that I have delivered orally, I find myself editing the words I spoke to translate them into a written document that communicates more clearly. Similarly, when I read from manuscripts, I frequently repeat, and make subtle changes to the grammar of the written document in order to make it sound better and to communicate with my audience more clearly.
Greek philosophy was most often pursued in oral form. Most of the great classical written documents that have come to us from Greek Culture are in the form of dialogue. Plato’s Phaedrus consists of a dialogue between Phaedrus and Socrates in which Socrates delivers a scathing criticism of written language: “He who thinks, then, that he has left behind him any art in writing, and he who receives it in the belief that anything in writing will be clear and certain, would be an utterly simple person, and in truth ignorant of the prophecy of Ammon, if he thinks written words are of any use except to remind him who knows the matter about which they are written.”
The basic concept was that true knowledge is contained within the educated person, not in the books one possesses or passes on. What one is able to speak comes from within and therefore is true knowledge, knowledge that is possessed.
The Romans, in contrast, were great at collecting writings into huge libraries and into volume after volume of history, philosophy and other scholarly writings. While Socrates sees spoken language as true language and writing as a poor substitute for speaking, Roman philosophers such as Seneca the Younger, Cicero and Lucretius were unafraid of recording their words in writing.
This distinction shows up in an interesting way in the written form which is available to modern scholars of ancient literature. The translations, or transcriptions of ancient Greek texts are frequently in rhyming poetry. Poetry is a memonic device. The rhyming and rhythm aid in the memorization of the text. Ancient oral traditions employed group memorization and were very accurate, often more accurate than written language in accurately conveying the original text. While all writing prior to the printing press was subject to errors in copying, group memorization insured accurate passing of the text from one generation to the next. Poetry assisted in the process of memorization of the text.
Such an analysis, however, is overly simplistic. There are great nuances in language that are conveyed in different forms. Both writing and speaking have their place in the exploration of reason, logic, rhetoric and the expression of the human experience. I have tried hard to cultivate both skills as a writer and as a speaker and have dedicated much of my professional career to expanding my skill in both arenas. This blog has evolved out of a desire to improve my skills as a writer. I assumed that writing an essay first thing each morning would help me become a better writer. I am not in a good position to evaluate whether or not I am improving, but I have developed some skills which make it easier to produce a written manuscript than was once the case.
Language has its limitations. I am not able to say everything that I am able to think. My writing falls far short of actual experience. Still it is worth pondering the power and the limits of language. It is clear that there is still much to learn.