MASS COMMUNICATION JOURNAL – An exploration of selected topics in the

study of language.
Prepared for Professor Robert Stainton for course M.C. 32280
Written by: Shawn Monaghan (critical on scribd.com)
DEC 94

Topics discussed:
'Non-natural' languages.
Meaningn or Meaningnn. (natural language meaning versus non-natural)
Noam Chomsky's "Language and Problems of Knowledge"
The Empiricist theory of ideas
Compare and Contrast e-mail and verbal communication.
Should we care whether there is a substantial innate linguistic
endowment?
Linguistic actions

JOURNAL ENTRY #1, SEPT. 29/94

Explore the importance of three 'non-natural' languages.

The three languages I have chosen for this assignment are; Body language, Morse
code and Signage. The criteria for exploring the relevant importance of these
'non-natural' languages are defined by the criteria of importance of 'natural'
languages, discussed in both the lectures and text of this course.

'Natural' languages are important as they;

mirror our culture
are tools for the transmission of culture
are tools for action (insult, promise)
are constitutive devices (making a bid)
characterize humans (infinitely expandable)
mirror reality (Plato)
are exceedingly interesting
are important to the resolution of conundrums
have the properties of novelty and infinity

Body language is an important part of youth and singles culture, in that without it
many 'barflies' would have no reasonable way to communicate with their chosen sex
object in their favourite socializing grounds (the noisy mysterious nightclub). In
broader terms body language is both a mirror and transmitter of culture in that
specific body postures are taught and learned from one generation to the next. An
example of this is how in the past young women were taught by their family and
mentors that they should avert their eyes when interacting or conversing with
their social superiors. Although our society has evolved beyond this expectation of
women, young children can still find themselves being reprimanded by a 'superior'
for a mere look or glance that would be considered perfectly accepted by 'equals'.

Although body language does not appear to be as ubiquitous as 'natural' language it

is in fact an essential accompaniment. Consider for example this little symbol; :-)
in your average E-mail introductory guide, you are told that this symbol (a smiling
face) as well as a host of others are a very useful tool when talking to others on
the 'electric highway'. Body language (and intonation over the phone) is such an
integral yet unconscious part of communication, that a whole range of symbols must
be invented to take its place on the 'information highway'. In and of itself body
language is not nearly as important as the 'natural' language, but one is hard put to
replace this natural non-verbal complimentary language.

As a medium for action body language can not be beat, "with this ring I thee wed".
Whether putting a ring on somebodies hand or forcefully striking their face with
the palm of your own hand, body language is inseparable from action.

As a uniquely human definitive characteristic body language is quite obviously not

appropriate, it would seem that most humans have similar body language as do most
mammalian animals. As for a mirror to reality body language does not seem to be a
"refuge" for the philosopher as it is to much a part of reality to reflect it,
perhaps.

Interesting? Yes I would say that body language is nearly as interesting as

'natural' language, perhaps less complex. Given the above referred to
complimentary nature of body and 'natural' language perhaps the two types of
language should be naturally studied as a unit, yielding a more interesting and
probably more complete study.

As for the possibility of resolving any conundrums via the study of body language, I
am not aware of any non-verbal puzzles that the process of demystification could
solve, but who knows.

Novelty is yet another trait body language shares with 'natural languages'. Every
now and then I surprise myself when looking in the mirror to see a new and
somewhat startling expression. If you include the many muscles of the face it is
quite surprising what an agile "facester" can do. Although novelty is a definite
trait of body language the number of possible combinations are not nearly as many
as 'natural language'. (Note: facester is an interactive game requiring excellent
muscular control of the face and hands)

Morse Code

As it is an artificial language Morse code is less complex and perhaps less

interesting than 'natural language'. I believe that body language should be
included under this category of 'natural languages' at least in comparison to non-
natural language. Natural languages (not specifically 'natural' ie. English) would
seem to be more complex than artificial ones like Morse code and signage. These
non-natural languages are necessarily less complex and more cumbersome compared
to natural languages.

A natural language seems to come readily perhaps innately to most humans so that
it can quickly and easily become very complex and efficient. Whereas an artificial
language is constructed often by a single individual within a short time span for a
very specific purpose. We are exposed to natural languages from the day of our
birth and exposed to natural language in almost every activity possible. Even if
innateness is ruled out as possible, something very close to it like the maxim
"practise makes perfect" could be used to describe why people are so much more
proficient at natural languages.

Natural evolution could be another important difference between artificial and

natural languages. If a person were to design a mode of communication in modern
days s/he might seek a 'rational' approach. That is to say predictable and
understandable not rational in a reasonable sense because I think that is a
misnomer. I personally have found many so-called rational approaches to
Geography 105 for example, to be inexplicable unreasonable, shockingly dry and
unreasonably complex. Now according to my computers' thesaurus what I have
just said is a paradox, but what I have tried to illustrate is the lack of 'reason'
and emphasis on intuition that natural languages are based upon. Reason is not a
higher form of thought and as a tool/device for thought it does not have more
truth value than other systems. If you have followed my line of reasoning then the
next linear step might be to assert that humans do not necessarily find reason
natural. This argument certainly seems to be supported by the amazing simplicity
of artificial (reasonable) versus the astonishingly complex natural languages(not
reason based, perhaps intuitive and certainly very emotive).

And now to deal with the question of how morse code and signage compare to
'natural languages' in the aforementioned categories.

Artificial languages mirror our culture, certainly the overlying method of

construction (ie. logic in modern age) reflect our current cultural obsessions.

As a transmitter of culture Morse code and signage are not very important.
Certainly signage can be quite flexible and an important transmitter of culture on
occasion, but morse code is not in the least bit variable as a language it is quite
static in fact. In Edmonton, Alberta so-called 'fatality' signs have sprung up as
the result of an awareness raising program for the dangers of certain streets and
intersections. The signs are coffin shaped and can be quite morbid when
encountered.

Of the other important categories of language the artificial languages seem to

share only usefulness as a tool of action with natural languages. In Morse code
most of the written forms of action are shared with the 'natural language' but only
in a limited form. Signage is somewhat more versatile as it can be in the form of
pictures as well as the written word.

Journal entry #2 October 4/94

Towels in bathtub means "please change them".
Towels on the towel rack means " I will use them again".
Meaningn or Meaningnn. (natural language meaning or non-natural)

The only comprehensive answer to this question would be, both these sentences are
both natural and non-natural meaning depending on the circumstances.
If a customer intends to leave a towel in the bathtub for the purpose of
expressing his desire to have it washed then it is meaning nn. His or her intentions
for communication being the crucial criterion involved.
If the same customer places a towel in the bathtub merely because it was soaking
wet and he/she had no better place to put it, having not read the sign from the
hotel manager, and not intending to communicate 'wash this towel' it is meaningn.

Now I could probably explore a number of ludicrous and a number of not so

ludicrous examples and try to decide whether these sentences are most often
natural or non-natural, but perhaps this would not be an essential aspect of the
exercise so I will desist.

Journal entry #3 october 13/94

Questions for Noam Chomsky's "Language and Problems of Knowledge"

Firstly, I would like to lodge a complaint about Chomsky's terminology. "Common

sense" is a very problematic term. It appears to be intuitively different from what
he appears to be referring to, this is true at least for me and my understanding of
common sense. Secondly common sense is not what I would consider a scientific
term. Perhaps to Chomsky common sense is the antithesis of science making the
terminology ironic, but I think this is an unnecessary cultural term in what is
supposed to be an objective scientific exploration.

"whatever all this might mean, it plainly has nothing to do with an eventual science
of language,...", where 'this' means notions of 'common sense' as Chomsky calls it.
Why doesn't Chomsky consider the ways and reasons language change as
important? Surely notions of authority and class structure aren't sufficient for
explaining the popularity of an alternate meaning of a word like livid. Meanings are
different between living languages like those often used in everyday communication
and in the dead language of the dictionary. It would seem to me that science would
be hard put to explain the how and why of these differences, and that these
differences should be studied.

Pg 511 bottom left column. "the child seems sleeping". Inside or outside of the
language? "...so then all languages and a vast range of other sounds also fall within
English, a conclusion that makes no sense." It does not seem to follow for me that
if you include the top sentence fragment as part of English then you must also
include 'all languages' in English. Perhaps this is a reasonable conclusion, but it
isn't to me.
top right of page 511. How can Chomsky say that there is some biological
difference ultimately between speakers of Japanese and English. I thought the
difference is considered merely learned and that at birth both children are equally
open to the various distinctive sound differences in language, which they eventually
unlearn.

bottom left column of 514. I would like to see more detail about Chomsky's theory
that we don't learn language. That language grows in our mind.
pg 514 bottom pg 515 top. How can ability improve without a change in knowledge?
Isn't it possible that our mind can gain knowledge without our awareness of that
fact? Can't our subconscious learn how to better speak publicly through practice?
Perhaps there should be a special category of knowledge reserved for practice. It
is a complete mystery to me how Chomsky can talk about an evident change in
someones abilities and claim this change did not occur as a result of knowledge
without an explanation as to what it alternatively should be.

Journal Entry #4
1 what is the empiricist theory of ideas?
2. what theory of meaning goes with it?
3. What's good/bad about this theory of meaning?

Empiricists theorized that since words have meaning the meaning must come from
ideas. Empiricists believed that Ideas are and can be explained by connecting
them with our only means of access to the world beyond ourselves, that is to say
our senses: Smell, TAste, touch, sight, and hearing. We experience things with our
senses and these experiences become recorded in our minds as copies of sensory
perceptions. These recordings of sensory perceptions are ideas. A word or object
or concept, as the theory goes, calls up our copy of sensory perceptions and this is
what (or how) ideas are. So our ideas are the product of our experiences or to be
more precise ideas are copies of our sensory perceptions.

The idea theory of meaning is therefore the meaning theory that corresponds with
the empiricist theory of ideas. Each word we use has meaning for us because it is
associated with an idea. The meaning of a word or object is derived from an idea
which is basically a copy of a sensory perception. So the word "duck" might call up
a specific image in a person's mind, perhaps the image of a water bird with webbed
feet and a bill. And this image represents what "duck" means.
One of the bad things about this theory of meaning is that we can only have quite
particular images in our minds. But there are a great number of very general words
in our language. So it is hard to believe that a specific image can represent a
general concept. For example: when I hear the word cat the images that come to
mind are my two cats Zeke and Celeste. These images are extremely particular,
Celeste is a medium-hair white and grey female cat with bare patches on her ears
caused by mites, while Zeke is a black and brown tabby with brown and white
striped legs and black and brown striped body and a white stomach... Now how can
I recognize a cat on the street with all the relevant details whilst excluding all the
irrelevant details considering the fact that the only mental image I have to work
with are the images of my cats.

This leads me to the next problem with the theory. When I hear the word cat I
also think about my aunt in Florida because she has 30 cats. So when "cat" is
encountered by me I think about my two cats and I think about my aunt in Florida.
The vast majority of images that come to my mind are irrelevant to "cat". But are
these part of the meaning cat? One would hope not, that would be far too
complex.

Abstract concepts do not seem to have any meaning in this theory of meaning.
Numbers for example, what is the difference between the image of 1,999,999 and
2,000,000 it seems unimaginable and therefore has no meaning here. Other
abstract things such as emotion don't seem to have images in my mind. Concepts
like dialectical materialism do conjure up images in my mind but unfortunately none
of the images can even remotely be considered related to its meaning.

Good points about this theory aren't leaping to mind, but it is a pleasantly in that
it's intuitively correct theory. The idea theory of meaning seems very well suited
to describing the meaning of things like colour. It would seem their is no other
theory which describes the meaning of black, or white or pink for that matter
quite as well as this theory.

Journal entry #5

Compare and Contrast e-mail with verbal communication.

Currently e-mail is still in it's infancy as a mode of communication. But I tend to
think it will continue to lag behind verbal communication in it's sophistication
forever.

So many things we can easily communicate unthinkingly in a verbal discourse

requires great thought on e-mail. A simple raise of the eyebrow or down-turn of a
smile can transmit volumes about your intentions or "tone". In e-mail we attempt
to utilize our familiarity with facial expressions through very basic symbols of
faces. :-> and :-) and ;-} all mean different things in E-mail and are used to
communicate tone or soften what could otherwise be taken as harsh criticism, or to
throw an ironic twist onto an otherwise single-meaning answer. Unfortunately
there is no single directory or authority that can tell us what each symbol means so
we must interpret for ourselves what others mean by these symbols.

Context. Why do I and many of my friends and relatives find verbal communication
more satisfying and less mystifying than written communication? Context, that's
why. When you talk to your mother or friend or prof or classmate it is surprisingly
easy to say more or less what you want because the person you communicate with
supplies your context:

What do you mean by that?

What are you saying? You've lost me.
I already understand that part move on.

In the written word, oh and by the way e-mail is very much like other written word
forms of communication, the writer must provide a context that satisfies the
intended audience. If the context is not appropriate then the author gets a C- on
his/her report card. Or the author wastes other peoples time on e-mail as they
must deal with what was written as if the author's context was intended and not
mistaken and write an answer to that. Then the original author has absolutely no
where the second author is coming from, or s/he misinterprets the second authors
statements so they fit the original context in the first authors initial statement.
This is communication?

So as you see from the above paragraph e-mail can become a sort of 'anti-
communication' in that two people can exchange s but not really be talking about
the same thing. The subtleties of context are difficult to grasp especially when
absolutely no verbal conversation occurs between to e-mail correspondents. Think
of verbal conversation as an anchor for other forms of communication. This is
what I think happens in Arts courses:
A professor assigns an essay to a class, the professor notices that at the end of
the term on average those students who came to his/her office to discuss context
and other things regarding assignments tended to do better than students who
didn't have a verbal dialogue with that professor. The difference in grades aren't
great but on average the students who had a 10 minute or longer verbal discussion
with the professor relieved between 5 and 10 percent higher marks.

The reason the students who conversed verbally with the professor received
better marks isn't because the professor likes them better. It's because the
professor was able to clarify and enhance the terms of the assignment in a one-on-
one verbal dialogue. Not only that but the student was able to introduce the
professor to some of the ideas s/he was having and get feedback on context as
well as using the professor as a sounding board.
The difference between e-mail and essays are that people feel they can de-
formalize e-mail dialogue, this laxness in formality can make the problems of
context mentioned above even more problematic for e-mail than they are in essays.

Since e-mail communication is still quite unfamiliar to many participants and as a

mode of communication is still quite new, it will take a while before everyone learns
both how to word ones' s and how to appropriately interpret others's. Also since
the time delay between discussions on a newsgroup can be as little as 10 minutes its
almost like talking face to face. This makes e-mail more complex as people want to
be informal and see the potential for e-mail to become as vibrant as verbal
communication but we lack the means. One example: The posting made by
professor Stainton in 32280 discussion group entitled "theme music" somewhere
around the 18th of october 1994. The tone of this posting was quite informal and
this is something students no doubt are quite unaccustomed to receive from their
professors. The result was probably massive misinterpretation (and hysteria). The
mis-interpretation is substantiated by the posting of Steve Nickerson asking if
there was any favouritism etc. True this sort of mis-understanding could occur
verbally also, but the time lag between postings and the average e-mail users
viewing of postings can be quite large. The conclusion I come to is that the above
example wasn't serious but there is definite potential, one possible repercussions
could be a temporary or even permanent breakdown of communication depending on
the person and their various thresholds of charity.
On the good side E-mail seems to have great potential to actually make
communication between individuals separated by a power differential (prof &
student for example) more personal. It's sort of like joining a club, comraderie
develops and professors and students have greater potential for interaction. On
the unfortunate side e-mail is not as accessible to all people within a class so those
with their own pc's or computer literacy may merely attain an unfair advantage at
being noticed by the professor. Although it is debatable whether notice by a
professor could result in any real advantage for a student concerning the charity
the professor grants them in papers etc. A real advantage that seems evident is
merely better access. If a student can attain a less formal relationship with a
professor where the power differential is less highlighted, the student might find
the professor more approachable for advice or even discussion of issues. Given
these real advantages it is unfortunate that some students could be placed at a
disadvantage by the instatement of an e-mail newsgroup. The number of
disadvantaged is probably limited to the computer illiterate (which just means the
computer intimidated) and the financially disadvantaged: how many of these people
exist is hard to say.

The advantages for those who are keen to learn or who lack a social network
abound. It is much easier to congregate at our various computer terminals and
discuss and contemplate and hob-knob than it would be for us to meet say for an
hour each week.
I bet you just gave us this assignment to get students to convince themselves of
the usefulness of e-mail. "Participaction get with the action."

Journal entry #6

Why should we care whether there is a substantial innate linguistic

endowment? (I.e. what ethical, political, social issues would this pose?)
One ethical consequence if our language capabilities are substantially innate, might
be a greater perception of equality between humans and non-human animals. For
quite a long time now human natural scientists, Anthropologists, and many others
have used language abilitites as a means of placing humans at the top of the
hierarchy in opposition to non-humans. Language has been considered to be a
virtue of humans, that is the result of our superior intellect. If language abilities
can be shown to be the result of nature and not nurture then perhaps our society
will become a little more humble, with a corresponding hike in the position of non-
humans within our ethical regimes.
If language is found to be substantially innate the social repercussions would be
immense. Our society might swing to the extreme view that most if not all of
language abilities are genetic and many people who lack initial language potential at
the early childhood level, (however it may be measured in the technology of the
day: perhaps a language quotient would arise) could be denied an education. This
sort of treatment would be unfair in my opinion even if it is true that such an
individuals language abilities would always reflect this early childhood level and
even if it is true that we can presume to accurately measure things like intelligence
and language quotients.
Continued fostering of racist ideas could result from the situation described
above. I.Q. tests now rate peoples intelligence quotient, and if I am not mistaken
non-'white' people often score lower as a group than 'whites'. Many current
theories about this contribute this disparity to socio-economic variables rather
than as a real testing of 'intelligence'. If it can be shown that a large proportion
of linguistic abilities are innate then the classification of many non-white groups as
second-class citizens would be legitimized, resulting in extremely fascist
treatment of these people.

JOURNAL ENTRY #7

1. Select some linguistic action A. (A fairly specific one will work best.)
2. Describe the linguistic device or devices (i.e. expression or
expressions) E(A) for performing this action.
3. Outline the conditions underwhich uttering the
expression E(A) *would not* result in performing the action A.

Finally, on the basis of your success/failure in this task, draw a conclusion

about the prospects of successfully filling in the Speech Act schema
for *all* actions, expressions, and circumstances.

The linguistic action I have chosen is mar irony.

Device: A person says something which is the opposite of what they actually mean.
Conditions where irony as a speech act is not felicitous (does not result): 1)if the
speaker does not intend to be ironic. ie. if s/he actually means exactly what is said
2)the normal conditions for irony do not entail: that is the speaker must be ironic
about a certain situation or thing that is normally the brunt of irony, as for irony
to obtain the cultural context must support it. Things that are normally the brunt
of irony are, commonly accepted as morally wrong or outdated or old-fashioned by
a culture. Example: A museum in Toronto recently exhibited an African colonialism
display, that was full of ironic statements. "When the imperialists moved into
Africa and civilized it..." The above statement was meant to be ironic, but very
few people understood this and therefore the felicity conditions for irony were
not obtained. Many of those who complained to the museum claimed the exhibit
was racist. The problem that occurred in this situation was that the curator was
not aware of the broader colonial experience of society. Our society as a whole
has only recently embraced the colonial experience as a bad thing and many of the
members of society remain colonialist in thought. Perhaps the felicity conditions
would have obtained if a detailed explanatory statement was placed at the
entrance to the exhibit saying "We believe colonialism was bad and that the
colonial experience is well behind us as a society. Colonialism is clearly an old-
fashioned and out-dated regime that was misguided from the start. This exhibit
contains many ironical statements concerning colonialist dogma." This would not
fulfil all of the felicity conditions for irony however. Only time and a lot of work
can accomplish this. Many non-western peoples are still suffering under the yolk of
colonialism whether it be the actual power structure or merely colonial attitudes,
but only in a different form. For colonial attitudes to be truly the brunt of irony in
the context of a museum in Toronto, especially in our current politically correct
atmosphere, those who have traditionally suffered under colonialism in all of its
forms must both be and feel free from colonialism.
3) The context must support the ironical speech act. If a left-wing paper were to
make similar statements as mentioned above (the museum) irony would be more
likely to obtain. The cultural and political context of a radically left-wing paper
might provide an adequate context for the above statements to be felicitously
obtained.

4) The audience must be aware of the context in which irony is expressed. The
main problem would be that not all of the readers of such the above paper would be
aware of its left-wing orientation. Or if a member of a group who feels or is
currently oppressed by colonialist power relations were to read the paper they
might not believe the writers of the paper understand his/her current oppression.
So in a situation like this irony might obtain in relation to certain regular readers
of the paper but not necessarily others. If the felicity conditions require
everybody to understand the irony then irony would not be obtained. If the
felicity conditions merely require the majority of the audience to understand the
irony then it might obtain.
My above attempt to outline the felicity conditions of irony was definitely not a
success. It has become quite clear to me as I do this exercise that I could spend
the rest of my life outlining and describing the felicity conditions of irony and still
not complete my task. The political and social aspects are complex enough in and of
themselves but to outline all possible contexts would be impossible. It seems that
it would be impossible for a discipline to accomplish the task of outlining the
speech act schema for all expressions and actions and contexts. I can see that if
speech act schema theorists continue to be accepted by our society these
theorists will never run out of work.