

              *** PRESS ANY KEY TO SEE THE NEXT SCREEN ***

         If you wish to print this article or view it in its
         entirety, please load it into your word processor
                          as SPRAY.TXT.

                   *********************************
                   *    For an overview of these   *
                   *  articles, please first read  * 
                   *     the file ARTICLE0.SEE     *
                   *********************************

            HOW SERIOUSLY SHOULD THE COMPARISON BETWEEN LANGUAGE AND 
                            ANIMAL SPRAY BE TAKEN?

        A few admirers of "Truth About Translation, Version 1.00" 
        have asked me how seriously the idea of "language as spray," 
        as presented in the segment "Spray It Again, Sam," is meant 
        to be taken.  I'm attempting to answer this question in two 
        ways in what follows, first as an informal and only slightly 
        edited reply to someone who asked me this question on the Net, 
        and second as a more formal definition of 'Language' 
        incorporating this idea.  Here comes the more informal 
        reply:

        Good question.  Am i entirely serious about the spray idea?  
        Amswer:  yes and no.  Of course we all want and need to 
        believe that the words and ideas-rooted-in-words that we 
        cherish have some value beyond being mere "animal spray."  
        And i'm no exception.  On the other hand, everything we call 
        language could indeed end up looking like not much more than 
        animal spray to some extra-terrestrial or otherwise 
        relatively objective observer able to see humankind and 
        human-not-so-kind more in the round than we do.  Seen from 
        this perspective, i really wonder if language might not 
        appear to be some kind of frothy, humid extrusion we carry 
        around with us and refer to inside out heads and/or project 
        onto the outside world as extended territorial markings, all 
        of which we suppose to be the true shape of both internal 
        and external reality.  And that's just the spoken form of 
        language--the written form may be even more insubstantial.  

        Since you are a linguist, you know that all languages try to 
        describe the real world, but that they also end up 
        describing it more or less differently in a remarkable 
        number of cases.  And since every human being is an 
        individual, we all end up throwing in our own smaller 
        differences into the mix our culture hands us.  A number of 
        philosophical and linguistic "realists" (the Chomskians are 
        only the latest among them) have wanted to believe that 
        there is an underlying "reality" beyond all these different 
        descriptions.  Here again, i think i'd say "yes and no."  
        And i don't think that's really hedging on the issue--it 
        might just qualify as confronting it squarely.

        In other words, let's just play with the idea--without 
        NECESSARILY taking it seriously--that our languages (and 
        perhaps even our understanding) might simply be a damp and
        dubious outer coating, an actual biological, evolution- 
        determined extension of ourselves that we carry around with 
        us, even though it has no physical form or shape, something 
        that we can neither see nor see beyond.  The proof that it 
        exists is simply all the ways we act and interact every day, 
        all the ways we understand and misunderstand each other, all 
        those mistakes or shortcomings in translation between two 
        languages or merely understanding a single one we commit 
        without ever being aware of them.  i wonder if this 
        comparison to animal spray is really much more far-fetched 
        or counter-intuitive or totally crazier than some of the 
        cosmological and molecular theories going the rounds with 
        their supposed galactic soap bubbles and vast clouds of 
        virtual particles perpetually switching on and off in the 
        middle of vast intergalactic vacuums.   

        i also find it quite revealing that this idea of language 
        being related to animal spray or 'scent markings" should 
        seem to have such a high shock value, at least for some 
        people.  Biologists have never hesitated to call scent 
        markings a form of communication, so the only issue that 
        seems to be shocking some people is that these scent 
        markings have here been directly compared to human 
        language and found anlogous if not identical.  The usual 
        approach to describing human language is usually much more 
        sanctimonious and self-congratulatory.  The ultimate proof 
        that we humans must be superior to all other animals, we are 
        often told, is that we alone have invented language.  
        "Language"--invariably with a capital L--is far beyond the 
        capability of all other species, who can therefore only be 
        inferior to us.  Language separates us from the beasts!  But 
        if true, why are we so defensive--and so arrogant--about 
        this supposed mark of superiority?

        Certainly language is far more complex than any system of 
        animal signals so far studied, even though this could simply 
        be due to the fact that we are interested in all sorts of 
        matters that animals find relatively unimportant.  But the 
        resistance by some to the notion that language and animal 
        spray could be linked may tell us more about ourselves than 
        we care to admit.  

        The anger provoked by this notion, seemingly so counter-
        intuitive for so many observers, may come close to 
        recalling the first reactions to Darwin's theory that man 
        and ape might share a common ancestor.  Or Galileo's support 
        of Copernicus that the earth might be round.  Or Einstein's 
        insistance that light could actually be in motion through 
        space at a specific and measurable rate.  Whatever the final 
        truth about human language and animal spray may finally 
        prove to be, perhaps no theory capable of irritating so 
        many people can be entirely mistaken.

        In the mean time, here is the more formal reply to this 
        question.  It takes the form of a definition of "Language," 
        as seen through the defining lens of this theory:

        "Language.  Any of the numerous complex systems of 
        exudations or spray-sound markings emitted by human beings 
        and projected onto objects, other human beings, abstract 
        processes, and seemingly repeatable occurrences.  Frequently
        used as defensive barriers against reality, these networks 
        of exudations purport to define, describe, explain, 
        and classify relationships, artefacts, and value systems 
        created by the human beings who produce the exudations.  
        More or less similar systems of humid markings are shared by 
        various groups of humans, these groups sometimes being known 
        as families, tribes, nations, or cultures, and are commonly 
        called "languages."  Such systems vary to a greater or 
        lesser extent among these groups, and a process of 
        integration or disintegration in these systems can be 
        readily identified throughout history and in human society 
        today.  On a biological and evolutionary scale, these 
        systems may have evolved over time from analogous systems of 
        scent markings produced by many animals for territorial 
        and/or mating purposes.  The territorial nature of human
        language, along with its similarity to animal markings, is 
        evident in warfare, negotiations for contracts, and much
        academic feuding.

        Specific systems of these markings as well as individual 
        spray-sounds purporting to identify perceived objective 
        realities or perceived relationships vary greatly among 
        groups of humans.  Over the centuries various attempts have 
        been made to establish a unifying principle linking these 
        systems, such as a "universal grammar" or a "conceptual 
        glossary," but no such attempt has as yet proved entirely 
        successful.  Qualified mediators between two systems, known 
        as "translators" or "interpreters," have often enjoyed some 
        success in converting between specific pairs of these 
        systems, depending on the complexity of the material at hand 
        and the skill or ingenuity of the individual translator or 
        interpreter.

        This idea is discussed further in Section 3 of the program
        itself and also in ARTICLE1.

                        Copyright (C) 1997 by Alexander Gross
























