Language and its limitations?

Question

I am doing my dissertation on language and limitation, and focussing on the spoken and the written word....does anyone out there want to voice their opinions on how we are (or even IF we are) limited by the spoken or written word? Which do you feel limits us less?
I am looking at Wittgenstein and Derrida for their theories too, so anyone who wants to quote them, feel free!!
Thanks

PLEASE no point scoring people just saying 'no' - it's really not helpful

Answer 1

the spoken and written words can be limiting especially if your deaf or have a limited language skills most people can explain what they mean by using words or examples but have problems getting their thoughts down on paper. you see examples of this all the time in children hope this helps

Answer 2

I have not idea who Wittgenstein and Derrida are but I will nevertheless voice my opinion because, as you say, I want to do that.
I am French, living in USA so I know language can be a barrier. Two people who speak different languages are limited by their respective understanding of the spoken word, in whichever language it is.
Your question do not specifically mention different languages so let’s assume it is a common language and I still think we are limited by it. Let’s assume, you and me or you and I (whichever you think is the right way to put it) have a conversation in the same language. Let’s assume we are both fluent in that same language. Still, what I say will be different of what you hear. I really think people hear what they want to hear and people do not really say what they want to say.
I think the written word is less tricky since you can eventually review or correct it if you feel like it. On the other hand, the spoken word can be blurted out (I hope this is a word…excuse my French), with no warning. It’s like the song with Cher “if I could take that back”. We say things we do not mean, we do not say things we regret not saying, we hear what we want to hear, not necessarily what was said, etc…
You can have a relationship with a person with which you have absolutely no common spoken language, using only body language and love language…or complete silence. On the other hand, you can be completely manipulated by words, spoken or written, because you think they are true.
I think what you say or listen to, what you write or read is in the end just a mean to communicate with one another. What is ultimately important is what you do and what you feel.

Answer 3

Way back in the 60s, philosophers got hung up in linguistics. If you don't have a word in your mother tongue for a feeling, emotion, sentiment, then you cannot experience that feeling etc. Sartre used the German word Angst although he was writing in French and there really isn't an English or French word which translates Angst satisfactorily.
I remember being asked to translate a poem. My prof told me that, although I had 'got the feel' of the poem, what I had submitted was an interpretation and not a translation. Another Prof told his students that translation was impossible, it would always be an interpretation.
The more languages one learns, the more one has recourse to words form those languages. What is the English for the Turkish word kismet?
Naom Chomsky tried a computer translation of 'The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.' He translated the phrase into Russian and then back into English. The result was: 'The vodka's OK, but the meat's a bit off.'

Is that any help? Anyway, good luck with your dissertation!

Answer 4

I have no knowlege of linguistics, but I shall try to answer your question in a simple, direct way.
Let's begin with an example:
One man's meat is another man's poison.
If a Frenchman, not very fluent in English, were to read this, he might point out a spelling error in the last word, and say it should be "poisson" (French for fish). So to him it becomes
One man's meat is another man's fish.
Very different interpretation from the one we intended.

The point I am trying to get across is that communication requires that both parties must be on the same "wavelength". In the above example, the wavelengths differed because the languages differed. But even with two people speaking the same language with equal fluency, muisunderstandings can easily arise.

The word "bomb" (as in "The show bombed") means quite opposite things in English English and in American English. Now such a misunderstanding may not be too serious, but in other contexts, they can lead to serious disputes. The legal profession thrives on such misunderstandings and misinterpretations.

Of course, all these different interpretations and connotations are essential and very necessary; for it is only through them that language continually evolves. Every edition of every dictionary includes new words, and new meanings of each word. And certain connotations are labelled as obsolete. So limitations (as applied to misinterpretations) are not necessarily undesirable. Without them language would never progress.

I shall close this with a small joke. A Frenchman, a Pole and a German met as youths in an English Language Institute in London. They chanced to meet again several years later, by which time they were all married. Upon inquiring about each other, it transpired (there's a word with two distinct meanings) that the Frenchman was not yet a father (his wife had a medical problem).
Frenchman: "We don't have a child. My wife is inconceivable"
The others did not quite follow. So the Pole tried to clarify saying: "Maybe she is unbearable." Now the German knew the meaning of this word, so he corrects his friend: "No, No. What he means is his wife is impregnable."

There's limitation of language for you. And quite an enjoyable one too. Hope I've helped to some extent.

Answer 5

Assuming you are referring to limitations as they refer to communication:
My opinion is that the written word is far more limiting than the spoken word. The written word is one dimensional, and often consists of editing before it reaches its audience, so it doesn't carry the subtle nuances of the spoken word. The spoken word is relatively spontaneous, and includes inflections, dramatic pauses, stutters, umms, ahs, a smile in the voice or a sense of sadness. The spoken word also conveys subliminal meaning that is almost uncontrollable by the speaker.

Take the phrase "Very cool" for example. In written form, it is ambiguous, without a lot of background. Spoken, it takes a lot less time to get the drift.

Question: What was your girlfriend's parents' reaction to you when they first met you? "Very cool."

This is all my personal opinion, but that's what you asked for. Good luck on your dissertation.

Answer 6

Dam right the spoken word is limited.
And so too is the written word which is also likely to be the clearest in its meaning.
The dialectual meaning of words differ from district to family and a whole range of conflicts occur when the innocent use of one word takes on a profoundly different meaning to the listener.
Take the word Love.
How many pictures can a planet conjur up to visualise this word.
How many more songs and poems must be written before this word expresses it full power ?
Yes indeed language is debilitating to the point of frustration unless one practises and masters the semantic ambiguities of the word.

Answer 7

I really liked your question, not because I am a linguist or a word smith, but because recently I had to come to terms with the danger of assuming that a word means the same thing to the different people who use it. The word 'love', for example, is nothing more than an illusion used to bind two people...I feel better having heard it but does 'hearing' it create any real difference in the relationship. Words can end up substituting for action--and action is not an illusion it is tangible. Love expressed through action is more real than the word....if true then wouldn't the act of 'sex' be more real than an exchange of words that are used to represent comittment. I don't have the answer, but I think it is dangerous to assume that any true human connection can be accomplished through an exchange of words--and that true connection has to come through shared experience. When I read a book--I can not be sure of the author's intentions but only understand the writing through my own set of experiences. I hope I am wrong--because if I am right--than literature can not function to help me understand experiences outside of my own.
To say, after reading Ralph Ellison's Invisible Man, I now understand what it means to be black and oppressed--would be a lie. In the end, I guess I have not contributed much--but I can tell you the statement: "But you said you loved me!" takes on a whole new meaning...I won't be making that mistake again.

Answer 8

Just a quick note really: we can distort both the original meaning and intention of both oral and written language by the distotion our beliefs systems read back into the work.

We may also bypass specifics by using vague, metaphorical language instead of precise, e-prime. You might like to look at Alfred Korzybski and Milton Erickson as well. This may or may not help I just wanted to add this, but goodluck with the dissertation.

Answer 9

An interesting question. Theoretically i'd imagine that there is more than one word or collection of words that could be used to describe any event we encounter in our lifetimes. So provided we have been furnished with a wide ranging vocabulary then we should not be limited in conveying our experiences to others.

The problem, however, is that there is no way to discern simply by looking at someone the extent of their linguistic knowledge. We cannot tell if the person with which we are communicating understands the words we are using. Furthermore, if they do understand the meanings of the words do they attribute the same qualities or emotions to these words as we do? For example if i were to refer to someone as being good looking, i am using a subjective term, one which would immediately create different images in different peoples heads. As with any of these subjective terms there is limitation in their use to convey information with other people. There is no use in describing somethings subjective qualities if the person you are describing it to doesn't attribute the same mental imagine in their heads to the vocabulary you are using as you yourself do.

The problem is that vocabulary and linguistics are not innate, the human beings mental capacity for language and its social nature will almost certainly yield linguistic results everytime, but i do not believe the 'words' themselves to be innate . They are learnt. So if one person is taught something similar but slightly different to another, then they are limited in the scope of their communications with each other. These limitations will usually prove to be negligible, but on occassion they can be crucial. Imagine, if you will, asking for directions around some of Manhattan, and then trying to negotiate your way using people's descriptions of the buildings you will encounter on your journey. I think it would prove incredibly difficult even though they would most probably be using words which you both have a common working knowledge of.

Answer 10

Many languages and I am more familar with Native America, never had any tense (past or future) in their languages. Everything was real time or spoken in broken real time: the father of joe and his father etc. Other cultures developed in the same pattern, and the written word created a need for defining the past and future. To this date we as a species have trouble relating our thoughts correctly in time frames.