User:Daniela bianchi 65

Global communication
If we think about a global language as a set of terms commonly understood we are dealing with the wrong part of the problem related with communication. The topic is more ample and differently configured than this. If it’s true and widely accepted that we can communicate in many different ways, we have to admit that there are many other ways to communicate not involving linguistic attitudes. •	Which is the real concept of communication?

•	Is it the talent that some people have to be able to transmit an idea or a concept(even an abstract one) or there’s something more involved in the process?

As Chomsky says in “Categorization and Organization in Linguistics” the difference between language and communication is the same we find in theoretical informatics. Language stands to data as communication stands to information. A telephone guide, for example, it’s useful as we can find all the people owning a phone in alphabetical order. If it were a data base ordered by progressive telephone number or by address it would be almost useless. The package of data would be the same but we couldn’t obtain much information from it. So it’s obvious that information it’s an evolution of the concept of raw data, for example, subsequent to a different ordering of those. In St. Augustine language taxonomy the concept of communication it’s quite similar. It’s possible to find problems communicating even with people speaking the same language, as categorization is different. We can find it even nowadays, for example, if there’s a generation gap involved. This is simply because a different classification produces different results. Even if the same terms are used, a different mining is “fasten” to the same words. The problem is that a common language capable to give a real global communication it’s not just a group of common words translated from a language into another, but mainly the interpretation given to those. In other words: the personal background, which is different for each and every individual, is the kernel of the problem. In different terms we have to deal with the interpretation of words and concepts. This is a much wider problem, which it’s impossible to reduce to a simple fact of knowledge and memorization of the meaning of a more or less wide group of words. A supposed common language is just the minor part of the problem of communicating. The real bridge to be built, to get a true global communication, is the one capable to fill the cultural gap between different individuals.

•	Always keep in mind that “different” does not substantially mean better or worse of what we know.

•	The so called “biodiversity” is the inner energy which led the whole universe to survive, evolve, grow, develop and prosper.

•	Each and every time a language disappears we lose even an element constituting the world culture which will never come back again.

On the other hand we can say that the use of a commonly understood set of words may lend a hand to commerce and trading, making easier the interchange of people from different countries, facilitating the ideas exchange and, consequentially, the growing of civilization and new societies.

•	Is it positive the export of a culture in its totality as a result in exporting a language in a set society?

•	Is it acceptable a cultural swap in the so called civilization effort despite of present traditions, ethnicity, way of life and social background in an existing society? From what we can see in Afghanistan and in the Middle East things appear to be far different from the declaration of intents of the beginning of the operations and the results are still very far to be seen.

•	What we dissolve inserting a new language in an existing society will bring positive factors enough to substitute all the aspects we are cancelling with this operation?

•	Are we allowed to do this to get a supposed globalization?

•	Is it worth the price?

•	In the end shall we ever be able to communicate effectively with a full comprehension of the deeper meanings of concepts?