Unique Perceptions of Language

[Siúil a Rúin]

Over the years, I've read interesting posts by various members that describe their unique way of relating to language. I remember some people visualize the words they hear, and other similar types of unique perceptions. I have a somewhat unique way of relating to language, which I'll share later. It could make for an interesting discussion that includes absolutely anything you consider unique in your relationship to language.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

Okay, so here's mine. I don't know any particular definition for it, but it has a lot to do with the particular way I relate to the concrete and abstract.

I tend to be conscious of any arbitrary abstraction and find it burdensome to process. Language is completely imbued with arbitrary abstraction because the vast majority of words have no inherent relationship to what they identify in sound or appearance. The areas of language which are extensions of the literal are metaphor, poetic timbre, and onomatopoeia.

onomatopoeia. 1. The use or formation of words whose sound is intended to imitate the action or sound they mean, such as bang” or ”splash.” 2. Use of words which sound like the thing described.

I long for a language that is based on onomatopoeia. The vast amount of arbitrary abstraction in language creates a level of anxiety in me when I try to read or formulate ideas. For this reason I think my language skills are one of my lowest areas of intelligence, but I do have a natural inclination towards poetry. I especially like word usage that focuses on timbre and rhythm to convey the meaning, poetry that is musical. It is also why I excel in the language of music because it is extending the concrete and emotional realms into a language that is arguably based on something related to onomatopoeia.

I also love metaphor because it extends reality in a way that provides a deeper look into the actual nature of what it describes. It is a way of making language more closely connected to an actual experience of an idea. I know everyone equates metaphor with abstract thinking, but I think it is one of the most concrete forms of abstraction. You are never disconnected from the source, and it provides a deeper lens to more fully see the source.

I love animal language and could delve deeply into studying whale song and such because there is a tendency for the sounds of animal language to closely represent the emotion or action of its idea. This also enables me to have some intuitive sense about what animals are communicating.

There are negative aspects of feeling burdened by arbitrary abstractions because it makes it difficult for me to read long novels and complex philosophies. I avoided classes that required intensive reading, and I don't propose it is a good thing in me, but just something about the way my brain works. I also don't know if it is function related or means I'm a little neuro-atypical.

 

[Hiraeth]

I can relate to having difficulties reading longer books and complex abstractions. I had reading comprehension issues when I was younger, and I remember once complaining to a third grade teacher of mine how I had trouble processing what I was reading when there were no pictures. Pictures were guiding points for me to be able to understand the context better. I still have it rough at times when reading certain passages in books where I have to go over a paragraph multiple times just to make sure I'd understand the gist of what's going on. I have to really focus my attention almost 100% on what I am reading, and if not, any little distractions like listening to music would make me have to try harder and read at a much slower pace than usual. I've always envied people who were able to multi-task while reading and not have to sacrifice their skill at it.

Something else I've noticed is that I did have an easier time understanding a story when it was read by someone else, BUT they had to be animated in their delivery and physically present. Is that also at least somewhat related to onomatopoeia, I wonder? The reader had to have captured my interest and attention so that I'd be able to process what I was hearing well enough. But I wouldn't say I'm an auditory learner. Definitely visual, first and foremost. I've also wondered if this is function related too, or if it's just derived from a learning disability?

Language in general was never my strong suit. I am a heavy visual person, although I also have a good ear for sound, and always was able to replicate what I heard either through voice or instrument. It's also interesting how you mention metaphors are a more concrete form of abstraction. I tend to use them when I'm unable to find the appropriate words to use and am only able to think of the next closest thing to describe the idea, and it's through a visual image in my mind that works in a similar fashion. So I'd use the metaphor from my mind to describe the general idea in hopes that my description would be a little more simpler to understand than by just directly saying it.

To be honest, I've always thought language would be something you'd excel at, as if it would come almost effortlessly for you. You seem very well-equipped in it and I would have never thought you'd have difficulties formulating abstractions and writing about them too, so this caught me a bit by surprise coming from you.

 

[Dreamer]

Oh! This is a fun topic

I actually have a similar view to you [MENTION=14857]labyrinthine[/MENTION] regarding the use of metaphor. To me, using metaphors to describe something isn't all that abstract. I feel though the concept you are trying to describe may be abstract, using metaphor is a way to ground that idea in a way that others could understand. I would say the second you are able to attach a parallel relationship to that idea, that idea is no longer within the abstract. Heck, that's how I understand things, is through metaphor. I'm constantly thinking in terms of these relationships.


How this relates to language is not always best for other people since I tend to make up words and definitions on the fly, and the definitions applied are dependent on the context in which those words are strung together. I made up a few different languages as a kid even haha. But, what good is an idea if you can't communicate that idea to others and to get it out there into the world, so I have gotten much better at tailoring my words and approach so most anyone can understand them, but I still have flubs of course.


But returning to metaphor use, it's how I think, so it's only natural I would speak in a similar way. Not always by using literal metaphors, but in how I play with words as well. I feel like there is a certain rhythm to words and certain contexts require the use of this word or that, even if they mean the same thing. At this point, I'm not selecting the appropriate word based on precise definition, but how it flows and fits in with the overall message I wish to convey.

 

[magpie]

The word and the object or concept have a parallel relationship. The word is not the object/concept and nor is it necessarily a representation of the concept/object. The word exists on its own as its own evocative idea and occupies some space beyond or above a literal representation. It's its own being with its own unique existence as something that nothing else is. The meaning and the idea, however, are still clear.

The above is very apparent if you compare the "same" words in different languages. They aren't really the same words and they do actually have different meanings due to differences in cultures. Due to the way words shape reality and perception. So two words representing the same "thing" actually represent different things. The words are the things.

Also, some languages have words that other languages don't. They evoke something a speaker not fluent simply doesn't have a name for. Can that be translated from one language to another? I'd say no, not wholly. It inherently loses its meaning. Not because its representation doesn't exist for the fluent speaker but does for the non-fluent speaker, but because the word itself, which has its own meaning and is its own thing entirely, exists for one and not the other.

In that way, language is so abstract that it goes full circle and becomes concrete. (If this makes no sense, it's because I got two hours of sleep last night and have been taking benadryl all day. It makes sense to me but that doesn't count for much, given I'm the one writing this.)

 

[magpie]

Oh, I can also taste some words in my mouth as I'm speaking them. I've lost a lot of that ability now though, I think due to neuron die off in my brain. (I think part of the reason I swear a lot is because swear words taste good. Don't judge me.)

 

[Population: 1]

I notice I can barely get through a paragraph without using metaphors. I like reconstructing bland sentences into something colorful. I also find my thoughts when expressed through writing hold more than one meaning. It is frustrating at times. What I think is me conveying something in a clear cut fashion is actually a statement veiled in subtleties. The thought seems like it's looming in neon brilliance from my perspective because it was so strong as I wrote the words. Meanwhile in reality, the reader interprets it like a flicker of candlelight in a distant window on a stormy evening. Needless to say I do a lot of editing when commenting.

 

[Population: 1]

The word and the object or concept have a parallel relationship. The word is not the object/concept and nor is it necessarily a representation of the concept/object. The word exists on its own as its own evocative idea and occupies some space beyond or above a literal representation. It's its own being with its own unique existence as something that nothing else is. The meaning and the idea, however, are still clear.

The above is very apparent if you compare the "same" words in different languages. They aren't really the same words and they do actually have different meanings due to differences in cultures. Due to the way words shape reality and perception. So two words representing the same "thing" actually represent different things. The words are the things.

Also, some languages have words that other languages don't. They evoke something a speaker not fluent simply doesn't have a name for. Can that be translated from one language to another? I'd say no, not wholly. It inherently loses its meaning. Not because its representation doesn't exist for the fluent speaker but does for the non-fluent speaker, but because the word itself, which has its own meaning and is its own thing entirely, exists for one and not the other.

In that way, language is so abstract that it goes full circle and becomes concrete. (If this makes no sense, it's because I got two hours of sleep last night and have been taking benadryl all day. It makes sense to me but that doesn't count for much, given I'm the one writing this.)

The translation between English and Japanese proves this point well. Single characters in Japanese can convey entire concepts.

 

[Sacrophagus]

I asked myself once : If there was no language, how would the process of thought occur?

Growing as a child, and as a passive introverted with keen observation skills, I used to delve a lot in differentiated intuitive thoughts seemingly wordless, in an embryonic shape. Language allowed me to place ideas into words, and still, the profoundness of abstract thinking rendered me addicted to a rather idiosyncratic habit : Neologism.

The teacher would find me using peculiar words of my own making, and if not, she's always expecting me to ask at some point "Is there a word for doing this thing if that thing is absent but the other is not?". Her patience was phenomenal.

It's a fact nonetheless, that a huge part of our thoughts and emotions is lost in linguistic translation. Words can never be enough, in addedum to the conflictual notion they can hold, an ostensibly asunder polysemy, different meanings to different people, the initial message is unlikely to be transmitted completely. The rest is up to the imagination and our subjective entanglement at the moment of receiving the message.

Our decryption of the said message is related to our proper understanding and current interpretation of our present reality. The same succession of words holds other meanings as we grow and experience, which is rather fascinating.

 

[The Cat]

words have power; I treat them accordingly...

 

[Population: 1]

This is such an incredible subject. I was just thinking how words are great at conveying concepts in a very vague way yet they will never transfer the individuals experience.

What do I mean. Take the word love. We all know what it represents. Hopefully we've all felt it. However love to me feels completely different than to you. A perfect example is the only girlfriend I ever truly deeply loved was sitting in her kitchen and I was with her. I reached out and cupped her cheek in my hand. Her eyes sparkled she placed her own hand upon mine smiled warmly leaned into my hand and closed her eyes. That is love completely expressed without a word spoken. I knew in that moment she loved me. Now what did it feel like for her exactly? I'll never know. Love as a feeling is unique to each of us and no words will ever be able to translate the emotion.

My name is Population: 1 because of this condition, this isolated state we all exist in that we try so hard to explain to one another everyday and yet words will never quite paint the picture of my existence for you nor yours for me.

 

[burningranger]

I totally invented my own words as a kid and well into adulthood....I used to have original insults for people, different words to describe different types of faces and dispositions and ALOT of inside jokes and concepts with friends. Usually they represent abstract qualities I perceived in people and things....and mostly states of mind. Over time and through repition people around me would start knowing what frequency of consciousness this word was trying to describe....it felt amazing...like creating your own version of reality. I was also insterested in conlanging (constructed languages..kinda like making your own language and alphabet). There was this videogame called Riven and I learned it's original language and writing and number system because I thought it was so cool. I actually practiced it throughout the weeks and months. Like with most interestings I do I end up forgetting it, or throwing it in the trash.

--

Metaphor to me does totally seem like the most obvious approach to a lot of communication.

--

I'm easily lost nowadays with a lot of thigns I read. If I need to understand a lot of vocab...I sometimes tune out. In fact, my desire is to be as simple in my speaking and writing as humanly possible. I hate picking up a book and not understanding it right away and having to use my brain....partly because that part of me has atrophied (I might have reveled in it as a kid) ....but nowadays time is of the essence and I want you to convey me your feeling experience in the most direct way. Conveying feelings it's what communication is all about anyway. It's also a personal ideal of mine - super clarity with little to no fat. Distilling something to it's most essential nature.

I also allow myself to stay stupid shit that doesn't always make sense (if you were to break it down word for word) these days. I hate intellectual masturbation and think that era should just end (see all our pointless politcal debates where nothing too complicated is ACTAULLY being conveyed ...but we spend ours talking about bs). But that goes hand in hand with human self-awareness. I'm already tired after writing all this....but I usually have a lot to say so I tend to be a bit verbose....just out of the need to make distinctions in all the different nuances I perceived in the world.

If we all truly understood language all our problems would be solved...since all our problems are merely conceptualizations in our mind...and those require language. You take the language out of your emotions and thoughts....and you are left with nothing. So language is REALLY REALLY powerful. As they say...in the beggining was the word. And the word was with God. And the word is God.

 

[Dreamer]

Oh! To add. Again with the metaphors, them 4s are just so introspective! Haha ok that was a bad joke. [MENTION=33707]Population: 1[/MENTION], blended meaning like that? It literally just poured out of my mouth and sure enough, there she is.

Umm...what was I, ah yes. I also visualize words often. Not quite by default but close. And what I'm visualizing isn't the actual object tied to the word, but a figurative representation of the word, of how I understand it, what it means to me personally. I notice the most common imagery to understand concepts is through charts and graphs, again, it's in seeing those relationships something has within a greater context in spatial terms. I find my spatial intelligenceto be rather high compared to other areas, so it makes sense I'd see words as such

 

[The Cat]

Words are are also tactile to me.

 

[á´…eparted]

Language has become very interesting in a mechanical sense over the past 2 years. A lot of it was spurred from smoking weed ironically enough. Language would just become totally fascinating to me. How a sequence of sounds that naturally evolved over eons became an implicit code that we understood, and had such an enormous region of brain space dedicated to it. It's truly remarkable. Phonemes are perhaps the most interesting aspect of language to me. It's truly amazing that it has infinite complexity can be arranged in countless ways with many different rule set. Really it's implicit logic.

As far as language with myself, I find that I don't think about it. It's something that I simply do and understanding the nuances is something that takes effort. I don't have any sort of somatic connection to language. It's simply a feeling. I don't really visualize them, they simply are. I never really developed a concept map for language, because, well, it's the root- I have no basis for it since it itself is the foundation.

As a result I am not good with languages. And I just learned today at work that I really should learn Japanese. It's going to be an interesting experience.

 

[LovecraftianMonstrosity]

Dyck Words | Visual Insight

Chomsky–Schützenberger representation theorem

 

[Schrödinger's Name]

I love Lacan's explanation. I've talked about this before in private so I am just going to copy that message.

"Language has Symbolic and Imaginary connotations—in its Imaginary aspect, language is the "wall of language" that inverts and distorts the discourse of the Other. On the other hand, the Imaginary is rooted in the subject's relationship with his or her own body (the image of the body)."

As I translate from my book; language is Symbolic since it's not a reflection/true picture of what reality is. Language is a barrier between 'us' and reality. Forever making reality inaccessible for us. The entry of language causes a distancing pertaining to the immediate experience of reality. That's the price we pay for symbolization.
Here, a missing or shortcoming gets set; the origin of human desire.
What we acquire is the ability to create a distance pertaining to reality, a certain sense of 'control' over actuality. Par example; we can describe in words what a relationship means to us, but we'll never be able to fully enounce it.

"For Lacan, the unconscious works as if it were a language. This means that in order to know and understand it, the guidelines are similar to those that would be used to decipher a language."

“To love is to give what you do not have to someone who does not exist.”
For Lacan, love, as well as much of what we call “reality” is an equivocation. Among those who love each other, there is a promise that is actually false: complementing oneself, giving oneself happiness. Although this commitment is not explicitly stated, it shines in the depths of romantic relationships. That’s why Lacan says that you give what you do not have.

At the same time, the other person is not perceived in a real way. The properties of the other person respond to unconsciously given labels. You do not really love the other person, you love the image you have of them. That is why he concludes by saying “who does not exist”.

This website talks about some interesting points of view (mostly from Charles Taylor).
I think this is one of the most interesting parts, it's also what makes language and writing so special and personal.

Taylor espouses a sort of linguistic holism, yet it is not easy to see how far he can push this idea. If our language is a whole from which parts can’t be detached without loss of meaning, and if meaning therefore resides ultimately in the language as a whole, it is hard to see not only how language gets going in the first place, but how translation is possible between one language and another.

From an instrumentalist perspective translation is obviously feasible: a horse is a cheval, is a Pferd, and so on. From the expressivist view things aren’t so cosy. For example, the lyric poetry of one language is never translatable from one language into another, at least without losing a lot. And the same applies to much else: the basic informational content may be translatable, but not all the idioms, the connotations of the words, the cadences, the nuances – in short all those things that, as Taylor would say, make language constitutive of a way of life.

This is also what I wrote down from my book back then. It explains why Charles sees language as he does.

"The society in which we live and the language we speak are constitutive of the kinds of beings we are. Far from it being the case that (as a famous politician once averred) there is no such thing as society; for Taylor the very reverse is true: without society there can be no such thing as an individual. This leads Taylor to take a communitarian position in politics, opposing what he sees as the individualist bias of liberalism and social contract theory. It also leads him to take a holistic position in regard to language: a language is not merely the sum of its parts but is an all-embracing whole. To speak a language is to embrace what Wittgenstein calls ‘a way of life’."

Of course, I wrote those things down because I think it's interesting and I can personally relate to it. To explain it a bit more in my own words I would say that language is a medium that gives us both freedom and restrictions that can cause frustrations but also epiphanies. But luckily we have the ability to learn, we can get better at using language as a medium to express ourselves. (Though personally to me I think it will always be how Lacan described it, there will always be something that is 'missing')
It's the main reason why I want to learn more languages. Every language has their unique usage of words, sayings, expressions,... And it's (almost, most of the time) impossible to translate this. I've written things in Dutch that I can't translate into English because it does indeed, loose its meaning and the emotions/thoughts I put into it. Learning a new language (or updating the old ones) opens a door. To explore, to learn, to express,...

 

[Maou]

I have like a language processing disorder, so I guess I see language in very different way than other people. I also like learning languages as well. I find that certain languages are easier for me to say than others, despite naturally related languages. For example, German fucks me up. While Japanese is perfectly clear to me. Something about silent letters in a non-native language really messed with my comprehension. Even if I knew what the words meant, it felt like I was shoving my brain through a pinhole.

I have a really hard time expressing myself too, because it is like poor signal translation. How I think, is different than how I speak. It is almost backwards. Kinda like how you actually see upside down, but your brain corrects it for you. I have to take an extra step to correct my "language" as it comes out. So I get all jumbled sometimes, but it makes sense in my head. So I usually just keep things short and simple. Ironically, being an author is an ambition because I want to express some things to others more in depth.

 

[typologyenthusiast]

I hold the same opinion that Language is a medium of expression of ourselves. We should be able to express ourselves by using the language and if it happens to be no, we should find out which is the correct language by which we can easily or and fully express ourselves. IMO, English is a language that may wholly express yourselves if you have a literature talent like poetry, or storytelling. I myself often experience difficulty in expressing in English and my first language: Bahasa Indonesia. You may argue that I may be lack of vocabularies, which may be correct or understanding of some more grammatical rules, since both of which convey meaning. Lack of either will certainly limit the user expression in English. Generally, I suppose any other English user may be misunderstood as they want to convey something but others don't understand them. English user 'Intended meaning may not be fully expressible since they aren't capable of using the vocabularies and grammar that correctly convey what they want to express.
However, something could be more explanatory than just lack of vocabularies, grammar. I have a hunch that some language may serve as a better medium of expression for me. If there are, what languages those will be?
To answer this, I would like to highlight this personal childhood experience in language. I have a somewhat perplexing but thrilling experience in ancient and probably dead languages with I just realized perhaps no speaker I can talk to and perhaps only archaeologist would be interested in deciphering. I have told my story this in other thread.

.When I was in the sixth grade elementary school, I was copying Hyeroglyph to an agenda book, trying to understand the Egyptian Hyeroglyph which, by nature, is symbolic. But, Merely copying Egyptian Hyeroglyph to an agenda book could not make me understand the symbols. I didn’t conduct any research to understand it, because I couldn’t. In six grade of elementary school, I did not go to the local library to find any litterature. I hadn’t been introduced to the internet. If I am not mistaken, google, the search engine hadn’t been founded by Lary Page and his co-founder Sergey Brin. Google was initially established one year after the event. So it was not actionable for me to browse by googling. But that event signifies that I have grown an enthusiasm in symbolic things when I was a kid: Egyptian Hyeroglypgh, Mesopotamian writing.source

Another one was Devanagari. But I am not sure that like the former two, whether this one is also dead language.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_hieroglyphs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_language

To compare one of those briefly, Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyph has different characteristic with English. It is more symbolic. Symbol denotes meaning while English, since vocabulary and grammar conveys meaning, tends to be more "wordy" and "grammatically stricter". Mesopotamian language is more monotonous in characters. The only distinguish themselves with rotating angle. its rotation e.g up, left, down, right may differ in meaning. But still like years ago, I remain blank about the meaning.
It is still perplexing on the reason why I did that as a kid. I was just curious perhaps or the picture or symbol may be attractive to me that I wanted to draw it also. Lately I did some internet based research on the language and I'd theorize that typologically I may have been interested in language which alphabet can be made a calligraphy, a feature that not all language have. I try relate it with psychological function, and theorize that it may have been because I have Fi-Se combination in my stack, such that a language that can be written as calligraphy like ancient Egyptian hyeroglyph, which makes it resembles a picture, hence naturally attract the Se function.
I would say that I may be able to be more expressive in such language and may be I should learn that to more express myself since English and Bahasa don't quite do the job well. I did more internet research on this and according to wikipedia, the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic written system is parental to Greek and Cyrillic. I further argue to myself that the ancient hieroglyph may be already a dead language, but since it is parental to Greek and Cyrillic, probably If I want to learn it, alternative options are still available to me.

 

[typologyenthusiast]

Languages I was curious in
. I would like to clarify more about what I mean by it by showing some picture I have got from the internet. It is like writing artistically that the result is hardly distinguishable to a painting or a picture. When I see a very this work, I could confuse myself whether the writer was painting, drawing or writing, or perhaps he has performed all of them simultaneously since he has produced picture or drawing like writing. I would love to show also my work on some of ancient Egyptian Hieroglyph and hopefully other later.

Mesopotamian
View attachment 22261

Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyph 1
View attachment 22262

Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyph 2
View attachment 22263

Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyph 3

Devanagari Prof K Joshi. It resembles a tree, doesn't it.