Re: Defining "Language"

John Crowe wrote:
> What is your favorite definition? It's hard to find even a mediocre one (but
> I can't come up with a satisfactory answer myself). "means of communication"
> is just too lacking. Here are a few from online dictionaries:
Isn't looking for a completely satisfactory one or two sentence
definition rather hopeful. I have on my shelves a book with the title
"What _is_ language?" - it contains 216 pages!

> 1 a : the words, their pronunciation, and the methods of combining them used
> and understood by a community b  (1) : audible, articulate, meaningful sound
> as produced by the action of the vocal organs  (2) : a systematic means of
> communicating ideas or feelings by the use of conventionalized signs,
> sounds, gestures, or marks having understood meanings  (3) : the suggestion
> by objects, actions, or conditions of associated ideas or feelings <language
> in their very gesture -- Shakespeare>  (4) : the means by which animals
> communicate  (5) : a formal system of signs and symbols (as FORTRAN or a
> calculus in logic) including rules for the formation and transformation of
> admissible expressions  (6) :
>
> a system of communication with its own set of conventions or special words
>
> a systematic means of communicating by the use of sounds or conventional symbols
This seems to me to a mix of attempted definitions of _natural language_
  (a language used or once used as the mother tongue of a group of human
beings), and _formal language_ (a language, e.g. FORTRAN, generated by a
_formal grammar_, a grammar which specifies, for a given set of initial
elements - its "vocabulary" or "alphabet" - the complete set of strings
of those elements which are in the language defined by the grammar).

As Trask observes "A formal language may or may not resemble a natural one."

We have other oddities as well, such as purely private languages (like
Hildegrd's "Lingua Ignota") which are certainly not intended to be used
for communication with other humans, but probably do not fit the
criteria of a formal language.
----------------------------------------

Carsten Becker wrote:
 > Hi
 >
 > I'd say (2) and in a broader sense (5).

Would (2) include the dance by bees returning to the hive which
indicates where a good source of nectar-bearing plants may be found?
See for example:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bees/dancesbees1.html

(5) is surely a definition of _formal language_, how far it is
applicable to natural languages is, I think, a matter of some
considerable debate.
------------------------------------------

MorphemeAddict@WMCONNECT.COM wrote:
 > In a message dated 7/18/2007 12:33:38 PM Central Daylight Time,
 > dedalvs@GMAIL.COM writes:
 >
 >>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.
 >
 > If we define language as recursive, then Piraha is perhaps not a
language.

David did say "if that whole Piraha business is accurate." The accuracy
of the current description of Piraha has been questioned before. Also,
of course, David did add that if the Piraha business is accurate "I
suppose language doesn't have to be recursive."

I agree with David that it is important to distinguish natural human
languages from animal communication systems. Even a sophisticated system
like those of bees fall very short of human communication. I don't
imagine that in the secrecy of their hives bees contemplate the universe
and discuss philosophy or even just exchange the day's gossip!

As for conlangs.......
-------------------------------------------

li_sasxsek@NUTTER.NET wrote:
[snip]
 > This may not be a popular thing to say here, but I don't consider most
 > conlangs to be "languages".  I consider them to be plans or blueprints
 > for languages,

They have been called 'model languages' before now, in the way that
hobbyists may make model planes, locomotives etc. A Conlang like Teonaht
is IMO rather more than just a plan or blueprint!

 > and then become languages when they come to life
 > through usage.

Like Klingon and Esperanto   :)

 > Until then, they are just concepts.

I would say they are more than just concepts, however. See above.

 > The "community"
 > may only be two people, but there does need to at least be a speaker
 > and a listener.

I guess in the case of Hildegard the listener was God.

But what about people who speak to themselves? I remember my grandmother
used to argue with herself!

Defining language is interesting subject. In the west, the tradition
goes back to the Greek theorists of the 6th & 5th cent BCE (I don't how
ancient discussions on language are in India or China). As I noted at
the beginning, a whole book has been written on the subject; and I'd by
extremely surprise if that were the only book with a title the same as
or similar to "What is language" - and some probably contain more than
216 pages.

Meantime, if I want a short definition I'll stick with Trask's even tho
his definitions are recursive    ;)

--
Ray
==================================
ray@carolandray.plus.com
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
Nid rhy hen neb i ddysgu.
There's none too old to learn.
[WELSH PROVERB]

Reply