general knowledge is derived from the validation of generalisation.
On the other hand, language realistically is a product of the
impulse of humans to exchange knowledge or opinions about it.
Language is not only a mean of communication but it is also a
barrier. If two people both speak the same language, they can
communicate with each other and exchange ideas. If they speak different
languages, and do not have a language in common, communication is
difficult.
Although there has never been truly a universal language, there
have been some periods when a single cultural areas did share a common
language, for instance Greek in the eastern parts of the Roman Empire
and in the Byzantine word. Nowadays there are more than three thousand
kinds of languages, which differ not merely in their vocabularies but also
in the way they are constructed.
In interpreting the significance of what is said to us we take
account not merely of what is said, but also the way in which it is said:
volume, intonation, stress, accent and speed, any supporting gestures, and
the demeanour of the speaker. Our speech is often supported with
gestures, this is customary in Mediterranean countries where the speech is
supplemented by a great variety of manual gestures, and a speaker’s hand
is rarely still. What's more, the way we stand and hold ourselves may
convey hesitancy, hostility, servility, good will, and so on. We call these
forms of non-verbal communication body language. There are, as well,
cases where we learn much from other people through their unconscious
body language. Unintentional signs of our thoughts, attitudes and
intentions may be detected by facial expression, eye contact, dilation of
the pupils of the eye, sweating, and so forth. These signs may also differ
from culture to culture, and because they are not under conscious control,
they may be the cause of serious misunderstandings. An case is when a
woman is flirting with a man using eye contact in France is natural but in
India s unthinkable since woman’s place in society differs. In addition,
there are sign languages which are genuine non verbal languages used by
the deaf which have vocabularies of thousands of words, and grammars
as sophisticated and complex as any verbal language.
One of the most crucial questions concerning language is whether
all thought necessarily takes place in language and thought consists with
knowledge. The commonest point of view is that we first think, and then
express our thoughts in language. This has two implications, firstly that
thought is quite independent of language, and secondly that language
depends wholly upon thought.
For the first case, where we first think and then externalise
thoughts in words, the ideas we have when we think may be put into
words. These words in some way capture those ideas. When we wish to
communicate our thoughts to someone else, we use language as the
vehicle to ‘transfer’ them to the other individual, who hears them. This
recipient then haul out the meaning from the words he hears, so that the
idea of the original thinker becomes present in his own mind. On this
view language functions rather like a telephone. We first speak into the
phone, the sound waves are converted into electrical impulses and carried
along the wires, and then at the other end the electrical impulses are
converted back into sound waves once more.
Even though the first case is based on common sense, in this
century philosophers have called it «Language Myth». The reason is that
there is evidence to suggest that the relation between language and
thought may be much closer than we normally imagine. In consequence,
it has been argued that without language we cannot think at all a higher
sense, and consequently that all our knowledge must be carried by and in
our language.
Furthermore, we found it difficult to express feelings , which are
spontaneous where there is no time to think. For example when a bee
pinches you, you instinctively say: ‘I am in pain’. Clearly this does not
apply and such points have seemed to many to undermine our traditional
relationship between words and thoughts.
A strong example of the inverse function of the relationship
between words and thoughts is in George Orwell’s writing ‘1984’.
Through his book he revealed his fearful prediction of totalitarian
governments that would fashion this power to influence language in their
own interests as a tool of their despotism. He envisioned a new language
called ‘Newspeak’, that constantly reduces the number of words from the
English vocabulary, by erasing the synonyms of words, and in that way
the citizens will consequently reduce their thoughts.
Last of all, we conclude that language constitutes the optimal
vehicle for enhancing knowledge while thought without knowledge is
significant to life only with instincts. Language developed given that
people wanted cognitive capability, which goes hand in hand with
linguistic capability since language and knowledge developed inversely
with mankind.
---------------------
Length: 1022 words