John Kawakami wrote:
>
> I'm no linguist, but it seems to me that language is first and
> foremost, a way to communicate simple verbal information.
I would agree with most of your assault on logocentrism, but you are almost certainly dead wrong here. This "theory" (it's almost too obviously wrong to be dignified with "theory") would be unable to explain the origin of language. But even ignoring that problem, the core use of language is obviously phatic -- i.e., used simply to acknowledge the presence of another human being. Probably the non-human practice languate most closely approximates is not signalling of any kind but mutual grooming.
Consider the huge number of list posts (despite universal condemnation of the practice) which consist merely of quoting someone else's post and adding "I agree" or something to that effect. Purely phatic.
Carrol
P.S. The word phatic does not appear in most desk dictionaries, which is most unfortunate because it denotes a major fact about humanity. It was coined by Malinowski. The OED claims that it is used mostly to indicate trivial or unimportant statements. This too is unfortunate. Human society would collapse in months if not in days without the constant use of phatic language. It's our chief way of reminding ourselves and others that we and they are human. That seems to me to be anything but trivial.