Are our ways of knowing controlled by language?

Are ways of knowing controlled by language? If yes, then language either controls it because all knowledge is communicated in language and there is some form of knowledge that cannot be transmitted so. Or that the structure of language restricts thought, which is part of the process of acquiring knowledge, and therefore knowledge.

Language is syntax (used in this manner meaning representation of meaning), while the meaning it conveys is semantics. Communication is first done by encoding meaning in syntax, and then interpreting it again back into meaning. Thus language is the medium of communication. But can everything be expressed in language? If it can, then there would be no loss in the fidelity of information as it gets transmitted from one human to another. There would be no misunderstanding. But if it cannot, then we have a problem with using language as a means of communication.

Let’s take a simplified analogy of our relation with language. Data formats in computers. In computers, information is represented as data encoded in specific formats. Software must be able to understand the format in order to process it. Therefore there are standards that govern the format in which data is represented. Most of the documents on the web, for example, are encoded in HTML. Since it is standardized, web browsers merely have to conform to the standard in order to process the document as display it on your screen. In this way, we can have Apple’s Macintosh’s Safari browser, Microsoft’s Internet Explorer, or Mozilla Firefox in Linux all being able to process and display HTML pages on the web.

It is about the same with language. A language is a standard in that it has certain words that mean certain things, and its grammatical structure that strings words together into more complex sentences. However, language is not a syntax that is purposefully created whole then agreed upon. It is something dynamic that is part of culture. Language grows. People invent certain words and ways of stringing them together, and they use these languages with some people. The language spreads, undergoes changes, and encounters other languages. Therefore we have a problem in that the syntax of language is not certain to be definite or immutable. An example would be old texts, where even though the same word might be used, the meaning of it as the writer intended, or people of their time interpreted may be different.

Another problem is that since humans invent language, would language be appropriate for areas of knowledge which concepts are not human? Science would be an example. Is language restricting the expression of scientific concepts?

Knowledge has logical components too. For example, merely knowing both “she kicked him” and “he cried” is not what we would consider complete knowledge of those events. Knowledge of those events implies knowledge of their relation of each to the other. We only say we know, when we say “she kicked him, therefore he cried”, or “he cried because she kicked him”.

The logical components are expressed in the structure of language, which is grammar. The question here is if grammar is restricting the possible logical concepts that can be expressed in language, therefore limiting our knowledge. Extending the previous example, if a child who (for the sake of this example) has never experienced pain or has not experienced pain from being kicked, is told by another child who has, “She kicked him. He cried”, would he get the idea of the cause and effect of pain there?

Also, since we often think in language, can it be that language is restricting our thinking? Could it be that if we don’t think in language our thinking would be more powerful or effective?

In short, our problems with language in relation to knowledge is: are there more things, properties, feelings, ideas or concepts than what we can have expressed with nouns, verbs, adjectives? Are there logical relations between them which we don’t have the language sufficient for? And does language restrict thought?

The first problem, restated here, is mutability and unreliability of language. Before we think that language’s imprecision is so much a bad thing, let us remember that it is because of the desire for precision that we constantly add to and modify language. And unless we somehow developed direct mind-to-mind communication, it is our only form of communication. And why is a language so constantly changing? Simply because we are in the process of acquiring knowledge! Let’s go back to the information as data example. In the creation of standards, perfect and complete information of the form of information the data is supposed to represent is required but definitely acquirable. In an image file for example, the image is represented by many pixels arranged in a grid, each of which is given a color value. Thus the representation of an image as data is the location and color values of its constituent pixels. With a color value range that covers what the human eye can see, every single possible image can be represented as data. In short with have perfect knowledge of the possibilities of images. Note that what we have knowledge of is the form and scope of images. We know images are two-dimensional, and thus can be represented in a grid. And we know the range of colors the human eye can see. But with language, which in comparison has to deal with all forms of knowledge, such a perfect representation would be impossible, or even desirable. We don’t know what forms new knowledge would take, or the scope of it all. The answer to our concerns of the mutability of language therefore is that we don’t want to restrict language by fixing it. The answer to the unreliability (in relation to what other alternative?) of language, however is simply that it is but a consequence of mutability. We have to make do with careful definitions.

The second problem is the inappropriateness of language as representation of knowledge that is abstract and different from the simple solution to problems of communication that it was. Well that simply is an idea assuming that language has to be what it always have been. Language changes because its users require it to. The change of language is simply the adaptation of it to the domain of its use. Take waves for example. Not the waves that surfers surf on, or even waves of ripples on water. Not sound waves or even light waves. Let’s take quantum probability waves. A very abstract concept, surely. But we can clearly see that we have named it a wave because it has similar properties to the normal waves we see and experience. But of course quantum probability waves don’t mean water waves. The word has been adapted for a new concept in physics. But how can normal words be adapted for such abstract concepts anyway? Aren’t there any abstract concepts that simply cannot be expressed in language? The answer is simply, no. This is due to how the mind works, and thus also the nature of language. The mind has certain “built-in” concepts, which then can be extended in a combinatorial fashion to arrive at all possible concepts, and certainly the concepts we have now. Take the concept of the wave for example. It is made possible thanks to little concepts of space and time that we so often take for granted. The shape of a wave is just many points in two-dimension that together forms the shape of the wave. And the waves change in time. This is just a simple example, if you examine all the concepts we have, you will find that they are but made of a few very fundamental concepts. Language is combinatorial too. Take the concept of possession for example. A child owns a toy. And her mom owns the child. Then we refer to the toy as “Mom’s child’s toys.” Language models the combinatorial nature of concepts. Language therefore is able to, from its method of conveying basic concepts, in a combinatorial manner, convey more complex concepts. Therefore, whatever concept we arrive at in thinking in whatever area of knowledge, we would we able to use language to express it.

The same goes for the grammatical structure of language. Concepts that can be expressed with nouns are similar to logical concepts. In that they are complex in the sense that they are built of simpler concepts. For example, the logical concept of “implication” or “if a then b” is a complex combination of the basic concepts of “not”, “and”, in the form of “not, a and not b” or in symbolic logic “~(a.~b)”, where ~ is “not” and . is “and” and the parentheses to specify the order of operation as in mathematics. Therefore, all complex logical concepts can be expressed using the grammatical structure of language.

Again, the same goes for thought. Since thinking is combinatorial, and language is combinatorial by virtue of being created through thought, language actually guides thought, not restrict it.

In conclusion, instead of our language controlling or restricting our ways of knowing, in a sense it is our ways of knowing controlling and shaping language for its purpose.