Life In 19x19

Well, we have certainly illustrated our languages ability to explore profound questions in a manner akin to some 9 dans exploring deep strategy... Or have we simply muddled each other's meanings so much that we have no idea what the actual debate is any more?

In college i discovered two things, linguistics and go, and one became my major and the other my occasional favorite hobby, so i do find the question interesting.

It seems that there are many ways in which they are similar (go and "a language"), but analogies alone don't answer the question, because a set of attributes does not define what something is. A language is defined as "a system of complex communication." Go, as a strategy game, is defined as a strucutured playing, a game. Key components of games are goals, rules, challenge, and interaction.

Obviously, goals, rules, and interaction are the major simliarities between go and "a language." All three are essential to both.

The major differences, as i see it, are that challenge is not intrinsic to a normal language, and also that a game is defined as playing, which has at its core a sort of voluntary nature that is different from a language. Essentially what i am trying to say is that our traditional definition of a language, or, that which we traditionally refer to as a language (a dialect with an army) is something that is far more capable and complex than the game of go. Don't get me wrong, go is as complex as you could ever hope for a game, and one that i will never come close to understanding the majority of, but it is not as useful for as many things as a "language."

Before i go on all night, i will prematurely wrap it up by saying that, all evidence considered, go seems more like a jargon (a specialized subset of language for a specific use) than a language. but no disrespect is meant.

Also, to weigh in on some earlier debates, i am a language teacher and learner, and to say that a native speaker is not an expert on her own language is misguided. The average native speaker of any language will achieve, in a short while, the sort of mastery of the spoken language that would be the envy of any second language learner. and, since language is user driven, native speakers are by definition experts.

brodie wrote:Before i go on all night, i will prematurely wrap it up by saying that, all evidence considered, go seems more like a jargon (a specialized subset of language for a specific use) than a language. but no disrespect is meant.

Interesting concept. I don't know what a jargon is from a linguistic point of view, apart from the colloquial sense, something like your short description. Does becoming fluent in a jargon have a prerequisite of mastering a native language first? Or is it something second language learners will learn more easily that a language in the normal sense?

Also, in this jargon analogy, is Go a subset of something else?

It is not, strictly speaking, necessary to know the language that a jargon comes from, and a jargon could incorporate input from more than one language. I remember working in an Indian restaurant where the languages spoken were English, Hindi, Telegu, Punjab, and Spanish, but, incorporating words from many of those, we were able to communicate. However, the limited nature of what we could talk about prevented it from reaching pidgin status. I've also wondered if it made us fight more or less...

Anywho, the two defining characteristics, as I remember them, are that a jargon is limited in capability and at least partially unintelligible to the uninitiated. It seems like an appropriate metaphor.

Of course, my position is based on the definition of a language as what we normally think of it, the primary means of communication for an individual to others from their same background. In reality the term "language" is applied to many smaller subsets of communication, e.g. computer languages, so, this is one of many debates that hinges on the semantics of the word in question.

gowan wrote: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.

Before you can make anything automatic, you have to think about it consciously and practice it consciously.

There is a difference between practice and performance. In practice, you must think; in performance, you must do. What you can do in performance will be decided by how well you have practiced.

If I play a game of go while consciously attempting to apply a principle, it is practice.

A big difference between go and language is that when having a conversation, you don't have time to think about the language you use. That's why it can be so boring talking to non-native speakers - they keep correcting themselves and taking forever to say precisely what you already know they want to say. Playing music is the same - you wouldn't want to listen to Yngwie Malmsteen if he showed up at a gig and kept repeating a lick if he happened to fluff it on the first pass. You have to do the deliberate practice before the performance!

In go, we do have time to think. If you are playing a blitz game, then your level could well be lower because you don't have the time to recall the fundamentals if you haven't internalised them sufficiently. Slow games can be practice, fast games performance. Since I don't perform very well, I intend to practice more.

Tami, that's an interesting point. I have been playing almost exclusively on DGS recently, and then finally found someone here in Taiwan to play against in person, and ended up losing a close game even though I was "better" than him because I wasn't used to the speed of the game. I'm used to having as much time as I like to ponder every aspect of a move, which would be terribly slow in a live game. I made a resolution to play more on KGS just to get used to playing fast and avoiding bad mistakes more instinctively than intentionally.
The parallels between correspondence and impromptu interaction in go and a second language seem pretty apparent. When preoccupied I still sometimes say "I'm sorry" when somebody thanks me here...