Re: Wittgenstein & 'private language' (was: SemiOT: Revealing your conlanger status)

On 20 June, Marcos wrote:

> My experience is that a sensation is generally unintelligible to me until
> I've given it a name of some kind. (The name doesn't have to be verbal;
> call it "conceptualization" if you like.) Whether or not the name has any
> public mindshare or not doesn't seem to be relevant to this
> "intelligibilization" function.
    I think that I agree with what you are saying.
I don't think, though, that I'd agree with the use of "name"
and "non-verbal conceptualization" as being the same thing.
To my mind, "name" implies verbalization (even if only internal).
    Words are indeed about making things intelligible, but such
efforts can also be achieved non-verbally! Jamming, in music,
for example, is a form of non-verbal conversation!
One can "make intelligible" a hitherto unorganized jumble
of musical / emotional thoughts by organizing and expressing
them. (One can aslo do this privately.)
And if one is jamming, one can get one's
expressed thoughts commented upon (sort of like a musical
listserv  :-)    ). Conceptualization, yes. Expression, yes.
Verbalization, no.

<snip>

> Words are about making things intelligible (to oneself, in the first
> instance), and they (the words) don't have to be public for that.
> ("Intelligible" doesn't entail "mutually intelligible", "real", "true" or
> anything of that nature.) They just have to hang together in some
> more-or-less stable configuration. (Stability being one of the criteria I
> would expect speech pathologists like Dan to use if they wanted to try to
> distinguish between meaningless babble and some sort of private speech
> form.)
    Not necessarily. There is a type of language disorder where,
due to brain damage, the verbal monitoring-and-self-correction
system is wiped out, but the rest of the language system is more or less
intact. In effect, the person has lost control over meaningful linguistic
output.
His utterances are meaningless, but they are not necessarily babble.
They can be very phonologically/ phonemicly consistant with his native lang.
(It's very frustrating for the person, who is convinced that he is
making sense and can't figure out why nobody can understand him!)
    Of course there are all sorts of indirect ways to try and deduce
what's going on with a person who is producing
meaningless utterances. My point was, though, that we can't yet
mind-meld and thus share another's non-verbal, internal experiences.
    I could record and analyze speech samples, and look for
regularities (Shades of linguistic field work! Now _there_ are some
nice personal memories!  :-)   ). But without access to the person's
subjective inner state, I have no way of knowing
how "public" or "private" (in W.'s terms) the utterances are.

On 18 June, Sally Caves wrote:

>  Do we understand Middle Earth as Tolkien imagined it, laden
> with his personal associations and emotions?  As he saw it in his mind?
That's one reason why some people prefer to read a book rather than
see the movie based upon it. You may not have the author's associations/
emotions, but in reading, everyone is stimulated to form his/her own
to a great extent. Having watched the movie, you have the same public
imagery imposed on you as everyone else has. And that imagery can be
powerfully stubborn! For example, in the Harry Potter movies, I had gotten
so used to the actor who played Dumbledore in movies 1 and 2,
(nevermind that he replaced whatever private image I had constructed
for myself while reading the books) that I could not accept the new actor
who played him in movie 3! "That's _not_ Dumbledore!" I repeatedly said!
As if I really _know_ what Dumbledore is _really_ like!

<snip>

> Your job sounds fascinating, Dan.  I've told you this before!!
    Thanks, Sally, for reminding me of this as I plough my way through
my piled-up paperwork (case summaries, reports, caseload
statistics, etc)! Any more forms to fill out and _I_ may need
intensive therapy --- and I'm not talking about the speech sort!  :-P



Dan Sulani
----------------------------------------------------------------
likehsna rtem zuv tikuhnuh auag inuvuz vaka'a.

A word is an awesome thing.