You mean, it?s not ?wired-in??
人类语言是一个巨大的成就，但这不是?它的意思是它不是人类的创造，而是一种神圣的礼物，或者是某种超能力的表现。事实上，尽管这一事实需要广泛的论证，因此无法在此一一列举，但它证明了，对于这种神圣或超然的源泉的自负，不足以解释它的表现力。事实上，正是这种自负的丧失的特殊现实，以及这种丧失所赋予的自由的特殊表达，在其反应中构成了时间的戏剧性的完整性。这种丧失的自负和使自由得以实现的戏剧性的完整，是语言的诞生，也是我们之前所有关于语言出现的理论都是错误的最完整的证明。

Doesn't every noise have a meaning? =

Sorting out "noise" from "coherent sound" smacks of just that dogmatic conviction in a mechanistic explanation that precludes, or proscribes, agency. There is, in fact, something in the noise more coherent than music. Because there is something to time anomalous to what would explain it in mechanistic terms. This is, in fact, as true of material phenomena as it is of the human voice. And the difference between real fact and rational inference is the nexus of the issue. Because reason cannot close the gap between fact and validity. Only something anomalous to both can supply the needed term. Insofar as each of us brings that noise to the issue and can respond in recognition of the freedom we hear in that noise, something more lyrical than music is made.

No interest? Finally, a properly philosophical question, and and what?..... nothing much. I suggest reading Plato's Cratylus. It covers this question rather brilliantly. More brilliantly, at least, than modern hacks on the issue.
You might as well ask how sounds intend. The formulation of the question is clumsy in this sense, for it implies the meaning is in the word rather than in the meaning we find in each other. Until you know how to look, there is no point in starting. A proper point of departure is called for. I think we have all had that eerie experience of thinking we are hearing a foreign language only to realize it is our own. And not just thence, but somehow we catch up on what has already been said. There is a kind of memory of what we thought we were not able to be conscious of, a sort of blind sight that only reveals itself in weird settings where disparities between what we suppose we perceive and what we ultimately come to perceive are made evident. If consciousness were attention only we would live like we were wearing blinders. But the blinders come off if we learn to be less narrowed in our thinking than in our perceptions

I listened to the podcast with John Searle, "From Noise to Meaning," and found a lot of disturbing assertions were made by him and also by Ken & John, none of whom have expertise in nonhuman animal cognition.
Searle反复描述非人类动物的发声以一种递减的方式仅仅是“对刺激的反应”。这种断言是放肆的。如果我说中文对我来说是胡言乱语，什么都不是，只是没有意义的噪音，你会发现这种说法无知得可笑。你会说我根本不懂中文，如果我懂了，我会改变我的看法。
I'm proposing that Searle likely doesn't know exactly what dogs mean when they bark, and that he's arrogant and presumptuous not to entertain the possibility that his knowledge might be deficient in this area.
I could go on, but one more thing: Why on earth frame the discussion of philosophy of human language in terms of its supposed superiority over other forms of animal communication, especially when the participants have little or no expertise outside of human language?
The world is a mess thanks to humans--how is human language superior in this context in the first place?
非常令人不安，具有挑衅性，但仍然激发了讨论。

Language is thought to refer to the form of the logical proposition, which is thought to be the very substance of eternity, which is thought to be our ticket to paradise, and no animal need apply. Arrogance? You bet!

我想他们之所以叫它们文字处理器是因为叫它们写程序会把那些该死的极客们搞糊涂。如果我们要生活在一种被恰当地杀死并彻底防腐的死亡语言中，那么无论如何都要避免歧义。但是，如果有人会认为语言的起源是受到歧义的抑制而不是受到歧义的滋养，那么他就需要重新思考了。有很多明显是本能的发声的例子，但这些也明显是行为的象征，而不是深思熟虑的。但大多数用来传达意义的发声和手势，比起明显的反射性，具有更多变的特性。在这种情况下，手势和声音会发生变化，直到听者做出回应，要么得到信息，要么选择忽略它。但是为了在这种互谅互让中看到语言的引擎，你必须放弃将歧义视为对其出现的诅咒。歧义是语言的生命，今天在哪里?美国的极客们依靠一种清除了歧义的死语言来操作他们的机器思维。活的语言，言语，体现了未解决的歧义的活力，因此它变得更完整，更完整地表达意义和回应，它是如此强大的能力。 The dead language, writing, is like the specimen pinned in wax for dissection. We should have learned centuries ago, as biologists long since have done, that we cannot understand development of species, or of language, by analyzing its dead structures.

Michael asked:doesn't every noise have a meaning? Probably so. But also (probably), most meaningful noises we hear everyday just do not command much of our attention. That tree, falling in the forrest makes a noise, whether we are there to hear it or no. The sound could mean one or more of several things: the tree was old; dead; felled by a strong wind or a lumberman or undermined by an earthquake or some other geological/topographical disturbance. In any case, for our interest or the lack thereof, it was just another tree. This is a case of audible noise. There are, in the realm of humans and other higher life forms, other kinds of "noise" that might be better classified as ambient, that is, they have meaning yet are unheard. A look may be a dangerous thing if it is not followed by a meaningful dialog. Such ambient noise is an experiential phenomenon, ground into the fabric of socialization by repetition of expected action and reaction. This is one means we apply in order to distill meaning from noise without uttering one word. All of us engage in this dance everyday, and, to that extent, yes, it is hardwiring.

我困惑。意思是一个有待发现的客观事实，还是一个谈判的过程?
Can we alter the dramatic moment, the context of the utterance, without consciously setting parameters of terms? How much of human speech is clarification? Rather a lot, I'd say. Which means it ain't 'hard wired' at all. Incidentally, my take on Chomsky is that he hasn't made his case at all, he just keeps reasserting his premise as proof of his conclusion. But as for animals, it is largely unlikely that specific sounds have specific significance, though this is well argued to be the case with some species. But, for the most part, I think, the sounds they make are not initially critical. It's the inflection that carries the sense of it. Dogs and cats bark and meow in an astonishing variety of cadences and pitch, and clearly make adjustments as they see how they are responded to.
“噪声”是异常的物理术语。回避这样的重要意义就有点草率了。但问题是，如果意义是异常的呢?如果是这样的话，在我们提出这个愚蠢的问题之前，我们需要进行大量的修改。另外，顺便说一下，任何接触过人类大脑的人都会嘲笑“天生的”这个词。