Bottled Messages

People leave comments on this blog and I do try to answer them. Sometimes, I miss one or two. Some people have asked me to put one of those comment-tracking widgets in the sidebar. I have refused for two reasons: 1) not every commenter wants everyone else to look at their comments; 2) this isn't a WordPress blog. Heh.

However, I treasure most comments as much as I do the many little notes people have left with me over the years. I've kept many of these, and they mean a lot to me. For some of these notes, I have forgotten (if I ever knew) or will never know who wrote them. These are like messages sent in glass bottles over a wide ocean of time: the chances that I will ever get to respond (if I haven't already) is very low.

I thank all of you who have sent me such bottled messages. If you left a comment on one of my blogs many months ago, and the answer still is something you would like to have, it might be there. I answer all those comments eventually, except for those which don't seem to invite one at all.

Responses 007 (2011-2012)

The seventh question of this year's list is one on a theme close to my heart: " 'The vocabulary we have does more than communicate our knowledge; it shapes what we can know.' Evaluate this claim with reference to different areas of knowledge."

I have a suspicion that most people would equate 'the vocabulary we have' to 'language'. That's because 'vocabulary', strictly speaking, is a Latinate word describing a list of words and their standard acceptable meanings. However, that might be overly restrictive when managing the question given.

Why? Because in modern usage, a vocabulary can be taken to be the complete set of tools, techniques, processes, symbols and actions used to express oneself. That is why we can speak of a vocabulary of dance, of visual imagery, or of non-verbal communication.

This has to be borne in mind when one parses the second part of the claim. A vocabulary certainly communicates knowledge. But the claim is that one's range of knowledge is confined, restricted, or otherwise shaped by the constraints of one's vocabulary — not just language, but all the contents of one's 'communications toolbox'.

That claim is not a new one. It is found in constructs like the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and other ideas about linguistic relativity. These range between two extremes.

At the 'weak' end, theories of linguistic relativity merely assert that different people have different languages, and since language also encodes nuances of thought and culture, some things can only be communicated if the language to do so is available. At the 'strong' end, the hypothesis suggests that language capability controls what a person thinks and how a person can think.

This is one key to understanding how the question should be approached. If a thought cannot be expressed or communicated using available components in one's toolbox, then doesn't one's vocabulary control what one can understand, and hence have knowledge about?

Once this is assumed, then the second part of the question comes into play. To what extent do different areas of knowledge rely on vocabulary?

Certain areas of knowledge have some capacity to bypass communication (as in religion or the aesthetics). In such areas, it may be true that you cannot express something completely in words and yet can have knowledge of it (think of the Biblical phrase 'the peace that passes all understanding', for example). If this is the case, then the original claim may be less significant or less true — or the definition of knowledge in the area may be less sharply defined than in other areas.

Well, that's a possible position to look at. There are lots more, and if you attempt this question, take the opportunity to extend your vocabulary.

Britannia Still Rules The Waves

THIS is certainly a dramatic way of getting a message across... Ah, how wonderful it is to see British eccentricity at work!