When Deacon (1998) suggests that comparing non-human species communication with the use of a language is misguided, I wonder, using the same logic, why is it adequate to say “machine language”, or to consider encryption a non-human language? Is the symbolic representation embedded in their design enough to characterize them as languages?
If we assume that they are languages, one of their important aspects is that, to be produced, the mediation of gadgets such as calculators, computers is necessary. Going further, it is like to say that human beings produce technologies that allow them to create new languages. But I wonder what is the role of technologies in this creation? Can we say that they are co-creators of new languages?
The implication of a co-creator is the possible autonomy that one can foreseen for such technologies. I am here concerned with the foreseeable number of artificial intelligent machines that tends to populate our society more intensely, and their own role on that as co-creators. What could we expect? Is the ex-machina movie a plausible answer to this question, showing the autonomy of a robot taking an unexpected decision to the audience?
In this direction, one phenomenon studied by some scholars (the Brazilian Sergio Amadeu, for example) is the privatization of memory. The use of memory devices is a fundamental aspect of the current stage of technology and society development. Memory and memory slots could be considered, in Norman (1991) words, “cognitive artefacts” that contribute for our collective intelligence. The capacity of storing kilobytes is now converted into terabytes or more. Through the readings I wonder if one can assess accurately to what extent technologies are co-agents, contributing to changes in our communication behavior, and consequently, in human beings’ language. I am not talking about the differences in spelling words, in building shorter sentences, etc. Because we are becoming more and more dependent on artefacts, such as code and decode encryption devices, our dependence on machines, and consequently, on companies, for us to save information – images, facts, knowledge – and ultimately to speak safely – is really disturbing.