Language is for communication.

Language is for communication. Here are some definitions to words that are not commonly known or used in the correct way often. ___ Semiotic; Noun: The study of signs and symbols as elements of communicative behaviour; the analysis of systems of communication, as language, gestures, or clothing. Data; Noun: Facts and statistics collected together for reference or analysis. Information; Noun: Facts provided or learned about something or someone. ___ Firstly, I would like to sincerely apologise to Con and to voters / anyone who looks at this debate, it is very unprofessional of me to not mention my reasoning of absence; however it is true that I have been thoroughly busy as of late, I am currently moving and internet issues as well as time to rest has been almost impossible. As a result, I am now debating for rounds 2 and 3. Before I begin, I would like to show reverence to how well Cons argument is thought out, if I didn’t have a topic in mind, I would be stumped. If I could possibly summarise Cons argument so far to see if I am on correct terms; essentially, we can communicate without communicating, using language as a common ground and abusing the social structure of language that is publicly accepted and regarded as the norm in such a way to relocate emphasis towards something that is not the definition of communication. As we have described communication to be the sharing of data from one source to another, we can essentially use language towards another individual and at the same time, not share any facts or statistics. By definition, I would have to agree with Con, it is possible that language does not have to be communicated; language can simply be a common barrier to reduce levels of distress with confusion of one another, it also reduces time when specifying something in particular. However, by definition of the word semiotic, language clearly applies to communication as well. My argument is stated clearly that Language is for communication. It would have been a little more interesting if con specified and suggested language was for communication only, although by this stage I would have already lost. As we are not going into detail about animal language and I will assume all primitive language (I am referring primitive as the inability to record data) (I am also assuming that animal language doesn’t include body language in people, or human offspring), I will not break the code of conduct and suggest anything about it. Instead of going down this route, I will firstly make a few rebuttals towards Con’s brilliant argument and make one of my own. “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.” ~I would like to argue on this point; I do not doubt that only one point of language is used for *verbal communication, what I doubt is the necessity for diverse language to enhance other fields to display communication in today’s society. [1] The difference between someone at a pub having a conversation and flirting doesn’t have to be a difference in the wording, but in body language, which indicates different intention, body language can indirectly communicate position. [2] “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 analysing several aspects of language that limit its usefulness as a means of communication.” ~I disagree on this point also, communication has developed as our brain has, this would have mutually evolved; I actually do have evidence to back up this claim, however this would interfere with one of the rules with animal communication, so I will reframe from addressing that issue. Perhaps I could take this down another route; we do see a correlation of bad communication skills and poor knowledge of language in the uneducated populous, at least in Australia. A large majority of the Indigenous population is uneducated in literature; as a result they have decreased in growth within language.[3] (If you want to look up how we ‘learnt’ our ability to speak, go to source [5]). “The point is, if the meaning is very clear at the semantic interface but less clear at the phonological interface (even if, as we have seen above, the phonological interface can be designed to be clear semantically), we can conclude that language is more suited for thought than for communication, and posit that language evolved primarily for the expression of thoughts and not for communication.” ~This is a very impressive order you have, although it has one flaw; the reason behind the thinking. A study done a few years ago now suggests that the position to begin thinking stems from communication at the core. This means that Language is for communication, but then language is used as a tool to record and learn to better adapt and equip the communication. [4] I would have also posted the main parts to my argument, unfortunately though, it was all covered in these 4 main points. Once again I would like to apologise for my absence in the previous round and would also like to thank Con for the opportunity to debate him. Sources: http://www.jstor.org... [1] https://www.ombudsassociation.org... [2] https://www.health.qld.gov.au... [3] https://books.google.com.au... [4] http://www.npr.org... [5]