If a language does not have a word for describing a particular object or its state, it does not necessarily mean that we cannot express it. We can do so by joining two more words in such a way that others will be able to grasp its concept. Even without translating one language to another, it may be possible for two people speaking two different languages to be able to communicate their ideas through sign and body language. However, in both cases, it would not be possible to describe something clearly and accurately. “We dissect nature along lines laid down by our native language.” Through circumlocution, the exact meaning may be misunderstood and the original idea lost. There are restrictions on how much can be communicated and by trying to express ourselves through language, we would have to make a compromise between what we mean and what can be said.
In language, a particular word may be used to express a range of ideas. Its meaning would depend on the context in which it is being used. The word “to”, for example, has at least eight different meanings and each differs according to the context. For words such as good, nice, bad, their meaning would mainly be relative. It would depend on the context but what I perceive to be “nice” would also influence my use and understanding of it. “Today is a nice day”, “It would be nice if…”, “That is a nice way of putting it”, “We had a nice time”, “He is a very nice boy”. In these sentences, the word “nice” is used in different contexts, and its exact meaning varies with each one. In the first sentence, it could mean “pleasant”, in the second “good”, in the third “proper”, in the fourth “enjoyable”, and finally in the fifth it could mean that the boy has pleasing qualities. In the last sentence, when the speaker says “very nice”, the degree of the boy’s pleasing qualities may also differ. Thus, with the flexibility that language possesses, it is difficult to express ourselves succinctly.
Our method of expression and our success at communicating our ideas would depend largely on the listener. When someone speaks of the color “blue”, we are aware of what they are referring to as it has been arbitrarily decided that the word would represent a certain hue. However, when we want to speak of different shades of blue, what the person may be referring to would be different to my perception of it. For different tastes, it would be difficult for us to express the exact flavor, even with circumlocution. Thus different sensations cannot be satisfactorily described.
Bertrand Russell wrote that a stupid person would always reduce a brilliant concept to his own level of stupidity since he must oversimplify them in order to understand them. This relates to the fact that when we are communicating with one another, the way the listener “translates” the expression would depend largely on their own conceptual and pre-established views. If someone is speaking to me about their own, personal experience, I would automatically try and relate it to my own past experiences in order to be able to understand better what the person is trying to say. Therefore, my perception of what the person said, would not be what he/she meant to say. I may believe that I understand what I think the person said, but I may not realize that what I heard is not what the person meant. We cannot express our thoughts and feelings without the possibility of other people interpreting our expressions in a different way.
We are experiencing so many new things even in our everyday lives. For us to be able to express them exactly as we have experienced them, would be quite impossible. With the limitations and restrictions that language can impose, and with the endless forms and degrees of human comprehension, it would stand to reason that for us to express ourselves, we would have to limit our thoughts to the words available and therefore, lose the original meaning. Thus, no single language will ever be capable of explicitly expressing and communicating human comprehension.
“The tragedy of our age is the awful incommunicability of souls.”
W. O. Martin
1000 words
Bibliography:
-
Ludwig Wittgenstein: Analysis of Language – class handout
-
Microsoft® Encarta® 97 Encyclopedia. © 1993-1996 Microsoft Corporation.
Philosophy – An Introduction to The Art of Wondering
-
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy –
-
The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis – class handout
-
The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis –
-
Ways of Knowing – An Introduction to Theory of Knowledge. Michael Woodman
-
Wittgenstein’s “private language” argument –
New Collegiate Dictionary. A. Merriam-Webster. G. & C. Merriam Company.
Philosophical Investigations
Benjamin Lee Whorf (1897-1941)
Philosophy – An Introduction to The Art of Wondering.
