Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]

gwern.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 404 posts

Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]

#41

Post by contingencies »

abetusk wrote: post #34

In contrast to Noam Chomsky who was pushing the idea that language was developed primarily for thought [0]. I don't know how much weight should be given to this paper but, if true, directly contradicts Chomsky. Here is one quote from Chomsky: """ ... One general assumption about language, almost a dogma in philosophy ... [and] linguistics ... is that language is primarily a means of communication ... probably that's…

Perhaps an artificial dichotomy between thought and communication is itself false. After all, is thinking not in some sense remembered experience (ie. the past self) communicating with the present (ie. future self)?

Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]

#42

Post by patryn20 »

Language is a tool for manipulation. Sure it is used for communication with people considered “equals”. But primarily people use it to get what they want from people they can outmaneuver and/or manipulate verbally and legally (both are an extension of language).

Language’s roots are in trade and survival. Therefore manipulation of others for the speakers benefit has ALWAYS been the primary purpose.

Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]

#43

Post by 082349872349872 »

gyomu wrote: post #39
nopinsight wrote: post #7

There are many concepts in our thought stream without a 'word' or even a simple 'phrase' to label them. A word or a common phrase is coined when a concept is sufficiently common and important enough such that someone comes up with a label to communicate the idea succinctly and the label catches on. We, humanity, have words or common phrases to label the vast majority of significant concepts. However, not every concep…

> * 積ん読 (Tsundoku) (Japanese): Buying books and never reading them, just letting them pile up. i don't speak Thai or Mandarin, so I can't speak to the other 2, but this one is a pun (combining tsundeoku, pile up, and dokusho, book reading) that survived in the language due to its catchiness. A bit like "hangry" (hungry + angry) in English. I have a hard time interpreting the existence of those words as an indication…

> arbitrary phonetic properties of the language.

Along the lines of a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenning#Old_English_and_other_... , english could contain "book-dragon".

Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]

#44

Post by nopinsight »

082349872349872 wrote: post #37
nopinsight wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many key differences between the two concepts. 'charity' would be a bad translation of 'น้ำใจ'. GPT-4o explains it well: https://chatgpt.com/share/e/987705c8-fcb7-4af3-a8bd-9d7dc228...

That "share" link doesn't. Perhaps I should specify: "charity", as used in "faith, hope, and..." (although I generally prefer "charity" as in the computer language)

Having lived in Thailand, I am confident that 'น้ำใจ' is still a distinct concept from 'charity' in 'faith, hope, and charity'.

They are probably closer in meaning than the most common definition of 'charity' though.

Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]

#45

Post by vishnugupta »

Most of the time we are communicating (internal monologue) with ourselves which I’m sure shapes our thoughts. I’d guess a large percentage of that is through a language.

In fact languages codify a community’s culture, values, a way of life all of which go way beyond communication.

Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]

#46

Post by larsrc »

patryn20 wrote: post #42

Language is a tool for manipulation. Sure it is used for communication with people considered “equals”. But primarily people use it to get what they want from people they can outmaneuver and/or manipulate verbally and legally (both are an extension of language). Language’s roots are in trade and survival. Therefore manipulation of others for the speakers benefit has ALWAYS been the primary purpose.

Language's roots are in survival, as in being able to talk to others of your tribe. I'm sure manipulation has always been part of language, but it's a tool for communication foremost. "Og, watch out for that sabretooth tiger!" is hardly manipulation.

I feel sorry for you that you consider manipulation to be so central.

Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]

#47

Post by nopinsight »

gyomu wrote: post #39
nopinsight wrote: post #7

There are many concepts in our thought stream without a 'word' or even a simple 'phrase' to label them. A word or a common phrase is coined when a concept is sufficiently common and important enough such that someone comes up with a label to communicate the idea succinctly and the label catches on. We, humanity, have words or common phrases to label the vast majority of significant concepts. However, not every concep…

> * 積ん読 (Tsundoku) (Japanese): Buying books and never reading them, just letting them pile up. i don't speak Thai or Mandarin, so I can't speak to the other 2, but this one is a pun (combining tsundeoku, pile up, and dokusho, book reading) that survived in the language due to its catchiness. A bit like "hangry" (hungry + angry) in English. I have a hard time interpreting the existence of those words as an indication…

Perhaps wabi-sabi (侘び寂び) might be a better example?

"wabi-sabi (侘び寂び) is a world view centered on the acceptance of transience and imperfection."

(Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wabi-sabi)

Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]

#48

Post by jbkly7 »

miika wrote: post #16

How do you define “thinking”? To me thinking is primary tool of communication between I and “me” and it’s entirely based on sound and language. Can you think without using language? When you have song playing in your head, how is that different from your thoughts? Isn’t talking out loud just act of thinking, the output being connected to mouth? Have you ever tried to repeat mantra in your thought, slow down until com…

Most of my thinking is not in language, though I do sometimes talk to myself in my head. If someone asks me what I'm thinking or feeling, it sometimes takes great effort to translate it into words; and when I do attempt to express it I often feel the words are pretty inadequate. Like encoding a high-res image into a few pixels, or music into a few notes. Super interesting topic indeed.

Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]

#49

Post by 082349872349872 »

contingencies wrote: post #41
abetusk wrote: post #34

In contrast to Noam Chomsky who was pushing the idea that language was developed primarily for thought [0]. I don't know how much weight should be given to this paper but, if true, directly contradicts Chomsky. Here is one quote from Chomsky: """ ... One general assumption about language, almost a dogma in philosophy ... [and] linguistics ... is that language is primarily a means of communication ... probably that's…

Perhaps an artificial dichotomy between thought and communication is itself false. After all, is thinking not in some sense remembered experience (ie. the past self) communicating with the present (ie. future self)?

They may overlap, but they're certainly not identical: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40756659

Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]

#50

Post by larsrc »

beaned wrote: post #2

Language is for both. Every concept is tied to a label that is a word. We identify pieces of reality by their common attributes while omitting their specific measurements, and attach these identifications to a label which is a word. It is a unique ability that we have as humans, which no other animal shares. It is essential for rational thought. Communication may have been an evolutionary forcing function on our abil…

"It is a unique ability that we have as humans, which no other animal shares."

Dogs at least can learn that, too. Probably also cats. Using buttons to express themselves has proven that. Hell, even our dog, who never figured out the buttons, understood that "bed" meant "soft thing next to human's bed", not "the particular bed I usually sleep in".

Humans are merely a lot better at communicating this, having a more complex speech apparatus.

Post reply on HN