To what extent is an immediate relationship with our non-human surroundings a language? — Joshs

Language is communication. Without the narrative the video would not have communicated much to me. With the narrative, what was communicated was something profoundly different! But I think what you are getting at is that a relationship entails communication, so it is a language. Which would mean the way we live our lives is a language. Yes I suppose that is true. The way an artist paints in art has long been understood as a language; their style is their language, regardless of their intention, regardless of what they achieve.

To what extent is an immediate relationship with our non-human surroundings a language? — Joshs

To what extent is one event, one acting-out of this relationship a sentence? Everyone at some point probably conceives of language in terms of "getting meaning across", having a sophisticated system of symbols and conventions to transplant someone else's thoughts into my brain. Perhaps even mine into another's. ;) It is practical. If we wouldn't conceive of language in this way, we wouldn't get anything done! Imagine the chaos!

But what if communication is actually communion, what if what language does is to form a pact, to link us to something other, someone other, something somewhat other that cannot be grasped, only touched like wind. Or what if it leads up to a point, a void it leaves, at the edges of what can be said, when stories fray, like ends of a string, not quite apart, one at one point, but disjointed at another, little tips of possible contact, touching air. Apart at one point to be together at another. What if language does the weave? Going under and cutting across, fraying and stumbling at the edges while inexplicably producing patterns, narratives that entrance and disgust, that soothe and aggravate and most of all perhaps leave speechless.

In language, there are sentences. Even silence is a sentence a negation of what could be referred to, who could be adressed, what could be meant, who could speak. You know Lyotard. What if touch, a movement, a sound, a look perhaps is a sentence, a universe? In language sentences are linked. Reaction upon (re)action, no sentence is the last, the linking happens. There are universes. And they are linked. Is there any other prerequisite for something being language?

Part of me is just kidding around. Obviously there are many objections and questions. I've been thinking a lot about Lyotard lately. About affect-sentences. About their transcription. About the differends inevitably produced in the attempt. About the seeming inevitability of it all, the transcription as well as the hurt, the pain of something not being able to be put in words. This video reminded me of the practicality of these things, the stakes in always yet another form. Thank you.

What is the difference between language and communication, if any?

To what extent is an immediate relationship with our non-human surroundings a language? — Joshs

I have not watched the video. The answer is it is massively important. We live in the world not apart from it. The reason many feral children cannot develop language to the same degree is because they do not see the world like other humans - they see it from a wolves perspective if raised by wolves.

The Man with No Language grew up around humans, travelled across an international border and got a job gardening before he learned what a language was. He did this because he had exposure to the human-lived-world.

What is in the video?

What is in the video? — I like sushi

It's only 8 minutes long.

I have not watched it yet for a reason ;)

What is in the video? — I like sushi

It is a great video. Basically, Mel Baggs shows us the way of communication by autistic and other cognitively disabled people. Instead of trying to learn the way they try to communicate with the world, we always labelled them as non-communicative. Mel claims that she smells things, looks at things, hears things, etc. But the way she answers to those stimuli is not the same as the standard, so most of the people would claim that she doesn't really interact with the world, which is false. The video was uploaded seventeen years ago, and some features changed to better. But when Mel did that video, most of the people considered her non-human just for the way she used communication.

I don't think it makes sense to think of it as communication. Since there is no message, only receptivity and exploration. It also doesn't make sense to think of it as a language, since there's nothing like syntax arranging language items, there are only repetitious behaviours.

Consider the face rubbing stim. You can rub your face on two different soft toys in the same way, the phenomenology of those acts can differ radically even if the rubbing stim is the same. Thinking of the stim as a language item, it must have a reproducible content of some sort, and since the phenomenologies differ so much it would difficult to call the content of the stim state reproducible.

By reproducible X, I mean that something which counts as X could be done again. I think you only get her stims type identified - face rubbing soft toy stims are face rubbing soft toy stims, rather than "this state at this time type items", like you'd be able to get with "the dog I walked today".

There'll be some autobiographical detail which would allow an intent on her part to be inferred, which would form some reproducible context around the act - maybe she rubs her face on one toy in one circumstance, and one in another. But there's nothing to distinguish the latter from, say, someone going for a run when they feel sad - which isn't a language.

I thus thing it's a bad idea to call her stimming a language because it misses necessary properties of language - reproducible and structured presentation - and also that if it were language, it makes something like going for a run when sad language, which definitely is not language. I also don't think it's right to call it communication, since there's no reproducible message.

@fdrake So just to make sure I understand you correctly first. You would characterize language as: something with syntax and items that can be arranged, having reproducible content, and structured presentation. And language is definitely not something like ... let's call it an "action" (going for a run when sad).
And communication would be something with a reproducible message.

Consider the face rubbing stim. You can rub your face on two different soft toys in the same way, the phenomenology of those acts can differ radically even if the rubbing stim is the same. Thinking of the stim as a language item, it must have a reproducible content of some sort, and since the phenomenologies differ so much it would difficult to call the content of the stim state reproducible. — fdrake

Could you maybe explain what you mean with "phenomenology" of the two different rubbing stims here?

- Good post. :up:

And language is definitely not something like ... let's call it an "action" (going for a run when sad). — KrisGl

I think language is a subset of action. Just there are some actions which aren't instances of language.

Could you maybe explain what you mean with "phenomenology" of the two different rubbing stims here? — KrisGl

By phenomenology I mean the qualitative character of the experience and that experience's elements' significance in the life of the person who is having it. The felt stuff and its structure. As opposed to the performed stuff, the gestures and movements and sounds.

In the context of my post, I meant the reference to phenomenology in a certain conditional way. That if the states associated with her stimming were instances of communication, they would need to communicate some aspect of the state through gesture. Which would be difficult, if not impossible to do, if we take the Mel Baggs at her word that she is in a state of "dialogue" with the felt character of the environment.

For an example - what can you infer about Mel Baggs' state of mind from the section of the video in which she's stimming with the tap water? Is that state of mind what she's presenting?
Can you say that she's saying anything with it? Or does the motion have some intimate and singular significance to her? I think it's more accurate to think of Mel Baggs behaviour as a series of stims rather than as a language or as communication.

Thanks, that clears that one up. I have three more questions.

I think language is a subset of action. Just there are some actions which aren't instances of language. — fdrake

What exactly distinguishes language-action from other forms of action?

I assume you consider stims to be an action as a response to an emotion. I assume that, because you paralleled rubbing the face on a toy with someone going for a run when they are sad before. Is that correct?

I assume also that you consider the actions you have seen in the first part of the video to be stims. Is there any action you have seen you would not call a stim?

Perhaps a better way of resituating language and communication is represented by Rowan Williams' recent review of Charles Taylor's new book, Poetry in the Age of Disenchantment, "Romantic Agenda." Williams' understanding of language is more robust in the way you might desire, and is more fully explicated in his Gifford Lectures, coalesced into his book, The Edge of Words: God and the Habits of Language. The lectures are available online.

(CC: @Srap Tasmaner)

What exactly distinguishes language-action from other forms of action? — KrisGl

I would say that an item of language needs to be standardised, or at the very least standardisable. Like words have wrong ways to pronounce them, sentences have grammatical errors, words can be misspelled, some gestures are seen as displaying an emotion in some contexts - like getting in someone's face, and it would not be seen as intimate. There needs to be something in the action that allows it to be standardised in order for it to count as an item of language in some context.

And I don't think her stims can be standardised in the above way. They probably can't even be individuated - can you tell the difference in significance of the water, or Beggs' relationship with her environment, when she changes the speed her fingers move against the water's current? When she's splashing or following the flow?

I assume you consider stims to be an action as a response to an emotion. — KrisGl

They might be. I inferred that Baggs' were since she spoke of a dialogue with her environment. Though some of them might not be about enacting some part of her mental state - eg when she seems to be pitch matching background noises with her humming.

Broadly speaking I thought that stimming was a response to an emotion - but in the sense that stimming is part of self regulation for autistic folks. Stims can be like sighs. They can also be like yawns.

I assume that, because you paralleled rubbing the face on a toy with someone going for a run when they are sad before. Is that correct?

In the context of what I wrote, I was trying to infer "her side" of the dialogue, the parts of her environment-person relationship that she was experiencing and what was structuring her intentions. And I found it difficult to imagine that such things make sense as items of language, they seemed much more like singular sensations and feelings, or like shifting on your feet to balance.

Do you believe what Baggs is doing counts as language?

Do you believe what Baggs is doing counts as language? — fdrake

Oh I must admit, I am not sure. If you ask for my gut feeling: language yes, communication not sure. But I don't think I feel fit enough to argue for either thought just yet. I'd rather have three more questions first.

There needs to be something in the action that allows it to be standardised in order for it to count as an item of language in some context. — fdrake

Okay. So language is something that can only happen when there are people agreeing on a standardized meaning of sentences, words, gestures?

And I don't think her stims can be standardised in the above way. They probably can't even be individuated - can you tell the difference in significance of the water, or Beggs' relationship with her environment, when she changes the speed her fingers move against the water's current? — fdrake

So "to individuate" stims means to be able to ascribe different meanings to each part of action within one stim (playing with the water)? I mean ... we can certainly individuate the different stims (playing with water, moving hands in the air) and the different actions within one stim (moving slowly one second, then faster the next), right? We just are not sure about the meanings these actions have or if they have meaning at all.

Stims can be like sighs. — fdrake

Would you consider sighs part of language?

Okay. So language is something that can only happen when there are people agreeing on a standardized meaning of sentences, words, gestures? — KrisGl

Yes I think so. At the very least, something needs to be standardisable even if it isn't yet standardised. I don't believe Baggs' stimming is standardised, and I don't think it's standardisable in the same way as items of language are either. It's repetitive, there are patterns and types of things but... you can say the same of almost any process.

So "to individuate" stims means to be able to ascribe different meanings to each part of action within one stim (playing with the water)? — KrisGl

Yes. It is difficult to ascribe parts to the stimming. When her hand is moving back and forth in the water, should we just think that the first bit where she's relatively slow and the second bit where she's relatively fast count as distinct "units" which we could interpret as items of language? What about the variations in hand angle, which fingers feel the water etc within the units?

I mean ... we can certainly individuate the different stims (playing with water, moving hands in the air) and the different actions within one stim (moving slowly one second, then faster the next), right?'

Absolutely. It's just that you can't split the stims up from within them easily. Do all the bits of her humming have the same meaning? Does her humming change meaning when her hands flap? What about when she rocks? What about when she paces back and forth? Is she saying one thing or two things? Is her rocking and her humming one unit and her flapping another?

We just are not sure about the meanings these actions have or if they have meaning at all.

I think the situation is even more ambiguous. If we take her at her word, and that she's in a constant state of reciprocal connection with the environment, it would be really weird if we could only ascribe meaning so broadly. She spent a long time humming, and we'd have to reduce that to "her humming".

Whereas eg I've spent a long time typing this, and you can see where the letters are, where they end, which marks count as what words etc. You can tell that I'm doing certain things with the words - like elaborating, like answering questions, like making arguments, like analysing concepts etc. What I'm doing is language, and I'm also using language to do stuff.

If you were an anthropologist 6000 years from now and discovered this post, it would be recognisably language even if you didn't know what it meant at all - because you can see language's hallmarks.

I don't think you can say any of this about Baggs' stimming.

Frankly, though this is a bit off topic, I also think interpreting Baggs' stimming as language has the opposite of its intended life affirming/depathologising effect for autistic people. It's framed as a response to her being believed to be inferior because she has a speech disability. But it addresses this by framing her stimming as a language, thus undermining the speech disability claim. There doesn't have to be anything pathological about being disabled. Though I appreciate that calling her stimming a language can normalise that aspect of autism in some contexts.

I do wish that stimming was understood more like yawning than like language. Something autonomic.

I also think interpreting Baggs' stimming as language has the opposite of its intended life affirming/depathologising effect for autistic people. — fdrake

I can see the argument. We weren't the ones calling on the lable language first though, I believe that was Baggs. We are now trying to reconcile what Baggs calls "my language" with our notion of what a language is.

It's repetitive, there are patterns and types of things but... you can say the same of almost any process. — fdrake

It is difficult to ascribe parts to the stimming. When her hand is moving back and forth in the water, should we just think that the first bit where she's relatively slow and the second bit where she's relatively fast count as distinct "units" which we could interpret as items of language? What about the variations in hand angle, which fingers feel the water etc within the units? — fdrake

I feel like there are quite some different parts of the stimming! There are definitely distinct moments, actions, some of them repeat, sometimes changing rapidly, sometimes more slowly. But the moments are distinct from one another. We can describe them. Whether or not there is intent or meaning(s) behind them ... we still don't know.

If we take her at her word, and that she's in a constant state of reciprocal connection with the environment, it would be really weird if we could only ascribe meaning so broadly. She spent a long time humming, and we'd have to reduce that to "her humming". — fdrake

I think so too! It would be really weird if minutes of one utterance would just mean all the same. Maybe we should think about the different tones, how the voice sometimes trembles, sometimes is very clear, and so on. Maybe they are different from each other, these moments. I don't see why we have to reduce that to one act of humming. A song has different notes after all, which we wouldn't reduce into one either.

I do wish that stimming was understood more like yawning than like language. Something autonomic. — fdrake

Why is that exactly? And how about the question if you would consider a sigh or a yawn part of language? Or maybe communication?

Why is that exactly? — KrisGl

Because AFAIK it's known that stimming is tightly linked with autistic people's emotional regulation. If you must suppress stimming, the self regulation goes out of whack. Another reason I want to think of it as autonomic is related to what you said here:

Whether or not there is intent or meaning(s) behind them ... we still don't know. — KrisGl

that likens her behaviour to stroking one's hair, scratching yourself, finger twiddling etc. None of which need be carried out with intent.

And how about the question if you would consider a sigh or a yawn part of language? — KrisGl

Someone can sigh in response to something, or at the end of a long day. A sigh in itself I wouldn't want to call an item of language in all circumstances, even though it is a sound that allows predictable expressions in some contexts. Like when it's a response to a request. But in others it isn't - like when you do it when frustrated. Compare the above to a word or a gesture in sign language. In contrast, "egg" is always "egg", an "a" sound is recognisably always an "a" sound. Can you say the same for Baggs' finger rubbing in the tap? Can you even say what this finger rub means vs that one? Can you even tell when one ends and one begins? There just aren't units of fine enough graduations to represent the continuum of behaviour she has.

A yawn is also something unintentional, but you "feel a yawn coming on", and can't suppress it. It's even unpleasant to try suppress. There's a sense of relief and normality afterwards. In that regard I think it's a better analogy for a stim than thinking of it as a language.

If you know an autistic person's stims, I think you can treat them as indicative of their mood sometimes. Some people have stims that only come out when very distressed, some people have stims that only come out when happy. If you knew what was what for a person, you can read it like a facial expression. Even though facial expressions aren't language either.

They might be. I inferred that Baggs' were since she spoke of a dialogue with her environment. — fdrake

This seems like a matter of basic semiotics. There is sign use and then there is intentional sign use. Language is the latter, and it is uniquely human. A dog licking its paw is the former, and humans are of course immersed in this sort of unintentional sign use as well, but it is not language. It is Helen Keller's transition from water-as-stimulus to water-as-sign.

Perhaps interaction with environment can become dialogue if the environment is addressed as Buber's "Thou," but usually this is not happening, and it doesn't seem to be occurring in the OP. At best what we have here is a metaphorical sense of dialogue.

I think the person wants their actions to be seen as meaningful and valuable. They can be that, but I don't think they constitute the intentional sign use which is language. It is a kind of cathartic manifestation of potency, which is different from language.

They might be. I inferred that Baggs' were since she spoke of a dialogue with her environment. — fdrake

This seems like a matter of basic semiotics. There is sign use and then there is intentional sign use. Language is the latter, and it is uniquely human. A dog licking its paw is the former, and humans are of course immersed in this sort of unintentional sign use as well, but it is not language. It is Helen Keller's transition from water-as-stimulus to water-as-sign.

Perhaps interaction with environment can become dialogue if the environment is addressed as Buber's "Thou," but usually this is not happening, and it doesn't seem to be occurring in the OP. At best what we have here is a metaphorical sense of dialogue.

I think the person wants their actions to be seen as meaningful and valuable. They can be that, but I don't think they constitute the intentional sign use which is language. It is a kind of cathartic manifestation of potency, which is different from language.

(Site was hanging and somehow double-posted)

Because AFAIK it's known that stimming is tightly linked with autistic people's emotional regulation. If you must suppress stimming, the self regulation goes out of whack. — fdrake

Cursing is strongly related to my emotional self-regulation. If I don't get to curse when I feel it warranted, believe me, my self-regulation goes out of whack, too.
;) Just kidding of course. I am not autistic and I do not need stims to regulate myself. But there are people suffering from Tourette's syndrom. Sometimes ticks include cursing. Would you know from the outside if my cursing is me cursing or me having a tick?
The point I want to make is simply this: I find these arguments and distinctions not very convincing. But maybe I'm just being difficult, who knows.

that likens her behaviour to stroking one's hair, scratching yourself, finger twiddling etc. None of which need be carried out with intent. — fdrake

None of these behaviors need to be carried out consciously, they don't need to have meaning. But sometimes they do. Fiddling with one's hair can be a stim, it can also be flirting, it can also be a sign of an elaborate internal discussion about the effectiveness of the new hair conditioner I purchased yesterday. How can you tell the difference?

Can you even say what this finger rub means vs that one? Can you even tell when one ends and one begins? — fdrake

Just because you can't tell, do you think no one can tell? And how about if we compare these predicaments to language. Just because I can't make heads or tails of Japanese sentences, does it mean no one can understand it?

There just aren't units of fine enough graduations to represent the continuum of behaviour she has. — fdrake

What units exactly would be fine enough for you to consider something a language?

This seems like a matter of basic semiotics. There is sign use and then there is intentional sign use. Language is the latter, and it is uniquely human. A dog licking its paw is the former, and humans are of course immersed in this sort of unintentional sign use as well, but it is not language. It is Helen Keller's transition from water-as-stimulus to water-as-sign. — Leontiskos

I wanted to avoid semiotic language since, taking Baggs at her word, her language is nonsignyfing. It doesn't have symbolic representation. You might think of that as a contradiction in terms, which would be another way to undermine its claim to be a language.

Sometimes ticks include cursing. Would you know from the outside if my cursing is me cursing or me having a tick? — KrisGl

You can tell that over time. People who curse as the result of a tic do so in wildly variable circumstances and seemingly independently from them. For a single instance of cursing, you might not be able to.

What units exactly would be fine enough for you to consider something a language? — KrisGl

I don't know. Try going through her tap water scene and dividing it up into distinct events of qualitatively different character that might be used for expressing something! I'll respond further when you've tried something like this.

Try going through her tap water scene and dividing it up into distinct events of qualitatively different character that might be used for expressing something! I'll respond further when you've tried something like this. — fdrake

I don't think I can. I don't speak this language.

I wanted to avoid semiotic language since, taking Baggs at her word, her language is nonsignyfing. — fdrake

Is there a different definition of language other than the semiotic one which is underlying such critiques? Or is that the basis of the critiques even if it is unspoken?

Autism is a disability because the person has no choice in the matter. There is the opposite malady of being unable to "stim" and being limited to discursive reasoning. But a good example of someone who consciously undertakes such a practice is the monk who meditates. Is that language? Is it dialogue? Is it linguistic? Is it sub-linguistic? Super-linguistic? I think that presents a clearer case, which could then be extended to the autistic (or not).

I don't speak this language. — KrisGl

You don't need to to try.

"Салам, куыдтæ дæ?"

What are the distinct symbol groups in that? Clearly, "Салам", "куыдтæ" and "дæ". It has a question mark at the end, so presumably it is a question.



What are the distinct gestures in this ASL poem?

Even if we make mistakes, it's still clear what trying to split this stuff up would mean in terms of a language. I doubt you can say the same form Baggs' stimming. Can you do it?

I told you already that I don't think I can, because I do not speak that language. Take me by my word. I could make some elaborate counterargument now by introducing you to the nature of pre- and suffixes in the hebrew language and how you can cram a sentence into a whole word and how someone not familiar with that language would not be able to distinguish the different parts of one word that make up a whole sentence. I will not bore you with it.

Let's try something different instead. In the video it is being said, that Bagg's language is a way of relating to surroundings. Maybe when I look at a stream of running water from a tap, I call that water. That is how I relate to it primarily. Maybe someone else relates primarily via touch. It is hard to imagine for someone who is used to conceiving of language in terms of words and sentences. But if language is at heart a way of relating ... myself to objects, other humans, thoughts, ideas to other ideas, is it not conceivable that there are ways of making those relations that rely on something other than the spoken or the written word? With it's own rules that might be not discovered by us yet? And would such a behavior of relating not with some right be called a language?

I told you already that I don't think I can, because I do not speak that language. Take me by my word. I could make some elaborate counterargument now by introducing you to the nature of pre- and suffixes in the hebrew language and how you can cram a sentence into a whole word and how someone not familiar with that language would not be able to distinguish the different parts of one word that make up a whole sentence. I will not bore you with it. — KrisGl

You wouldn't bore me with it.

I’m posting that video here because I think it challenges us to re-consider what constitutes language. To what extent is an immediate relationship with our non-human surroundings a language? — Joshs

It does challenge us to reconsider. I expect that most people think of language as a social phenomenon. Mel's responses involve sense-making and interacting with the environment, structuring the world and the things in it. Her blog, Ballastexistenz, was fascinating too.

Well then. It is a fascinating language, I had a lot of fun with it. https://www.areopage.net/PDF/waltke.pdf This grammar seems to be quite good. You will find what I meant from page 80 onwards.

Ok! And can you make the argument you intended to with the reference too?