RC 8 - NOV 13

We should appreciate natural language and the messy qualities that
give it so much flexibility and power, and that make it so much more
than a simple communication device. Its ambiguity and lack of
precision allow it to serve as an instrument of thought formulation,
of
experimentation and discovery. We don't have to know exactly what we
mean before we speak; we can figure it out as we go along. Or
not. We can talk just to talk, to be social, to feel connected, to
participate. At the same time natural language still works as an
instrument
of thought transmission, one that can be made extremely precise and
reliable when we need it to be, or left loose and sloppy when we
can't spare the time or effort.
When it is important that misunderstandings be avoided, we have access
to something that artificial language inventors have typically
disregarded or even disdained: 'mere' conventional agreement, a shared
culture in which definitions have been established by habit. It is
convention that allows us to approach a high level of precision in
academic and scientific papers or legal documents. Of course, to
benefit
from the precision, you must be 'in on' the conventional agreements on
which those modes of communication depend. That's why when
specialists want to communicate with a general or lay audience – those
who don't know the conventions – they have to rely on techniques
such as slowing down, answering questions, explaining terms,
illustrating with examples. Convention is a faster, more efficient
instrument
of meaning transmission, as long as you take the trouble to learn the
conventions.
When inventors of artificial languages try to bypass convention – to
make a language that is 'self-explanatory' or 'universal' – they
either
make a less efficient communication tool, or take away too much
flexibility by over-determining meaning. When they try to take away
culture, the place where linguistic conventions are made, they have to
substitute something else – like thousands of grammar rules.
There are types of communication, such as the 'language' of music,
that may allow us to access some kind of universal meaning or
emotion, but give us no way to say, 'I left my purse in the car.'
There are unambiguous systems, such as computer programming
languages, that allow us to instruct a machine to perform a certain
task, but we must be so explicit about meanings we can normally trust
to inference or common sense that it can take hours or days of
programming work to achieve even the simplest results. Natural
languages
may be less universal than music and less precise than programming
languages, but they are far more versatile, and useful in our
everyday lives, than either.
Ambiguity, or fuzziness of meaning, is not a flaw of natural language
but a feature that gives it flexibility and that, for whatever reason,
suits our minds and the way we think. Likewise, the fact that
languages depend on arbitrary convention or cultural habit is not a
flaw but a
feature that allows us to rein in the fuzziness by establishing
agreed-upon meanings at different levels of precision. Language needs
its
'flaws' in order to do the enormous range of things we use it for.


1

Choose the combinations that correctly match the type of language with
one of its features.

i] The language of music – universal
ii] Artificial language – thousands of grammar rules
iii] Computer programming languages – based on common sense

1) [i] and [ii]
2) [i] and [iii]
3) [ii] and [iii]
4) [i], [ii] and [iii]


2

According to the passage, the inventors of artificial languages would
agree with which of the following statements?

1) Culture is vital as a basis for language.
2) It is important for language not to be universally understood.
3) Conventional agreement is useful as it allows a high degree of
precision in language.
4) None of the above

3

Choose a suitable title for this passage

1) Natural vs. Artificial Language
2) Conventions in Natural Language
3) The Requisite Flaws of Natural Language
4) Ambiguity and Convention: Flaws or Features?