Language Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.Anti-spam check. Do not fill this in! == Definitions == {{main|Theory of language}} The English word ''language'' derives ultimately from [[Proto-Indo-European language|Proto-Indo-European]] {{lang|ine-x-proto|[[wikt:Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/dn̥ǵʰwéh₂s|dn̥ǵʰwéh₂s]]}} "tongue, speech, language" through [[Latin]] {{lang|la|[[wikt:lingua#Latin|lingua]]}}, "language; tongue", and [[Old French]] {{lang|fro|[[wikt:language#Old French|language]]}}.<ref name=AHD>{{cite encyclopedia |title=language |encyclopedia=The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language |edition=3rd|year=1992|location=Boston|publisher=Houghton Mifflin Company}}</ref> The word is sometimes used to refer to [[code]]s, [[cipher]]s, and other kinds of [[constructed language|artificially constructed communication systems]] such as formally defined computer languages used for [[programming language|computer programming]]. Unlike conventional human languages, a [[formal language]] in this sense is a [[system]] of [[Sign (linguistics)|signs]] for encoding and decoding [[information]]. This article specifically concerns the properties of [[Natural language|natural human language]] as it is studied in the discipline of [[linguistics]]. As an object of linguistic study, "language" has two primary meanings: an abstract concept, and a specific linguistic system, e.g. "[[French language|French]]". The Swiss linguist [[Ferdinand de Saussure]], who defined the modern discipline of linguistics, first explicitly formulated the distinction using the French word {{lang|fr|language}} for language as a concept, {{lang|fr|[[langue and parole|langue]]}} as a specific instance of a language system, and {{lang|fr|parole}} for the concrete usage of speech in a particular language.<ref name="Lyons2">{{Harvcoltxt|Lyons|1981|p=2}}</ref> When speaking of language as a general concept, definitions can be used which stress different aspects of the phenomenon.<ref name="LyonsIntro">{{Harvcoltxt|Lyons|1981|pp=1–8}}</ref> These definitions also entail different approaches and understandings of language, and they also inform different and often incompatible schools of [[Theory of language|linguistic theory]].<ref name="TraskLanguage">{{harvcoltxt|Trask|2007|pages=129–131}}</ref> Debates about the nature and origin of language go back to the ancient world. Greek philosophers such as [[Gorgias]] and [[Plato]] debated the relation between words, concepts and reality. Gorgias argued that language could represent neither the objective experience nor human experience, and that communication and truth were therefore impossible. Plato maintained that communication is possible because language represents ideas and concepts that exist independently of, and prior to, language.{{sfn|Bett|2010}} During the [[Age of Enlightenment|Enlightenment]] and its debates about human origins, it became fashionable to speculate about the origin of language. Thinkers such as Rousseau and [[Johann Gottfried Herder]] argued that language had originated in the instinctive expression of emotions, and that it was originally closer to music and poetry than to the logical expression of rational thought. Rationalist philosophers such as Kant and [[René Descartes]] held the opposite view. Around the turn of the 20th century, thinkers began to wonder about the role of language in shaping our experiences of the world – asking whether language simply reflects the objective structure of the world, or whether it creates concepts that in turn impose structure on our experience of the objective world. This led to the question of whether philosophical problems are really firstly linguistic problems. The resurgence of the view that language plays a significant role in the creation and circulation of concepts, and that the study of philosophy is essentially the study of language, is associated with what has been called the [[linguistic turn]] and philosophers such as Wittgenstein in 20th-century philosophy. These debates about language in relation to meaning and reference, cognition and consciousness remain active today.{{sfn|Devitt|Sterelny|1999}} ===Mental faculty, organ or instinct=== One definition sees language primarily as the [[mind|mental faculty]] that allows humans to undertake linguistic behaviour: to learn languages and to produce and understand utterances. This definition stresses the universality of language to all humans, and it emphasizes the biological basis for the human capacity for language as a unique development of the [[human brain]]. Proponents of the view that the drive to language acquisition is innate in humans argue that this is supported by the fact that all cognitively normal children raised in an environment where language is accessible will acquire language without formal instruction. Languages may even develop spontaneously in environments where people live or grow up together without a common language; for example, [[creole languages]] and spontaneously developed sign languages such as [[Nicaraguan Sign Language]]. This view, which can be traced back to the philosophers Kant and Descartes, understands language to be largely [[innatism|innate]], for example, in [[Noam Chomsky|Chomsky]]'s theory of [[universal grammar]], or American philosopher [[Jerry Fodor]]'s extreme innatist theory. These kinds of definitions are often applied in studies of language within a [[cognitive science]] framework and in [[neurolinguistics]].<ref>{{harvcoltxt|Hauser|Fitch|2003}}</ref><ref name="Language Instinct">{{harvcoltxt|Pinker|1994}}</ref> ===Formal symbolic system=== Another definition sees language as a [[formal system]] of signs governed by grammatical rules of combination to communicate meaning. This definition stresses that human languages can be described as closed [[structural linguistics|structural systems]] consisting of rules that relate particular signs to particular meanings.{{sfn|Trask|2007|p=93}} This [[structuralism|structuralist]] view of language was first introduced by [[Ferdinand de Saussure]],<ref name="Saussure">{{harvcoltxt|Saussure|1983}}</ref> and his structuralism remains foundational for many approaches to language.<ref>{{harvcoltxt|Campbell|2001|p=96}}</ref> Some proponents of Saussure's view of language have advocated a formal approach which studies language structure by identifying its basic elements and then by presenting a formal account of the rules according to which the elements combine in order to form words and sentences. The main proponent of such a theory is [[Noam Chomsky]], the originator of the [[generative linguistics|generative theory of grammar]], who has defined language as the construction of sentences that can be generated using transformational grammars.{{sfn|Trask|2007|p=130}} Chomsky considers these rules to be an innate feature of the human mind and to constitute the rudiments of what language is.<ref>{{harvcoltxt|Chomsky|1957}}</ref> By way of contrast, such transformational grammars are also commonly used in [[formal logic]], in [[formal linguistics]], and in applied [[computational linguistics]].<ref>{{Harvcoltxt|Trask|2007|pp=93, 130}}</ref><ref name="NewmeyerForm">{{harvcoltxt|Newmeyer|1998|pp=3–6}}</ref> In the philosophy of language, the view of linguistic meaning as residing in the logical relations between propositions and reality was developed by philosophers such as [[Alfred Tarski]], [[Bertrand Russell]], and other [[formal logic]]ians. ===Tool for communication=== [[File:ASL family.jpg|right|thumb|A conversation in [[American Sign Language]]]] Yet another definition sees language as a system of communication that enables humans to exchange verbal or symbolic utterances. This definition stresses the social functions of language and the fact that humans use it to express themselves and to manipulate objects in their environment. [[Functional theories of grammar]] explain grammatical structures by their communicative functions, and understand the grammatical structures of language to be the result of an adaptive process by which grammar was "tailored" to serve the communicative needs of its users.<ref name="Myths"/><ref>{{harvcoltxt|Van Valin|2001}}</ref> This view of language is associated with the study of language in [[pragmatics|pragmatic]], [[cognitive linguistics|cognitive]], and interactive frameworks, as well as in [[sociolinguistics]] and [[linguistic anthropology]]. Functionalist theories tend to study grammar as dynamic phenomena, as structures that are always in the process of changing as they are employed by their speakers. This view places importance on the study of [[linguistic typology]], or the classification of languages according to structural features, as it can be shown that processes of [[grammaticalization]] tend to follow trajectories that are partly dependent on typology.<ref name="NewmeyerForm"/> In the philosophy of language, the view of pragmatics as being central to language and meaning is often associated with [[Ludwig Wittgenstein|Wittgenstein's]] later works and with ordinary language philosophers such as [[J.L. Austin]], [[Paul Grice]], [[John Searle]], and [[Willard van Orman Quine|W.O. Quine]].{{sfn|Nerlich|2010|p=192}} ===Distinctive features of human language=== {{main|Animal language|Great ape language}} A number of features, many of which were described by [[Charles Hockett]] and called [[Hockett's design features|design features]]<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.ling.ohio-state.edu/~swinters/371/designfeatures.html |title=The Problem of Universals in Language |last=Hockett |first=Charles F. |date=1966 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121110023354/http://www.ling.ohio-state.edu/~swinters/371/designfeatures.html |archive-date=10 November 2012 |access-date=11 May 2013 }}</ref> set human language apart from communication used by non-human [[Animal language|animals]]. Communication systems used by other animals such as [[Bee learning and communication|bees]] or [[great ape language|apes]] are closed systems that consist of a finite, usually very limited, number of possible ideas that can be expressed.<ref>{{harvcoltxt|Hockett|1960}}; {{harvcoltxt|Deacon|1997}}</ref> In contrast, human language is open-ended and [[Productivity (linguistics)|productive]], meaning that it allows humans to produce a vast range of utterances from a finite set of elements, and to create new words and sentences. This is possible because human language is based on a dual code, in which a finite number of elements which are meaningless in themselves (e.g. sounds, letters or gestures) can be combined to form an infinite number of larger units of meaning (words and sentences).<ref name="Trask5">{{harvcoltxt|Trask|1999|pages=1–5}}</ref> However, one study has demonstrated that an Australian bird, the [[chestnut-crowned babbler]], is capable of using the same acoustic elements in different arrangements to create two functionally distinct vocalizations.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Engesser |first1=Sabrina|last2=Crane |first2=Jodie M. S.|last3=Savage |first3=James L.|last4=Russel |first4=Andrew F. |last5=Townsend |first5=Simon W. |date=29 June 2015 |title=Experimental Evidence for Phonemic Contrasts in a Nonhuman Vocal System |journal=PLOS Biology |volume=13|issue=6|pages=e1002171|doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002171|pmid=26121619 |pmc=4488142 |doi-access=free }}</ref> Additionally, [[Southern pied babbler|pied babblers]] have demonstrated the ability to generate two functionally distinct vocalisations composed of the same sound type, which can only be distinguished by the number of repeated elements.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Engesser |first1=Sabrina |last2=Ridley |first2=Amanda R. |last3=Townsend |first3=Simon W. |s2cid=21470061 |date=20 July 2017 |title=Element repetition rates encode functionally distinct information in pied babbler 'clucks' and 'purrs' |journal=Animal Cognition |volume=20 |issue=5 |pages=953–960 |doi=10.1007/s10071-017-1114-6 |pmid=28730513 |url=http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/89798/7/WRAP-element-repetition-rates-encode-functionally-Townsend-2017.pdf |access-date=9 November 2018 |archive-date=28 April 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190428232241/http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/89798/7/WRAP-element-repetition-rates-encode-functionally-Townsend-2017.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> Several species of animals have proved to be able to acquire forms of communication through social learning: for instance a [[bonobo]] named [[Kanzi]] learned to express itself using a set of symbolic [[Yerkish#Lexigram concept|lexigram]]s. Similarly, many species of birds and whales learn their songs by imitating other members of their species. However, while some animals may acquire large numbers of words and symbols,{{refn|group=note|The gorilla [[Koko (gorilla)|Koko]] reportedly used as many as 1000 words in [[American Sign Language]], and understands 2000 words of spoken English. There are some doubts about whether her use of signs is based on complex understanding or simple [[Operant conditioning|conditioning]].<ref>{{harvcoltxt|Candland|1993}}</ref>}} none have been able to learn as many different signs as are generally known by an average 4 year old human, nor have any acquired anything resembling the complex grammar of human language.<ref name="Deacon 1997">{{harvcoltxt|Deacon|1997}}</ref> Human languages differ from animal communication systems in that they employ [[grammatical categories|grammatical and semantic categories]], such as noun and verb, present and past, which may be used to express exceedingly complex meanings.<ref name="Deacon 1997"/> It is distinguished by the property of [[Recursion#In language|recursivity]]: for example, a noun phrase can contain another noun phrase (as in "<nowiki>[[the chimpanzee]'s lips]</nowiki>") or a clause can contain another clause (as in "<nowiki>[I see [the dog is running]]</nowiki>").<ref name="Hauser 2002"/> Human language is the only known natural communication system whose adaptability may be referred to as ''modality independent''. This means that it can be used not only for communication through one channel or medium, but through several. For example, spoken language uses the auditive modality, whereas [[sign language]]s and writing use the visual modality, and [[braille]] writing uses the tactile modality.<ref>{{harvcoltxt|Trask|2007|pp=165–166}}</ref> Human language is unusual in being able to refer to abstract concepts and to imagined or hypothetical events as well as events that took place in the past or may happen in the future. This ability to refer to events that are not at the same time or place as the speech event is called ''[[Displacement (linguistics)|displacement]]'', and while some animal communication systems can use displacement (such as the communication of [[bee]]s that can communicate the location of sources of nectar that are out of sight), the degree to which it is used in human language is also considered unique.<ref name="Trask5"/> Summary: Please note that all contributions to Christianpedia may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here. You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see Christianpedia:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission! Cancel Editing help (opens in new window) Discuss this page