Language saves time
Most instructions are processes and most processes are captured by verbs. If I were to say to you - "follow my instructions: first, lift up your right leg. Then, push backward with your left so that you hop forward onto your right. After you land on your right foot, lift up your left leg and repeat. While you are doing this, pump your arms up and down. Bend forward slightly..." I am describing a process. I could also demonstrate it to you (which would likely be far more effective). However, our abstract term – run – covers the set of actions much more simply than my sequential instructions or my demonstration. This is one of the great time-saving advantages of language: once we associate a set of actions into a process, we can name the process, and let it stand for the whole sequence.
3 Comments:
But what processes do verbs like "love," "admire," "detest," and the like, describe?
I do not understand your question. What do you mean by asking what these verbs describe?
Take an example we know well. "Honor your mother." This is an instruction to honor. As in the example with running, you could outline the process of honoring. However, once you started, I think you would quickly find that it is neither sequential nor formulaic. It can be detailed, perhaps, but it is highly imprecise and difficult.
This highlights to the flip side of this time-saving nature of langauge. Because we do not detail the steps involved in honoring, it is left up to the interpretation of the listener as to what specific actions he should carry out. The listener, just like the speaker, does not have a clear idea of the steps either, and thus, the honoring is likely not to take place at all.
I don't think "run" is a description of a process any more than "honor" is. Honor, as you note, doesn't really describe any sort of squential or formulaic set of actions. Look at a more extreme example. "Love." This is not a verb that describes any sort of process at all.
"Run," is, I think, relatively the same. When I say "run" I'm talking about a whole action, not it's constituent parts. Just like when I say "arm," I don't mean "arteries and blood and muscles," when I say "run" I don't mean "leg move forward, other leg move back, etc..."
Certainly language saves time, I agree. If we couldn't communicate it would take a while to get shit done. I'm just saying that "move your leg forward, wave your arms, etc..." doesn't mean the same thing as a command to "run."
Post a Comment
<< Home