Lingo Practico Blog
Conversation with Google's Gemini AI
(Yes, I'm still into finding out what the Gemini AI can do. My latest conversation has turned into this blog post! )
ME: I am looking at the difference between
"communication" and "language". For example, verbal speech,
written language and sign language can all be classified as language (as well
as means of communication). Yet, I think most people would say that facial
expressions and body language are not really "language" even though
they can be used puposely as means of communication. Where do you draw the
line?
GEMINI: You’ve touched on the central debate in linguistics: the distinction between communicative signals and linguistic systems.
While all language is communication, not all communication
is language. To draw the line, linguists often look for a specific set of
"design features" (famously categorized by Charles Hockett) that
elevate a signal to the status of a true language.
1. The "Grammar" Threshold
The biggest differentiator is syntax and morphology.
- Language: Has
a recursive structure. You can take a finite set of words and rules to
create an infinite number of brand-new sentences. You can talk about the
past, the future, or things that don't exist (this is called displacement).
- Body
Language/Facial Expressions: These are generally
"indexical" or "iconic." They communicate a state of
being (fear, happiness, boredom) but lack a formal grammar. You cannot
"conjugate" a smile or use a shrug to explain what you did three
Tuesdays ago.
2. Arbitrariness vs. Iconicity
- Language: Most
words are arbitrary. There is no reason the word
"dog" sounds like the animal; we just agreed it does. This allow
for high precision.
- Communication
(Non-Linguistic): Facial expressions are often iconic or
biological. A snarl looks like a threat because it reveals teeth. Because
these signals are tied to physical biology, they are universal but limited
in what they can express.
3. Discrete vs. Graded Signals
Linguists often draw the line at how the information is
packaged:
- Discrete
(Language): You either said "bin" or "pin."
Changing one sound creates a completely different, digital-like shift in
meaning.
- Graded
(Communication): A frown can be slightly sad or very sad. It’s a
sliding scale (analog) rather than a set of distinct building blocks.
Where the Line Blurs
The confusion often arises because of the term "Body
Language." In a strict linguistic sense, "body
language" is a misnomer; it should be called non-verbal
communication.
However, Sign Languages (like ASL) are true
languages. They are often dismissed by laypeople as "gestures," but
they possess:
- Complex
syntax and rules.
- The
ability to express abstract philosophy.
- Arbitrary
signs that must be learned (they aren't just "acting out"
meanings).
Summary Table
|
Feature |
Communication
(General) |
Language
(Specific) |
|
Examples |
Scent
marking, Tail wagging, Smiling |
English,
ASL, Python, Braille |
|
Structure |
Unstructured
/ Holistic |
Highly
structured (Grammar) |
|
Flexibility |
Limited
to the "here and now" |
Can
discuss past, future, and fiction |
|
Acquisition |
Often
innate/biological |
Must be
culturally transmitted/learned |
Would you like to explore how Noam Chomsky’s theory of
"Universal Grammar" fits into this distinction?
ME: I think the "complex syntax and
rules" and "arbitrary" distinctions are what I'm looking for, or
close to it. And yet most people would consider pointing at something to be a
valid hand signal having a language meaning "It's that," or
"Look at that". But pointing (with your hand or foot or other body
part) seems to be universal, instinctive, among humans. And among some animals!
GEMINI: You’ve hit on one of the most
fascinating "gray areas" in cognitive science! In linguistics,
pointing is what we call deictic gesturing. While it feels like
language because it conveys a specific intent, it usually falls just short of
being "linguistic" for some very specific reasons.
Here is how linguists distinguish instinctive pointing from
true language:
1. The "Mental Triangulation" vs. Symbols
Pointing is a referential tool, but it is
not a symbolic one.
- The
Point: It requires the physical presence of the object. If you
point at an empty space, the "meaning" usually vanishes unless
there is shared context. It is a physical bridge between two people and an
object.
- The
Word: If you say the word "apple," the apple doesn't
have to be there. The word is a mental symbol that exists independently of
the environment.
2. Intentionality and the "Theory of Mind"
You’re right that some animals point! However, there is a
subtle "line" in the sand regarding why we point:
- Imperative
Pointing: Many animals (like some great apes in captivity) point
to say "Give me that." This is a demand.
- Declarative
Pointing: Humans are unique because we point just to say "Look
at that cool thing!" or "I want you to know
what I'm thinking." This is the social foundation of
language, but because it lacks compositionality (you
can’t combine "pointing" with another gesture to change its
tense or plurality), it's considered pre-linguistic.
3. The Lack of "Double Articulation"
This is a fancy term for a simple concept that defines
language. Language has two levels:
- Level
1: Sounds or hand-shapes that mean nothing on their own (like the
letter "b").
- Level
2: Combining those meaningless pieces into meaningful words
("b" + "a" + "t" = bat).
Pointing lacks this. A point is a "whole" signal.
You can't break a point down into smaller, meaningless parts that rearrange to
mean something else.
Comparison: Pointing vs. Signed Language
To see where the line is drawn, look at how American
Sign Language (ASL) treats pointing:
|
Action |
Classification |
Why? |
|
Pointing
at a chair |
Non-linguistic
Gesture |
It's
just directing attention to a physical object. |
|
Pointing
as a Pronoun |
Linguistic |
In ASL,
pointing at a specific "space" in front of you can represent a
person you mentioned earlier. If you point there again, you are using a pronoun (He/She/It). |
|
Pointing
at your chest |
Linguistic |
This is
the specific sign for "I/Me." It follows the rules of the
language's lexicon. |
The "Instinct" Factor
You mentioned it feels instinctive. This is exactly
what Steven Pinker argues in The Language Instinct.
He suggests that while the specific language we speak is
learned, the "hardware" for pointing and symbolic thought is baked
into our DNA. Pointing is the "on-ramp" to the highway of language.
ME: I've read Pinker's book and looking at
pointing as an "on-ramp" rather than full-fledged language may be a
way to classify it. But a dog, for example, is capable of using 3 actions in a
row to convey his meaning. 1. Arf, arf! ! (important! important!) 2. Running in
a direction, then part way back to you, then away again, etc. (follow me, this
way, this way) 3. Pawing at a door, a type of point (it's behind this door).
So you open the door
and discover your toddler has managed to lock herself into the closet. This
does not involve grammar or syntax but it's pretty complicated communication.
It combines an adjective (important), an action verb (follow) and a noun
(door). Though I suspect dogs think mostly in terms of verbs/actions (pay
attention, follow me, open the door).
GEMINI: That is a brilliant breakdown of
"protolanguage" in action. What’s fascinating is that your dog has
essentially mastered intentionality—the understanding that "I
have a thought, and I can change your mind to match mine."
In linguistics, your dog is using what we call holophrastic
communication. Each signal (the bark, the run, the paw) represents a
"whole phrase" or a complete idea, rather than a single word that can
be rearranged.
Here is where the line stays firm between your dog’s
impressive heroics and what Pinker or Chomsky would define as
"Language":
1. The "Lego" Problem (Compositionality)
While it feels like the dog is combining an adjective, a
verb, and a noun, he is actually performing a sequence of
independent signals.
- Language: Humans
use "discrete infinity." We can take "Open,"
"Door," and "Closet" and create "The closet door
is open," or "Open the door to the closet."
- The
Dog: The dog cannot take the "Arf" (important) and the
"Pawing" (door) to create a new, single signal that means
"Important door." He has to perform them as a chain of events.
He can’t say "The door was important yesterday."
2. The Absence of Function Words
If you look at the "parts of speech" in your dog's
sequence, you'll notice they are all lexical (content-heavy).
- Dogs
(and most "talking" apes in studies) lack function words: if,
but, or, the, because, although. * These are the "glue"
of syntax. Without them, you can have a "vocabulary" of actions,
but you don't have a generative system that can build complex, nested
thoughts.
3. Productivity and "The Infinite"
This is the "Chomsky Line."
- Communication: A
dog’s repertoire is relatively "closed." While highly
intelligent, a dog won't suddenly invent a new gesture to explain that the
toddler is pretending to be locked in the closet as a
joke.
- Language: A
human toddler can use a limited vocabulary to create a sentence they have
never heard before in the history of the world.
The Comparison: Sequence vs. Syntax
|
Feature |
The
Dog's Sequence |
Human
Language |
|
Structure |
Linear: A then B then C. |
Hierarchical: Phrases inside phrases. |
|
Flexibility |
Tied to
the immediate context. |
Can be
entirely abstract. |
|
Building
Blocks |
Whole-body
"meanings." |
Small,
meaningless sounds (phonemes) built into meaning. |
A Witty Perspective
As you noted, dogs are very "verb-heavy." In their
world, a noun is often just a "place where an action happens." A
"leash" isn't an object; it's the
"let's-go-for-a-walk-tool."
This is actually a very "Pinker-esque" way of
looking at it—the dog has the conceptual hardware (he knows
the kid is in the closet), but he lacks the syntactic software
to package that information into a single, portable sentence.
Since you've done quite a bit of reading on this, would you
be interested in looking at how Sign Language uses
"spatial grammar" to bridge the gap between pointing and actual
syntax?
ME: Another day, maybe. Thanks for all the
info. Bye.
