Language is for communication.

Primary Position Language is a semiotic system; it is a system of signs that serves to represent thoughts. It resembles the system of symbols in maths, which is designed to represent mathematical concepts: f(x) = 2x + 3. Maths symbols can be used for accounting and finance – many advanced mathematical concepts are used in these fields, such as matrices. Yet it would be erroneous to conclude that the primary purpose of maths is to facilitate accounting and finance. My primary position in this debate is that the primary function of language is not to communicate, but merely to express thought. C1: Empirical Perspective If we reflect on how language is used, we find that language is used for many purposes, only one of which is communication. Language is often used without a hearer. Cook and Newson (2007), for example, gave lecture notes, talking to oneself and diary-writing as examples. The notion of communication being merely one of the functions of the language, rather than the primary one, dates back at least to Malinowski (1923). He belonged to the same generation of linguists as Sapir and Whorf, when linguists had strong anthropology backgrounds. Based on his studies of tribal language, he identified four uses of language: speech in action, narrative, phatic communion and ritual use. (2) Phatic communion refers to speech used for social purposes like to build and strengthen interpersonal bonds, e. g. the Cantonese, nei sik zo faan mei aa? , lit. ‘Have you eaten rice yet? ’. We aren’t really communicating: We are not wishing the listener a good morning or asking whether the listener has eaten rice. Rather, we do it out of social politeness. An example on DDO is when ESocialBookworm interviewed Zaradi and bsh1. When ESocial said she was interviewing Matt and Brian, Zaradi asked, ‘who? ’ This was a joke to relax the atmosphere; he obviously knew who Matt (himself) and Brian (bsh1) were. Although Malinowski’s view of language as mainly a social function has been rejected by some modern schools of linguistics such as Chomsky’s school, it does serve as a good starting point for how communication isn’t the primary function of language. Finch (1998) offers seven microfunctions (physiological, phatic, recording, identifying, reasoning, communicating, pleasure). (3) Physiological functions include the use of expletives to vent anger; recording functions include writing diaries or lecture notes; reasoning is the use of language in our brains to facilitate thought; pleasure is the use of language to make aesthetically beautiful sounds (rhyming, alliteration…), puns and so on. Again, communication is but one of the purposes. Chomsky further suggested that the primary function of language is to use the mind via the computational system, the system that turns meanings into sounds. (1) From Language and Responsibility: (4) Language can be used to transmit information but it also serves many other purposes: To establish relations among people, to express or clarify thought, for creative mental activity, to gain understanding, and so on. In my opinion there is no reason to accord privileged status to one or the other of these modes. Forced to choose, I would say something quite classical and rather empty: language serves essentially for the expression of thought. If there is any common denominator we can find among the many functions of language we have discussed, it is that it serves to turn ideas into signs; in other words, we express our thoughts using language. That is the primary function; communication is not. C2: Evolutionary Perspective The notion of language being primarily being evolved as an instrument for representing thought, rather than a means of communication, is perhaps as old as the idea of evolution itself. Darwin wrote, ‘As the voice was used more and more, the vocal organs would have been strengthened and perfected through the principle of the inherited effects of use . .. but the relation between the continued use of language and development of the brain, has no doubt been far more important . .. we may confidently believe that the continued use and advancement of this power would have reacted on the mind itself, by enabling it and encouraging it to carry on long trains of thought. ’ (5) Of course, we are unable to return to the past to see whether language originated because selective pressures were exerted on humans to force them to enhance communication. However, we can look at the evidence we do have. If language were actually evolved with communication as a primary concern, then we would see linguistic change moving towards the goal of enhancing communication. Alas, this is not the case, and we can see that it is not by analyzing several aspects of language that limit its usefulness as a means of communication. SC1) Topic-drop There are many gaps in the syntax of human language. This means that in our semiotic system, there are items which are left out in the representation, even though these items are an important part of the meaning. One is topic-drop. Sometimes, the subject, and sometimes other parts of speech, of a finite clause is left out. According to Rizzi, this dropped phrase, called ‘pro’ is recovered by its proper governor. (5) Consider this example from (1): pro leülök. [I] sit down. As Hungarian has a rich subject-verb agreement system, the finite inflection for the verb ‘sit down’ governs the meaning of the dropped pro. If this were always the case, then pro-drop would not affect communication. However, the case of Chinese is quite different, as Huang (1983) showed. (6) Chinese, a pro-drop language, has no subject-verb agreement at all. Huang argues that rather than dropping pro, Chinese drops an empty topic operator. As topic depends largely on context, this can provide hindrance to communication. Consider this extract from a famous piece by politician and historian Sima Guang, addressed to his son. Canzheng Lu Gong wei jianguan, Zhenzong qian shi ji zhao zhi, de yu jiujia, ji ru, wen qi suo lai, yi shi dui. Canzheng Lu was imperial censor, Zhenzong sent messenger rapidly summon him, found in tavern, after entered, asked him(l) where came [from], to actually converse. If you had difficulty figuring out what this meant, refer to this version, in which ---(l) refers to Lu, ---(m) to the messenger and ---(e) to Zhenzong: Canzheng Lu was imperial censor, Zhenzong sent messenger rapidly summon him(l), ---(m) found in tavern ---(l), after ---(e) entered, ---(e) asked him(l) where ---(l) came [from], to PRO(e) actually converse [with] ---(l). Clearly, topic-drop renders language inefficient at communication. SC2) Null subjects Null subjects are another type of gap. Non-finite clauses do not require a subject in many languages, including English. This again leads to problems. Without the null subject, two sentences may ostensibly have the same structure, but two different null subjects: JMK requested Zaradi to PRO take off his shirt. JMK promised Zaradi to PRO take off his shirt. In our first sentence, the antecedent of PRO is Matt, while in our second sentence, it is Joey! (This doesn’t matter as he doesn’t use his webcam in Hangouts, but that’s beside the point. ) This phenomenon is explained by control theory: request is an object control verb and promise is a subject control verb. These parsing problems lead to inefficient communication. If language were truly perfect for communication, PRO would be spelt out, but this is not the case. SC3) Ambiguity and Garden Paths A third example of this is ambiguity, both syntactic and lexical. I don’t think this requires much explanation. Ambiguity abounds in human language, and these ambiguities are ‘design flaws’ in language that prevent it from communicating effectively. Scope ambiguity is an example. (8) I experienced this on DDO when TBR used an ambiguous sentence. Only after a long conversation did the right interpretation dawn on me: All software will never be open source. I interpreted this as meaning that no software will ever be [-open source], when in fact, he meant that some software will be [-open source]: Another example is syntactic ambiguity: Who used more reliable sources? There are two interpretations of this:Who used NP [ AP[more reliable] sources]? Who used NP [ more NP[reliable sources]]? Or, diagrammatically: Under the one on the left, the question asks who had higher-quality sources; under the one of the right, the question asks who had more sources of reasonable quality. Were language designed for communication, we would somehow eliminate this (e. g. different 'mores' for the determiner and the adverb). SC4) Wrapping Up Why does all of this show that language is primarily for expressing thought, and not communication? Firstly, we need to know how the computational system works. This is a diagram after Cook and Newson (2007) (1): The computational system includes the lexicon and grammar of a language. Processes occur in it to express an idea in phonetic form, which serves as an interface with the sensorimotor system, and in logical form, which serves as an interface with the conceptual-intentional system. Ambiguity and gaps indicate that the language is not designed to be optimal at the phonological interface but is optimal at the semantic interface. This suggests that it is not designed for communication. (10) I will elaborate next round. Sources (1) Cook and Newson (2007): Chomsky’s Universal Grammar. (2) Malinowski, B. (1923): The problem of meaning in primitive languages. (3) Finch, G. (1998): How to Study Linguistics. (4) Chomsky, N. (1979): Language and Responsibility. (5) Rizzi, L. (1986): Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro. (6) Huang, C-T. J. (1983): On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. (7) Sima, G. : Xin Jian Shi Kang. (8) . http://tinyurl.com... (9) . http://tinyurl.com... (10) Collins, J. (2008): Chomsky: A Guide for the Perplexed.