I just realized I don’t truly understand what language is.
In session 1 of my Indonesian Language course, there was this discussion forum question:
tutor's question in the discussion forum
I answered it normatively using information from the university module. However, that answer actually triggered several questions in my head about the true nature of language.
For the first question: are Budi and Wati using language? Even though their encoding is unconventional, the module describes language as sounds that symbolize something; symbols used based on a prevailing system to create meaning. If Budi and Wati can understand each other, it means there is a definition system they both use. My conclusion: they are using language.
But this is exactly where I started getting confused. I reduced the definition of language to: “a system of symbols used by organisms to communicate with each other”. Unfortunately, this reduction seems to fail at distinguishing how humans communicate from the signals of other organisms. If Budi says “Kavamuvu davapavat…”, and then a cat lets out a “meow” with a certain intonation, aren’t both just producing sounds that symbolize something to the speaker? If they are indeed different, where exactly is the boundary? That is what I don’t understand.
Moving on to question number 2: does Budi and Wati’s conversation demonstrate the arbitrary nature of language? Honestly, I don’t explicitly understand what this arbitrary nature entails. Based on the module’s description, arbitrary means “without reason”, meaning it cannot be explained based on logic or reasoning, and there is no “natural connection” between the object being symbolized and its meaning.
What I don’t understand is, what does “natural connection” mean here? Doesn’t the process of creating symbols and interpreting them rely on cognitive activities in the brain, which in itself is a natural process? Are the results of cognitive processes formed over years considered unnatural?
The claim that language “cannot be explained based on logical considerations” also confuses me. Isn’t language a logical system? At least in my mental model, language has substitution, syntax, and structures that can generate new outputs from limited basic elements. To me, that is identical to a logical system; language contains sub-structures that are very logic-like.
This piece doesn’t have a conclusion yet; at the very least, this is the current point of my ignorance.