it is true that there are situations where words hinder progress. we also communticate through emotion and expression (body face ect ect) without them, we are deaf to to world

Besides the obvious body and face expressions, I feel one’s actions are an excellent way of communicating without a single words spoken. It’s just like the old saying: “Actions speak louder than words.”

i think body language can at times be classified as a section of a language such as english. and so technically, even though they are not words they are still part of the language, which is kind of the opposite of what many of the posts here said. let me clarify, in english speaking societies, if you want someone to go away, you can put your hand out, palm down and wave it up and down, but in japan, doing that same movement means "come here".

another example is in many western societies, when refering to yourself you can point your finger to your chest, while in japan, you point your finger to your nose.

so while many of the people here believe that body language is a function unrelated to that of verbal communication, i think that it is just an aspect of the spoken language since it varies depending on the language you are speaking (for example-english or japanese)

ps-plus, sign language is technically made of up words that aren't spoken but nonetheless acted out through hand signals and body language. so in a sense, body language is infact words.

Something like 60%(plus/minus) of communication is interpreted through body language(tone being part of that). Also, as a personal example, I train animals(dogs and horses) and I use body language with horses, and verbal tone with dogs to achieve the same results. Some creatures don't communicate with the verbal at all, horses for example only use it as an alert/calling system, not as indepth communication. They use body language to communicate. Just an FYI!

I believe that we communicate with one another all of the time; even when we are unaware that we are sending messages. We share facial and bodily expressions, plus we all have our own vibes. If someone were to look another person in the eyes, the two would communicate through their eyes, and meet an understanding. Making eye contact is a major communication method used today.

The universal and most elaborate language, known to man.

You may know love: love being an abstract concept, just as you may know God, the reason for our incapabillity of 'proving' their factual existence is because, one we cannot see them ,and two, when you apply words to them you limit them, and one of their key characteristics is that they are limitless. Words are units. you can put them in a different order etc. but because they will be perceived differently by different people they can always be misunderstood, and will always be limited.

If one were to implant an high-bandwidth interface between your brain and the outside world, and were to establish a connection via, oh, I dunno, single-mode fiber to another said interface, then it would be possible communicate every though. However, don't use a loop-back cable in the process: You'll drive yourself mad.

Charles Sanders Peirce was what we call a semiologist. All he did with his time was interpret different ways to interpret words, their objects, their interpretations, the the emphasis, the ostensible, etc., etc., etc. into a process of what is called "infinite semiosis." History, in this vein, is handy in keeping debates from growing too large.

The human mind on some unconscious level does this, and if it didn't language wouldn't exist as we know it. Past experience limits our understanding of things like words, gestures, information, etc. that is that it renders us into something resembling individuals. It makes it impossible to absolutely have a single sign affect, express, signify in the listener as it did to the speaker.

There are no limits to language, that is a selection of arbitrary symbols of sound, composition, order, etc., far from it. There are so few limits that infinite languages are theoretically possible, like all the electronic pulses of binary sequences over the internet. The limits exist in the mind to herd these symbols, words, gestures, traditions, etc. in the same way that everyone else does.

If a limit exists in language, it was discovered by another American in Willard Quine. A school existed that spread across from Austria, to the UK and to the USA. It was called logical positivism. In the Monty Python sketch about the Australian University Philosophy department, the logical positivist is in charge of something that in the Australian language is called "the sheep dip." What this sheep dip is, in Aristotle, is a collection of attributes, uses, position in space-time. To the logical positivists, all things to which we can ascribe the quality of existence fulfill all these criteria, "the sheep dip is composed of such and such, it is here in Australia in 1969, people do stuff with it..." Quine put a stop to this by claiming that, though their argument does look pretty indestructible, there is one quality which cannot be proven within a definition of existence without its prior presence: The word "is."

The one-to-one correspondence of the sign to whatever is expected of the sign does not exist because of man's mind, and not language. Although, there really is no difference in the end, language is an extension of man's mind and man's mind exists through language. I'd like to end on this thought: This element of language is limited, solely because the media through which we can express what we mean and don't mean is as expansive as life itself.

and if you are talking of the typewritten word this ignores voice internation and body language. These other languages combined with words can have a totally different meaning.