I was recently discussing with two friends, as one does, the important matter of whether a human being could communicate with a red dragon. Could a human learn a dragon's language? And could a red dragon learn a human's? More broadly, is cross-species communication in a fantasy world possible at all?
This is both a more simple and a more complicated question than it appears.
First, clearly cross-species communication is possible in the world which we live in. You communicate with your dog. You may even communicate with your cat - who the hell knows with them, though? Famers communicate with their cattle and sheep. Honeyguides communicate with hunter-gatherers in Africa. And so on. Clearly, the appropriate question is not whether some communication is possible between a human and a red dragon (or an orc and an elven cat, or a duergar and a desert troll, or an ogre mage and a tabaxi, or...), but whether and to what extent that communication can take place through speech.
Second, the issue may be an irrelevance if the setting operates on fairy tale logic. Nobody in a fairy tale fails to communicate with anybody else. Wherever they go, and whoever they encounter, the main character(s) can understand and be understood.
Third, there are lots of nuances. We might want to interrogate:
- The Chewbacca Problem. Chewbacca can understand what is said to him, and Han Solo can understand Chewbacca. But the two are not physically equipped to make the relevant sounds in each other's languages. That works in Star Wars, but is it plausible? Are we satisfied that it is possible to make sense of sounds linguistically if we are not able at least in theory to vocalise them? My feeling is that the answer to this question is yes, given enough time for the ear to become accustomed to those sounds, but I have no reason to assume this beyond gut feeling.
- The Conceptual Problem. Languages are not just made up of nouns. They are figurative and rooted in feelings and emotions. Consider: 'I hope it doesn't rain tomorrow.' Would that sentence make sense to a creature that does not have a concept of 'hope', such as an orc or kuo-toa may indeed not? What concepts to do orcs or kuo-toa have that we lack?
- The Inferential Problem. Languages rely on inference, and cultural embeddedness, to work. Consider: 'I've been sitting around waiting for a response to my email for months.' Have you really been literally sitting around waiting for a response, or have you just been waiting? We all know that the turn of phrase is figurative. What about creatures which literally do not sit (because they have a snake tail, like a naga) or which do not sit when waiting? And what kind of inferences would be necessary to understand the speech of dragons, or bullywugs, or ixitxachitl?
- The Embodiment Problem. Languages are spoken by physical beings with bodies, and this affects not just the act of speaking (we have mouths that can only produce a limited range of sounds) but also how we express ourselves. Consider 'I have a good grasp of X now.' To an animal which does grasp things, that makes sense. What about to one which doesn't? Does an elven cat understand 'grasping' and why that would mean 'understanding'?
With respect to the Chewbacca problem, I can understand Tamil, but can’t speak it at all. I think that’s not an uncommon circumstance.
ReplyDeleteYes, this is definitely common. What I meant was, no human being can produce Chewbacca sounds. Your brain can process Tamil (I assume from having grown up being exposed to it but not really speaking it) because it’s a human language. But could it process the grammar and syntax of a language the human brain definitionally is not equipped to learn?
DeleteI don't think that should be an insuperable problem. For example, no human's vocal chords can replicate the sounds made by a cathedral's pipe organ. But a trained musician can still understand them, and even interpret them linguistically ("that's a g major chord followed by an f sharp minor").
DeleteI like that reasoning. And not even a trained musician can interpret mood and feeling in them. But is it possible to communicate, say, 'I believe you are in league with the butcher' using just music? Or Chewbacca growls? In a way another human being could understand?
DeleteI am not a linguistics expert, but again, I don't really see why not. To again reason by analogy, think about what we are doing right now. If your brain can understand a series of pixels shaped like abstract black squiggles as representing the precise concept "I believe you are in league with the butcher", I can't see an inherent reason why it couldn't do the same for a sequence of unusual gargling noises.
ReplyDeleteWhat's more interesting to me, perhaps, is that it's not exactly obvious that it's true, even if we think it might be possible, it's also reasonable to think it wouldn't be possible. How many people live with a dog and yet haven't picked out deeper meaning from their dogs barks and tips beyond simple concepts? Is that because dogs are not very smart, or does it indicate an actual barrier? I would be skeptical of any certainty on this point without a real world example of a more intelligent species to settle the matter.
DeleteI am also sceptical. The abstract black squiggles are representative of sounds we know. So I am not sure it is the same as a Chewbacca growl.
DeleteI grant that it's not proven without real life examples, but surely the key issue is whether we can perceive and reliably distinguish between the phonemes of a language, and not whether we can produce them ourselves? The two things may correlate, but they are not the same. I'm reasonably confident that if someone were to devise a conlang consisting purely of inhuman but distinguishable sounds (two lion roars followed by a microwave ping spells out the word which translates as 'lugubriousness', etc etc), taught it to me fully, and then played me sentences via a synthesiser, I'd be able to understand them. If the language used hypersonic frequencies or gradations in tone too fine for human hearing to separate, I would be in trouble, but that's a separate issue.
DeleteIf complex conceptual understand is an inherent feature of intelligence - then yes, cross-species understanding seems possible to me. Some things might seem alien if rooted in our perceptions or senses, but there's countless stories on bridging those gaps. Intelligence is the common language.
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting argument: there are stories about this, so it must be true. On the contrary, without real world examples to this effect, we are without proof--only a kind of fiction-propoganda.
DeleteI agree - bridging the gap is good material for fiction but that is a separate issue to its feasibility.
DeleteIt's just magic!
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I am thinking of Smaug's and Bilbo's talk in the Hobbit. Now the Hobbit is operating on Fairy Tale logic, but Bilbo is playing a dangerous game of riddles while he is talking to Smaug. I assume Smaug is an incredibly intelligent creature who could speak the common tongue of Middle Earth, or where-ever the original Hobbit is set. You have to trick a dragon through their vices, their innate suspiciousness, their pride, and greed. If you engage purely on a battle of intelligence, not wits, the dragon is likely going to win because it is older and smarter than you. Granted, I'm going off of modern understandings of dragons, plus Tolkien and the romantic idea of dragons as pure evil. If you take the Beowulf poem, the dragon is a romantic, impressionistic expression, but it seems more a beast of rage and greed than an intelligent sapient. Reminder that this is coming from old memories so I might be getting things wrong.
ReplyDeleteWith my modern understanding paradigm, perhaps Gold Dragons are the most feared of intellectual opponents. A Gold Dragon has all the wisdom, aged knowledge, and intelligence of a regular dragon, but has infinite patience, humility, and willingness to let things go, so you can't get them through their vices even.
On the broader topic, I would say yes cross-species talking could work, because one can learn inference, I've learned it through studying other languages. It's why most translations of Japanese are really adaptations because if it was a real translation there would be a huge footnote section explaining the turns of phrases, not that those don't exist.
Throw a rotten tomato at me if you want for bringing this up, but what about psionics or psychic powers. Not just in the sense of a telepath, but Nagas are thought of as spirits or spirit-like in Indian mythology. For a spirit, your mind isn't just a closed skull, there's less of a barrier between you and it for it.
Cthulhu and His star-spawn communicate to their human cultists through dreams, so communication isn't out of the question, though for star-spawn it would just be thought shaping in humans. Star-spawn are likely so massively smart that they could understand human speech, though they would probably not bother with listening to anything other than "orders received and done."
Excellent point about psionics and also ESP spells/magic. That changes quite a lot. Actually there could be a race of psionic or ESP-using creatures who make their living acting as universal translators between intelligent races. They *are* the common tongue.
DeleteWe might be overthinking it. Put some orc and human kids together for a few weeks and, provided one hasn't eaten the other, we'll have a perfectly understandable creole that may include some idiomatic expressions of either language and some complete neologisms. A common tongue can be incredibly expressive if there is enough time and motivated speakers. I think linguistically minded GMs could even have dialects of common that the discerning rogue could use to identify on which street in Baldur's Gate some noble lives.
ReplyDelete