<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: A Pro and Con View of Language</title>
	<atom:link href="http://kestrelsaerie.com/2010/02/pro-con-view-language/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://kestrelsaerie.com/2010/02/pro-con-view-language/</link>
	<description>An Eclectic Collection of Musings on Life, Living, and Blogging</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 09 Oct 2011 01:16:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kestrel</title>
		<link>http://kestrelsaerie.com/2010/02/pro-con-view-language/comment-page-1/#comment-4298</link>
		<dc:creator>Kestrel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:46:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kestrelsaerie.us/2010/02/a-pro-and-con-view-of-language/#comment-4298</guid>
		<description>Those are some great observations! And nothing at all wrong with a wall of text. :)

You&#039;re absolutely correct: I used a very narrow definition of &quot;language.&quot; Just to clarify, I was defining it as spoken (or written) communication. What I meant, but didn&#039;t say, was that &quot;language&quot; per se is a higher form of communication than grunts, growls, barks, and howls. :)

Likewise, your examples of nonverbal lying are very perceptive. And I should have made the point more clearly that Dr. Lightman, on &quot;Lie to Me,&quot; doesn&#039;t exclusively determine truth or untruth through observation as someone speaks. Another television example I considered was &quot;The Mentalist,&quot; where Patrick Jane observes nonverbal clues to gather information of many different kinds, including whether or not someone is lying. 

In other words, what we don&#039;t say, but what we do, can communicate volumes. However, because we have become attuned to what people say, and desensitized to nonverbal cues, we miss a lot of things. That&#039;s why, I believe, the more we communicate through &lt;i&gt;social&lt;/i&gt; media, we try to &lt;b&gt;add back&lt;/b&gt; some of those nonverbals through our use of &lt;i&gt;emoticons&lt;/i&gt;. 

Of course, that gets back to my overarching thesis that a better vocabulary, so that we may more effectively communicate emotion and nuances of meaning, could supplant (should supplant?) smilies.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Those are some great observations! And nothing at all wrong with a wall of text. <img src='http://kestrelsaerie.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>You&#8217;re absolutely correct: I used a very narrow definition of &#8220;language.&#8221; Just to clarify, I was defining it as spoken (or written) communication. What I meant, but didn&#8217;t say, was that &#8220;language&#8221; per se is a higher form of communication than grunts, growls, barks, and howls. <img src='http://kestrelsaerie.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>Likewise, your examples of nonverbal lying are very perceptive. And I should have made the point more clearly that Dr. Lightman, on &#8220;Lie to Me,&#8221; doesn&#8217;t exclusively determine truth or untruth through observation as someone speaks. Another television example I considered was &#8220;The Mentalist,&#8221; where Patrick Jane observes nonverbal clues to gather information of many different kinds, including whether or not someone is lying. </p>
<p>In other words, what we don&#8217;t say, but what we do, can communicate volumes. However, because we have become attuned to what people say, and desensitized to nonverbal cues, we miss a lot of things. That&#8217;s why, I believe, the more we communicate through <i>social</i> media, we try to <b>add back</b> some of those nonverbals through our use of <i>emoticons</i>. </p>
<p>Of course, that gets back to my overarching thesis that a better vocabulary, so that we may more effectively communicate emotion and nuances of meaning, could supplant (should supplant?) smilies.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Poneria</title>
		<link>http://kestrelsaerie.com/2010/02/pro-con-view-language/comment-page-1/#comment-4297</link>
		<dc:creator>Poneria</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 17:28:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kestrelsaerie.us/2010/02/a-pro-and-con-view-of-language/#comment-4297</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m going to think on this some more, but here&#039;s some initial ramblings about what I read &amp; perceived from your post.

&quot;Animals, on the other hand, don’t have language.&quot; Mmm, I disagree with this.  Then again, I think of &#039;language&#039; as a broader term than what you are discussing; &#039;language&#039; to me is simply a system of means used to convey any number of varied concepts across two minds, whether that&#039;s human, dog, bacterium, or blood elf.  You on the other hand seem to use &#039;language&#039; specifically for languages that use words as their means of communication.  So, yeah, in my perception of your definition (please, please correct me if I&#039;m wrong! :) ), animals don&#039;t have language.  But...I don&#039;t think they call it &#039;body language&#039; or &#039;computer language&#039; just to mess with you.  Music, for one, doesn&#039;t need to use a typographic system to get a feeling across (though it *can*).  Animals have language, it&#039;s just more bodily and primal than ours tend to be.

Are words weak?  I think yes and no.  Just like physical gestures can be weak.  Like you said, saying &#039;perspicacity&#039; via only body movement is going to be difficult (though, I know nothing of sign languages, etc.), but saying, &quot;You two, go here,&quot; can often be done with a simple hand gesture.  I think the phrase &quot;the pen is mightier than the sword&quot; is referring less to words over action in efficacy of communication, and more to peace over war in solving problem between cultures (or possibly to words &amp; stories write history, not who actually fights &amp; wins); so I don&#039;t think that&#039;s an accurate phrase to use as an example for your argument.

The other thought that came to mind reading this was your mention of the &quot;Lie To Me&quot; show.  I love that show, too, but I don&#039;t think verbal language is the only thing that facilitated lying.  Yes, it&#039;s the most common means of lying, but not the only.  People who don&#039;t wash their hands in bathrooms may turn on the water so it sounds like they are, but they&#039;re really not.  It&#039;s essentially lying.  I think I learned how to hide unwanted veggies under my napkin before I learned to say, &quot;Oh yeah, I ate my beans,&quot; without breaking a sweat.

I don&#039;t think (verbal) language has lessened the effectiveness of our ability to communicate nonverbally, as you put it.  Maybe made us less aware of how nonverbal communication can be used, yes, but not less effective.  Well, I don&#039;t think it&#039;s inherently less effective, anyway; it probably is less effective simply because most people aren&#039;t aware when or how they are utilizing nonverbal communication, just as a hearing person might be baffled at learning to read lips when a deaf person may find it quite a simple thing.

Anyway, sorry for a wall of text, but I like this topic. :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m going to think on this some more, but here&#8217;s some initial ramblings about what I read &amp; perceived from your post.</p>
<p>&#8220;Animals, on the other hand, don’t have language.&#8221; Mmm, I disagree with this.  Then again, I think of &#8216;language&#8217; as a broader term than what you are discussing; &#8216;language&#8217; to me is simply a system of means used to convey any number of varied concepts across two minds, whether that&#8217;s human, dog, bacterium, or blood elf.  You on the other hand seem to use &#8216;language&#8217; specifically for languages that use words as their means of communication.  So, yeah, in my perception of your definition (please, please correct me if I&#8217;m wrong! <img src='http://kestrelsaerie.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' />  ), animals don&#8217;t have language.  But&#8230;I don&#8217;t think they call it &#8216;body language&#8217; or &#8216;computer language&#8217; just to mess with you.  Music, for one, doesn&#8217;t need to use a typographic system to get a feeling across (though it *can*).  Animals have language, it&#8217;s just more bodily and primal than ours tend to be.</p>
<p>Are words weak?  I think yes and no.  Just like physical gestures can be weak.  Like you said, saying &#8216;perspicacity&#8217; via only body movement is going to be difficult (though, I know nothing of sign languages, etc.), but saying, &#8220;You two, go here,&#8221; can often be done with a simple hand gesture.  I think the phrase &#8220;the pen is mightier than the sword&#8221; is referring less to words over action in efficacy of communication, and more to peace over war in solving problem between cultures (or possibly to words &amp; stories write history, not who actually fights &amp; wins); so I don&#8217;t think that&#8217;s an accurate phrase to use as an example for your argument.</p>
<p>The other thought that came to mind reading this was your mention of the &#8220;Lie To Me&#8221; show.  I love that show, too, but I don&#8217;t think verbal language is the only thing that facilitated lying.  Yes, it&#8217;s the most common means of lying, but not the only.  People who don&#8217;t wash their hands in bathrooms may turn on the water so it sounds like they are, but they&#8217;re really not.  It&#8217;s essentially lying.  I think I learned how to hide unwanted veggies under my napkin before I learned to say, &#8220;Oh yeah, I ate my beans,&#8221; without breaking a sweat.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t think (verbal) language has lessened the effectiveness of our ability to communicate nonverbally, as you put it.  Maybe made us less aware of how nonverbal communication can be used, yes, but not less effective.  Well, I don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s inherently less effective, anyway; it probably is less effective simply because most people aren&#8217;t aware when or how they are utilizing nonverbal communication, just as a hearing person might be baffled at learning to read lips when a deaf person may find it quite a simple thing.</p>
<p>Anyway, sorry for a wall of text, but I like this topic. <img src='http://kestrelsaerie.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kestrel</title>
		<link>http://kestrelsaerie.com/2010/02/pro-con-view-language/comment-page-1/#comment-4296</link>
		<dc:creator>Kestrel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 17:04:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kestrelsaerie.us/2010/02/a-pro-and-con-view-of-language/#comment-4296</guid>
		<description>I never read Auel&#039;s series, although my wife did. You&#039;re quite correct, and I gave writing shorter shrift than intended. The invention of a written language is what truly separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom: We can record all of our experiences, if we wish, and facilitate memory that way.

And absolutely, writing enables communicating between friends over long distances, including those we&#039;ve never met in person! :D</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I never read Auel&#8217;s series, although my wife did. You&#8217;re quite correct, and I gave writing shorter shrift than intended. The invention of a written language is what truly separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom: We can record all of our experiences, if we wish, and facilitate memory that way.</p>
<p>And absolutely, writing enables communicating between friends over long distances, including those we&#8217;ve never met in person! <img src='http://kestrelsaerie.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif' alt=':D' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tami</title>
		<link>http://kestrelsaerie.com/2010/02/pro-con-view-language/comment-page-1/#comment-4295</link>
		<dc:creator>Tami</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 16:48:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kestrelsaerie.us/2010/02/a-pro-and-con-view-of-language/#comment-4295</guid>
		<description>An interesting discussion! Jean M. Auel makes a very similar (and longer winded) argument of the same in her Children of the Earth series. (I think I got the name right).

The most important thing that we get from words which improves upon the gestures is writing. History, kept through time. Messages passed over great distances. Instructions that need not be memorized. Stories that should not be forgotten.

And, of course, communication of friends who have never met. =]
.-= Tami´s latest blog post is &lt;a href=&quot;http://tamimoore.com/2010/weekly-wordcount-8/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Weekly Wordcount&lt;/a&gt; =-.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>An interesting discussion! Jean M. Auel makes a very similar (and longer winded) argument of the same in her Children of the Earth series. (I think I got the name right).</p>
<p>The most important thing that we get from words which improves upon the gestures is writing. History, kept through time. Messages passed over great distances. Instructions that need not be memorized. Stories that should not be forgotten.</p>
<p>And, of course, communication of friends who have never met. =]<br />
.-= Tami´s latest blog post is <a href="http://tamimoore.com/2010/weekly-wordcount-8/" rel="nofollow">Weekly Wordcount</a> =-.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Served from: kestrelsaerie.com @ 2012-02-07 23:45:15 by W3 Total Cache -->
