How does language influence reality?

@chad3006,

I mean to say that light has a frequency, just as sound and matter. If I were to "voice" the right frequency I could bend light. If I were to "voice" the right frequency I could "command" people to do my bidding (Telemarketeers often do so. People do not understand afterwards why they did what they did.). The thing of it is that we could even draw in Plato's logoi into this as being a certain frequency. Do you see what I mean?

0 Replies

@chad3006,

Yes I see what you mean. It seems that you're using "language" as the "loud blast" on one hand and "language" as a type of speech that causes things in the natural world (causing people to act a certain way rather than another way because of words).

In that sense what you're saying, I think, is not at odds with what I (and goshisdead) said earlier but a separate point.

While I don't think anyone can use their voice to bend light (two different types of waves, right? maybe at some inhuman level a gigantic sound wave could change visual perception but it seems hard to imagine it actually occurring.

But still, all of your examples (the telemarketer) are about changing what happens in reality, which is something I agree with. but what you're saying is not actually related to what I said earlier, which is that language cannot change the reality as it is (as in language, while it does influence perception, cannot be said to influence reality in the way that just because i say one thing it doesn't mean that it is automatically the case even if people do believe it). In so far as my words lead people to action then it can lead to changes in reality, but as for what is already the case, what I actually say about it cannot lead to a change in the way it is.

1 Reply

@chandler phil,

chandler wrote:

Yes I see what you mean. It seems that you're using "language" as the "loud blast" on one hand and "language" as a type of speech that causes things in the natural world (causing people to act a certain way rather than another way because of words).

I use language as the start of "voicing" in this case.
Smile

Quote:

In that sense what you're saying, I think, is not at odds with what I (and goshisdead) said earlier but a separate point.

I know, but I am at odds with your statement that it does not have influence on reality.
Smile

Quote:

While I don't think anyone can use their voice to bend light (two different types of waves, right? maybe at some inhuman level a gigantic sound wave could change visual perception but it seems hard to imagine it actually occurring.

Actually any wave influences any wave it comes across. Sometimes just a very little though so it is unnoticable.

Quote:

But still, all of your examples (the telemarketer) are about changing what happens in reality, which is something I agree with. but what you're saying is not actually related to what I said earlier, which is that language cannot change the reality as it is (as in language, while it does influence perception, cannot be said to influence reality in the way that just because i say one thing it doesn't mean that it is automatically the case even if people do believe it).

It does not change things in actuality because that is a stable (a posteriori) situation. In reality something else is happening altogether. Both with speaking "truth" and speaking "untruth" this happens. So while the words we use have no influence on "reality", the frequencies we use do. That is why I said in a previous post that our language (choice of words; thereby the frequency) is indeed instrumental.

Quote:

In so far as my words lead people to action then it can lead to changes in reality, but as for what is already the case, what I actually say about it cannot lead to a change in the way it is.

My point is that in this case it isn't the meaning of the words that are changing reality; but the effect of the frequencies used.

1 Reply

@Arjen,

in the case of the telemarketer i can see how the actual language used can influence reality. but i think it highly unlikely that a telemarketer could influence people if he were just making vocal vibrations that had no relevance to the english language (or whatever language).

so it appears that you're just talking about the vibrations that we make when we speak (for that matter speaking could be equivalent to burping--maybe if we could control our burps we could use the vibrations to affect the world).

but i'm lost as to the utility of such a thing, the evidence for such a thing and...still...the relevance to this original thread. what i thought was under discussion when i joined the thread was what language (different types of symbols and their influence on reality) was, not on anything related to vibrations.

really we're talking about two different things when we say "language". at least i think that's where the problem arises.

0 Replies

@chad3006,

Language is not the voice. If cattle lowed at the right frequency the sun's rays wouldn't hit the earth, but it doesn't mean they are talking.

0 Replies

@chad3006,

Is the point that every particular sound has a particular vibration and therefore a particular influence on the things around us coming across? I am getting the idea it isn't because both Chandler and GoshisDead are not addresseing the point, but are addressing the meaning of the words...which is not of importance in this particular theory.

0 Replies

@chad3006,

I'm fairly convinced by some of Chomsky's assertions that language is biologically innate in humans, as demonstrated (in part) by the 100% uniformity of subject-verb structures in all human languages. This demonstrates that the idea of a noun is innate, the idea of a verb is innate, etc. So our structuring of reality may indeed be inseparable from an equally fundamental structuring of language.

0 Replies

@chad3006,

Ultrasonic and other sounds are not part of the human phonetic inventory, as far as anyone knows. Prosody itself, the realm in linguistic description where wave length etc... would fall, it completely dominated by meaning, if the features are not phonemic in and of themesleves, they retain meaning through pragmatic interaction, register switching, signaling emotion etc... there is no language function that has no meaning attached. If humans were able to emit a mind control frequency, it would most likely be used for the meaning of controlling minds. Either way it does not address reality, it still only influences a meta reality.

Prosody PHONETICS: The description of rhythm, loudness, pitch, and tempo. It is often used as a synonym for suprasegmentals, although its meaning is narrower: it only refers to the features mentioned above.

1 Reply

@chad3006,

When we talk about language influencing reality, what really are we talking about? When I read the discussion between chandler and Arjen it sounds more along the lines of particular words influencing people to perform a particular action or think a particular thought.

When I think of the language-reality relationship, I think more along the lines of how does language effect the way I gain knowledge of and think about the objects in front of me.

I remember reading something relating to Kant along the lines of: if there were not other people to share experiences with, I would not know who I was or be able to judge my characteristic from the characteristics of anything else, because my learning takes place by interactions, which, even at the most basic level, are language communication.

Think of a baby whose basic needs are tended for but nothing else, furthermore, this is all done by a machine whose only movements are to tend to the basic needs. How far can this babies mind develop? Without the interaction, and thus language communication, with another human being, will it be able to develop the skills to coherently cognize what something is? They may see the same object that you and I do, but will they ever be able to 'know' what it is?

It seems that our initial language interactions instill in us, or awaken in us perhaps, the ability to think about the world.

0 Replies

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead wrote:

Ultrasonic and other sounds are not part of the human phonetic inventory, as far as anyone knows. Prosody itself, the realm in linguistic description where wave length etc... would fall, it completely dominated by meaning, if the features are not phonemic in and of themesleves, they retain meaning through pragmatic interaction, register switching, signaling emotion etc...

Couldn't this still be consistent with innate language, however? The constructs of language, like nouns and verbs and qualifications (like adjectives, articles, prepositions, and adverbs) can be cognitively innate even if the language proper (like sounds) are not.

This is why a Wernicke's aphasia, i.e. speech abnormality caused by damage to the Wernicke's area of the brain, will simultaneously affect written and spoken language -- i.e. written versus phonetic extensions of these concepts.

0 Replies

@chad3006,

I think the confusion I created was not specifying the difference between semantics = definition and semantics = function. I am not talking about proper words found in a dictionary. I am talking about functional meaning. When a person pauses for "effect" the pause has meaning albeit implied meaning only interpreted properly by a native speaker. Why is there an inflectional morpheme (s) on the end of 3rd person verbs in english? (he jumps), why the S? Its simply to show that the verb is third person. Why is anger often expressed in a loud voice? It's a socio-linguistic function. Why is "He Jumped the Creek" different than "The Creek Jumped Him"? Syntax has functional meaning. Why are the words "Fat" and "Bat" different? Because the Phonemes "F" and "B" have a functional meaning difference.
What I am trying to get at with the Ultrasonic and other sounds proposed that may or may not bend light or crack rock, heck there is a Kiai Master in Japan that can ring a temple bell with his voice from 12 feet away, Is that if these frequencies whatnot were possible, they would be employed for a semantic function related to creating a meta-reality. That this functional meaning would be part of the language. The Light bending, rock cracking, and bell ringing would not be a part of language.

As for changing reality the light bending voice would not be changing reality, as its already a posited part of reality that light bends given its interaction with a certain wave length. That's like saying I hit a rock with a hammer and the cause and effect of the hammer hitting the rock and the rock breaking changed reality.

This effect of reality change would assume that the progression of moment to moment were part of a "real" world. That would mean that time would change reality because something is physically different in this world moment to moment already.

In all this I'm using the word reality more as the laws of the physical universe, not the actuality of the physical universe. If the constant change of the actuality of the physical universe is what is being discussed then by all means any language changes reality do to the physical properties of air movement and other physical constituents and processes of language.

0 Replies

@chad3006,

@GoshisDead:
Thanks, I am going to read up on this field. I was merely posing an interesting thought. Smile

@de Silentio:
I know that the focus came on how words were used, but I was towards frequency. I still think the thought holds. I have, until now, not read anything contradicting it.

0 Replies

@chad3006,

Cool stuff, Gosh. I've had to read your post a couple times to let it sink in. What are your thoughts on Chomsky?

0 Replies

@chad3006,

Chomsky was revolutionary and pretty much proved that language is a universal. But the problems I have with formalism.
1) The method is very anglocentric. Most formal theory tends to try to explain a human universal through an English syntax. Not that this in necessarily a bad thing, because syntax universal research does require a base model.
2)Just because there is a universal doesn't mean there is a universal syntax. Functionalist linguists like Givon, aren't nearly as eloquent as formal linguists, however they recognize that language serves a function and the forms they pursue don't get so hung up on the actual syntax. Its a little more messy but much more practical.
3) This is personal Bias, the quest for a universal tends to marginalize language diversity in the non-linguistsic community.

2 Replies

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead wrote:

3) This is personal Bias, the quest for a universal tends to marginalize language diversity in the non-linguistsic community.

Well said -- I wonder how much this quest has been able to unify completely unrelated languages Khoisan with Quechua, as opposed to English with Sanskrit. The linguistic diversity in Africa is astounding, as is (from what I understand) in Indonesia and PNG. It seems more interesting to study the different syntactical and grammatical developments rather than their commonalities.

0 Replies

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead wrote:

Chomsky was revolutionary and pretty much proved that language is a universal. But the problems I have with formalism.
1) The method is very anglocentric. Most formal theory tends to try to explain a human universal through an English syntax. Not that this in necessarily a bad thing, because syntax universal research does require a base model.
2)Just because there is a universal doesn't mean there is a universal syntax. Functionalist linguists like Givon, aren't nearly as eloquent as formal linguists, however they recognize that language serves a function and the forms they pursue don't get so hung up on the actual syntax. Its a little more messy but much more practical.
3) This is personal Bias, the quest for a universal tends to marginalize language diversity in the non-linguistsic community.

Extrapolating on this, there would be a universal basis for syntax. This universal basis would be the sounds humans make to signal something. A higher pitch at the ending of a sentence to signal something is not thoroughly understood for instance, or a deep sound to signal one is deadly serious. The sound and the height of the sound seem to have a common basis.

Extrapolatinge ven further, could we not say that the sound is used to manifest a certain "feeling" one has so as to give the other a grounding in reality to "catch" anothers emotion so to speak?

0 Replies

@chad3006,

Some languages have question particles, a tonal as such interferes with toanl languages such as han, where an up tone indicating an interogative would make the word at the end of the sentence mean something else. Some cultures do not yelll when they are mad. One cannot forget that a language and a culture are not at all seperable. A deep growl in some settings, languages and cultures could signal anger, sexual aggression, contentment, approval all depending on the language and its cultural matrix. Again universals in language are very difficult to Isolate, oft times they do not even correspond with primate emotional universals.

0 Replies

@chad3006,

Thanks Gosh, I hadn't thought of that.

Smile

0 Replies

@chad3006,

A thought about universals and language. Shying away from the particular aspects of any language, the function that language serves is universal.

0 Replies

@chad3006,

You are therefore leaving the field of metaphysics and entering the field of the transcendental. Smile

1 Reply

How does language influence reality?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know