A language is any system of symbols that can be used to express meaning.
There are verbal languages, computer languages, sign languages, body language, and any number of other possible types of languages.
It would be nice if schools in America were more focused on learning foreign languages from an early age.
Mandarin Chinese seems to be one of the most important languages we (we, meaning, speakers and readers of english) can learn because of the number of people who will be speaking and using the language in the coming decades.
It would be nice if we could focus more on foreign languages in America. No language should trump any other but the project to form and use some kind of universal language is interesting. In the meantime, linguistic studies of all human cultures are critical to preserving and understanding human existence.
But, this is not to diminish the importance of any particular language but only to emphasize our ability to communicate effectively with others on Earth. I think it is neighborly to learn the language of neighboring nations and a good idea to learn the most widely spoken languages.
The conceptual and symbolic diversity of highly disparate languages in one mind is beneficial to all aspects of thought.
The conceptual diversity of someone who speaks only Spanish and Italian, or English and German, is not as diverse, for example, as someone who speaks English and Spanish (Or German and Italian) and none of these is as diverse as someone who speaks, perhaps, Spanish and Japanese.
I have an essay examining the theories of Donald Davidson and the relationship between language and thought.
The Language and Thought Debate and the PoW Theory of Meaning:
This theory of meaning assumes a scientific causal framework and I am aware of the problems included in such assumptions. Theories are things to play with not things to take as metaphysical grounds. One need only refer to my pages on science and causation to observe my skepticism about such theories. Though, I have no skepticism concerning their pragmatic usefulness.
The present issue is whether or not language influences thought, and if so, how language influences thought. In attempting to answer this question, I shall argue that (i) typical understanding(s) of the terms of the debate are central to the problems encountered in trying to solve the debate, (ii) a reformulation of the terms of the debate is necessary, and (iii) a reformulation of the terms will lead to potential solutions to the debate.
Language, as it is relevant to this debate, usually means 'natural language', which is in contrast to a 'language of thought' or 'deep language'- the latter of which refer to theorized underlying 'languages' that are used for cognitive communication and are innately specified. We commonly think of language or a language as consisting of a set of words that stand for or represent or mean something(s).
But, as is often mentioned, natural languages also take the form of gestural actions that mean something(s). We could imagine that any part of the world could be, to an interpreter, a meaningful thing or set of things.
It just so happens that verbal and gestural communication happened to be the most convenient forms of communication for humans. It is important that, in the debate concerning language, we do not overlook the presence of 'felt', 'seen', 'smelled', and 'tasted' things that are meaningful to an interpreter.
A salient example is the presence of additives to the gas propane, a gas that naturally has no odor detectable to humans. Because propane is highly flammable and used in many household appliances, propane is given a certain chemical that makes it smell. This smell means (to some humans) 'the presence of propane'.
Therefore, in order to keep from restricting the term 'language' as it is useful to the current discussion, I will make an attempt to abstract away from the actual circumstances of the world (which are merely contingent) and say that a natural linguistic 'term' is any part of the world.
I shall call this abstraction the Part of World or [PoW] theory of meaning and interpretation. Before continuing with a discussion of [PoW] theory of meaning, I formulate it more formally as follows:
[PoW] Interpretation = the ability of some [PoW]1 to convert some [PoW]2 into some [PoW]3...3n, where conversion is the process of (i) isolating [PoW]2, (ii) searching a database for knowledge of [PoW]2, and (iii) creating [PoW]3...3n based on (ii), where (a) a database of knowledge is some [PoW]4 that causes an action based on the input of (ii) that results in the output of (iii) and (b) where the interpretation takes place within a causally-closed system. [(ii) can be skipped for simple things like a virus. The database can be considered natural forces in these cases.]
[PoW] Isolating = discerning the visual, auditory, or tactile difference between "it" and what is not "it". (Facial recognition programs can do this).
[PoW] Learning (Database formation for [Pow] Interpretation) = the ability of some [PoW]1 to convert some [Pow]2 to representational memory with symbolic markers. This would require (i) the ability of [PoW]1 to isolate [PoW]2 and (ii) the ability of [PoW]1 to interpret a reference for [PoW]2 from an external source of referencing. An external source of referencing may be, for instance, a child's parent and [PoW]1 would be the child and, for example, [PoW]2 could be a ball where the reference is the word "Ball" spoken by the child's parent as she or he points to it, isolating it from the rest of the world.
[PoW] Meaning = some [PoW]2 means [PoW]3...3n to some [PoW]1 if and only if [PoW]2 is interpreted (through [Pow]Interpretation).
[PoW] Language = the set of all [PoW]s that are capable of being interpreted by some [PoW]1.
Discussion of Theory: For the purposes of the following discussion, we can make the following definitions: [PoW]1 = interpreting system, [PoW]2 = input, [PoW]3...3n = output, [PoW]4 = knowledge. The interpreting system (an adult human being) [PoW]1 could be interpreting something, such as a blue ball (which is the representation) [PoW]2 formed by some unobservable [PoW]5.
Therefore, meaning depends on the interpreter's knowledge and that which is being interpreted. In order to attribute meaning to the interpreter's [PoW]3...3n, one must have access to interpretation of [PoW]3...3n.
Example 1: [PoW]1 = [English reading and speaking adult human being], [PoW]2 = [ink on paper: (LION)], [PoW]3...3n = [sound wave pattern: (lyun)], [PoW]4 = [various parts of cortex and vocal chords], English written 'LION' means to English speaking/reading human.
Example 2: [PoW]1 = [cockroach], [PoW]2 = [intense light], [PoW]3...3n = [cockroach running], [PoW]4 = [various parts of cockroach brain, eyes, and body?], intense light means to cockroach.
Example 3: [PoW]1 = [rubber ball], [PoW]2 = [hard surface with force x], [PoW]3...3n = [repelling from surface with force y], [PoW]4 = [the structure of the ball], hard surface means to ball.
PARTS: What exactly constitutes a "part" is a deeply challenging philosophical problem. But, one need not make any metaphysical or substance-related assumptions in order to define a part. If there is something, then any subset or section of the whole (or even the whole itself) can be considered a part.
There are parts of our conceptual scheme and of individual concepts. There are parts to a car and the car is a part of the world of human transportation vehicles.
I think confusions of this point are semantic and we can, it seems, always find a flaw or paradox buried in any assumption based on various interpretations of the terms used to formulate any positive theory- such as, for example, the Gettier problem in epistemology.
