[lit-ideas] Re: The Order of Aurality ratification of fiction

Donal wrote:

"the key expression "any language is, in principle, open to
understanding by any language user" is not quantified/qualified so as
to make clear whether this means: (a) 'any given language is, in
principle, open to understanding by any user of that given language';
or (b) 'any given language is, in principle, open to understanding by
any user of any other language'."

I meant it in the sense of (b), which I tried to make clear by talking
about language users, as opposed to English or German speakers. The
skills required to learn a first language are skills that can be used
to learn any behaviour that is identifiably a language.

One of the difficulties here may lie in the belief that particular
languages are somehow things unto themselves. So, we talk about the
English language as though we were talking about some thing that can
be identified, and with clear boundaries. The English language is
therefore different from German or French in some clear and definable
manner. And, of course, human languages would then be very different
things from the languages of birds and lions, should there be such
things. What I take from Wittgenstein, and later philosophers like
Donald Davidson, is that language is not a thing but a way of doing
things in the world.

Learning a language, then, is not about accumulating knowledge of a
discrete object, but rather learning a skill. The skills we develop in
learning our first language can then be used to learn other languages.
The skills we develop in learning language can help us identify
language use even if we cannot understand the language itself. That
is, I can recognize that people speaking Russian are using language,
even though I do not understand Russian. I can even learn how to use
certain Russian words even though I do not know how to speak the
language.

It would seem to follow, then, that if we recognize in animals the
kinds of activities associated with language use, we could then
identify parts of that language. This does not mean that we could then
speak 'Bird' or 'Lion', but rather, just as I can use some Russian
words in conversation even though I don't know Russian, we can
identify language signs used by birds and lions. We can identify how
lions interact on the basis of signifiers. Conversely, animals like
lions can be trained to recognize certain signifiers performed by
humans and respond accordingly. Dogs can learn to understand certain
verbal commands as well as behavioural signs.

In short, the skills required for learning a particular language are
the skills that make possible, in principle, the ability to understand
any other language, regardless of who or what uses that language.

Sincerely,

Phil Enns
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: