Cream of the Crop 26/Cream of the Crop 26.iso/educate/trutran2.zip/SPRAY.TXT

Text File | 1997-05-21 | 9KB | 183 lines

              *** PRESS ANY KEY TO SEE THE NEXT SCREEN ***

         If you wish to print this article or view it in its
         entirety, please load it into your word processor
                          as SPRAY.TXT.

                   *********************************
                   *    For an overview of these   *
                   *  articles, please first read  *
                   *     the file ARTICLE0.SEE     *
                   *********************************

            HOW SERIOUSLY SHOULD THE COMPARISON BETWEEN LANGUAGE AND
                            ANIMAL SPRAY BE TAKEN?

        A few admirers of "Truth About Translation, Version 1.00"
        have asked me how seriously the idea of "language as spray,"
        as presented in the segment "Spray It Again, Sam," is meant
        to be taken.  I'm attempting to answer this question in two
        ways in what follows, first as an informal and only slightly
        edited reply to someone who asked me this question on the Net,
        and second as a more formal definition of 'Language'
        incorporating this idea.  Here comes the more informal
        reply:

        Good question.  Am i entirely serious about the spray idea?
        Amswer:  yes and no.  Of course we all want and need to
        believe that the words and ideas-rooted-in-words that we
        cherish have some value beyond being mere "animal spray."
        And i'm no exception.  On the other hand, everything we call
        language could indeed end up looking like not much more than
        animal spray to some extra-terrestrial or otherwise
        relatively objective observer able to see humankind and
        human-not-so-kind more in the round than we do.  Seen from
        this perspective, i really wonder if language might not
        appear to be some kind of frothy, humid extrusion we carry
        around with us and refer to inside out heads and/or project
        onto the outside world as extended territorial markings, all
        of which we suppose to be the true shape of both internal
        and external reality.  And that's just the spoken form of
        language--the written form may be even more insubstantial.

        Since you are a linguist, you know that all languages try to
        describe the real world, but that they also end up
        describing it more or less differently in a remarkable
        number of cases.  And since every human being is an
        individual, we all end up throwing in our own smaller
        differences into the mix our culture hands us.  A number of
        philosophical and linguistic "realists" (the Chomskians are
        only the latest among them) have wanted to believe that
        there is an underlying "reality" beyond all these different
        descriptions.  Here again, i think i'd say "yes and no."
        And i don't think that's really hedging on the issue--it
        might just qualify as confronting it squarely.

        In other words, let's just play with the idea--without
        NECESSARILY taking it seriously--that our languages (and
        perhaps even our understanding) might simply be a damp and
        dubious outer coating, an actual biological, evolution-
        determined extension of ourselves that we carry around with
        us, even though it has no physical form or shape, something
        that we can neither see nor see beyond.  The proof that it
        exists is simply all the ways we act and interact every day,
        all the ways we understand and misunderstand each other, all
        those mistakes or shortcomings in translation between two
        languages or merely understanding a single one we commit
        without ever being aware of them.  i wonder if this
        comparison to animal spray is really much more far-fetched
        or counter-intuitive or totally crazier than some of the
        cosmological and molecular theories going the rounds with
        their supposed galactic soap bubbles and vast clouds of
        virtual particles perpetually switching on and off in the
        middle of vast intergalactic vacuums.

        i also find it quite revealing that this idea of language
        being related to animal spray or 'scent markings" should
        seem to have such a high shock value, at least for some
        people.  Biologists have never hesitated to call scent
        markings a form of communication, so the only issue that
        seems to be shocking some people is that these scent
        markings have here been directly compared to human
        language and found anlogous if not identical.  The usual
        approach to describing human language is usually much more
        sanctimonious and self-congratulatory.  The ultimate proof
        that we humans must be superior to all other animals, we are
        often told, is that we alone have invented language.
        "Language"--invariably with a capital L--is far beyond the
        capability of all other species, who can therefore only be
        inferior to us.  Language separates us from the beasts!  But
        if true, why are we so defensive--and so arrogant--about
        this supposed mark of superiority?

        Certainly language is far more complex than any system of
        animal signals so far studied, even though this could simply
        be due to the fact that we are interested in all sorts of
        matters that animals find relatively unimportant.  But the
        resistance by some to the notion that language and animal
        spray could be linked may tell us more about ourselves than
        we care to admit.

        The anger provoked by this notion, seemingly so counter-
        intuitive for so many observers, may come close to
        recalling the first reactions to Darwin's theory that man
        and ape might share a common ancestor.  Or Galileo's support
        of Copernicus that the earth might be round.  Or Einstein's
        insistance that light could actually be in motion through
        space at a specific and measurable rate.  Whatever the final
        truth about human language and animal spray may finally
        prove to be, perhaps no theory capable of irritating so
        many people can be entirely mistaken.

        In the mean time, here is the more formal reply to this
        question.  It takes the form of a definition of "Language,"
        as seen through the defining lens of this theory:

        "Language.  Any of the numerous complex systems of
        exudations or spray-sound markings emitted by human beings
        and projected onto objects, other human beings, abstract
        processes, and seemingly repeatable occurrences.  Frequently
        used as defensive barriers against reality, these networks
        of exudations purport to define, describe, explain,
        and classify relationships, artefacts, and value systems
        created by the human beings who produce the exudations.
        More or less similar systems of humid markings are shared by
        various groups of humans, these groups sometimes being known
        as families, tribes, nations, or cultures, and are commonly
        called "languages."  Such systems vary to a greater or
        lesser extent among these groups, and a process of
        integration or disintegration in these systems can be
        readily identified throughout history and in human society
        today.  On a biological and evolutionary scale, these
        systems may have evolved over time from analogous systems of
        scent markings produced by many animals for territorial
        and/or mating purposes.  The territorial nature of human
        language, along with its similarity to animal markings, is
        evident in warfare, negotiations for contracts, and much
        academic feuding.

        Specific systems of these markings as well as individual
        spray-sounds purporting to identify perceived objective
        realities or perceived relationships vary greatly among
        groups of humans.  Over the centuries various attempts have
        been made to establish a unifying principle linking these
        systems, such as a "universal grammar" or a "conceptual
        glossary," but no such attempt has as yet proved entirely
        successful.  Qualified mediators between two systems, known
        as "translators" or "interpreters," have often enjoyed some
        success in converting between specific pairs of these
        systems, depending on the complexity of the material at hand
        and the skill or ingenuity of the individual translator or
        interpreter.

        This idea is discussed further in Section 3 of the program
        itself and also in ARTICLE1.

                        Copyright (C) 1997 by Alexander Gross