Communication Without Words: Language Does Not Define Life

The belief that perception is inherently created and manipulated by language is one I have encountered more and more in recent years of my life.  In one sense, it is obvious that this is false: no one could possibly use words as a whole apart from preexisting thought and the grasp of reason that together make learning language possible.  In other words, knowledge and experiences (except, of course, for knowledge and experiences of language itself) are prerequisites for language to even come into use.  The thought has also occured to me that any idea that credits language with introspection, rationality, and communication is also false and ironic because not even all communication between people involves language--or verbal noises of any kind!

Of course, there would be nothing to "put into words" if thought and experience were dependent on language, as all thoughts would already be words.  This would mean no one could ever think in order to create or learn languages in the first place.  If this logical impossibility was true, it would also mean that there would be no such thing as communication apart from language, as non-linguistic communication would by necessity entail that something other than language can structure thought and communication.  Even if verbal or written conversation using words is the more precise method of communication when the situation allows for it, there is more to conveying plans, ideas, and feelings than just words.

People can indeed communicate using gestures and facial expressions without so much as grunting or making any other kind of noise with their mouths.  This is certainly a less effective kind of communication in many cases.  In fact, non-verbal communication is most useful when two people have already discussed what they intend to convey by specific gestures or expressions.  It still remains true that language is neither a necessity for communication nor a necessity for abstract thought or the basic ability to experience anything from private introspection to sensory perceptions to rationalistic analysis of concepts spanning numerous categories.

Language simply does not and cannot ground experiences, genuine knowledge of logical truths, or even the whole of communication.  Words are a way of communicating ideas that can sometimes be used on an individual level to aid reflection, but this is far from the all-encompassing thing some fools try to make language out to be.  Rationalistic thought, thought itself, emotion, sensory perception, and even human relationships do not depend on which words someone is familiar with or on whether they even know any language at all.  Language instead depends on them.

It is indeed true that language adds an entire dimension to human life that would be absent without it.  Even if one is already perfectly familiar with a concept or experience, learning about the words others might use to refer to them goes beyond that familiarity (which is clearly the more important side of the subject) to something else.  Words can thus make us feel excited about the novelty of learning or deciding how to linguistically articulate ideas beyond just knowing what is to be communicated.  Humanity would be hindered in a great deal of its social functioning without language, yes!  The error arises when a person thinks this somehow has anything to do with the very roots of epistemology and metaphysics or that words are the thing without which thought and communication could never take place.