Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
NL-KR Digest Volume 04 No. 27
NL-KR Digest (3/10/88 23:40:51) Volume 4 Number 27
Today's Topics:
culture and agency
Re: language, thought, culture
thinking or responding?
the functional nature of linguistic operants
Is :-) a linguistic expression?
Submissions: NL-KR@CS.ROCHESTER.EDU
Requests, policy: NL-KR-REQUEST@CS.ROCHESTER.EDU
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 88 05:11 EST
From: rolandi <rolandi@gollum.Columbia.NCR.COM>
Subject: culture and agency
Excerpts from Kevin Cherkauer's posting suggest an anthropomorphization of
culture. He writes:
>No, EVERY CULTURE develops the words it needs to survive.
>the kinds of weapons, tools, clothes, words a culture uses
>Then, the thoughts of the culture are put to the problems
>useful in communicating the ideas that the culture considers important.
Culture, it seems, is an entity in and of itself. Furthermore, it enjoys causal
agency. How else could culture "develop words", "use tools", "have thoughts",
and "consider things important"?
Culture has no agency. It is inferred from social behavior. It does nothing
but rather is suggested as a consequence of deeds. It is epiphenomenon.
walter rolandi
rolandi@gollum.UUCP ()
NCR Advanced Systems, Columbia, SC
u.s.carolina dept. of psychology and linguistics
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 88 09:49 EST
From: John Chambers <jc@minya.UUCP>
Subject: Re: language, thought, culture
> >That's the trouble with you right handed people, you can't think except
> >in words :-) <-- I wonder if that is a linguistic expression?
>
> To take your question seriously, " :-) " is in fact a linguistic expression.
While the original question (Can people think non-linguistically?) is fairly
trivial, we might now have some fun with a question brought up by the above
exchange: Can non-linguistic information be communicated via Usenet?
To answer such a question, we should, of course, try to decide what qualifies
as "linguistic". Some people would accept anything symbolic, in which case
everything in the universe is linguistic, and the question becomes trivial.
Others would restrict the term to what their 6th-grade teacher would accept
as valid English, in which case the question becomes trivial in the other
direction (and ":-)" doesn't qualify).
I'd think that a reasonable definition of "linguistic" would probably include
pretty much anything I can type here. It'd also include things like those
header lines you see above, which you realize were generated by the software,
not by me, and aren't part of this message. Also, those '>' characters at
the left of the first few lines are a linguistic construct that are a part
of the Usenet jargon (and which can be replaced with other non-alphabetic
chars without affecting their meaning). Similarly, the paragraph structure
you see here is a standard linguistic construct in written English, which
has no real counterpart in the spoken language. (Does it in some other
spoken language?)
Anyhow, how about y'all contributing proposals for non-linguistic things
that can be communicated via Usenet, together with your justification for
classifying them as such?
--
John Chambers <{adelie,ima,maynard,mit-eddie}!minya!{jc,root}> (617/484-6393)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 88 20:01 EST
From: Russell Perry <russell@puff.cs.wisc.edu>
Subject: Re: language, thought, culture
In article <46@gollum.Columbia.NCR.COM> rolandi@gollum.UUCP (Walter Rolandi) writes:
>Mark William Hopkins writes:
>>That's the trouble with you right handed people, you can't think except
>>in words :-) <-- I wonder if that is a linguistic expression?
>
>To take your question seriously, " :-) " is in fact a linguistic expression.
>By the way, ;-).
To me it's a sort of punctuation mark (and we need more of them--humor point,
sarcasm mark, terror dot etc).
PS as far as whether thought is determined by language, I say no. Some
cultures have raised children without the exposure to language (to see if
they would speak a language--presumably the Original language) and I do
believe they thought regardless of their lack of language, don't you?
--
Russ Perry Jr 5970 Scott St Omro WI 54963 russell@puff.cs.wisc.edu
"Fill my brain with your so called standards--who says that I ain't right"
"Shpx vg nyy naq shpxvat ab ertergf" Metallica (Escape; Damage Inc) :-)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 88 16:22 EST
From: rolandi <rolandi@gollum.Columbia.NCR.COM>
Subject: thinking or responding?
In response to Rob Bernardo's:
>I can *think* about these non-language-like ways of thinking. In fact
>right now in thinking *about* these non-language-like ways of thinking I
>feel that I am thinking *in* a language-like way. I just don't have
>handy words to label them in *speaking* (or writing) now to *you*.
You can, indeed, think you think about whatever you think. My point is
that you cannot make your a-linguistic thinking public without first making
it linguistic. The point is epistemological: you say you are thinking
but for all I know, you are passively reacting to a nightmare.
>*I* consider it thinking. I guess I'd consider thinking as *any* of
>my consciousness experiences that arise from within myself. What's
I consider it responding.
>But let me turn around your question, because you seem to have something
>in mind about thinking that I don't: What sort of problem solving do
>you think deserves to be called "thinking"? Why are you constraining
>thinking to problem solving?
One of the other respondents cited driving a car and tying shoe laces as
examples of non-linguistic thinking. These are motor behaviors. If these
responses cannot exist without thinking (or some sort of mental mediation),
it must take real genius to chew gum while walking. I wanted to stick
to problem solving, specifically symbolic problem solving, in order to avoid
trivializing the concept.
>But I do have
>a horse, which I am training. And sometimes when I am teaching her
>something new she often acts irritable at first. I suspect (but of
>course, how can I know for sure?) that she is confused about a new
>arrangement of old signals and is frustrated in that she wants to
>follow the signals but she doesn't know what it is I expect of her
>since they seem contradictory to her. And at times, it seems she
>suddenly figures it out, because suddenly she does what I've been
>trying to get her to do and at the same time she stops acting
>irritable and acts excited, energized. I'd say it appears as though
>she has actually had a *realization*. Now, *I* call that "thinking".
You and Koehler. I would call it evidence that your horse has learned
a way to mediate reinforcement from you.
walter rolandi
rolandi@gollum.UUCP ()
NCR Advanced Systems, Columbia, SC
u.s.carolina dept. of psychology and linguistics
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 88 10:33 EST
From: John Chambers <jc@minya.UUCP>
Subject: Re: thinking or responding?
In article <2906@pbhyf.UUCP>, rob@pbhyf.UUCP (Rob Bernardo) writes:
> In article <49@gollum.Columbia.NCR.COM> rolandi@gollum.UUCP () writes:
> +You can, indeed, think you think about whatever you think. My point is
> +that you cannot make your a-linguistic thinking public without first making
> +it linguistic.
>
> I agree.
I don't. The news a couple of days back included stories of a gang
or terrorists hijacking yet another Israeli bus and killing a couple
of passengers; the incident ended when some Israeli cops stormed the
bus and killed the hijackers. There is little doubt that both of the
parties with guns were making their thoughts very public, but I suspect
that few of the victims would take you seriously if you suggested that
the bullets were linguistic acts. The hijackers may have preceded their
bullets with words, but I suspect the cops didn't.
Most people would distinguish between hurling an insult and hurling
a rock. One act is linguistic in nature; the other isn't.
--
John Chambers <{adelie,ima,maynard,mit-eddie}!minya!{jc,root}> (617/484-6393)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 88 04:48 EST
From: rolandi <rolandi@gollum.Columbia.NCR.COM>
Subject: the functional nature of linguistic operants
In response to John Chambers':
>While the original question (Can people think non-linguistically?) is fairly
>trivial, we might now have some fun with a question brought up by the above
>exchange: Can non-linguistic information be communicated via Usenet?
If the notion of non-linguistic thought is "fairly trivial",
how much significance would you attribute to having "fun" with whether
non-linguistic information can be communicated via Usenet?
>>direction (and ":-)" doesn't qualify).
>I'd think that a reasonable definition of "linguistic" would probably include
>pretty much anything I can type here. It'd also include things like those
By your own definition, ":-)", in fact succeeds: it can be typed and posted
on the network. But the form of the textual or how it is created does not
matter. Being "linguistic" is determined by the nature of its use. To
borrow a quote from one of the other postings:
"For of course the true meaning of a term is to be found by observing
what a man does with it, not by what he says about it" P.W. Bridgman
walter rolandi
rolandi@gollum.UUCP ()
NCR Advanced Systems, Columbia, SC
u.s.carolina dept. of psychology and linguistics
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 88 10:20 EST
From: John Chambers <jc@minya.UUCP>
Subject: Re: the functional nature of linguistic operants
In article <62@gollum.Columbia.NCR.COM>, rolandi@gollum.Columbia.NCR.COM (rolandi) writes:
> In response to John Chambers':
> >While the original question (Can people think non-linguistically?) is fairly
> >trivial, we might now have some fun with a question brought up by the above
> >exchange: Can non-linguistic information be communicated via Usenet?
>
> If the notion of non-linguistic thought is "fairly trivial",
Sure it is. We've all had the experience of "groping for words". That's
direct proof of non-linguistic thought. If you consider such thought to
be linguistic, then what in this universe is not linguistic?
> how much significance would you attribute to having "fun" with whether
> non-linguistic information can be communicated via Usenet?
It would have the significance of maybe coming up with a definiton of
what things are "linguistic" and which aren't. Discussions are much
more enlightening when the participants have the same definitions of
their terms.
> "For of course the true meaning of a term is to be found by observing
> what a man does with it, not by what he says about it" P.W. Bridgman
This has a nice ring, but it also constitutes a dismissal of much of what
scientists and mathematicians have worked on for the last few centuries.
OK for a theologian or politician, perhaps, but this newsgroup has "sci"
in its name. In scientific circles, the opposite conclusion would be
drawn: If a person uses a term in a manner inconsistent with its definition,
this shows that the person doesn't understand the definition (or is being
sloppy, or doesn't care, or is trying to mislead, or ...).
Of course, you first need to work out a good definition, and that's often
acknowledged to be the hardest part of a scientific endeavor.
So what is the definition of "linguistic"? Let's have a functional
definition that I can apply to this thing right here that I'm looking
at. (No, I'm not going to tell you what it is; give me a definition,
and I'll try to apply it to decide whether it applies to this thing.)
--
John Chambers <{adelie,ima,maynard,mit-eddie}!minya!{jc,root}> (617/484-6393)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 88 05:35 EST
From: Celso Alvarez <sp202-ad@garnet.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Is :-) a linguistic expression?
Let us observe the following communicative exchange:
"In article <2894@pbhyf.UUCP> rob@pbhyf.UUCP (Rob Bernardo) writes:
>In article <44@gollum.Columbia.NCR.COM> rolandi@gollum.UUCP
(Walter Rolandi) writes:
>I wouldn't know how to call the sorts of thinking I do which do not involve
>language. Language does not give me very good ways of labeling them, so
>they're hard to talk about."
"That's the trouble with you right handed people, you can't think except
in words :-) <-- I wonder if that is a linguistic expression?" (M.W.H.)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That's a very interesting question. I'm referring to "Is :-) a
linguistic expression?" (I've reproduced the exchange where it took
place only in order for us to understand better its pragmatic meaning
in the context. Please do not follow-up to this article if you want
to discuss primarily the specific contents of R.B., W.R. and M.W.H.'s
exchange).
One of the things that puzzled me most at first about communication
in the net is the use of non-verbal devices to supply for
information that in oral communication is conveyed by prosody,
gestures, etc. ":-)" is one of these cases, and I think that
it holds a different status than "*" or CAPITAL LETTERS to indicate
emphasis, abbreviations, etc.
I don't think ":-)" is linguistic in its strictest sense. It may
symbolize laugh, irony, sarcasm, etc., perhaps in different degrees
for each addresse of the message. I never know
how to interpret it exactly, how to "pronounce" it or vocalize it.
Sometimes I regard it as unnecessary -- based on my pragmatic conventions
and my cultural knowledge I not always *expect* an ":-)" to appear
as the conclusion of an argument or an exchange between two
communicants. When I do find an unexpected ":-)", I have to reprocess
not the information contained in the preceeding exchange, but
the pragmatic meaning (perhaps the illocutionary force?) of
the preceeding "utterance". Other times, I think there *could*
be a ":-)" where there is not one. What I mean is that the written
discourse or exchange of which I am a bystander sets up
expectations about the coocurrence of discursive devices
according to my implicit knowledge of rules for the
organization of talk and according to my linguistic
knowledge as well.
I never use ":-)" perhaps because in oral communication I rely
more on the message content itself than in prosody or paraverbal
devices (e.g. laughs) to convey meanings of irony or
sarcasm.
Like many linguistic elements from any level of structure -- I should
say like many discursive elements as well -- ":-)" has variants.
I can now recall
:-)
:->
:-|
|-)
(-:
(that is, the combination of three basic units:
a) eyes type, b) smiling mouth, c) direction of face). There are
probably more. Are they in "free variation", if such a thing is still
thought to exist? I have never found ":-(" or ":-<" or ":-]" or
":--)" Why is ":--)" unlikely to appear? Is it because it would be
redundant in terms of information conveyed?
Intensification of meaning is expressed by repetition, like repetition
of adjectives in many languages (e.g. Spanish "esa pelicula era
mala mala", 'a bad, bad movie').
Like laughs in oral communication,
the use of ":-)" (to represent the category type and not the token we
could use #SMILE#) appears to be a strategy for reducing the risk
of face-threatening or to engage in interactional cooperation.
Are specific features of #SMILE# culturally
significant? -- that is, are net users of non-English ethnolinguistic
groups more inclined to use a given variant of #SMILE#?
Any ideas from pragmaticians out there?
Celso Alvarez ( sp202-ad@garnet.berkeley.edu.UUCP )
P.S. I'm sorry I involuntarily deleted the complete reference
from the posting by Mark Williams H.?? who originally posed
the question in the net.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 88 09:04 EST
From: Cliff Joslyn <vu0112@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu>
Subject: Re: Is :-) a linguistic expression?
';-> ' is just like '!' or '?': it is punctuation.
O---------------------------------------------------------------------->
| Cliff Joslyn, Cybernetician (sanity regained)
| Systems Science Department, SUNY Binghamton, Binghamton, NY
| vu0112@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu
V All the world is biscuit shaped. . .
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 88 16:48 EST
From: Mark William Hopkins <markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu>
Subject: Re: Is :-) a linguistic expression?
In article <901@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu> vu0112@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Cliff Joslyn) writes:
>';-> ' is just like '!' or '?': it is punctuation.
Good! Now somebody tell me what this: -----* is.
^ |
| |
| |
*--*
Is this linguistic? (a pronoun, I suppose? :-) )
Our thoughts are definitely not constrained to being expressed in language.
That we can't easily express them in any other way on Usenet is not a fact
of human nature so much as a design limitation (flaw?) of the system. Give
me good graphics and I'll communicate without words.
If all transmissions were linguistic, then how would one parse a TV picture?
.... especially a color picture?
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 88 19:32 EST
From: Cliff Joslyn <vu0112@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu>
Subject: Re: Is :-) a linguistic expression?
In article <5116@uwmcsd1.UUCP> markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes:
>In article <901@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu> vu0112@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Cliff Joslyn) writes:
>>';-> ' is just like '!' or '?': it is punctuation.
>
>Good! Now somebody tell me what this: -----* is.
> ^ |
> | |
> | |
> *--*
That, my friend, is a picture of a feedback process.
>Is this linguistic? (a pronoun, I suppose? :-) )
No, it is not linguistic. Note that punctuation may or may not be
linguistic. In the context: "It's linguistic, damnit!", '!' is
linguistic, while in the context: "Is it linguistic? !? !? !?", '!' is
rather a meta-linguistic symbol, whose connotation is quite similar to
the denotation of '!' in the first context. The difference is syntax:
context two will not (strictly) parse.
>Our thoughts are definitely not constrained to being expressed in language.
>That we can't easily express them in any other way on Usenet is not a fact
>of human nature so much as a design limitation (flaw?) of the system. Give
>me good graphics and I'll communicate without words.
Hear hear.
O---------------------------------------------------------------------->
| Cliff Joslyn, Cybernetician (sanity regained)
| Systems Science Department, SUNY Binghamton, Binghamton, NY
| vu0112@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu
V All the world is biscuit shaped. . .
------------------------------
[Still more, next issue]
End of NL-KR Digest
*******************
