| |
|
Sign language anyone? ASL, the specialized finger-pressing SL for the deaf-and-blind...
I must admit, I fail to see how language binds us in a fashion that necessitates being set "free," nor how a change in communication methods would necessarily be a step up. From this perspective, any change can be framed as an ascent - it's better because it's not what we have now...because it's an empty set we can throw hopes into. The history of universal language projects, such as Esperanto, should tell us something here. in the abstract, any claim can be made about the greater utility (or fill in your ideal here) of a language form that isn't verbal, precisely because it exists only as a Platonic form, a white surface upon which anything can be projected.
But consider this: let us say that humanity transitions to a new method of communication - neural interface through specialized pathways of neurons that can link across the epidermal surface between individuals, exchange of long-protein chains, a set of muscular queues that generate nuanced facial and bodily expressions, spiritual technology we don't have words for yet. Regardless of the overall "shape" of the language, it would likely require some sort of basic elements, an analogue to a dictionary, perhaps to a phonetic alphabet, to communicate complex meaning. A gesture, a protein or amino chain, an epidermal color transition, would necessarily have to possess meaning across social consensus - beyond the individual - to have worth. Think of kanji, and in particular xiaoshu (personalized, artistic) style brushwork - while beautiful and individually expressive, a xiaoshu still maintains a bare minimum of necessary components to be recognized as a particular ideogram.
So would a new language, even if nonverbal, transition towards hyperspecificity - each word having one very precise meaning, with little contextual overlap - or towards greater mechanical efficiency - with the specificity of meaning indicated by series of prefixes, prepositions, suffixes, and an organize root and etymological structure?
(Verbal) Words are shaped by many layers of context: who they are said to, and what past events lies between you and that person/those persons that given that word/words a particular meaning, and in what tone, what register, volume, etc., not to mention the non-auditory signals that can accompany an uttered word and twist its meaning. Any replacement form of language would likely possess a system of equivalent codification, or meaning would be lost at greater inefficiency than in a sonic system. Neurologically, or what ever the equivalent would be, we would possess some sort of structure [Chomskyian deep structure analogue], probably evolved from the linguistic regions of the brain, that carried the cipher booklet for this new language form. |
|
|
