The Decoy and the Scarecrow
Language excludes as well as includes
Hunters use decoys to lure ducks to the target area, by making them think that others of their kind are safe there. And farmers use scarecrows to send the opposite signal — that humans are near; stay away. These are examples of rudimentary communication between humans and animals, signals of inclusion or exclusion that can be used to deceive. The same principles may be at the root of human communication.
The underpinings of two-way communication — the ability to recognize differences of facial expression, tone of voice, and gestures — make possible the training and domestication of such species as dogs and horses and bears. First the trainer and the animal establish which of those modes of communication to associate with reward and punishment as consequences of behavior. A dog teaches its owner which looks, tones, gestures words will most readily get a response, and what rewards and punishments will be most effective. The sensitive, experienced trainer recognizes those signals and adjust his/her approach accordingly.
I have not studied but am curious about the development of intimacy between caregivers and infants as establilshing the basis for communication — setting up unique interpersonal signals, tones, words, gestures, subtle differences in facial expression and eye contact that evolve into modes of communication. These signals might only be understood by the particular individuals interacting with one another. And the use of such signals helps identify friend or foe and how close the friend is or how inimical the foe.
Establishing rapport with an infant and using non-verbal modes of communication serves as the basis for human learning. Some learning disabilities can probably be traced to early failure in the caregiver and infant connecting with one another. A caregiver who is often absent or drunk or on drugs or is apthetic/unresponsive or malignant could disrupt trust and intimacy, which is the basis on which learning is built.
Spoken language as well has layered effects. To speak the same language, to speak it in the same dialect with the same accent and the same modulation of tone establishes the friend/foe scale and says far more than the lexical meaning of the words. The speaker, consciously or unconsciously, uses codes whereby gestures, looks, expressions and tones can convey that what is meant is different from or even opposite to the meaning of the words. Layered on the lexical meaning of words, such signals indicate that the speakers are friends or foes and the degree of trust between them. Their use of language establishes their relationship to one another as one of inclusion or exclusion and the degree of distance.
It seems that language might first have been different from one one family, clan, tribe, nation to another. Its use established zones of inclusion/exclusion and friend/foe. The adoption of universal languages like English and the gradual homogenization of accent and disappearance of dialect leads to the creation of alternative modes of exclusion/inclusion — sub-languages, jargons, abbreviations and symbols that only an in-group understands.
The way we speak sends signals to one another like the signals of decoy and scarecrow. In other words, the way we communicate excludes or includes deliberately, and can be the basis for deceit as well as mutual understanding.
