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)