How does language influence reality?

[GoshisDead]

I think the confusion I created was not specifying the difference between semantics = definition and semantics = function. I am not talking about proper words found in a dictionary. I am talking about functional meaning. When a person pauses for "effect" the pause has meaning albeit implied meaning only interpreted properly by a native speaker. Why is there an inflectional morpheme (s) on the end of 3rd person verbs in english? (he jumps), why the S? Its simply to show that the verb is third person. Why is anger often expressed in a loud voice? It's a socio-linguistic function. Why is "He Jumped the Creek" different than "The Creek Jumped Him"? Syntax has functional meaning. Why are the words "Fat" and "Bat" different? Because the Phonemes "F" and "B" have a functional meaning difference.
What I am trying to get at with the Ultrasonic and other sounds proposed that may or may not bend light or crack rock, heck there is a Kiai Master in Japan that can ring a temple bell with his voice from 12 feet away, Is that if these frequencies whatnot were possible, they would be employed for a semantic function related to creating a meta-reality. That this functional meaning would be part of the language. The Light bending, rock cracking, and bell ringing would not be a part of language.

As for changing reality the light bending voice would not be changing reality, as its already a posited part of reality that light bends given its interaction with a certain wave length. That's like saying I hit a rock with a hammer and the cause and effect of the hammer hitting the rock and the rock breaking changed reality.

This effect of reality change would assume that the progression of moment to moment were part of a "real" world. That would mean that time would change reality because something is physically different in this world moment to moment already.

In all this I'm using the word reality more as the laws of the physical universe, not the actuality of the physical universe. If the constant change of the actuality of the physical universe is what is being discussed then by all means any language changes reality do to the physical properties of air movement and other physical constituents and processes of language.

[Arjen]

@GoshisDead:
Thanks, I am going to read up on this field. I was merely posing an interesting thought.

@de Silentio:
I know that the focus came on how words were used, but I was towards frequency. I still think the thought holds. I have, until now, not read anything contradicting it.

[Aedes]

Cool stuff, Gosh. I've had to read your post a couple times to let it sink in. What are your thoughts on Chomsky?

[GoshisDead]

Chomsky was revolutionary and pretty much proved that language is a universal. But the problems I have with formalism.
1) The method is very anglocentric. Most formal theory tends to try to explain a human universal through an English syntax. Not that this in necessarily a bad thing, because syntax universal research does require a base model.
2)Just because there is a universal doesn't mean there is a universal syntax. Functionalist linguists like Givon, aren't nearly as eloquent as formal linguists, however they recognize that language serves a function and the forms they pursue don't get so hung up on the actual syntax. Its a little more messy but much more practical.
3) This is personal Bias, the quest for a universal tends to marginalize language diversity in the non-linguistsic community.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by GoshisDead

3) This is personal Bias, the quest for a universal tends to marginalize language diversity in the non-linguistsic community.

Well said -- I wonder how much this quest has been able to unify completely unrelated languages Khoisan with Quechua, as opposed to English with Sanskrit. The linguistic diversity in Africa is astounding, as is (from what I understand) in Indonesia and PNG. It seems more interesting to study the different syntactical and grammatical developments rather than their commonalities.

[Arjen]

Originally Posted by GoshisDead

Chomsky was revolutionary and pretty much proved that language is a universal. But the problems I have with formalism.
1) The method is very anglocentric. Most formal theory tends to try to explain a human universal through an English syntax. Not that this in necessarily a bad thing, because syntax universal research does require a base model.
2)Just because there is a universal doesn't mean there is a universal syntax. Functionalist linguists like Givon, aren't nearly as eloquent as formal linguists, however they recognize that language serves a function and the forms they pursue don't get so hung up on the actual syntax. Its a little more messy but much more practical.
3) This is personal Bias, the quest for a universal tends to marginalize language diversity in the non-linguistsic community.

Extrapolating on this, there would be a universal basis for syntax. This universal basis would be the sounds humans make to signal something. A higher pitch at the ending of a sentence to signal something is not thoroughly understood for instance, or a deep sound to signal one is deadly serious. The sound and the height of the sound seem to have a common basis.

Extrapolatinge ven further, could we not say that the sound is used to manifest a certain "feeling" one has so as to give the other a grounding in reality to "catch" anothers emotion so to speak?

[GoshisDead]

Some languages have question particles, a tonal as such interferes with toanl languages such as han, where an up tone indicating an interogative would make the word at the end of the sentence mean something else. Some cultures do not yelll when they are mad. One cannot forget that a language and a culture are not at all seperable. A deep growl in some settings, languages and cultures could signal anger, sexual aggression, contentment, approval all depending on the language and its cultural matrix. Again universals in language are very difficult to Isolate, oft times they do not even correspond with primate emotional universals.

[Arjen]

Thanks Gosh, I hadn't thought of that.

[de Silentio]

A thought about universals and language. Shying away from the particular aspects of any language, the function that language serves is universal.

[Arjen]

You are therefore leaving the field of metaphysics and entering the field of the transcendental.