Languages and their Importance in Culture

 1A. I first started by discussing/laying out the "rules" of part one of the language experiment with my partner. Looking back, I feel I sort of "cheated" myself of the full experience because my partner and I discussed a strategy to communicate where I gave examples of ways to communicate without spoken/written language. Throughout the experiment, I found I had to take multiple steps back to try and express what I wanted to say nonverbally.  My partner also found they had to ask many more clarifying questions just to get to what would have been a simple "point" in our conversation if I were able to speak.

My partner throughout the experiment asked many clarifying questions ("is this what you wanted?" "do you mean...?") along with asking yes or no questions to help steer the conversation in a way that was effective and productive. 

1B. The person who holds more power in this experiment, in my opinion, is the speaker. While it's true the non-speaker is able to initiate "conversation" like the speaker can, I feel the similarities end there. I found that the speaker was generally the one who is able to determine how "effective" the conversation was. While it is true that the non-speaker can do things (through different actions or cues) to try and guide the speaker, I feel that it is mostly up to the speaker to be able to decipher these said cues into guesses as to what the speaker is trying to communicate. I also feel it is the "responsibility" of the speaker to ask clarifying questions to get the participants even further along in the conversation. 

1C. I believe the culture that would have the "advantage" when communicating complex ideas among one another is the culture that is able to speak. The ability to speak a verbal language that everyone in the culture understands opens pathways for nuance that wouldn't be there/would be much harder to reach had the culture lacked said verbal language. For example, it is much easier to clear up misconceptions when you're able to directly tell the other party, "no, this is what I meant" as opposed to having to play what is essentially charades in order for the other party to get a clue (with no guarantee that they will understand) as to what you meant. 

I have difficulty believing that any culture that has a developed system of symbolic language set in place would not feel a sense of superiority over a culture that does not. Say, for example, culture A has a system of symbolic language while culture B does not. I personally feel the spread of knowledge/ideas within culture A would be accelerated due to how much easier it is to express and share these ideas to the point that one can assume culture A would be likely more advanced in theory (whether this is the case in practice varies due to multiple factors- for one, symbolic language is a tool, meaning it's only as effective  as the people using it. Simply put, languages don't guarantee that ideas will be shared/accepted- they only can increase the potential rate/depth at which they are spread). 

An example of individuals that have difficulty communicating with spoken language are those who suffer from mutism due to different conditions (a few being: apraxia, injury/birth defects to structures involved in the production of vocal speech, and anxiety disorders). I'd imagine those suffering from mutism would have the same challenges that I experienced in this challenge (obviously with much greater impact on their life as I am only required to do this for a few minutes of my day, while they must live through it). In some ways, however, I feel they may have advantages I did not. The most obvious advantage being their access to certain things such as text to speech/writing that allow them to communicate and clear up misconceptions that arise (which I found to be the most difficult part of this experiment). 

2A. I was able to last the full fifteen minutes of this experiment. I found the hardest part of this challenge wasn't the lack of communication. Instead, I found the most difficult part of the challenge was maintaining the lack of body language/facial expressions. Throughout the challenge, I had to catch myself to "reset" my social cues/body language/facial expressions so as to remain neutral. If anything, this experiment made me (painfully) aware of how much I rely on body language when I am communicating, as I had to stop multiple times in succession to "reset" my body language. 

2B. My partner reported they didn't have much difficulty when it came to understanding me. They instead reported they experienced difficulty when it came to attempting to respond to me/understand whether I understood them. They also reported that it oftentimes felt like I wasn't invested in the conversation, as if I was bored with it. 

2C. I think this shows the importance of body language in regards to communication. While our body language/facial expressions do not outright say anything in conversation, it would be entirely incorrect to say they don't add to it/they do not matter. There is a lot of non-verbal information that can be gleaned from the way a person reacts to something you say, for example. When our body language doesn't match what we're saying, oftentimes people report they feel uneasy or as if there's a disconnect. All of this goes to show that despite being non-verbal, our tone, body language, and facial expressions still play a central role in our daily communication. 

2D. There are many people who find it difficult to read body language/facial expressions/social cues. One such group of people are those who fall on the autism spectrum (a more specific example being Asperger's syndrome). 

One such example in which there are environmental conditions that promote the avoidance of reading body language is when you're anxious and talking to someone of importance, such as a professor. In this example, anxiety paired with reading body language can actually cause you to overreact and overthink. This can then lead to you "placing" thoughts in your professors head that may not be there ("oh, this professor hates me" "they don't want to listen to my questions because they're all garbage")  leading to extra stress that comes from a "self imposed" misunderstanding. 

3A. I have a feeling that the experiment wouldn't have been anywhere near as difficult had I had the ability to use written language. The main difference I see between vocal and written language (in terms of this experiment) is the amount of time consumed. Written language tends to be more time consuming when compared to the ease of just asking, "did you understand that all?". Written language provides such a massive step up in communication compared to only gestures that I feel it would only provide a massive increase in productivity. 

I should clarify however- I don't believe the experiment would've been completely effortless with written language. Written language also comes with multiple downsides that would eventually lower it's overall productivity. For one, written language takes a lot of time for both parties. One person has to write it all, while the other has to read it all. I feel eventually, one of the parties will become impatient/exhausted (as having to explain everything word for word/reading all of this material in writing would become draining) and details would begin to be lost in translation. I also see a potential issue in the loss of vocal nuance, thus potentially requiring more explanation and therefore more burnout between parties. 

3B. Written language provides multiple advantages to cultures that develop and use it. For one, it allows for the storage of knowledge in books that can be passed down for multiple generations. While it is true that cultures without written languages still have this capability (generally through the use of recordkeepers that commit events to memory) books allow for the transfer of knowledge at a much faster speed when compared to these recordkeepers. After all, a recordkeeper may be able to share the story with a crowd of 50, but can the recordkeeper share at the same rate as mass produced books? 

Not only that, written language also has the benefit of allowing for "delayed" communication. If I wanted to tell my family where I was after leaving the house, I could leave them a note addressed to them explaining where I was, a luxury I wouldn't be able to experience had I not had written language.

Finally (and in my opinion, the most impactful) is the ability written language provides in regards to the discussion of ideas. While it is true I have the ability to discuss my ideas with others verbally, written language gives me the ability to do what I am doing right at this moment. Written language allows me to send my ideas out, and have someone read them on their own time, at their own pace, and reply on their time. I can then read their response, when I want, and act accordingly (agree, disagree, and/or discuss their viewpoints). This luxury wouldn't be available to me if I were to not have access to written language. 

3C. As I have discussed before, I believe written language has had a massive impact in the spread of ideas around the world. For one, written language promotes discussion (see 3B for an explanation) in ways that wouldn't be possible/would be severely limited without it. Additionally, as previously stated, the ability to store knowledge in books not only improves the ability to share it within ones own culture, but also the ability to share it with another culture. This further promotes the spread of knowledge through/among cultures that wouldn't be possible/severely hindered without written language.