The purpose of communication.

Forums: Philosophy, Philosophy Of Language
Email this Topic • Print this Page

There is this thing that, well, really gripes my ***. I cannot help it, it just does. Rubs me the wrong way.

Now. I'll be honest. My grammatical abilities or, my command of the English language is average at best, and maybe I should try and improve my vocabulary so I can comprehend what another person might be saying. I'll honestly admit this might be a shortcoming. But, when it gets to the point where I have to squirm and struggle and get off my butt and open a dictionary to comprehend what another person is saying because they have this habit, or "art" of embellishment of the language, so as to create the impression of grammatical superiority, "and that is exactly what it is", that is where I draw the line. I do not have the time or the inclination to get into a war of words with anyone. It is pointless, and serves no purpose whatsoever.

Let me ask this. Here is an example of what I am talking about. You choose to use the word "elucidate", instead of using the word, explain". Why? Does "explain" not express the thought adequately? I mean, hey. Lets be honest. The word sounds better. It makes you appear more intelligent. Come on. Admit it. Even if you cannot admit it, that is how I perceive it.

So, I ask this. What is the purpose of communication? Is it anymore than expressing your thoughts with words, So the person you are talking with may understand you? If that person you are talking with, does not understand you, who's fault is it? Theirs, because they are ignorant dummies? Or is it yours because you refuse to make an effort to bring yourself to the grammatical level of the person you are talking with? You have substituted or overlooked the purpose of "understanding", with an attitude of intellectual self righteousness. It became not about trying to express your thoughts to the other person in a manner that would allow them to understand, rather, it became all about you and your annoying habit of trying to sound smart. It gripes me to no end.

I submit that the purpose of communication is about understanding. Nothing else. Okay. got that off my chest. Let the words fly. LOL.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,376 • Replies: 30

No top replies

@Elmud,

Haha, good post.

Yea I've seen this issue raised a number of times. I'll also admit that there are many-a-post that I suspect were pseudo-intellectually embellished.

For the most part, I simply urk through what's been written and try to get what the heck they're saying. I learned long ago that no one thinks the same way; and that trying to account for that difference can be difficult at best. So as a general rule, I'll just put it on the shelf and deal with it.

There are those among us who are far too proud of their vocabulary; far too self-absorbed to actually listen to what others are saying. From my experience, these are the ones who rarely reply - and if they do, it's just another "speech".

I think you probably nailed it when you talked about the "purpose" of communication. I'd agree with the caveat: It's *supposed* to be about sharing understanding, a two way conversation. To some, it's just another opportunity to demonstrate their "alleged" intelligence.

Thanks

1 Reply

@Khethil,

Quote:

I'll honestly admit this might be a shortcoming. But, when it gets to the point where I have to squirm and struggle and get off my butt and open a dictionary to comprehend what another person is saying because they have this habit, or "art" of embellishment of the language, so as to create the impression of grammatical superiority, "and that is exactly what it is", that is where I draw the line.

1) Granted some people use big words to sound cool, sort of the intellectual version of drive a 12 cylinder dodge with Axle Extensions. However keep in mind many people have been trained in an almost Pavlovian sense to use these words.
2) Note also that many of these 25 cent words are part of stock phrases, such as the below 'elucidate' often is an inseparable part of the phrase 'now let me elucidate' the entire phrase is treated mentally and grammatically as one cognitive function, that of explanation. And is often learned as a chunk, or in other words the phrase is learned as a word.
3) Style should also be taken into consideration, certain lines of work, classes of writing, end goals of writing, require in the minds of a particular field or writer a specific style. The social science and humanities, including philosophy are in these stylistic realms.

Quote:

Let me ask this. Here is an example of what I am talking about. You choose to use the word "elucidate", instead of using the word, explain". Why? Does "explain" not express the thought adequately?

People with large vocabularies use them for a reason, in point of fact, elucidate does not mean the same as explain. In vocabulary domain studies there is a base level that is about mid way through the sense definitions of any domain set. For example if you were to draw a ven diagram with the various words that could be used for explain, explain would be in the middle and overlap all other words, however to elucidate notes that one is revealing truth by shedding light on a thing or process. This may seem like pretentious distinction, but in the mind of a writer often it is an important one, one that may very well be subconscious as once a definition is internalized it is rarely brought back to the forefront of consciousness before it is used.

[QUOTE]So, I ask this. What is the purpose of communication? [/QUOTE]

Many linguists have proposed that language was not originally nor is its current primary function that of communication. They propose that it is relational. An example would be that almost all languages spoken by people that are not currently or were not until recently (4 generation average) living in a post agricultural society have grammatical functions that grammatically related space and duration, not just time. An interesting read on this concept is Derek Bickerton's Language and Species.

[QUOTE]
Is it anymore than expressing your thoughts with words, So the person you are talking with may understand you? If that person you are talking with, does not understand you, who's fault is it? Theirs, because they are ignorant dummies? Or is it yours because you refuse to make an effort to bring yourself to the grammatical level of the person you are talking with
I submit that the purpose of communication is about understanding. Nothing else. Okay. got that off my chest. Let the words fly. LOL.
[/QUOTE]

On a more personal note, I'm not sure it's anyone's fault that one doesn't understand another. Especially in an ambiguous forum such as this where there is a mix of people well versed in the subjects at hand and not, people well educated in phil and its closely related subjects and not. The anonymous class/education leveling forum of the internet has equalized the playing field in ways but ambiguated it at the same time. It has mixed up sociolanguage frames something aweful and it normally takes a couple generations for language to catch up. There are people here that are trained in things that blow my mind and frankly I just don't have the time or energy to care about figuring out what they say. Others that don't. Whatcha gonna do I guess?

0 Replies

@Elmud,

It takes an assumption of the social implication of words and their use to say "explain" is more down to earth than "elucidation." What's your justification for that assumption? You come from a different background than the person you converse with? The person you converse with might not at all agree with you on the elevated status of "elucidate" in comparison to "explain." And "oh c'mon, you know it to be so" is not an argument.

I'm fine with people using big words around me. It's a sign of my self-loathing that I should be angry with them. Plus, I usually determine whether or not I can understand their argument or point without understanding the culprit term. If you cannot get the point from context clues, then just ask for a re-statement. There's no need to dive into ad hominem mode.

"it became all about you and your annoying habit of trying to sound smart. It gripes me to no end"; if it's a habit, then clearly the person shouldn't be at fault. I respect that this is a rant that you've made. This quoted statement underscores that fact. Your rant is muddled.

Quote:

What is the purpose of communication?

Are you talking about a particular kind of conversation? Coffee shop conversation? Chat in the grocery store isle? Chat at the movie theatre waiting line? Chat in the car? There are many other contexts for communication. I think it impossible for you to seriously want an answer to the question "What is The purpose of communication?" It depends on your audience.

Shooting the **** at a coffee shop or in a grocery line doesn't have a purpose. The purpose is whatever the mood of the players happens to be as combined. The purpose is demonstrated in the communicative event itself. There's no Communication but there is communication.

2 Replies

@Elmud,

The purpose of communication is to transmit three things: Truth, Falsity, and Bullshit.

0 Replies

@Elmud,

I guess you're not a big fan of The Economist?

If I don't know a word, I'd just look it up in the dictionary.

1 Reply

@Jose phil,

Gosh brings up some excellent points there.

I think it's best not to try and judge the why when we come across what appears to be arcane, laconic language; there could be a good many reasons why so-and-so's using it. It might well be fair to call it gobbley-gook, pseudo-babble or just flat-out nonsense, but judging the speaker is problematic. Unless you're mind-linked with that person and are able to discern their inner-most thoughts, you're not likely to *know* why they're talking like this or that.

As I mentioned above, when I come across laconic, wordy language, I simply try to urk through it and - to the extent I'm able - try not to judge. I must confess; however, that in some cases it's downright hilarious (especially those instances where it appears someone's trying to copy an arcane style). Again... one needs to reserve personal judgment.

Language is an awesome tool, and stretched vocabulary enables clearer, more precise communication; but this is only as good as the writer's ability to choose what words are used and when. A prudent choice of words (imho) is best exhibited when we see a shifting between the vernacular and the arcane as best fits the tenor of the statement. Reading is a kick-ass tool for this; and the more one's reading is diverse, I think the more the mind is able to express diversely.

... something I suppose I'll always be working on.

Thanks

0 Replies

@nerdfiles,

nerdfiles wrote:

What an unhelpful (and false) dilemma. Either you're a self-righteous overintellectualizing fiend or you're a condescending (self-righteous overintellectualizing) fiend.
.

Now, let me get this straight. did you or did you not just call me a fiend? Nerdski. Shame on ye. :listening:

1 Reply

@Elmud,

Lets see. x=y =a times 2z to the 7th power divided by fiend/x = ad hominem to the eighth power.

0 Replies

@nerdfiles,

nerdfiles wrote:

What an unhelpful (and false) dilemma. Either you're a self-righteous overintellectualizing fiend or you're a condescending (self-righteous overintellectualizing) fiend.

It takes an assumption of the social implication of words and their use to say "explain" is more down to earth than "elucidation." What's your justification for that assumption? You come from a different background than the person you converse with? The person you converse with might not at all agree with you on the elevated status of "elucidate" in comparison to "explain." And "oh c'mon, you know it to be so" is not an argument.

I'm fine with people using big words around me. It's a sign of my self-loathing that I should be angry with them. Plus, I usually determine whether or not I can understand their argument or point without understanding the culprit term. If you cannot get the point from context clues, then just ask for a re-statement. There's no need to dive into ad hominem mode.

"it became all about you and your annoying habit of trying to sound smart. It gripes me to no end"; if it's a habit, then clearly the person shouldn't be at fault. I respect that this is a rant that you've made. This quoted statement underscores that fact. Your rant is muddled.

Are you talking about a particular kind of conversation? Coffee shop conversation? Chat in the grocery store isle? Chat at the movie theatre waiting line? Chat in the car? There are many other contexts for communication. I think it impossible for you to seriously want an answer to the question "What is The purpose of communication?" It depends on your audience.

Shooting the **** at a coffee shop or in a grocery line doesn't have a purpose. The purpose is whatever the mood of the players happens to be as combined. The purpose is demonstrated in the communicative event itself. There's no Communication but there is communication.

Come off it nerdfiles, you often use mathmatcal equations to express your views and expect people to understand and that we are all mathmaticians, isnt that just a little presumptious?

3 Replies

@Caroline,

Goshi has pretty much said all the points I would have said, just will add that Paul Grice's work is worth a look if you are interested in conversational implicature.

0 Replies

@Caroline,

Caroline wrote:

Come off it nerdfiles, you often use mathmatcal equations to express your views and expect people to understand and that we are all mathmaticians, isnt that just a little presumptious?

Lol. Nerdski is okay. He called me a fiend. That proves he is as likely to fall into the ole ad hominem as the rest of us. No biggie Caroline.:bigsmile:

1 Reply

@Elmud,

To explain, to persuade, to direct, to entertain, to request information...?

You know. Stuff you learned in grade school.

0 Replies

@Caroline,

Caroline wrote:

Come off it nerdfiles, you often use mathmatcal equations to express your views and expect people to understand and that we are all mathmaticians, isnt that just a little presumptious?

What does "expectation" look like?

And come off what exactly? Are you arguing or are you simply expressing some general, nondescript disapproval about the way I said what I said? Do you have a counterclaim, or am I wrong about something? It seems to me that you're not addressing anything particular that I said and that you're just making "disapproval noise".

---------- Post added at 12:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:55 AM ----------

Elmud wrote:

Lol. Nerdski is okay. He called me a fiend. That proves he is as likely to fall into the ole ad hominem as the rest of us. No biggie Caroline.:bigsmile:

I'm not sure how that proves anything. It certainly doesn't prove that it is likely because I did something once. If you stick strictly to probabilistic argument, that's a hasty generalization. If you claim it implies some kind of characteristic about me, that confuses quantity with quality and is more likely to be fallacious as misleadingly vivid.

1 Reply

@Elmud,

Effective 'communication' enhances personal survival and the possibilities of procreation.

(and, translated into 'trailer talk'; good communicatin' helps keep us safe and gets us laid. Now, gimme a beer!)

0 Replies

@Elmud,

Elmud wrote:

Lol. Nerdski is okay. He called me a fiend. That proves he is as likely to fall into the ole ad hominem as the rest of us. No biggie Caroline.:bigsmile:

I just find it difficult to understand some of nerdfiles posts that's all, no big deal.

---------- Post added at 08:02 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:00 AM ----------

nerdfiles wrote:

What does "expectation" look like?

And come off what exactly? Are you arguing or are you simply expressing some general, nondescript disapproval about the way I said what I said? Do you have a counterclaim, or am I wrong about something? It seems to me that you're not addressing anything particular that I said and that you're just making "disapproval noise".

Caroline:yes sorry.................................................
What I was trying to express is that i wish i could understand some of your posts, in that it would be cool if you could explain how the equations work but i dont expect you to teach me which is what i meant when i said that i'd have to go away and do it myself coz i actually like maths.

---------- Post added at 12:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:55 AM ----------

1 Reply

@Caroline,

Well then, glad to see we could squabble over nothing. It is of genuine philosophical importance to determine whether your issue is substantive rather than raising it before this determination.

1 Reply

@nerdfiles,

nerdfiles wrote:

Well then, glad to see we could squabble over nothing.

sorry
I just dont understand your posts somtimes.
i do beg your pardon

1 Reply

@Caroline,

Caroline: It is frustrating when you don't understand a post. Happens to me all the time. Educational research shows that people learn and think differently. Some are more mathematical, some more technical, some more mechanical, some more abstract etc... I'm an aural learner and abstract systemic/function thinker you might be something esle. IMO this is why certain people are drawn towards certain philosophical schools and philosophers. Those Phils aproached the abstract and the "real" in a manner that best fit their best "Understanding Self". The trick is figuring out how you learn and understand, and not force yourself to think like someone else. Find a way to translate their verbiage/symbology into your domain. Do that and you'll get to the point you understand what others are saying whether you agree with them or not is a whole different story. lol

Cheers,
Russ

0 Replies

@nerdfiles,

nerdfiles wrote:

---------- Post added at 12:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:55 AM ----------

I'm not sure how that proves anything. It certainly doesn't prove that it is likely because I did something once. If you stick strictly to probabilistic argument, that's a hasty generalization. If you claim it implies some kind of characteristic about me, that confuses quantity with quality and is more likely to be fallacious as misleadingly vivid.

I have to admit Nerdfiles that I found the use of the word to be quite humorous. Is maniac a synonym for fiend? lol. Hey, like I said, no big deal. I've been called worse. But, I do find it interesting that we have words that mean the same thing. I often wondered why a person may choose to use a word like elucidate instead of using the word explain. Or, use the word infer instead of using the word suggest. Maybe its just a matter of preference, or, maybe the more attractive word that is chosen, is just a part of their personality. In any case, its alright. I certainly would not want to impose a change on ones choice of words.

1 Reply

The purpose of communication.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know