|
|
Post by Tone on Aug 9, 2008 20:15:52 GMT
Susan, Yes. Repetition for emphasis. >I'm getting confused!<This is normal.  Interestingly, I'm not sure that "OK" and "okay" are quite the-same-word-with-different-spelling. There seems to be a definite distinction made (about the user) by some people, so mayhap they do indeed carry a different meaning. Tone |
|
|
|
Post by SusanB on Aug 9, 2008 22:29:44 GMT
Tone - as a user of both okays and OKs, perhaps this explains my confusion!
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Aug 10, 2008 11:22:22 GMT
(And that is oft taken as evidence that mentalese exists "above" our spoken/written language/s.) I think that makes context (or mentalese) a metalanguage, no? |
|
|
|
Post by Tone on Aug 10, 2008 20:19:56 GMT
>no?<
No.
(In that context.)
Or, if you wish, a metalanguage is not (by definition) a language in the sense that we were, I understand, using the term "language".
Tone
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Aug 10, 2008 22:09:14 GMT
I was coming from the mathematical angle. If you have a system (such as a language), and certain terms are outside that system, then those terms may form a metasystem. In this case, we were saying that the system - i.e. the language - is incomplete as the context or mental state of the interlocutors is important, too. Thus that context or mental state forms a metalanguage. I think it was Godel who did a lot of work on this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tone on Aug 11, 2008 20:29:13 GMT
Agreed, Pete.
But I don't think that that affects the point I was making which your offering of "metalanguage" appeared (to me) to contradict.
Tone
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Aug 12, 2008 6:39:40 GMT
Agreed, Pete. But I don't think that that affects the point I was making which your offering of "metalanguage" appeared (to me) to contradict. Tone In which case I may have missed your point. Was it just that a metalanguage is not a language within the terms we would normally use (on this forum, say). Or was there something deeper? |
|
|
|
Post by Tone on Aug 12, 2008 20:49:10 GMT
>Was it just that a metalanguage is not a language within the terms we would normally use (on this forum, say).<
Yup!
We have pidgins, creoles, languages, and the posited metalanguage (mentalese).
They aren't really subsets of a superset, they are different things (on a similar theme). So I would opine that you can't realistically apply "rules" across the board interchangeably.
A metalanguage is not a language because it's a metalanguage!
So, my point was that languages have multi-meaning words which are codes-in-context (for those separate meanings) in mentalese.
Ergo, there are many, many more "words" in mentalese than in a language.
(But we were discussing words in a language.)
Tone
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Aug 12, 2008 21:09:07 GMT
We have pidgins, creoles, languages, and the posited metalanguage (mentalese). I think those are all languages in the sense that we understand it, with words, grammar, etc. apart from mentalese. They aren't really subsets of a superset, they are different things (on a similar theme). So I would opine that you can't realistically apply "rules" across the board interchangeably. Agreed. Pidgins, creoles, languages are all languages, although they are all different languages with different words, grammars, etc. A metalanguage is not a language because it's a metalanguage! I don't see that. I think the Godelian approach says that it is a language, because it is a metalanguage. So, my point was that languages have multi-meaning words which are codes-in-context (for those separate meanings) in mentalese. Ergo, there are many, many more "words" in mentalese than in a language. (But we were discussing words in a language.) The 'words' in mentalese are the other things that go along with the language to make the language work as a medium of communication. So, is it possible that context is one level of metalanguage and that things like intonation and body language are another, higher, level metalanguage? I think so. That is why, for example, email or blogs need to replace the intonation and body language with another form of metalanguage to make the communication equally effective, so that we use emoticons, smilies or initialisms. |
|
|
|
Post by Tone on Aug 13, 2008 20:00:23 GMT
Pete,
You misunderstand me!
>I think those are all languages in the sense that we understand it, with words, grammar, etc. apart from mentalese.<
But they aren't!
>Agreed. Pidgins, creoles, languages are all languages, although they are all different languages with different words, grammars, etc.<
NOT agreed. They aren't "all languages".
There are pidgins, there are creoles, and there are languages.
They are, indeed, all forms of communication, but there is an established progression (evolution?) from pidgin to creole and then to fully-fledged language.
Tone
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Aug 14, 2008 7:25:03 GMT
Pete, You misunderstand me! Seems so!  >I think those are all languages in the sense that we understand it, with words, grammar, etc. apart from mentalese.<But they aren't! >Agreed. Pidgins, creoles, languages are all languages, although they are all different languages with different words, grammars, etc.<NOT agreed. They aren't "all languages". There are pidgins, there are creoles, and there are languages. This may be where we are at cross-purposes. Do we have different views as to what constitutes a language? I see languages as a form of verbal communication with words, grammar, etc. Do you define them differently? If so, how? They are, indeed, all forms of communication, but there is an established progression (evolution?) from pidgin to creole and then to fully-fledged language. Tone How does the progression work? |
|
|
|
Post by Tone on Aug 14, 2008 20:35:05 GMT
Pete, > I see languages as a form of verbal communication with words, grammar, etc. Do you define them differently? If so, how?<Yes, I and other linguists. That, really, is why the distinctive terminology exists. Defined pidgins don't have (much) grammar. Defined creoles are evolving it. Defined languages have got it. Note my cunning phraseology to allow me write those terms without a capital letter! ('Cos Pidgin and Creole are different things!). Is that part of the confusion? >They are, indeed, all forms of communication, but there is an established progression (evolution?) from pidgin to creole and then to fully-fledged language.
How does the progression work?<I could be facetious and say "forward in time" , but I will merely refer you to Pinker et al. It's rather too big (and contentious) a subject for me to address hereon. (Somebody else want to try? Or select/copy/paste?) Tone |
|
