Re: Defining "Language"

The definition I've heard is as follows:

A system of communication used by a community that is creative and
recursive.

This serves fairly well for distinguishing natural human languages
from animal communication systems.  Two problems, though, are
(1) language can exist without a community (that would be conlangs);
and (2) if that whole Piraha business is accurate, I suppose language
doesn't have to be recursive.  That leaves it as a system of
communication
that is creative.  (Incidentally, this "creative" refers to how old
pieces
of the language can be used to create new pieces [i.e., morphology].)
That's far from satisfying.

I think a definition will have to include (and exclude) the following:

(1) It has to be a system.

(2) It can be used for communication (which means that two people
can understand it the same way).

(3) It needs some means of expression (which, of course, need not
be sound; it can be anything).

Then you can add other bits to further delineate the various types
of language (natural, spoken, signed, created, various types of
created language, etc.).

-David

Reply