Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: SemiOT: Revealing your conlanger status, personal experiences of reaction...

From:Dan Sulani <dansulani@...>
Date:Friday, June 18, 2004, 15:25
On 18 June, Sally Caves wrote:

> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John Leland" <Lelandconlang@...> > > > In a message dated 6/16/04 12:23:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > joerg_rhiemeier@WEB.DE writes: > > > > << When I mentioned it in his presence, he said that > > what I am doing was meaningless because Wittgenstein said that > > "private languages are impossible". I am not an expert on > > Wittgenstein's philosophy, but I think my brother has interpreted > > Wittgenstein's words wrongly. What Wittgenstein meant was, I think, > > that a language can never be private in the sense that no-one else > > can learn it. Conlangs thus *aren't* "private languages". >> > > Here's something I quoted from Wittgenstein: > > Could we also imagine a language in which a person could write down or
give
> vocal expression to his inner experiences -- his feelings, moods, and the > rest -- for his private use? Well, can't we do so in our ordinary > language? -- But that is not what I mean. The individual words of this > language are to refer to what can only be known to the person speaking; to > his immediate private sensations. So another person cannot understand the > language. -- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations par. 243 > > Wittgenstein calls a "private language" that which has no circulation in
the
> real world, or which cannot be used as a means of communication with
another
> person, because it is made up of words that refer only to the speaker's > PRIVATE and idiosyncratic experiences and sensations. Since language is a > public consensus, using words that are agreed upon publically to express > even private feeling, then a private language is an impossibility. The
way
> we relate to each other, the way we know red is called "red" or nausea is > called "nausea" is through a common use of language which is an imprecise, > BECAUSE public, symbology of our inner feelings. Wittgenstein, I believe, > is trying to argue against solipsism, the belief that the self is the only > thing that has reality. He's popular, because so much contemporary > metaphysics and philosophy of language (Nietzsche, Judith Butler) argue
the
> opposite, that self is created BY language. Or that self doesn't exist or > can't be gauged. A thorny issue.
I am having a problem with the idea of a polarized division of a person's linguistic actions. Either public or private, no in-between. Speaking as a speech-language-pathologist: in practical terms, if I come across a person who is making noises with his vocal apparatus that mean nothing to me, (and believe me, I have!) and he seems to be satisfied with the results, how do I know that I am in the presence of a "private lang" and not a confused, psychotic, or aphasic person? If he uses the sounds to relate to me, such as showing me pictures that more or less have something to do with a certain sound-sequence of his "private" speech, it's already not so "private". And what happens if I were to "adopt" his sounds to signify my own personal sensations and he were not to object to that. Would his lang be becoming public? Would he still retain a "private" lang? And could I, though therapy, _force_ a public meaning upon his private sounds (not that I would --- I'm not so sure as to how ethical it would be!), would he still have a private lang? And what if I taped all his utterances over a long span of time (in order to get a good sample of his speech in diverse situations) and then, without his consent, or even knowledge, created a publicly shared conlang based upon the lang sample --- would it be the same lang? What would you call a lang that has the exact same apparent phonology and morphosyntax as another lang, but with absolutely no words sharing a common meaning? Why I bring all this up, is that it reminds me of what I do all the time in my work. For example, when teaching a word to a kid who has no lang whatsoever, let's say that I teach him the sound sequence [kise], which is Hebrew for "chair". What else do I teach him? I surely don't teach him all the possible types of chairs that exist today, let alone all the types of seats that have been used by all peoples throughout all time! I don't teach him all the private associations that I have accumulated over the years to the idea of "chair", including all my personal memories of a few particularly comfortable chairs (and some not so comfortable seats I had to endure in high school ! ;-) ) It's actually amazing how _little_ information I impart to him about [kise] before I turn to the next word, resting assured that he can use it whenever he needs to in public or private. At first, I know what he knows because I put it there, so it's more or less totally public. But from then on, how do I know what private associations he'll form with that word? I guess what I am trying to say is, IMHO, all lang-use by people, whether natlang or conlang, is a continuum, with a private aspect at one extreme _and_ a public one at the other! How much must this continuum be wieghted towards shared use in order to describe the person's utterances as public? And the resverse: how much must the continuum be weighted towards idiosyncratic and "non-sharedness" for it to be described as private? A thorny issue indeed! Dan Sulani -------------------------------------------------------------------- likehsna rtem zuv tikuhnuh auag inuvuz vaka'a. A word is an awesome thing.

Reply

Sally Caves <scaves@...>Wittgenstein and private language; was: revealing your status as a conlanger