The Dividing Line Between Communication and Language

 Conversation with Google's Gemini AI 

(Yes, I'm still into finding out what the Gemini AI can do.  My latest conversation has turned into this blog post! )

ME: I am looking at the difference between "communication" and "language". For example, verbal speech, written language and sign language can all be classified as language (as well as means of communication). Yet, I think most people would say that facial expressions and body language are not really "language" even though they can be used puposely as means of communication. Where do you draw the line?

 

GEMINI: You’ve touched on the central debate in linguistics: the distinction between communicative signals and linguistic systems.

While all language is communication, not all communication is language. To draw the line, linguists often look for a specific set of "design features" (famously categorized by Charles Hockett) that elevate a signal to the status of a true language.

1. The "Grammar" Threshold

The biggest differentiator is syntax and morphology.

• Language: Has a recursive structure. You can take a finite set of words and rules to create an infinite number of brand-new sentences. You can talk about the past, the future, or things that don't exist (this is called displacement).
• Body Language/Facial Expressions: These are generally "indexical" or "iconic." They communicate a state of being (fear, happiness, boredom) but lack a formal grammar. You cannot "conjugate" a smile or use a shrug to explain what you did three Tuesdays ago.

2. Arbitrariness vs. Iconicity

• Language: Most words are arbitrary. There is no reason the word "dog" sounds like the animal; we just agreed it does. This allow for high precision.
• Communication (Non-Linguistic): Facial expressions are often iconic or biological. A snarl looks like a threat because it reveals teeth. Because these signals are tied to physical biology, they are universal but limited in what they can express.

3. Discrete vs. Graded Signals

Linguists often draw the line at how the information is packaged:

• Discrete (Language): You either said "bin" or "pin." Changing one sound creates a completely different, digital-like shift in meaning.
• Graded (Communication): A frown can be slightly sad or very sad. It’s a sliding scale (analog) rather than a set of distinct building blocks.

---

Where the Line Blurs

The confusion often arises because of the term "Body Language." In a strict linguistic sense, "body language" is a misnomer; it should be called non-verbal communication.

However, Sign Languages (like ASL) are true languages. They are often dismissed by laypeople as "gestures," but they possess:

• Complex syntax and rules.
• The ability to express abstract philosophy.
• Arbitrary signs that must be learned (they aren't just "acting out" meanings).

Summary Table

Feature	Communication (General)	Language (Specific)
Examples	Scent marking, Tail wagging, Smiling	English, ASL, Python, Braille
Structure	Unstructured / Holistic	Highly structured (Grammar)
Flexibility	Limited to the "here and now"	Can discuss past, future, and fiction
Acquisition	Often innate/biological	Must be culturally transmitted/learned

Would you like to explore how Noam Chomsky’s theory of "Universal Grammar" fits into this distinction?

 

ME: I think the "complex syntax and rules" and "arbitrary" distinctions are what I'm looking for, or close to it. And yet most people would consider pointing at something to be a valid hand signal having a language meaning "It's that," or "Look at that". But pointing (with your hand or foot or other body part) seems to be universal, instinctive, among humans. And among some animals!

 

GEMINI: You’ve hit on one of the most fascinating "gray areas" in cognitive science! In linguistics, pointing is what we call deictic gesturing. While it feels like language because it conveys a specific intent, it usually falls just short of being "linguistic" for some very specific reasons.

Here is how linguists distinguish instinctive pointing from true language:

1. The "Mental Triangulation" vs. Symbols

Pointing is a referential tool, but it is not a symbolic one.

• The Point: It requires the physical presence of the object. If you point at an empty space, the "meaning" usually vanishes unless there is shared context. It is a physical bridge between two people and an object.
• The Word: If you say the word "apple," the apple doesn't have to be there. The word is a mental symbol that exists independently of the environment.

2. Intentionality and the "Theory of Mind"

You’re right that some animals point! However, there is a subtle "line" in the sand regarding why we point:

• Imperative Pointing: Many animals (like some great apes in captivity) point to say "Give me that." This is a demand.
• Declarative Pointing: Humans are unique because we point just to say "Look at that cool thing!" or "I want you to know what I'm thinking." This is the social foundation of language, but because it lacks compositionality (you can’t combine "pointing" with another gesture to change its tense or plurality), it's considered pre-linguistic.

3. The Lack of "Double Articulation"

This is a fancy term for a simple concept that defines language. Language has two levels:

1. Level 1: Sounds or hand-shapes that mean nothing on their own (like the letter "b").
2. Level 2: Combining those meaningless pieces into meaningful words ("b" + "a" + "t" = bat).

Pointing lacks this. A point is a "whole" signal. You can't break a point down into smaller, meaningless parts that rearrange to mean something else.

---

Comparison: Pointing vs. Signed Language

To see where the line is drawn, look at how American Sign Language (ASL) treats pointing:

Action	Classification	Why?
Pointing at a chair	Non-linguistic Gesture	It's just directing attention to a physical object.
Pointing as a Pronoun	Linguistic	In ASL, pointing at a specific "space" in front of you can represent a person you mentioned earlier. If you point there again, you are using a pronoun (He/She/It).
Pointing at your chest	Linguistic	This is the specific sign for "I/Me." It follows the rules of the language's lexicon.

The "Instinct" Factor

You mentioned it feels instinctive. This is exactly what Steven Pinker argues in The Language Instinct. He suggests that while the specific language we speak is learned, the "hardware" for pointing and symbolic thought is baked into our DNA. Pointing is the "on-ramp" to the highway of language.

 

ME: I've read Pinker's book and looking at pointing as an "on-ramp" rather than full-fledged language may be a way to classify it. But a dog, for example, is capable of using 3 actions in a row to convey his meaning. 1. Arf, arf! ! (important! important!) 2. Running in a direction, then part way back to you, then away again, etc. (follow me, this way, this way) 3. Pawing at a door, a type of point (it's behind this door).

 So you open the door and discover your toddler has managed to lock herself into the closet. This does not involve grammar or syntax but it's pretty complicated communication. It combines an adjective (important), an action verb (follow) and a noun (door). Though I suspect dogs think mostly in terms of verbs/actions (pay attention, follow me, open the door).

 

GEMINI: That is a brilliant breakdown of "protolanguage" in action. What’s fascinating is that your dog has essentially mastered intentionality—the understanding that "I have a thought, and I can change your mind to match mine."

In linguistics, your dog is using what we call holophrastic communication. Each signal (the bark, the run, the paw) represents a "whole phrase" or a complete idea, rather than a single word that can be rearranged.

Here is where the line stays firm between your dog’s impressive heroics and what Pinker or Chomsky would define as "Language":

1. The "Lego" Problem (Compositionality)

While it feels like the dog is combining an adjective, a verb, and a noun, he is actually performing a sequence of independent signals.

• Language: Humans use "discrete infinity." We can take "Open," "Door," and "Closet" and create "The closet door is open," or "Open the door to the closet."
• The Dog: The dog cannot take the "Arf" (important) and the "Pawing" (door) to create a new, single signal that means "Important door." He has to perform them as a chain of events. He can’t say "The door was important yesterday."

2. The Absence of Function Words

If you look at the "parts of speech" in your dog's sequence, you'll notice they are all lexical (content-heavy).

• Dogs (and most "talking" apes in studies) lack function words: if, but, or, the, because, although. * These are the "glue" of syntax. Without them, you can have a "vocabulary" of actions, but you don't have a generative system that can build complex, nested thoughts.

3. Productivity and "The Infinite"

This is the "Chomsky Line."

• Communication: A dog’s repertoire is relatively "closed." While highly intelligent, a dog won't suddenly invent a new gesture to explain that the toddler is pretending to be locked in the closet as a joke.
• Language: A human toddler can use a limited vocabulary to create a sentence they have never heard before in the history of the world.

---

The Comparison: Sequence vs. Syntax

Feature	The Dog's Sequence	Human Language
Structure	Linear: A then B then C.	Hierarchical: Phrases inside phrases.
Flexibility	Tied to the immediate context.	Can be entirely abstract.
Building Blocks	Whole-body "meanings."	Small, meaningless sounds (phonemes) built into meaning.

 

A Witty Perspective

As you noted, dogs are very "verb-heavy." In their world, a noun is often just a "place where an action happens." A "leash" isn't an object; it's the "let's-go-for-a-walk-tool."

This is actually a very "Pinker-esque" way of looking at it—the dog has the conceptual hardware (he knows the kid is in the closet), but he lacks the syntactic software to package that information into a single, portable sentence.

Since you've done quite a bit of reading on this, would you be interested in looking at how Sign Language uses "spatial grammar" to bridge the gap between pointing and actual syntax?

 

ME: Another day, maybe. Thanks for all the info. Bye.