First, words aren’t really related to sound. You and I are using words without sound, are we not? Language is an encoding. One of the things it encodes is shape. And even if you wanted to describe a chair without using the word “chair” you could do so using a series of precise measurements. It doesn’t matter that people wouldn’t use exactly the same words to describe it. In the end, everyone would understand each other.
No, but they are related to a naturally occurring medium of language, of which there are only two notable ones: the human voice, and signing. Written languages are simply codified representations of these forms of natural language. (Note: Sign languages are distinct unrelated languages from the local spoken languages with their own grammar and everything, not just signed representations of them.)
By using written language, you are merely encoding a representation of a spoken phrase into a graphical representation. This is what truly makes writing separate from other commonplace but more abstract symbols, such as arrows, crosses, checkmarks, bathroom/restaurant/exit indicators, warning signs, etc, which convey an idea quite effectively but do not have a clear reliable decoding into natural language (i.e. if you ask 100 people to explain what they indicate, you won't be given the exact same sentence 100 times).
> By using written language, you are merely encoding a representation of a spoken phrase into a graphical representation.
I would argue the opposite. Language is an encoding of ideas. By speaking, we are merely using an auditory representation of a word and when we write we use a graphical representation of a word, but the word is entirely separate from both audible and graphical representation. And indeed, we see that we can create other representations of a word. We can create a mathematical representation, like in the case of LLMs, and use words in a way that is entirely separate from sound and visuals. As a species, we used sound to invent words, but the invention isn’t tied to sound in any way. If we, as a species, evolved further and lost our vocal cords and ears, we could still use words. We could also continue to use words if we lost our sight as well. Truly words are separate from our senses.
That’s not how language works, people still use sounds and gesticulations not just words. If we lost the ability to speak we might abandon words entirely for something else.
Buzz, growl, etc are obvious example where sound directly influenced what the word was and how it’s written. But the ability for kids to form specific sounds also influenced words like mom. The same is true of world complexity, natural languages always have some imperatives like stop and go that are short and simple rather than long complex utterances like sesquipedalian.
Further, comparisons between languages suggest that words evolved from sounds. “No” for example sounds similar in a shocking number of languages from Afro-Eurasia and the America’s despite very long term separation.
We might abandon words for something else, but we wouldn’t need to abandon words because they could continue to work without sounds. That’s because words are a totally distinct concept from sounds.
It’s super ironic to talk about how sounds and gestures are a part of language while using purely written communication to talk. We will never hear each other. You will never see my gestures. And yet…
It’s possible to communicate in words alone just as it’s possible to communicate non verbally, but misunderstanding increases. The written word is a poor subset of language not a 1:1 mapping of tone and cadence.
As to abandoning words, we might abandon them for something better. When people use a whiteboard they tend to draw a great deal rather than simply writing words down. If we eventually move to say brain machine interfaces we could be sending more nuanced thoughts than words allow. Subtle degrees of emotion and perception that the written word simply can’t convey. The old a picture is worth a 1,000 words but taken even further to the point where the use of words atrophy and eventually disappear.
Except you couldn’t come up with those measurements just by looking at a chair, and someone listing to your series of precise measurements is unlikely to understand what the object actually looks like. So it failed the basic goal of communicating the shape of something you’re looking at. Where the suggestion is whales might utilize similar bits of their brain that decode echolocation sounds into 3D images to similarly decode spoken sounds into 3D images.
Beyond that there’s a complex predefined encoding between human words and sounds and sounds back to words. There isn’t for your “series of precise measurements” so a dozen young English speakers at the same high school might all come up with wildly different schemes.
A subtle example of this is how is error correction mechanisms are automatically used. You can understand someone talking though some surprisingly serious distortions and missing content. Even written languages include quite a bit of redundancy. Remove every forth letter from a sentence and it’s generally surprisingly understandable. “I lo_e to _alk _y do_ in t_e mo_nin_.”
So your ad hock scheme could work if everything was perfect and someone write it all down, and then say turned those measurements into a sketch, but it’s all quite useless day to day. Thus people default to using general classifications and pointing at stuff.
A few words are related to sound: in English, "meow" sort of sounds like the sound cats make (although my cat is much more nuanced, he wants you to know!). "Woof" sort of sounds like some dogs' bark, "cock-a-doodle-do" has the same stress pattern as some roosters, and so forth.
Some languages tend to have more onomatopoeic sounds than English, and signs in sign language (especially "young" sign languages, meaning sign languages that have been codified recently) are probably even more onomatopoeic.
But in general, your point is true: the vast majority of words do not sound like the thing they represent. "Knock" (as in a knock on the door) doesn't sound anything like a knock.
If I said "blue chair" then wouldn't it likely activate the visual cortex in most humans as they relate it back to an image stored in their brain from past experience?
I am not. Not everyone subvocalizes, and for some people, like myself, an inner monologue narrating what you read is voluntary. I might choose to have the latter if I'm reading a book for enjoyment, but if I'm just reading comments online, I would prefer not to limit my reading speed by doing things like that.
That's how hearing people learn to read. But even then it does not follow that they continue to sound words out or play back the audio in their head after they become proficient. In fact, one of the hallmarks of a proficient reader vs a beginner is that the former no longer needs to sound words out. They can just look at a word and recognize it more or less immediately.
It's definitely not "generally", it's not even a supermajority.
> Some estimates suggest that as much as 50% or more of the population subvocalizes when reading, especially during their early years of reading development. However, with practice and improved reading skills, many individuals can reduce the extent of subvocalization and increase their reading speed.
To chime in, I don't, but yes, it's my understanding that for many people the "voice in their head" instead metaphorical at all.
I was always under the impression that the internal narration used in visual media (e.g. the Dexter opening sequence comes to mind [1]) was taking a dramatic license, but it's apparently some people's lived experience.
