Noam Chomsky - The Function of Language

[@lukaszprzek4353]

Interactions like these shouldn't be stigmatized. Much more instructive than preaching to the choir.

[@AymanB]

Interactions like these are more and more rare because every time two people have a conversation, one is expected to DESTROY, ANNIHILATE, DEMOLISH the other... So that we post a video about it for clicks and worship.

[@AntonKuznetsovMusic]

If this video was published by a Jordan Peterson fan it would've been titled: "Noam Chomsky destroys biologist"

[@irlserver42]

With FACTS and LOGIC!

[@HCadrenaline]

Chomsky DESTROYS LGBT left-wing biologist with linguistic facts and logic

[@DS-yg4qs]

Hahahahahahahhahahahaua brutal

[@MichaelMorenoPhilosophy]

This is just demonstratably not the case, you can go to any Jordan Peterson video and see that his comment sections are usually respectful and intrigued towards the discussion taking place, granted his interlocutors are being respectful and genuine. i.e his debates with Sam Harris and Slavoj Zizek. The only time you see exaggerated titles like that are usually when Jordan Peterson is in fact being attacked by someone in bad faith, like Cathy Newman or SJW college students.

[@lucasrandel8589]

For any public intellectual you can find sensationalistic cuts of them speaking. Just stay clear of them and they won't appear on your timeline. You can't encourage such pettiness. It's something JP himself is obviously firmly oppused to, other than Chomsky who's known to be a little disparaging from time to time.

[@theindividual5297]

As an introvert, it seems particularly obvious that most of language is thought/ 'internalised'

[@wecx2375]

Facts

[@LidiceMelo]

I think somewhere I heard Chomsky say that Universal Grammar seemed obvious to him, even before he began procuring evidence for this intution.@@wecx2375

[@GordonBrevity]

Did you say something?

[@SeanAnthony-j7f]

Introvert has nothing to do

[@samanthataylor1761]

Noam Chomsky is on another dimension of thinking. Imagine never believing that the function of language is to facilitate communication? Like, that seems like a natural way to se things.

[@williamhubel4643]

I’ve always found it impossible to avoid that idea, but it’s flimsy even to casual inquiry- look, all sorts of animals communicate, and many of them lived in the same general environment where humans evolved. What made humans special? It wasn’t just the need to communicate, it was some other kind of pressure/adaptation. And it’s something which apes just don’t have, otherwise extensive efforts to train them in language would have worked by now. Apes are capable of communicating their needs and desires with simple representational sign language. This is not really comprehension of an entire language.

[@eyesofpicasso]

The point of language is to think, not talk (communicate). Interface, not function. Profound

[@bubblepopshot6891]

The biologist brought sensible and well-considered questions to Chomsky. (Let's forget about his final comment lapsing into pomo philosophy of science .) Chomsky ultimately wins the dialectic pretty handily, but I thought this was an extremely interesting and informative back and forth.

[@timpabon9660]

What do you mean by saying “porno philosophy of science?”

[@henrykkaufman1488]

He's very intelligent, but his points are often not. Linguistics is his discipline so I won't refer to this exact example but I remember one lecture where he was explaining for about 5 minutes that "USSR was not real marxism". I think he believes his stuff, why wouldn't he if others believe him, but you definitely have to watch out when you're listening to him, because a lot what he says is just speech 100. The guy is a hardcore intellectual who basically believes that any structure is oppressive and without it (i assume?) people would be good by nature and their only natural need is to contribute. That's absolutely not true at all.

[@haveaseatplease]

Only the (theoretical) ideology of the former Soviet Union was Marxism /Leninism, in practice the USSR has been an oligarchy / dictatorship pretty much from the start. @@henrykkaufman1488

[@rustyshimstock8653]

@@timpabon9660 The spelling is "pomo" short for post-modern. It does look like porno.

[@nblumer]

I recall an indigenous professor who talked about a common belief among First Nations that the older creatures (eg birds) developed far more efficiently in communication than humans over time (a different pitch or squeak relays valuable information for food, danger, mating etc). Therefore what Chomsky says makes common sense. If it were communication adaptation efficiency alone for survivability, our language would just simplify to efficient utterances. Instead we developed a computational efficient system to acquire language and generate infinite range of thoughts from finite means. Over time the introspector won out because the contemplation proved valuable for communication as well, but that's by fortunate convergence.

[@isaiahaklilu4366]

I loved this video even though I understood none of it

[@coreycox2345]

I understand parts of it after reading "What Kind of Creatures Are We?" Enough to find it brilliant. I have more reading to do before I know every part. These challenges are suitable for a person. I recently ordered a book that is a debate he once had with Piaget, who I have found tough sledding to get through, but well worth it before. Perhaps that will illuminate me further.

[@isaacolivecrona6114]

Chomsky’s position on the origin of language is controversial, but is most likely at least in part right: our language capacity cannot have evolved gradually for the purpose of communication. However weird it sounds, our language capacity may be accidental due to a number of cognitive modules have evolved for more specific but different reasons. Once those modules had evolved, the capacity for language emerged as a by-product. Think of our capacity to do advanced math - there couldn’t have been an evolutionary pressure for us to be able to do calculus. Rather, our ability to do calculus is a consequence of a plethora of modules having evolved independently but together gives us the capacities necessary for our brain to do advanced math. Another question is, what is it good for? That is to say, if our language capacity didn’t evolve for communication, what is its function in the sense of what is it good for? Well, it sure is good for communication, but we seem to use it for something else much more, viz. as a tool for centralizing and processing otherwise disparate cognitive functions. In short, a tool for thinking.

[@tonys6237]

@@isaacolivecrona6114 why do we need lanhgauge for thought? What kind of thought exists without language?

[@acarnold]

There’s something to be said for listening deeply to smart people converse, even if 99 percent of it goes straight over your head.

[@acarnold]

Erik Olivecrona thanks for the explanation.

[@Robin-bk2lm]

Saying language evolved to serve communication is like saying the eye evolved to see. The eye only evolved to see after millions of smaller adaptations that made seeing a possibility.

[@AntonKuznetsovMusic]

That biologist later became a villain.

[@pietersteenkamp5241]

Meh. When you base your life on your intellect and not the size of your car/house then it hurts when your arguments are seriously and apparently correctly disputed....

[@RashidMBey]

@@pietersteenkamp5241 Mate. What are you talking about?

[@RashidMBey]

+Anton Kuznetsov This was the best comment. This guy got refuted the same way a Spiderman nemesis would. 😂

[@svenlittlecross]

you have bested me Chomsky, mnyauuh... back to the BIOCAVE *throws smoke*

[@disct1597]

I did my A level Psychology paper about thought and speech and what comes first 30 years ago, I wish I had access to This video then. Beautiful

[@soroshfashandi333]

There is no word to describe Professor Chomsky but, BRILLIANT!

[@mosopinie4097]

Can someone explain what they talk about?

[@youtoobfarmer]

Mo's Opinie Language

[@soroshfashandi333]

youtoobfarmer the discretions are about is the language means of communication? According to Professor Chomsky and some other scholars the communication is the secondary to the internal thought process.... in simple term we first think internally and then we communicate. In fact if we do realize this process then our awareness will be helpful....

[@havefunbesafe]

I love how Noam can turn a tenured Professor into a student…words matter!

[@nvminous_7965]

If the function of language is primarily to think, then language is the very vehicle for knowledge; knowledge being the very vehicle for reason; reason being the very vehicle for morals.

[@brianmcguire5175]

Firstly, the distinguished gentleman interviewing Chomsky here is very commendable insofar that he presented very refined and purposeful juxtapositions to Chomsky's findings and thus inspired a hugely insightful exhibition of just some of Chomsky's profound findings on the subject. This guy's really asked the right questions and I'm glad he had the forum to do so. Secondly, Chomsky's responses are beyond satisfactory as he engages the scientific enquiry with a obviously grander scope made obvious by his clear explanation of the language concept , as it is generally actually used, as some kind of interface negotiator (I'm interpreting here). Rather than language being strictly a product of hierarchical structuring,like biological and physical build or evolution, he contends that the user's experience of language use is some kind of real world medium in which one can negotiate ones thoughts(internal) and understanding of the outside world (external) with a view of surviving(innate function of living things). The description of linking interfaces is meaning the reconciliation between internal and external. When Chomsky correctly explained that language isn't optimised for communication interpersonally he is referring to misunderstandings , arguements and conflicts us humans routinely have and before anyone's real intentions were or ever will be understood. Language is a medium to understand others and our attempts to be understood but is not the function of language. If the function, we would be able to say everything we wish to say while never angering other's by misunderstanding or otherwise. Language allows us to engage our thoughts and notions(abstract or otherwise) with an external world we face circumstantially. The linking of interfaces is further support by Chomsky's point on external dialogue and not by the contrary view. The biologist mentioned animals. I've seen dogs have nightmares in their sleep, moving and complaining in their sleeping place. What would they do with words if they could? Explain the internal, ie translate their thoughts. The thoughts and feelings evidently there still

[@user-vf8ti4dq3d]

dudes trying to challenge the chom .... balls on this one

[@groundedcrownsrising]

.... that got politely deflated.

[@williamjohn314]

they're clearly just having a discussion lol, and he's asking good questions

[@gabeasher187]

I enjoyed this conversation.

[@drishyad6237]

A new experience to listen Chomsky... Thank you

[@jonathaneffemey8828]

Thanks for posting.

[@stefanlamb1179]

So he's saying we invent language to think, not to speak? Fascinating. In fact, this is in line with a kind of therapy that involves simply naming your emotions. As soon as an emotion is named, it becomes easier to quantify and process.

[@bennyrodriguez8788]

Stefan Lamb that’s no correct... that will be like saying we invent walking 🚶🏽 to go places.

[@jamesick]

@@bennyrodriguez8788 "invent" no, but we did develop walking to go places, just over a much longer time and crossing different species.

[@gnoufignon]

@@jamesick Seems like we may hae develped language to organize/define our own thougts in ur own heads. Only later vocalizing to others

[@nblumer]

But Chomsky's point is that we have no intention of ever vocalizing these most of these thoughts so this is where the biologist's argument fell flat

[@nblumer]

Not invent but developed very quickly. The whole idea is that language developed a computational system that facilitates thought not communication.

[@isaacolivecrona6114]

I think Chomsky is right in one sense, at least if we’re talking about speech. The “language module” in our brain must have been largely in place for there to have been an evolutionary pressure for humans to restructure our throat and larynx to give us the capacity for speech. There are no other reasons for why our throats look so different from all other animals including other hominids. In fact, the way our throats are structured are otherwise only to a disadvantage, increasing the risk of chocking from pretty much zero to becoming one of the most common reasons for dying. So whereas the “language module” is necessary for speech and communication, it couldn’t have evolved for that reason - unless it turns out that it was first evolved for something like sign language, but seems unlikely too.

[@novakingood3788]

What you say is interesting and my mind immediately went to the chicken/egg scenario. Could the throat/larynx evolution have been prompted by some other evolutionary force and the brain development resulted from this gradual change? Obviously I can't know for certain, but I'm not so sure the throat/larynx development should be so definitely and exclusively laid at the door of an already existing brain langauge module. I often wonder when I'm watching primates or other species with apparent high levels of intelligence, even cats and dogs for that matter, what is actually going on in their minds when they appear to be contemplating their next action and whether an internal language exists and, if, so what that language might be. I presume, were it to exist, it would be unique to each individual animal as the have no ability to transmit it to others. I'd be interested to know what NC would say if it were put to him that evolution suggests that the development of the ability to speak produced greater benefits that outweighed the risks of the increased chance of choking. This suggests that our ancestors that were able to speak to each other had an evolutionary advantage over similar species that were unable to communicate verbally. It would seem to me that if it's all or mostly about internal language then the ability to speak had no advantage and probably wouldn't have evolved given the risks of choking that speaking entailed.

[@nblumer]

I would guess it followed the necessity to adapt to speech but it doesn't affect the argument that language developed very quickly for introspection and then part of that introspection then funneled to transmitting a greater range of information. Chomsky's point is that language didn't develop for that reason. It developed to increase the range of thoughts.

[@meghanadharne7438]

Very informative session thank you sir

[@prod.hxrford3896]

the tension throughout this conversation almost killed me

[@neidermeyer9361]

I enjoyed this non-optimal communication!

[@meghanadharne7438]

Very informative session thank you

[@alrhayul5536]

Now everyone is a seasoned linguistics researcher in comments

[@imhoisntworthmuch5441]

Al Rhayul absolutely.. most are opiniated, hence my nick. I was lucky to grasp what I could of this excerpt* and fortunately I know a bit about I/O. why am I posting this? for the first 2 lines. cheers.

[@globaldigitaldirectsubsidi4493]

Noam owns the biologist in biology, I´m flabbergasted.

[@augustoparaiso7349]

Nothing gets my internal gears going like a little external communication from NOAM CHOMSKI!

[@hansfrankfurter2903]

I love Chomksy beyond my language ability to express

[@Sarvebhavntusukhinah1111]

Useful information sir..

[@gayatrigovalvanshinanda6921]

The function of language is not solely to facilitate communication, but rather to link interface conditions...

[@PaleGhost69]

Audience mic 1 foot away - 200% gain Noam's mic 4 inches away - 50% gain Sound set techs never learn :(

[@impalabeeper]

Maybe Chomsky tends to speak in a pretty low voice.

[@PaleGhost69]

@@impalabeeper that's the problem. Those numbers should be switched. Noam needs the 200% gain

[@villiestephanov984]

Ako ste se otklonili po nanadolni6eto, samo xubavo vi zelaq...(😂)

[@AVIJITDAS-ty4ki]

Thank you sir very informative session.

[@jitendrakumarkharadi697]

very informative session

[@Xavyer13]

The characteristic use of language is for thought

[@pkasb90]

Language is used mostly for thought. I agree.

[@samuel-i-amuel4457]

What about those who can't hear or speak? Don't they think?

[@HS-zm4ow]

@@samuel-i-amuel4457 I think that may be the thing. Not being able to hear or speak does not equal an absence of language abilities, as those who cannot hear or speak can still understand language. Plus there's also sign language.

[@devarajuakil1068]

Nice presentation. Thank you

[@hansabensonara7765]

Wonderful lecture

[@johne5593]

She say's I am in such a hurry to be with her, that I truncate too much - in effort to help make a better world, a better Country, so we can be together. That I am truncating my life. What she doesn't seem to understand is those are composition error's from a man who is "shakin' not stirred.".

[@gaifogel1]

I've listened to the first 4 minutes and understood nothing haha but Chomsky is a good calm speaker

[@krishnadaiya2788]

Highly informative and analytical!

[@shobhaahirrao1866]

Thanks &very importance speech🙏

[@chandrashekharupadhyaya6530]

Very much informative session 🙏

[@Imslightlyobnoxious]

Serious question. Is there anything that NM doesn't know? 🤔

[@LasseJ789]

Language's purpose is to categorize the world into concepts. A stone is not just "a stone" it is THE stone, it's the same stone tomorrow if I mark it. Hebrew (an old language) has the same word for "object" and "word" = DAVAR. If you loose the nerves in the temporal lobe (that handles language) for a given word, you also loose the ability to see the object for that word. It's the same reason most mythologies start with a God that creates the world through words, not because the words create things, but they DEFINE them. Most people have probably experienced looking at a picture, and not being able to see what it is. You can see colors, but not what they "are" until you "suddenly" can. It's because the brain has defined what the paintings are, in relation to a concept. Basically everything is "unrecognizeable" until the brain plasters it's concept over the sensory-material.

[@nathananderson401]

I've also heard him say (and i am heavily paraphrasing), it is a human trait that we tent to do this (catagorization), and that our use of this method is quite arbitrary. for instance "chair" can be identified even without the requisite "chair legs" if that chair doesn't have legs, although this is a commonly identifiable quality of "chair". So words themselves do not define things, exactly. Do you have any thoughts?

[@LasseJ789]

@@nathananderson401 That's true. Good example with the chair. I'd say words do define things, but mostly related to "usage". So you can use a "box" which is a "box" as a "chair". It becomes a chair, when you use it like one. Also, think of the cat in Alice in Wonderland, "the grin without the cat". Where you have the category, abstracted from the normal phenomena. I think it's also important to pay notice, that the temporal lobe, where the words resides, are just under the central sulcus, where senseimpressions and motoric commands are registered and effectuated. So there's a close relationship between words and acting in the world and experienceing the world.

[@nathananderson401]

Lasse Jensen thank you for replying. It's wonderful to talk about this sort of thing. I'm sorry I'm just now replying. I liked that you pointed out the proximity and functionality of components in the brain. I think there can be no doubt that the two must be linked and evolutionary so. Right after I'd made my comment to you, I looked up universal grammar theory, which shed some light on what chompsky was saying for me. Please, if you have any more to add, do so.

[@LasseJ789]

@@nathananderson401 No worries :) What else is important, I think, is that the temporal lobe has two important centers. Wernicke's and Broca's. Wernicke's is the brain's "dictionary" and Broca's is where the grammar resides. The active and passive part of language. Furthermore, the dictionary, wernicke's area, lies just under the somato-SENSORY cortex, and Broca's, the grammar, lies just under the somato-MOTORIC cortex. So language is highly connected to our sensory and motoric part of the brain. This, I think, further exemplifies, that language is tightly connected to reality, or experience, and reality/experience to behaviour. The Kabbalists also defines the alfabet as the atoms of the universe. Of course language is not the root of the material universe of atoms, but of the cognitive universe of experience, which our brain produces. Both our motorical and sensory impulses are modified by the frontal lobes, which we experience as "willpower" and "effectuating an action". On the sensory part, the frontal lobes inhibits all incoming sensory input except for that which we focus on. People with problems with the frontal lobes tend to have a hard time controlling their behaviour and some their coginitive behaviour, leading to skizophrenic conditions. Theories go, that animism and shaman's experience is the impulses behind the cognitive phenomena, which is why there is a "spirit" in all objects, which is the impulse behind them. Kabbalists also differentiates between "what"/MA which is the object, and "who"/MI which is the entity/impulse behind the object. Shaman's can also tap into different patterns of behaviour, which can be seen as behaviour patterns, not modified by the frontal lobes, and going to a spirit world, which is build in layers, which corresponds well with the brain producing behaviour and a cognitive world in steps.

[@nathananderson401]

@@LasseJ789 are there some books you can recommend on the anatomy of the brain? Specifically the function of the temporal lobes with focus on wernicke's and broca's temporal lobe centers? Do you have reference for the correlation between animism/shamanism-brain-behavior?

[@alexanderthegreat5352]

I'm not sure I understood the terminology

[@abside30glu]

"... Perhaps they never will! "

[@logiclane9550]

A what point did the biologist regret asking a question?

[@sumguy835]

What he’s describing is the comment section on KZbin. It’s a plethora of individual thought on a 10 min clip pouring out, including your own. If it wasn’t, no one would bother commenting.

[@sumguy835]

imho isntworthmuch Do you actually have a view. I’ve seen the couple of posts of yours in the comments. 1 mocking & 1 congratulating like you have the answer whilst saying nothing. Cowardly at best...jog on.

[@imhoisntworthmuch5441]

Sum Guy posted also a couple of my views but it is easy to miss some of the plethora of posts.

[@imhoisntworthmuch5441]

your discourse in another thread was, whatever I think, civil and polite. nrsvp.. I was a bit moody. sorry for that.*

[@fer5787]

Smart insight!

[@ramentaco9179]

the biologist has a really good point though! in terms of evolutionary advantage it makes a lot of sense that it’s a social thing

[@christianjimenez1877]

Noam Chomsky has written many texts about Language. We should read them, many times, before qualify his ideas as implausible.

[@hrishikesh-s]

Is there a longer version of this available? this is very interesting

[@Oscar656523]

What does he mean by 'linking the interfaces'? What are the interfaces? Are they (1) computational system (i.e. thinking) and (2) externalisation (i.e. talking, writing, sign language, etc.)? I don't get what he means by the system is optimized to link the interfaces

[@dahoonkim1985]

Now this is a rather technical point. If you read something about brief history of GB (Government and Binding), you will get to know. To tell you a little is that there are two interfaces in human which are AP (Acoustic Phonetic) interface and CI (Conceptual Intentional) interface, which regulate sound and meaning respectively. language is optimally designed for linking those two interfaces, as Chomsky himself put.

[@jutfrank]

Can anyone explain what he means by "interface conditions"?

[@Mnogojazyk]

Can’t language have multiple functions? Couldn’t language have developed to fulfill one function but then was adapted to fulfill an alternate or additional function?

[@Mnogojazyk]

@@tamas5931, it's just the musings of a failed, heretical, treasonous linguist. All kidding aside, I did study for a doctorate in linguistics, but I didn't get it. I fled when I began seeing multiple causes or perhaps contributing factors to linguistic phenomena, and my mentors didn't like it when I said so.

[@helloitismetomato]

To be honest, I don't get the biologist's argument... although I'm not a biologist of course. But why should anything be "for" anything? Not just language but the skeletal structure, the wing of a bird, the eyes of an insect...all of it just randomly mutated and it happened to survive because it just happened to increase its fitness (or it happened to be indifferent to fitness but spread in the gene pool anyway). Unless you're talking about a divine creator, it's all random mutations even if by now they are extremely sophisticated and give an organism specific and developed skills. You can ask "what does the organism do with it" though, of course, but that's a different question than "what is it for". I think that's just anthropomorphizing a process in nature just because it happens to involve living creatures.

[@BolasDaGrk]

Chomsky was always very brilliant and unbias. There is no actual function (purpose) to anything in evolution, including language. We find uses/reasons after the mechanism is in place over a long and excruciating evolutionary process.

[@kamleshrabari6885]

There is no word to describe Professor Chomsky good video

[@Floxflow]

Excellent 👌

[@wesleymorton7878]

understood some of this...what does he mean by "interfaces"?

[@10xSRK]

An interface, as I understand it (and please someone correct me if I'm wrong), it's a device which sits in between two other parts in order to facilitate some processing/action. So for example, a steering wheel is an interface between the driver and the cars steering mechanisms. So language itself is an interface between some part of the language part of your brain and some other cognitive faculties in your brain. I mean, I might be way off. But I think this is why he is refuting the notion that language is specifically used for communication (as the biologist posited), because "close to 100% of language use is internal". Though some part of language is used for communication, the actual grammar of human languages are not designed very well for communicating accurately and instead are adapted for brevity so as aid in processing what you hear from another person. I think through that point he's trying to say that language itself is much bigger than the idea of just communication. I guess in summation, although you use the steering wheel to drive your car, the act of turning a car is much more complex and there are perhaps tons of different aspects to it that could be changed through a different interface, but that essentially the steering wheel isn't precisely the reason your car turns? I dunno, somebody please chime in because this was hard for me to understand, too. Google hasn't really turned anything up quickly :)

[@wesleymorton7878]

@@10xSRK fantastic, thanks for taking the time. I follow what you write, I think, lol. Trippy to think that language isn't primarily for interpersonal/social/productive communication but rather for navigating internal parts of our cognitive process. What a plague the phenomenon of inner discourse, seems more like a bug than a feature of human experience at times...

[@10xSRK]

Haha, I wish I could have explained what I thought more susinctly, I'm afraid I don't follow it one hundred percent myself. I would definitely say that certain aspects of our social organization are buggy. But being able to communicate with people like yourself often makes it feel like it's all worth it.

[@DinoDudeDillon]

Damn I was on the biologist's side until Chomsky made that point at the end

[@logiclane9550]

Language Grammar, like a bird's wings, exists all at once or not at all. Their respective irreducible complexity implies design and final-causality, even if developed over time.

[@Prof.Dr.VirenkumarPandya]

Noam Chomsky's informative interview about language -Dr Virenkumar Pandya BDK ARTS AND COMMERCE COLLEGE GADHADA

[@TJtheDJonWMCN]

is there a video re what they mean by linking interfaces?

[@knowledgeckr786]

Highly respected sir, when a person thinks, is he labelled as communicating ? Because to communicate we need other entity and could anyone tell me who is the other entity in solid science or confused spiritual or religious sense and it's solid objectively verifiable mechanism ? regards

[@michaelsutter8207]

What does he mean by linking interfaces? Can anyone explain it?

[@robertpirsig5011]

My guess was that he was suggesting that language was used for internal thinking processing. For example you may be trying to remember something(from the night before) and your internal dialogue acts like a navigator of the mind. This organises the complexity of the brain for information to be retrieved. I could be completely wrong on that.

[@jjdemaio]

Yeah, I'm fairly sure he's talking about cognitive interfaces.

[@Hektusborne]

Metacognition, the thoughts in your head, is fundamentally associative. Your thoughts are an endless chain of associations (frequently loose), either associating your current thought with the previous thought, or with what you just experienced in your environment. Imagine having this associative system of thoughts without language. Would it still be functional? Sure. An animal could smell something familiar which is associated with a food source but not coming from something that it doesn't typically identify as food. By experiencing this familiar smell and then thinking about food via association, a new food source may be discovered. This is possible without language, and it is also the foundation of logic. Although this system works without language, it can be made to be much more flexible and capable with language. Language can serve as a bridge to associate things which otherwise it would not be possible to associate with only environmental stimuli. There is nothing about an oak tree and a cat that is similar by any of our senses. They don't look the same, they don't make the same noises, they don't have similar smells, they don't move the same or taste the same. A system of association which can only use environmental stimuli could never associate the experiences of an oak tree and a cat together (unless cats are always hanging out in oak trees.. but you get the point). However, with the use of language we know that an oak tree and a cat do have something in common, they are both alive. This word "alive" links an oak tree and a cat together in a way that, without language, is not possible. If you think about it, you can find all sorts of associations between things in our environment which are only possible with language. In this sense, language super-charges our ability to leverage our metacognitive system of association to link and categorize things in our environment. And since association is the foundation of logic, language super-charges that as well.

[@libinandrews]

@@Hektusborne well said!

[@syourke3]

When I talk to myself, am I communicating thoughts and feelings to myself? Or am I just thinking silently?

[@nblumer]

This has been a standard argument among biologists that were are merely communicating with ourselves but do we really have that duality of 'self'? I mean we use the term "talking to ourselves" just as an expression but do we really have two selves?

[@syourke3]

@@nblumer That’s a very interesting question. What exactly is the “self”? A subject? An object? Or both? Reminds me of Nietzche on the complex nature of the “will”. In every act of will, there is the will that commands and the will that obeys.

[@HkFinn83]

That’s semantically confusing to the point the meaning changes. If you see language as communicating with yourself, ask whether you think animals are using their sophisticated methods of communication to internally ‘communicate’ with themselves

[@adithyaadiga10]

Its a dialogue with different perspectives.

[@wagnerraymondreyesalvarez5570]

He is a very Smart human being

[@zakiafirdaus9358]

Engaging concerns on the function of language

[@mhossain400]

what language does a human think with if they were not taught a language?

[@toseeornot2see]

This man could have gone to Wall Street and become a Billionaire...No joke. But he chooses to help people.

[@amitpatel2886]

The Function of Language विषय पर इस वीडियो में तर्कसंगत बातें जानने को मिली । धन्यवाद ।। 4. Dr. Amitbhai N Patel, Assistant Professor, GLS (Sadguna & B.D.) College For Girls, Ahmedabad.

[@mhossain400]

If language is to think with, then does it man animals can also think complexly, but just doesn't have the ability to sound it out?

[@psicologiajoseh]

What does it mean “linking the interfaces”?

[@brotigayen6858]

Interactive session. Arguments will always be there.

[@hrmIwonder]

What is Chomsky referring to when he says "linking interfaces"?

[@Panta8472]

The senses I think. Vision experience to auditory to tactile to taste, these are all interfaces that are engaged when you step into a room and look around for example. Language is able to take all that, link it together, and produce a thought

[@robertpirsig5011]

@@Panta8472 I don't think it's the interfaces your referring to. I think the interfaces may be more specific to memory retrieval.

[@jjdemaio]

Cognitive interfaces, he's talking about thought

[@pacman8500]

So we have language for our own internal purposes but just so happen to also be able to use it to verbalize to others.

[@Expatsunleashed]

That biologist is thinking what fucking species is Noam Chomsky? He must be an alien to be this intelligent.

[@قتقبتقتقيت]

all the respect to the founder of modern linguistics it related to what we want frome this language and what we want, like purpose frome this language's.

[@toms3142]

Noam chomsky epicly dunks on foolish pleb

[@cameron8483]

The purpose of language is unification as well as differentiation with self, other, and environment!

[@paperbloom763]

What does hi mean by" linking interfaces " ?

[@ahmadsalama6447]

What does he mean by "linking the interfaces"?

[@CAKESLAPPA]

That sigh at 0:38 seems very passive aggressive.

[@mathijs1987j]

Strange that so many of the comments view this as some cruel put down. It seemed like a very productive exchange to me, and well within the bounds of academic decorum.

[@gdemm01]

What is that name of the biologist speaking to Chomsky.

[@samuel-i-amuel4457]

What about people who can't hear or speak ? Don't they think?

[@dmblum1]

Chomsky seems determined to prove his point that language isn't communicative by not being clear.

[@arielharuhi]

Yo he sets a high bar even for the concept of communication!

[@Hacktheplanet_]

What a lad

[@karunaahire7402]

Nice information

[@archana_gamit]

characteristics use for languages for thought not for communication..

[@shivangkumarbhavsar3095]

Good question answer

[@goldrushpro]

If I think about it, letting someone else in on my thoughts is counterproductive - see what I mean...

[@N0rmad]

Anyone know the source of where he's getting that "nearly 100% of language is internal" point that he keeps repeating?

[@N0rmad]

@Hardware Software "It's obvious to everyone" is not how you do science. It was "obvious to everyone" before Chomsky that you learned language just by repeating what you heard and he showed that it was much more complex than that. I'd expect more rigor out of Chomsky if he is going to make the bold claim that "language is for communication" is a dogma.

[@safyan9442]

biologist vs PROFESSOR

[@karunaahire7402]

Dr. Karuna D. Ahire

[@قتقبتقتقيت]

Frist, the function of language it just related with what we want the human kind frome this language's this how we know the function .all the respect to the founder of the linguistic moderne.

[@amund1968etc]

How much of what Chomsky tells (if that is the right word) this apparently completely uninformed biologist can be characterized as communication in the sense of conveying information, and how much is about establishing a social relationship with him because people just have to talk when they are close to each other? And just imagine the amount of language going on inside Chomsky's skull if what he says or utters or externalizes is only a tiny fraction of his language use during this session. Wow.