I've rec'd several commentaries to my "language" posting.  Since they are
all of the same vein, I thought I would followup to the group.
 
1.  Several people have commented that not all communication falls under
my description of language.  Recall I said language was generative,
grammar driven, and information containing.
 
2.  One person suggested that "body language" was certainly communicative,
and since bee dances were analogous to body language, that the bee dances
are language too.
 
I don't think that body language is a language.  First of all, there is
no grammar (no rules of composition) nore can it denote an infinite set
of expressions.  However this might just meed that I am wrong on
language.  There is, however, a bigger issue.
 
3.  Donald Davidson is a philosopher of language famous mainly for pointing
out that the one thing that separates language from other communication
is that the sender of the linguistic message "means" the content of the
message, while non-linguisitic communication desn't require the sender
to have any intention of sending that message, or any message.
 
Some examples:
The body "language" of poker players is a crucial element of the activity
they engage in, although each participant tries to avoid communicationg
anything at all (or sending deceptive signals).
 
Males of different species go through elaborate displays of behaviour
in attempts to gain sexual access to the females of their species.  Their
behaviour communicates their fitness for mating, even though they don't
intend to communicated their fitness.   For instance, elk roar, and this
roaring requiress significant lung and chest muscle fitness.  Any elk
that can produce a decent display of roaring is likely a healthy
specimin.  The elk communicates his fitness, although that is not likley
the content of the message:  if there is any, is likely "here I am!"
shouted long and loud.
 
Generally, information can be communicated without any
intention on the part of the communicator.  The fitness of the
elk or the quality of the poker hand isn't meant to be
communicated.
 
On the other hand, In linguistic communication, ceterus paribus, the
communicator intends for the communicatee to get the message.  There are,
of course, many examples of communication gone awry, where the message
intended insn't the message rec'd, but that is all obvious failures in a
complicated system; we occasionally misunderstand eachother.
 
Now, if "intentionality" (what philosophers call what something has if it
is intended) is crucial to language, as davidson claims, then it seems
doubtful that bees have a language, since it seems unlikely that their
very small neural systems are capable of "intentions".  Bee dances are
analogous to body language, and neither are languages.  This is the
standard biological view of these matters, by the way.
 
Intentionality is a philosophical complication that I hadn't wanted to
burden bee-l with, as we don't need another round of philosophical
cunundroms.  If you want to take this up further, email me direct, I'll
summarize to the list.
 
 
Phil
 
 --
------------oooooooooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooo-------------
Phil Veldhuis           | If I must be a fool, as all those who reason
Winnipeg. MB, Canada    | or believe any thing certainly are, my follies
[log in to unmask] | shall at least be natural and agreeable.
                                                David Hume (1739)