Is Go like a language?

[karaklis]

Go is like a game tree.

A game tree is a very inefficient representation of the game of go. It is rather a complex network where some relatively small game trees occur (e.g. in L&D situations). As regards language, it is also a network whose objects are words, expressions, phrases, texts. Grammar is a means to connect these objects within the network. The network in go is more complex. Its objects consist of moves, strings, (common) patterns, ko, special volatile objects like ladders, life and death situations. The means to connect these objects may be a network again that consists partly of a tree. This thought is still embryonic though, it needs more reflection.

[daal]

I can put a stone on the board and...

...propose a trade.
...declare my intention to take influence instead of territory.
...ask my opponent to choose a direction.
...show, in a review, why a certain move won't work.

None of these need words. I understand, my opponent or student understands. We communicate.

But you must admit, the subject matter is rather limited.

[RobertJasiek]

None of these need words.

But you think in terms of words when doing such things on the board.

[RobertJasiek]

A game tree is a very inefficient representation of the game of go.

And therefore we use the go theory language you outline.

[quantumf]

the difference between 10k and 9d is probably smaller than the difference between 25k and 20k. To those of us heavily involved in the game this doesn't seem true, and we're prone to say that there is more difference between the ranks as you move up (because it requires more time and effort to move), but to the outside world all moderately proficient go players probably seem equally fanatical.

Really interesting point. I'd never thought of it that way, but you're probably right.

*Some native speakers seem really proficient... so long as you let them talk about their favorite topics. As soon as you push them into a new topic, the stammering, the circular conversations, and the non sequiturs start.
*Some native speakers seem really proficient... so long as they're speaking, and can immediately correct any misunderstandings that they've caused. In writing, they're incomprehensible.
*Some native speakers seems really proficient... so long as you have no idea what they're talking about. If you understand the subject matter, it's easy to see that they're just randomly pulling at cliches that sound impressive.

And so on. All this without either invoking the glories of Shakespeare, or starting a fight about grammar. I think each of these has fairly clear parallels in Go... the first example is like people who memorize a few joseki but flounder outside of them, the second example is like people who are great at life and death if they can play out a few variations on the board but can never get it right in a game, and the third example is like people who make ambitious overplays without necessarily having the reading to back it up.

Hmm. I find your analogy clever and amusing but I don't really buy it. I accept that the difference between experts and average speakers is considerable, but your examples are pointing out that some people struggle with the written word, or are prone to bullshit. None of this detracts from our incredible ability to go from a starting point of a 20,000 word list, and a set of grammatical rules for constructing sequences out of those words, and to learn to do so, as very young children, in a fantastically effective way with no teaching apart from immersion (and the occasional correction along the way, where the correction is usually of the exception, "no not MAKED, its MADE"). Perhaps its my computer background, and my knowledge of how incredibly far we are from programming a computer to do this, but when I look at the facts I can't help but be stunned by this astounding achievement that we all master so easily.

Anyway, does this aspect matter? Perhaps some are more impressed than others by this ability, but what about Go? Is it like a language? And is the practical way we learn a language (immersion) the best way to master Go?

[tj86430]

If you use "language" in a broader sense that also includes low level languages. Like a Turing machine's "talk" when it writes a 0 or a 1 to the storage tape. When you exercise go, then it uses intersections instead of storage addresses (cells) and colours instead of digits.

That is not what I mean, at all.

I can put a stone on the board and...

...propose a trade.
...declare my intention to take influence instead of territory.
...ask my opponent to choose a direction.
...show, in a review, why a certain move won't work.

None of these need words. I understand, my opponent or student understands. We communicate.

How do you tell that you want meatballs for dinner the day after tomorrow?

[jts]

Hmm. I find your analogy clever and amusing but I don't really buy it. I accept that the difference between experts and average speakers is considerable, but your examples are pointing out that some people struggle with the written word, or are prone to bullshit. None of this detracts from our incredible ability to go from a starting point of a 20,000 word list, and a set of grammatical rules for constructing sequences out of those words, and to learn to do so, as very young children, in a fantastically effective way with no teaching apart from immersion (and the occasional correction along the way, where the correction is usually of the exception, "no not MAKED, its MADE"). Perhaps its my computer background, and my knowledge of how incredibly far we are from programming a computer to do this, but when I look at the facts I can't help but be stunned by this astounding achievement that we all master so easily.

Anyway, does this aspect matter? Perhaps some are more impressed than others by this ability, but what about Go? Is it like a language? And is the practical way we learn a language (immersion) the best way to master Go?

I think that the aspects of language that fascinate linguists and computer scientists (those aspects which make people who have taken one or two course in linguistics a bit twee re: the value of non-standard dialects) are, in my analogy, that huge gap between 25k and 20k. Past that gap, there are millions of people who can decline and conjugate stunning numbers of words, but whose language abilities nonetheless give them difficulties.

Struggling with the written word is definitely a subset of struggling with language. In fact, when people refer to "language arts," they generally mean "reading and writing". A strict distinction might make sense in a pre-literate society (where, if there was literacy at all, it was generally in a sacral language), but not today.

Likewise, I agree that we want to distinguish between linguistic proficiency and expert knowledge, but certainly people with larger vocabularies are better able to converse about topics in which they have not been trained as experts; that's a function of linguistic expertise, not topical expertise. The same goes for how people put words together; if you have a firmer grasp of the rules of your language, you'll be able to parse and to produce more complex phrases, and that will make it easier to talk about topics with which you're not familiar. Topical expertise will give you both jargon vocabulary and jargon locutions, but outside of the realm of topic expertise there is still a huge practical difference between discussions with language proficient non-experts and language deficient non-experts.

As far as bullshit goes, there are certain ways of talking and conversational gambits that seem solid to people with weak language skills, but painful to people with stronger language skills. The classic example is Orwell's "the fascist octopus has sung its swan song." If you are just barely proficient in English, you get the sense of what was being said, mark bonus points for using figures of speech instead of a direct locution, and call it a day. If, however, you have the ability to focus on what you read/hear, you immediately notice that an octopus can't sing. Bullshitting isn't really about lying - it's about weak language skills prompting the substitution of meaningless patter for meaningful communication.

[quantumf]

I think that the aspects of language that fascinate linguists and computer scientists (those aspects which make people who have taken one or two course in linguistics a bit twee re: the value of non-standard dialects) are, in my analogy, that huge gap between 25k and 20k. Past that gap, there are millions of people who can decline and conjugate stunning numbers of words, but whose language abilities nonetheless give them difficulties.

Your analogy is not plausible to me, if only because of the difficultly. Mastering a language is clearly extremely hard, usually adults cannot master a language that they only learn as adults, no matter how many years they plod at it, while moving from 25k to 20k can be done in a couple of days by a keen student.

Furthermore, I don't believe people as a rule communicate by throwing together randomish combinations of words in grammatically correct sentences. They communicate to the best of their ability, and as far as I can tell, their abilities are limited by their vocabulary, not their ability to parse or construct complex sentences and stories.

I don't think I know any illiterate people, so its hard for me to say whether or not limited writing and reading skills equate to poor verbal skills. If there is a correlation, it may well be that people who don't learn to read/write also learnt to speak in a circle of people with limited vocabularities and generally poor verbal skills.

Your further points about linguistic vs topical expertise, or about people talking about singing octopuses also seem to be describing groups of people that I just don't recognize. Particularly the latter - you seem to be describing a group of people who substitute plausiblish nonsense to compensate for poor language skills...this sounds very bizarre. Perhaps I am sheltered. Who are these people?

[jts]

Furthermore, I don't believe people as a rule communicate by throwing together randomish combinations of words in grammatically correct sentences. They communicate to the best of their ability, and as far as I can tell, their abilities are limited by their vocabulary, not their ability to parse or construct complex sentences and stories.

Mmm. If you want to say that vocabulary is a harsher limit I think I can agree. But have you never seen someone fail to understand a complex sentence or set of sentence, composed of simple words, and ask to have it repeated? Have you never been in a situation where something has gone wrong because someone misunderstood a complex sentence without realizing it?

I almost feel like we live in different universes, given how skeptical you are about this. If nothing else, the fact that infrequently invoked grammatical rules are often the targets for linguistic drift suggests that native speakers don't have a particularly firm grasp on them to begin with.

If there is a correlation, it may well be that people who don't learn to read/write also learnt to speak in a circle of people with limited vocabularities and generally poor verbal skills.

You seem to misunderstand. You ruled out writing skills as an aspect of language skills. I'm not claiming writing practice causes strong verbal skills; I agree, any correlation is likely to run both ways. But you can't simply stipulate that writing is not part of language, simply because you're interested in a different part of it.

Your further points about linguistic vs topical expertise, or about people talking about singing octopuses also seem to be describing groups of people that I just don't recognize. Particularly the latter - you seem to be describing a group of people who substitute plausiblish nonsense to compensate for poor language skills...this sounds very bizarre. Perhaps I am sheltered. Who are these people?

I said that there are people who can perform cute linguistic tricks in their native tongue, but can't communicate well. You replied that actually, the only reason why someone wouldn't be able to communicate well is if they lacked topical expertise. I tried to respond to what I thought were your concerns, given the specifics that you brought up, ... have you really never met a person you had trouble understanding or following because they had weak verbal skills? I'm not going to give you names and telephone numbers, but I promise you, such people exist, at least within the English language.

[hyperpape]

You seem to misunderstand. You ruled out writing skills as an aspect of language skills. I'm not claiming writing practice causes strong verbal skills; I agree, any correlation is likely to run both ways. But you can't simply stipulate that writing is not part of language, simply because you're interested in a different part of it.

Yes, but imagine language without speech (including signing) vs. language without writing.

[ez4u]

...

Are there distillable rules and facts that will take us to the top? Absolutely not! Why not? Because the top is determined by competition among the players. The distillable facts are readily available to everyone with the price of a book. Inevitably then, they will not distinguish the top from the average.

So you can reach the top simply by killing all other players?...

If you really find anything odd about this idea, I can recommend any number of good history books. Sadly you can pick pretty much any culture and era that you like.

[jts]

You seem to misunderstand. You ruled out writing skills as an aspect of language skills. I'm not claiming writing practice causes strong verbal skills; I agree, any correlation is likely to run both ways. But you can't simply stipulate that writing is not part of language, simply because you're interested in a different part of it.

Yes, but imagine language without speech (including signing) vs. language without writing.

Imagine go without eyes versus go without counting. So?

You seem to be mistaking simpleminded literalness for linguistic proficiency...

Being able to convey multiple ideas with a single phrase is a sign of linguistic proficiency. (Thus "the fascist octopus" instead of "the fascist powers".) Being able to extract multiple ideas from a single phrase is a sign of linguistic proficiency. Those who mimic the former ability because they think that's how clever people talk, despite lacking the latter ability themselves, weaken rather than strengthen their ability to communicate. Probably not work arguing over, though. The point of the thread is to argue over whether Go is like a language; the sub-question is whether there are various grades of proficiency, from Shakespeare to beginner; the sub-sub-question is whether florid language is something that shows up in the kyu grades.

[hyperpape]

Yes, but imagine language without speech (including signing) vs. language without writing.

Imagine go without eyes versus go without counting. So?

I wouldn't want to live that way, but people got along without writing for a long time. Was go ever played without eyes or counting? Probably not.

Speech is the core phenomenon, writing is an important extension.

[gowan]

I like the analogy between learning go and learning to speak a language. Almost no one becomes fluent in conversing in a foreign language by studying grammar. Children become fluent in their native languages by listening, trying to speak, and being corrected by more fluent speakers. Even adults can learn this way if immersed in a foreign culture. The interesting thing is that is also how we can become good go players. Once we have learned the rules we need only play and get comments from stronger players to improve. To be fluent in a language you have to internalize it, you can't speak fluently if you have to activate grammar rules consciously. Likewise I don't think you can become a really strong go player if you have to think consciously about most fundamentals, i.e. run through a list of "guidelines" every time you make a move. Another interesting thing is that it isn't possible to write down a complete grammar of a language like English or any other natural language. Natural language is context sensitive, i.e. involves semantics as well as syntax so can't be defined by formal rules. What constitutes correct speech is constantly evolving, and what is considered correct by one community of speakers may differ from what another community considers correct. There are similar aspects of the game of go, with evolution in what is considered "joseki" and even in what is considered good shape.

[Bill Spight]

The analogy between language and go (or chess or other mind games) is interesting. One major difference is that there are no go specific areas of the brain in the general populace. (But isn't there evidence that pros have created different brain structures for go when they were children?) IIRC, research indicates that chess masters have learned to recognize around 50,000 (or more) patterns, similar to the number of words in an adult's vocabulary.