Talk:Language/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

NPOV

This article (or at least its introduction) needs revision.

"A language is a system of visual, auditory, or situational constraints," "A set of agreed-upon symbols is only one feature of language; all languages must define more subtle forms of political oppression/repression relationships the structural relationships between these symbols in a system of grammar. Rules of grammar are what distinguish language from other forms of communication and can generate a resistance movement to challenge the oppressive status quo. They allow a finite set of symbols to be manipulated to create a potentially infinite number of grammatical utterances wherein identity is built by the idea of being 'weighted down',"limits should be placed on the power of any entity to unfairly control an individual or group of people," "Some of the areas of the brain involve arbitrariness and cruelty, and are the perceived negative effects in language processing:"

What does this all mean? These sentences sound like parody, and are indeed "unintelligible" (see below). Aristotle1990 (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

"But for Croatian, Serbian or Bosnian speakers, nada means, "hope". In this case have no group membership to share their burden of being ostracized." "Languages are first spoken, then written, and then an understanding and explanation of their grammar (according to speech) is attempted and may constitute a hierarchy of victimization". "The transition between languages within the same language family is sometimes start to believe in negative stereotypes of themselves." "Some like to make parallels with biology, where to use against itself the methods of the well-defined distinction between one species and the next."

I agree, the whole article needs some serious attention. An article on a topic as important as language should be a lot better. All this talk of oppression and victimization is ridiculous and the article as a whole reads like it was written by someone with a poor grasp of English. Can anyone who has read this article in its entirety say that it meets Wikipedia's standards?

Most of that oppession talk comes from the edit by 69.244.3.176. Is there any way of returning to the article before it? I tried undoing but it didn't work. Kamicase (talk) 19:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I went through and removed what was left over. It was all just a bunch of nonsense added by one user.-Wafulz (talk) 21:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

opening paragraphs

Is it just me or does the definition of language currently given at the top of this article border on the unintelligible? And I think the factoid that "many species use a language" is certainly an arguable proposition. Quite frankly, all the introductory paragraphs seem a little disjointed. 24.11.177.133 04:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I decided to just try and improve the definition myself. I'm sure it's far from perfect, but I think in any case it's preferable to talking about "conversant entities". 24.11.177.133 22:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

That looks a lot more readable to me. Thank you. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It was my pleasure. Unfortunately, the second paragraph remains. It seems less a summary treatment of the topic (which I assume it's supposed to be) and more a hodge-podge of random facts. And for that matter, I'm not sure all the statements are even facts.24.11.177.133 23:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed the sentence "Language is emerging as the central preoccupation of our time." from the opening paragraphs because I doubt that the majority of people could possibly agree with the statement (even if the principle maintainers of this article could ;-) ). Based on the colloquial definition of the word "preoccupation", I don't think that the sentence can stand without some sort of explanation, and if explanation is necessary, it should be located further down in the page, not in the opening paragraphs. -Stuart 18:17, 16 June 2007 (EST)

I removed the entire statement. It is not about language itself at all, only about studying it, and really just an opinion at that. I've paired the intro down to one paragraph stating what language is, and specifically that it is a general phenomenon of which human language is a specific instance (and pointing the reader to the page on natural language for further information specifically on human language. —Tox 20:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Section

I have deleted an entire section from the article because, among other things, it was written in the first person with personal anecdotes of the author. I don't think it can be salvaged, but just in case anybody thinks it can, it is reproduced below. --JianLi 02:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

==Language is not just the spoken word== A very strong type of language is body language. A man is walking down the sidewalk of his favorite city. It is always windy, but it doesn’t bother him a bit because he is too content with the surroundings. As he is strolling aimlessly, he passes a cute little coffee shop pinned between two towering department stores. As he peers in the window, his attention is taken hold of by the sight of the most beautiful woman he has ever seen. She notices him too. They share the most enchanting glance; their eyes locked-in as if they will never look any where else again. It was love at first sight. The man walks into the coffee place and approaches the woman. He introduces himself to—what he hoped to be—his soul mate. The woman pauses for a moment and gives the man a slightly confused look. She begins to introduce herself and the man realizes she is French. He has found his soul mate and they don’t share one common word in their vocabulary. This man and woman were hooked on one enticing look. They had no idea they were of different nationalities; they didn’t care. The minds of most believe thoughts and feelings can only be expressed through the spoken word which obviously has to be shared between two people of the same tongue, but these two very different people shared one of the deepest feelings between each other without ever having to speak a word. If such a strong message can be communicated with one glance, then why isn’t body language considered language?

Another very efficient and well-known form of body language is sign language. My Aunt is hearing-impaired; she has to wear high powered sound-enhancing hearing aids in both ears. When she gave birth to her youngest son the doctor was reluctant to inform her that her son was completely deaf. Impaired hearing is common on that side of my family, so it wasn’t anything new to anyone, but it was going to be different for my aunt and uncle. Instead of teaching their son of two years old how to talk, they had to teach him sign language. My cousin didn’t know what spoken language was; all he knew was he could communicate through motions of his hands. Most people believe thoughts and feelings can only be expressed through the spoken word which obviously means both of these people have to be able to hear and speak, but my little cousin expressed everything he had to say through sign language and never had to hear or say a word. Body language is a good example of a form of language that proves the word should be considered in a broad sense, not narrowed to speech.

Sometimes the word language can be used to describe a system of symbols and signs used to express information. One example of this is mathematics. I have a friend who is taking calculus II which is taught by a professor from a different country. Naturally, this professor is very hard to understand and she doesn’t always pronounce words and phrases as we would in America. Despite this little difference my friend has with his professor he is doing well because math is a system of communication that can be done through numbers and symbols. This professor does all her teaching on a blackboard so my friend just takes notes and follows her work she is writing. He is able to watch her as she solves different mathematical situations and then go over his notes with the book later and he makes sense of it all. Even though this professor has trouble communicating with her students through the spoken word, she obviously does a good job of communicating on a mathematical stand-point.

Another example of a system that uses symbols and a set of rules to express information is the language of computers. A computer is not made up of words and sentences; it makes sense of everything you make it do through ones and zeros. Different patterns of these two numbers make up everything a computer is designed to do; whether it is supposed to run a program, open a document, or send an e-mail. We are able to communicate to each other all over the world through e-mail and this requires no spoken words at all. The computer doesn’t need to use words to know where you want that e-mail to be sent. Computer science is also a good example of how information can be expressed—which is the true definition of language—without ever speaking or writing a word.

This is a rather sophisticate form of spam, in which some aspiring writer dumped a piece of rambling "creative writing" into an article with a vaguely similar topic. You were wise to delete it. Comme le Lapin 06:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The only merit to the strange discourse is that body language conveys (at least part of) the emotional content of communication, a point which is now incorporated in the current version of the main article.

Badly Bradley 02:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have redeleted this section. Though it had changed a since the above quote, it was full of numerous incorrect or misleading statements, tangents, and nonsensical paragraphs. It read like it was a hodge podge of paragraphs conglomerated from long deleted sections. And, the entire thing was unsourced to boot. —Tox 20:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Why no Language Family picture?

Why isn't the picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Human_Language_Families_%28wikicolors%29.png on this article? There was a similar picture in the French version, but when I wanted a picture in English, I had to hunt all over to find the English version. So, why isn't it here? Has it been on before, but deleted? Or have people just not bothered to put it on? Kevin 19:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I think people just haven't bothered to put it on. There were only two graphics in the whole article before so I've added it in the "Genetic classification" section by copying the code that was in language family. If I've messed it up feel free to fix it - I'm blind and can't see what I'm doing with image placement. Graham87 02:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. That's what I was going for. I would have done it myself, but I wasn't sure if there was another reason it wasn't here :). Kevin 23:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The map was removed because it is sourceless and inaccurate. Slac speak up! 01:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think a map is very useful as a visual cue. It is sourced (which is rare for an image, but go look), and like any map of language families, is guaranteed to be open to claims of inaccuracy. The language families page itself uses this image, and it has been in usage on very visible pages and under active development somewhere on wikipedia for at least the past 4 years. I think we should reinstate it. — robbiemuffin ^{page talk} 17:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The requested clean-up begins

Hello everyone,

I hope the clean-up I'm about to post doesn't step on anyones toes.

I've also added a few points, including reintroducing a couple of previously deleted tidbits in a more tactful fashion, having been deleted because there seemed to be no context for them.

Badly Bradley 20:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I have made a few edits to the cleanup. I thought before that the lead section was far too short for such an important topic - I think your edit added too much detail in some parts; I have removed some things about machine translation and replaced them with a wikilink. I have also tried to avoid the use of "you" - Wikipedia should always be written in the third person.

I have also removed things like the set of symbols used in languages is commonly known as an alphabet as that's not always true - I know you elaborated on that further down the page but I don't think "commonly" is the right word there. I have also reduced wikilinking - see the guideline at Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context - basically not every term that can be linked should be linked, but highly relevant links should be emphasised.

I don't like the part about Chinese, Latin and English being used - I think that goes too far into original research. I always thought they were dominant languages because English-speaking nations, China and Ancient Rome have been very dominant in world affairs. I'm also not sure that population size determines whether a language will have a writing system - I always thought it was more to do with technological advancements. Having said that, technological advancements often lead to agriculture which can support a higher population than a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, and the great human civilisations all used writing to communicate. I don't have any professional knowledge in this area.

Also statements should be cited using the Wikipedia format for footnotes. Print sources would be preferred - I don't know which ones would be best though. Graham87 10:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Re.: Chinese, Latin and English - just repeating what I was told *many* years ago by a college teacher; if others agree it should be deleted I won't stand in the way. FWIW: according to the same college teacher, English's flexibility of rules derives from centuries of absorbing the best features of other languages. But I'm not an expert so I really can't defend the idea…

Re.: the Wycliffe quote - it *does* go back to a published book; I failed to clarify that. That said, I realize now it should be part of the "Translation" article, not the "Language" article.

The rest is all good. If those are the only problems I caused, then I did good!

Badly Bradley 18:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops! the Wycliffe quote - it does *NOT* go back to a published book. I had my notes mixed up. Sorry about that…

Badly Bradley 18:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Next Up: The "See also:" needs to be reorganized. I'm not going to delete any of the links, just put them in alphabetical order, and maybe split off the links to lists as a separate group. Also there are some that are too long for the 4 column format. Not sure how to deal with that but I'm game to tackle it…

Badly Bradley 19:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed most of the paragraph about the advantages of English, Latin and Chinese - as I've said above I don't think it is correct. As for the see also section how about separating it into subheadings? I think that'd be better than the alphabetical arrangement that is currently there. Graham87 12:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"See also" subheadings might be good, but after looking at the list again, nothing obvious comes to mind. Did you have some specific ideas? The only things I see are "Standards" and "Research", and a category that would include things like slang and profanity but for which I can't think of a good label.

Badly Bradley 16:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It would look like this (which isn't good enough):

what language does and how it does it

Words do not contain meaning, but are symbolic pointers to experiences and instructions for assembling them with other experiences which can differ from speaker to listener, considerably. If you have ever played with lego blocks, think of each block or group of blocks as a personal experience and with a magic marker you have written a name on that block group of blocks. If you want to convey that experience to someone not present, say over the telephone (equivilent to the fact that you cannot see what is going on in the mind of another as you speak to them), you would typically speak in just the names of each block or group and give instructions on how to assemble them together...expecting the listener to have his labels applied to the identictly shaped blocks and groups of blocks. Even people brought up in the same exact culture, same neighborhood, same ethnic group, can have slightly different experiences under the same labels which is why communications get progressively worse with cultural/ethnic/geographical distances. It is also why Christianity has fragments so greatly under the protestant reformation, as they have abandoned the highly emotional rituals that have underlined the orthodox versions. Free of these rituals, the bible words can be intepreted through a much greater range of individual experiences and cultural colorings. As one author put it, the bible [actually any book] is the mirror of your soul, no monkey reading it, will find God staring back (paraphrasing Robert A Wilson) Jiohdi (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

See also

• Base language
• Computer-assisted language learning - a historical perspective
• Dictionary - word catalog for a given language
• Ebonics
• Extinct language
• Historical linguistics
• Intercultural competence
• Interpreting

• Language education
• Language policy
• Language reform
• Language school
• Linguistic protectionism
• Metacommunicative competence
• Name
• Non-verbal communication
• Official language
• Orthography
• Philology
• Philosophy of language

• Phonetic transcription
• Psycholinguistics
• Sign language
• Speech therapy
• Symbolic communication
• Symbolic linguistic representation
• Terminology
• Thesaurus - find the best word for a situation
• Translation
• Universal grammar
• Visual language
• Whistled language

???????

• Deception
• Non-sexist language
• Profanity
• Slang
• Tongue-twister

Research

• Broca's area - a speech-related brain region
• FOXP2 - gene implicated in cases of specific language impairment (SLI)
• Sapir–Whorf hypothesis

Standards

• ISO 639-3 - 3-letter ID codes for all languages
• ISO 639 - 2- and 3-letter ID codes for languages
• ILR scale - defines 5 levels of language proficiency

See also (Lists)

• Category:Lists of languages
• Ethnologue - list of languages, locations, population and genetic affiliation
• List of basic linguistics topics
• List of common phrases in various languages
• List of language academies
• List of languages
• List of official languages

I'm not going to pursue this, but if you want to as they say, "Be bold!" Badly Bradley 17:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes some of the items can fit neatly into subheadings while others won't. I'm not sure what the best solution is. Graham87 01:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Citing sources

On 2007-05-19, User:Rebent "removed quotes per MLA" evidently referring to the Modern Language Association, USA, MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers (2nd ed.).

I am inclined to revert this change, but those who know me realize it is NOT my habit to do so quickly without comment first, except in cases of flagrant vandalism.

My quotation was within the guidelines at "Wikipedia:Citing sources" which specifically does not recognize MLA as governing. Nevertheless, as MLA *is* about Language perhaps this is one of those exception scenarios that "Wikipedia:Citing sources" leaves a toehold for. (However, I would vote against making that change. The existing guideline is quite sufficient.)

I specifically quoted that phrase for 2 reasons:

1) I lifted it directly from the source text (were I it's original author, I would have expected a subsequent user to enclose it in quotes).

2) It contains a numerical value in dispute, and likely to be unique to this highly credible source.

After reviewing the guidelines more carefully, I realize I did not finish the job I started. I should have added the information to the References section also. And it would be prudent to engage the services of WebCite [1] as well.

Before I fix that though, I'm going to visit my local public library and see if I can get my hands on the original book that link points to. Doing so might entail an inter-library loan, a procedure I've used many times before. It would be better to convert the web link to a "Further Reading" or "External Links" item if possible.

I will await comment before taking any further steps about the quotation marks issue.

Badly Bradley 17:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Badly Bradley. Basically I just made a quick copy edit because, to me, anyway, having the quotations where they were broke up the flow of the sentence and are not really needed. In my mind, quoting is a more specific form of citing. If you are trying to say you are quoting exactly, then you do need quotation marks, but if you are just citing, you don't. So I brought it down a level to improve the aesthetics of it.

When I said "per mla" what I meant was basically that I was changing it per grammatical rules but I didn't want to take the time to find exactly which rules they were. It is also probably as per WP:CITE or whatever the WP rule is.

While I may have not gone about citing my reasons for changing the quotation marks, I still think what I did makes the sentence look better. If you disagree, change it back. I don't care. --Rebent 20:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Everyone,

I got the "Ethnologue" book (it's reference only so I had to go to a library that had it and use it there). Based on what I learned, I'm going to completely rework that part and eliminate the web-based citation. It will reappear as a line in the external links section instead.

Badly Bradley 23:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Today I incorporated most of the promised improvements (well, I hope they are improvements!) under the heading "Enumerating Living Languages".

Badly Bradley 21:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Native American Languages

Where do the languages of Native Americans fit in?

Language Predicated Educational Games

If no one objects, I'd like to add the following seedling to the main article, to be fleshed out later. Some of these are English-only concepts, but this *is* the English wiki... The point here is: To succeed at any of these educational games, one must possess good to excellent language skills.

The idea for this came to me this evening while watching a contestant on Wheel of Fortune successfully solve a puzzle with a really severe shortage of clues. The particular round devolved to a list of letters *not* in the phrase, a particularly "tough row to hoe".

• Anagram
• Crossword puzzle
• Hangman
• Scrabble
• Spelling bee
• Wheel of Fortune

I would also be fascinated to read about Language Predicated Educational Games for languages that are radically different from English (Japanese and Chinese in particular).

If this belongs someplace else, lets figure out where. Then we can add it to the "See also" for this article.

Badly Bradley 03:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article at word game which should be expanded greatly - it's not all that different from the way it started. But it would be interesting to say that humans have made games and sports out of language. Graham87 10:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Word game is an interesting beginning, with a much longer list than I expected. There are games I haven't played or thought about since I was a kid (that's *MANY* decades ago!). Imagine my surprise: word game didn't include Crossword puzzle, Hangman, Spelling bee and Wheel of Fortune! Fixed.

And now it occurs to me any complete discussion of "Language Predicated Educational Games" should include at least a mention of puns and Double entendre. Fixed.

This might require more work than I originally imagined, but I think it has some great possibilities. I suspect the more complex and powerful a language is, the more fascinating the possiblities for games.

A busy-body who shall remain nameless visited Word game. You might want to check it out…

Badly Bradley 16:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Good work on the word game article. Graham87 08:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

auxiliary language vs. constructed language

I have some serious concerns about the edits made by an anonymous user Special:Contributions/84.196.203.95 on 2007/06/08 as follows: 05:52:22 . . (-57) . . (Talk) (?International Auxiliary Languages) 05:44:49 . . (-55) . . 84.196.203.95 (Talk) (?Languages and linguistic diversity)

These edits have drastically altered the meaning of the referenced sections of the article. In particular this edit lumps essentially natural languages such as Interlingua with totally fictitious languages such as Klingon, which I frankly find personally offensive.

While he/she has contributed some new material (without references, BTW) which might have enough merit to keep in the article, I feel strongly that it should be reverted. In particular, I specifically dispute that Esperanto now outranks Interlingua. While the Wiki's own Esperanto article also makes that claim, it provides no references to back it up.

Would someone who knows a lot more about this than I know please look at it?

Depending on the outcome here, it might be appropriate to place a "Fact" tag on the intro to Esperanto as well.

Badly Bradley 19:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Enumerating Living Languages

This is both a comment and a request for assistance.

At the top of the main article is a banner bemoaning the lack of references.

At the bottom of the main article is a nice list of references.

Am I missing the point here? Looking at the article and the references I don't see any linkages in either direction. Is this lack of linkage why the banner was "awarded" to our steadily improving article? Also, shouldn't the references to physical books include either page numbers, or at least chapter numbers?

Since I obviously still don't "get it", I inserted my copious reference info directly into the article immediately following the relevant text. At least this way it won't get lost, but I already know I didn't do it correctly. (Yes, I *have* read the wiki guidance on citations. No, I never was particularly good at documenting references.)

Badly Bradley 22:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I've cleaned the ref up - I've put it in "<ref>" and "</ref>" tags and trimmed it down to the information usually given in Wikipedia references (URL, ISBN if applicable, accessdate). Some of it like the publisher and author could probably be put back; I'm in a rush this morning so I can't do much more. I sometimes use to control the formatting. Graham87 01:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I learn more seeing how someone else gets it done than I do reading all the explanations. Looking at Wikipedia:Citation templates for the first time, something really pops out: The Harvard referencing fully supports the linking I noticed we're missing. Meanwhile, the extremely simple thing you did with the tags *also* made links. Nice.

Next I observe that the 2 linked references in this article, a pre-existing one and the brand new one, both appear under the heading "Notes". I would expect them to appear, and be looking for them, under "References".

Upon further study, it occurs to me that the list under "References" is actually formatted in the Harvard style (which is a good thing).

If I can find some more time to sink into it, I'd like to come back and try to repair some of the missing linkages between citations and their references.

Perhaps we should consider "officially" adopting the Harvard style for the article... I went through the Language Portal and picked a couple articles at random to see how other articles handle it. I discovered some articles have no references at all (not even ones with missing linkage) and others have the same mixed status as this article.

Badly Bradley 14:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Referencing isn't an area I'm too familiar with - I've never studied at any university and on Wikipedia I follow the instructions on the citation templates and hope for the best. The list of references is generated by the "<references/>" markup and can appear anywhere in the article. The section is titled "notes" since it's just a list of footnotes - the references section of the article just contains books; I wonder if it can be merged with "Further reading"? I'm more familiar with the <ref> and </ref> style of citation because it's more popular in Wikipedia, but I'm not too fussed about what format is used for footnotes, as long as it looks good and conveys the necessary information. Graham87 16:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It might also be instructive to look at featured articles for examples of references. They range in quality because the standards for promoting a featured article have increased over the last few years, but they cover a wide variety of subjects and some are very interesting reading. Graham87 16:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Signed Languages

In in its present form this article presents full signed languages like ASL and BSL in a category of invented languages along with semaphore flags and scuba signs. Signed languages used by Deaf people are evolved rather than invented languages - and need to be accorded a similar status to spoken languages. Indeed advanced sign languages like ASL, BSL, etc while maybe not quite having the linguistic range of international languages like english or arabic are of a similar level of complexity and range to other spoken languages. They are certsainly not invented communication systems like semaphore.

they also more independent of the spoken language of the host country for example American Sign appears to have devloped from a creole of French sign language and other native sign languages While British Sign Language has a different background and is not intelligible to an ASL user as BSL would be. I suggest full syntactical signed languages are moved out of the invented language category while sign systems like Makaton , Paget Gorman etc may be included here!

as well as being innacurate it is rather insulting to the deaf community to categorise signed languages in this way.

any comments welcome before I begin editing ... Topmark 23:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Topmark!

You make some excellent points here. In fact some of what you just said might be perfect as is to include in the article.

That said, I think it would be wrong to simply deconstruct that section. The main purpose and point of the section was to emphasize that silent language is a valuable and viable option, amplifying the point of the earlier section "Language Is More Than Sound". It is my mistake that Sign Language was lumped under "invented". In fact, if you'll take another look, you'll see that I just tweaked the section to more correctly align with what I originally intended.

Thank you for bringing this unfortunate error to my attention. I assure you I meant no insult!

Please, do add more about ASL & BSL.

Hopefully, you can provide some references so someone else won't come along and undo your work.

Badly Bradley 16:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know how to ...?

Hello,

Does anyone know how to reposition the portal so that it lands in the middle between the TOC and the Neuropsychology side bar? As it stands now the portal link, which should be prominent and near the top, is now underneath the Neuropsychology side bar where it has become inconspicuous.

Thanks for your help in advance!

Badly Bradley 16:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Doh! Never mind... I figured out how to fix it. And it was so easy, I feel pretty stupid now.

Badly Bradley 18:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Scope of this article

Erg, here I go again trying to fix the unfixable. This article should not be about human language:

1. Language is a much more general phenomenon, of which human language is only a specific instance (or set of instances).
2. We already have a seperate article for that: natural language.

All a particular language is is a system of arbitrary symbols and the rules that manipulate them. Human languages are only a specific subset of all possible languages, and as such they have a lot of properties specific only to them that have very little to do with the general properties that all languages share.

For instance the set of symbols of natural language is restricted to symbols we can create and perceive (typically sounds produced with the vocal tract or signs produced by body movements). Even though there are currently five or six thousand living human languages, the variability in the syntax exists within certain bounds (presumably because of some genetic hardwiring of the language center of the brain that we all share). To take an example from Chomsky, there are only a handful of ways human languages form questions out of statements, no human language forms a question by reversing the order of the words in a statement. But, logically, in line with the general properties of language, there is no reason a language couldn't.

This article needs to restrict itself to the properties held by all languages, along with introductions to the commonly encountered types of languages (natural human languages, constructed human languages, computer programming languages, and formal languages) all of which have their own dedicated articles.

There might also be some discussion on the possibility of animal language. However, so far no solid evidence has been presented showing that any other species has actual language (as opposed to mere sets of symbols with no grammar). Chimps and gorillas signing is to my mind debunked. They can apparently learn a decent number of signs, but they can't learn grammar — and yes, sign languages have grammar just like spoken languages. So, such a section should state the current knowledge on whether animal communication is a form of language or not, but should not state that it is. —Tox 20:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I have moved a number of sections from this article to natural language. The move is not complete yet. And that article needs a huge amount of work, too. This article needs to have the section on the properties of language expanded (and divided) until it populates most of the article. More discussion is necessary on the nature of symbols. And a discussion of both syntax and semantics is needed. —Tox 23:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

When you say,

Language is a much more general phenomenon, of which human language is only a specific instance (or set of instances)

I completely agree with you. Then how in the same bredth, can you make an argument that

However, so far no solid evidence has been presented showing that any other species has actual language (as opposed to mere sets of symbols with no grammar). Chimps and gorillas signing is to my mind debunked. They can apparently learn a decent number of signs, but they can't learn grammar — and yes, sign languages have grammar just like spoken languages.

?

None of us ever learn grammar. What we acquire (and not even learn), is clearly language. The grammar is just the obtrusive form that the language gains on the basis of how we use it. Animals, obviously, do the same thing. I think you are perhaps confused about that. Hope you've got my point though, Tox? --Supriya (talk) 11:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Etymology

I don’t know whether the authors and editors of this article would like to include a section on the etymology of the word language; but I am interested in finding it’s origin and I thought it might be useful. Does anyone know where it comes from and how it became used as it is? --Maha Odeh 12:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The word is based on Latin lingua meaning "tongue". That would not make much of a section; however, it would be appropriate to link to the Wiktionary definition (using the wiki-template). --Charles Gaudette 19:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The scientific validity of language

Why doesn't the article talk about the fact that, scientifically, languages mean nothing, despite having "rules" which can be "proven"? --- They are an invention of man. Just because the dictionary says "blah-blah-blah" means "blah, blah, blah", doesn't mean that can be scientifically proven. From my understanding, generally, the only true scientific things in the universe are those which are set in stone --- have always been true and will always be true. A supporting fact of this (not that it needs any --- after just thinking about it, it will make sense) is that languages change --- they aren't set in stone like like "2+2 = 4", and man has also created new words even after modern languages have already been established. Or is this idea not in the article because it is just implied? I know this idea may seem random for an article, but I don't think so for this one --- from what I know, language is one of the few things that was created and is not scientific, yet, includes "rules" that can be "proven" by looking them up. And, no, I don't have a "reference" for this (as I know some people are probably going to say I need one); it makes logical enough sense on its own --- and anyone who reads this will know that too. 00:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC) User:Pitman6787

I believe that the article as it stands gets your point across. Also, note the difference between social sciences and physical sciences. Slac speak up! 01:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, yeah. Have a look at linguistics to know how ill-informed linguists can go off on a tangent on the name of science.

--Supriya (talk) 11:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

death due to stop of change???

Languages live, die, move from place to place and change with time. Any language that stops changing begins to die[citation needed]; any language that is a living language is a language in a state of continuous change.

I have issues with the bold formatted part of the statement. It simply ain't true. Yes, a non-changing language is a usually a dead language, but it is not dead because it stopped changing. It's the other way around. Dead languages just stop changing. (As the second part of the statement says,) no living language does stop to change, therefore no living language ever dies due to having stopped changing. They die (most often because the natural speakers actually die or are assimilated - usually over a few generations - into some other linguistic group) and stop changing with their death. The original half-sentence implies that a language actually can stop changing and dies due to that. (languages can be very static, if it is highly regulated through schools and media - though never completely static - but many of these slowly changing languages are actually very healthy.)

I propose the following wording (as i am no devil with words, and english aint my mother tongue, feel free to make different proposals):

"Languages live, die, move from place to place and change with time. Any language that is a living language is a language in a state of continuous change and only stops changing with its death (if then)." ­­

IcycleMort 13:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Origins of Language or Death of a Language

Hi. The death of languages, could suppose that it will not be spoken again, unless taught. Who could amplyfy the subject. And what is a person who does not know how to read or write, to do with the origin of languages ? (GeorgeFThomson (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC))

Controlling codes in languages

I am giving here a link to a series of articles connected to the inner codes of languages. I do not think it is appropriate to post them here. The link is to the first one is [2]. Subsequent ones are to be found on the same Forum Pages. --Ved from Victoria Institutions (talk) 08:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Study of languages

I added to the study of languages section, to describe not only its history but also what it actually is. (The text of the first two paragrpahs is a rewrite of the top of the linguistics article it draws from, while the third paragraph does the same thing from the theoretical and the applied linguistics pages.) Since linguistics attempts to classify and model language, I also think it is more fitting above the specific types of language further down the article, so I moved it up. Feel free to change or remove what you like! — robbiemuffin ^{page talk} 17:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Alternately it could be moved to the end, but if it does, it should probably be moved after all the types (that is, after animal language too) — robbiemuffin ^{page talk} 17:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Linguistics

Please take a look at this wiki-page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispilio_Tablet . I believe this is even older than the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuneiform you are discussing. Please update the historical data. In the last twelve years there are findings basically from to archaelogists n.sampson and g.hourmouziadis that testify that there have been written texts from 5000 - 6000bc. Please update the article. Thanks

I also feel the linguistics section needs to be expanded. Too little is written about linguistics, the study of language. --Supriya (talk) 11:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

For that we have the linguistics article. You appear to be trying to turn a section of this article into a rival to the linguistics article. Please stop it. If it's against consensus there, it's against consensus here too. garik (talk) 14:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Let the 'consensus' here decide that. Before I made changes to the page yesterday, there was already a very similar edit that involved the explanation of discourse, narrative, etc. I only expanded, on that - I did not really change anything much here, like I admit I had done, back on the linguistics page. And I also think you should watch your back; this kind of imposition of your ideas (just because you have a boy-band on the linguistics page) can't be allowed to proliferate all over wikipedia. If there is a section on linguistics on the 'orgasm' page, what are you going to do? Come there with your little troop and try to gain consensus on the way you want it written? Please. What you are doing is not acceptable. I appeal that people speak up here - the person who had originally written the linguistics section for the page, where are you? --Supriya 15:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well yes, to be fair to you, now I look at the edit history, it does seem that user:robbiemuffin decided to create a linguistics section here partly by just cutting and pasting the introduction to the linguistics article as it then was. In that sense you were only expanding on this article; but you were still expanding on something lifted wholesale from something you mostly wrote yourself. In any case, the issue is with the content rather than with how it got into the article. The section is also considerably too long for this article. garik (talk) 19:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Without there being a consensus on this page, it can't be changed. Sorry. I will continue to revert edits until this nonsense stops. --Supriya 19:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with the three-revert rule first. Since your edits gathered no consensus at Linguistics, I don't see what makes you think there'll be consensus for them here. —Angr 19:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

A reminder to be civil on talk pages. The linguistics section does indeed appear to be overlong if there is already a main; the section should contain the basics required to understand the language page, not a miniature of the linguistics page. Also, unsourced content can be removed and should not be replaced without sources if challenged (see WP:PROVEIT). I'd like to remove the what is language section, possibly replace it with "Definition" instead. If there's no agreed-upon definition, then this should be stated, but the structuralist position should not be given sole precedence if it is not the only position. And why are there 5 requests for comments? And why are they phrased as confrontations? I doubt someone will comment if it's written as if it were a dispute that was based on truth rather than verifiability. WLU (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

WLU, thank you. The structuralist position is indeed not the only position in linguistics. There happens to be a post-structuralist position, which is being ignored. Just because there is a higher number of people "contesting" for one position, that cannot be given sole precedence. If I have your consensus, I would like you to help me to state that at the linguistics article as well. Here, one group of people are nicely helping each other to propagate their views, just because they've decided to make it their life goal to censor all other work that is being done in linguistics and highlight their own. It is one-sided, even if there has been a consensus. The wiki rules also state that "voting" is not supposed to be done, these are not "elections". Editing has to be done through the consensus of all parties involved, even if there is just one person who is voicing a different stance. The majority has to include the minority views, and that is what wikipedia is about. And in the linguistics article, what I voiced has been ignored. The reason why I have put multiple requests is because I wanted to invite people from all those communities, and didn't know how to do it in the same message. Please edit it if you know how to. And I am trying to be as civil as possible, but you can't blame me if this gets on my nerves and tests my patience. And Angr, I didn't really ask you for an opinion on where I would get consensus and where I would not. Thank you. --Supriya 20:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I know very little about linguistics. If post-structuralism is missing from the linguistics main, reliable sources discussing the post-structuralist position should be obtained, summarized and added to the page. Per WP:PROVEIT, any unsourced information must be removed if challenged. If post-structuralism is a minority position, per WP:UNDUE it should be discussed as a minority position, with less coverage and weight. If a position is mainstream, it's easy to verify using conventional textbooks. If it's not but there's still a substantial minority, you may have to dig more but it should still be possible. Either way, sources trump any RFC every time. You don't have 'my consensus' because consensus doesn't come from finding one person who agrees with you, it comes from multiple editors agreeing that a) the source is reliable for the page it is on, b) it is adequately summarized and c) significant criticisms or rebuttals have been included (again, verified through reliable sources). I don't determine consensus, all editors on the page must agree on a consensus. No views, majority or minority, must be included unless they are sourced. Information does not magically come from RFCs, it comes from editors citing sources. WP:PARENT and WP:CANVAS violations, either through ignorance or to be WP:POINTy, are more likely to irritate people than result in a solid consensus. Wikipedia is many things, but it is primarily an encyclopedia which should be built through reliable sources. I do know how to edit, I think I'm pretty good at it, but I'll be at a large disadvantage on the linguistics page because I am ignorant, have no sources or familiarity with the topic, and am not willing to become so.

Angr's referral to the WP:3RR beat me to making my own statement - if you've reverted 3 times in 24 hours, you're engaged in an edit war and should discuss rather than reverting further. Ultimately wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth, and verifiability is determined by what sources can be found.

Also, by casting aspersions or unwholesome motivations on other editors, you're making your editing life more difficult as well as running into problems with WP:AGF and WP:NPA. WLU (talk) 16:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough about the sources. I'll be proposing a new draft with the post-structuralist view and the missing topics on discourse, etc - with sources. Let's see where that takes us. Even earlier, some of the sources just needed to be added; I was in the process of writing /editing the linguistics article. --Supriya 19:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, just to clarify: post-structuralism is not a minority view. There are philosophers and writers who have written about it excessively in modern times. Some of these include Derrida and Foucault. There are a lot of others too. Once the changes are ready, I'll present it here, and on linguistics. --Supriya 19:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but that means it should be easy to verify and there's no real reason to not do so. And the page should also remain about language, not linguistics (they're separate pages covering separate, though linked content). WP:FORK, WP:CFORK, WP:POVFORK and WP:COAT all apply - content should not be forked. WLU (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You may also want to consider removing the RFCs you've got pasted at the top of this, and doubtless several RFC pages. WLU (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Origin

When was spoken language born? When did we go from no spoken language to spoken language? When in human history did this happen? Why did we evolve to speak? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.48.209.236 (talk) 08:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

new second intro paragraph of 1 Oct 2008

I added the following, but some a subsequent editor has suggested that it looks like OR. I post it here in order to check what kinds of sourcing would give reassurance...

In Western Philosophy, language has long been closely associated with reason, which is also a uniquely human way of using symbols. (In Ancient Greek philosophical terminology, the same word, logos, was used for both language and reason.) What distinguishes language from reason is that the former refers only to expressions of reason which can be understood by other people, most obviously by speaking. Therefore in some languages, the word for language means "tongue" or stems from a word relating to tongues (such as lingua in Latin or glossa in Ancient Greek).

I'd like to ask for comments on what precisely should be sourced. The etymological comments can be looked up by clicking, so is it just the remark that Western Philosophy connects Reason and Language, or is it perhaps felt that specifying that the main difference between the two is the sharable nature of language?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not the etymologies I was worried about (although I'd define the linguistic meaning of logos as "word" or "utterance" rather than language). It's the remark about Western Philosophy (whose?) connecting reason (defined how?) and language, the entire second sentence, and the connection of the third to the second by means of a "therefore", that looks like OR to me. —Angr 13:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well starting with the easy one, the word logos certainly goes beyond "word" or "utterance" in Ancient Greek as it was used in Classical Philosophy - which is of course something quite different to New Testament Greek. By the way it can also mean an account or argument, i.e. it's rational aspect and not just the sounds being made as implied by the word "utterance" so I am actually thinking that "utterance" is not a good translation. I think just looking up logos on Wikipedia will show this, so I am presuming this needs no sourcing, or at least that such sourcing is not urgent?

Concerning the connection between the two concepts in Western Philosophy, this is certainly not OR. I think I can source that pretty easily and will get to it as soon as I have a chance.

Concerning the "therefore" I see what you mean. This could be removed - either the word or the sentence.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is the new version I am trying to post on 3rd Oct, although it does not seem to be uploading well right now.

In Western Philosophy, language has long been closely associated with reason, which is also a uniquely human way of using symbols. (In Ancient Greek philosophical terminology, the same word, logos, was used for both language and reason.) Language refers only to expressions of reason which can be understood by other people, most obviously by speaking.

I noticed that there is a to do list for this article which includes the subject of the origins of language. This is also connected to the way several philosophers discussed the links between speech and reason, and so perhaps we should develop it there.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The Origin of Languages

Genesis 11:1-9 1 Now all the earth continued to be of one language and of one set of words. 2 And it came about that in their journeying eastward they eventually discovered a valley plain in the land of Shi´nar, and they took up dwelling there. 3 And they began to say, each one to the other: “Come on! Let us make bricks and bake them with a burning process.” So brick served as stone for them, but bitumen served as mortar for them. 4 They now said: “Come on! Let us build ourselves a city and also a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a celebrated name for ourselves, for fear we may be scattered over all the surface of the earth.” 5 And Jehovah proceeded to go down to see the city and the tower that the sons of men had built. 6 After that Jehovah said: “Look! They are one people and there is one language for them all, and this is what they start to do. Why, now there is nothing that they may have in mind to do that will be unattainable for them. 7 Come now! Let us go down and there confuse their language that they may not listen to one another’s language.” 8 Accordingly Jehovah scattered them from there over all the surface of the earth, and they gradually left off building the city. 9 That is why its name was called Ba´bel, because there Jehovah had confused the language of all the earth, and Jehovah had scattered them from there over all the surface of the earth. I am thinking that this should be put up on the article. This is the only writing in history that gives the information on why there are so many languages today.--JoshuaMD (talk) 19:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Isn't there also an earlier reference to language, where God and/or Adam name stuff? If done properly, there could be a section on Biblical and other traditional accounts of the nature and origins of language.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Joshua MD, this is _absolutely not_ "the only writing in history that gives the information on why there are so many languages today." In addition to numerous other mythological origins for the diversity of language, there also has been a great been a great deal of scientific and philosophical writing on the subject. It may still be that this is relevant to the article: the Biblical account is certainly a very prominent myth, and I agree with Andrew Lancaster that a section on traditional accounts could be appropriate. The fact that this section from Genesis the only writing on the subject that you accept or are familiar with, does not make it sui generis. Helikophis (talk) 20:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, are you an evolutionist? Do you believe what the main articles says; Cuneiform was the first known form of written language, but spoken language is believed to predate writing by tens of thousands of years at least. Pardon me if I seem at all rude to you, but cuniform writing is actual evidence. But when it says "believed" it could be wrong. --JoshuaMD (talk) 10:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, think of it this way: fossil evidence (and historical accounts) indicate that Homo sapiens sapiens has existed for a lot longer than the earliest examples of writing. While there still exist human societies with no writing system at all (although all human societies use language), there are no societies that have writing, but no other form of language. We can be as close to certain as it's possible to be that spoken language predates written language by a considerable time. Humans arose in Africa about 200,000 years ago (and this is based on evidence from molecular biology). This is considerably older than cuneiform, which is only about 5000 years old. So yes, there is excellent evidence that spoken language predates written language (or at least cuneiform) by over 100,000 years — even if we suppose that the earliest human beings didn't have any spoken language and took millennia to develop it (which is highly unlikely). garik (talk) 13:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Joshua, I think the article and its readers can handle alternative theories, but they need to be real ones, and religious and/or traditional accounts have to be handled as what they are, because they come about through different causes than scientific theories.

You also ask what other evidence exists about language before writing. I can think of a few types. Firstly, those first written accounts made it clear that there were already old stories. Secondly, many of even the oldest languages seem to be related to each other - implying that they both derived from a single older "ancestor" language. There are also more complicated arguments based on the fact that language and reason and complex social behavior are often felt to be inseparable - different sides of the same coin. We can't see old languages, but we can see symbols used on houses and pottery, complex burial traditions, cities and agriculture, etc.

So, getting back to the task here, apart from the possibility of including a new section on traditional beliefs about the origins of language, is there anything you can clearly define that needs to be included in the article?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

symbolism is when something stands in to repersent something. e.g a priest represents god on earth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.73.10 (talk) 17:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Language Arts help

The article Language arts needs some WikiLove. I removed some unnecessary bits, but help would be appreciated. -- TimNelson (talk) 08:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Properties of language

After reading this section, I think it may be necessary to limit the claim to "arbitrary symbols" to spoken language only. The section does not take character based or pictographic language systems into account. In these systems, some of the basic written characters are created to symbolize their meaning, and are far from arbitrary, many being derived from pictures of the meaning. I am no expert on this matter, so I will leave this here in the hope that someone who is will bring some insight into the area. Lrsha1 (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

They are still arbitrary, even if they are iconic. For instance, a stick figure is an iconic image of a human being, but it is clearly not the only possible icon we could create. It is often argued that sign languages don't have arbitrary signs for concepts. Again, this is a misconception. There are numerous cases in which two different sign languages each have iconic signs for something, but the two signs are completely different from each other. Or consider onomatopoeia. Where we say "ruff ruff" the Spanish say "guau guau". Both are "iconic" but totally different. And, it is just as possible to create a symbol in written, spoken, or signed languages that is not iconic to replace any of the iconic symbols. Furthermore, this article is not supposed to be exclusively about human language, for that go to natural language. The property of arbitrary symbols is universal to language in general. —Tox (talk) 11:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Book

I'm writing a book and im thinking of a good language for a talking hawk (bird) like italian you know stuff like that THXS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.32.67.57 (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Cricket

The article says: "For instance, the katydid is called a "bush cricket" in British English, a term that bears no relation to the sound the animal makes." But "cricket" seems to be onomatopoeia, too. Maybe a differrent example should be given.

79.175.67.157 (talk) 13:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Request

All those of you watching this page, please come and have a look at linguistics. There is a gross misrepresentation and censorship taking place there. Post-structural linguistics has been deleted and censored by the community there, and I urge you to participate in the discussion to restore a balanced view for the article. Supriya 13:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Lede changes

Collapsed to save space

Ive made a few changes to the lede. Judging by the fact that its yet unchanged, I'm assuming people find it satisfactory. Since I posted it, Ive been debating the first sentence, which now reads: "Language is the assembly of concepts into expressions." BTW, the second sentence now reads: "If such assemblies contain concepts with valid semantics and logic, the resulting expressions are said to contain meaning, and can be comprehended." Although I wrote it, and consider it a vast improvement over what was there prior to it, "language is the assembly of concepts into expressions" has a couple of problems with it, at least in my mind. The fundamentals are there: "Language is," "concepts", and "expressions" are the only things necessary for its definition, and the omission of these terms would make it useless. But is language really the *assembly* of concepts *into* expressions? "Assembly" certainly has something to do with it, but, playing devil's advocate for a moment, I'm not sure its the right term. Nor am I certain beyond refute that such assemblies make concepts "into" expressions. Concepts, if one thinks about it, *are* expressions - expressions in the mind of the conceiver, true, but its fairly well understood that whatever goes on in the mind *is* language, and that all other definitions of language follow. Im short on time, but a few alternates might be useful. Control: language is the assembly of concepts into expressions. language is the usage of concepts to form expressions. language is the composition of concepts to form expressions. language is the cognitive composition of concepts to form expressions. BBL -Stevertigo 19:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Please provide verifiable sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC) I did, and you still had a problem with it. The previous version, the one which you reverted to, has no source whatsoever. The current version, the one you partly authored and apparently prefer, likewise has no cited source. What then is one to make of your objections, or your claimed adherence to either Wikipedia policy or to standards of scholarship in general? -Stevertigo 03:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Omnibuts While I have historically had a great respect, even sycophantic admiration, for Slrubenstein, his edits lately - particularly where it concerns my own edits - have notably been inconsistent with intelligence and civility. While I appreciate a mindless revert just as much as anybody, I would ask that he not do so to me, and instead discuss his changes on the talk page. -Stevertigo 22:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Do not make many changes to the article without discussion, and do not change content unless you have a verifiable source. Your omnibuts citation of Chomsky is inadequate. He is an important linguist but not the only one. The lead to the article should introduce the article as a whole, and the article itself should provide all significant views. Your changes to the introduction to fit some strange view you have of language is unacceptable. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC) What sources does the previous version provide? "Omnibuts" - please define or correct spelling. How does the prior article lede "introduce the article?" Call me a "BS artist", but in writing ledes I prefer not to "introduce articles" but to "introduce concepts." How does that previous lede "provide all significant views?" That version does not. Mine is abstract, and not "strange" at all to anyone who actually knows what they are talking about. -Stevertigo 22:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Andrew ₪ Steve

Collapsed to save space

I've just reverted away from the following lede: Language is the intelligent transformation of thought into discrete semantic and logical concepts, and these concepts into symbolic expressions. [1] When used in communication, expressions which contain valid semantics and logic are said to be comprehensible, and may convey meaning and facilitate understanding. Natural language uses speech, wherein words (encapsulations of concept) are communicated audibly by the usage of phonemes —mouth-created sounds which can be assembled into words, which in turn can be combined to form spoken expressions. Thought is highly dynamic and not completely represented by concept, but words are much more direct analogs of concept, and writing is typically a direct analog of speech. Communication through speech, along with historic geographical and cultural divergence, has generated a diverse number of differentiated "natural languages" —each being distinguished systems of expression that have particular rules and standards for pronunciation, word formation, and grammar, along with particular cultural traditions guiding expression. Words are assembled in accord with the semantic values and grammatical logic inherent to the particular natural lanugage (ie. lexemes, affixes, operators). Obviously Stevertigo has spent time on this, so I feel sorry about that, but his work is not really what Wikipedia demands. There is too much jargon which is not obvious to general or even well-read readers, not defined when used in unusual ways, and most importantly not needed in order to get across the points being made. The lede should set up the basics and details can be handled later in the article. Because what is written is not obvious, it needs referencing. There is a very basic technical problem because the lead should distinguish language from the concept with which it can most easily be confused, communication, but it did the opposite. There is arguably OR, for example the first sentence. There is silliness. For example "When used in communication, expressions which contain valid semantics and logic are said to be comprehensible, and may convey meaning and facilitate understanding". Yes, that is pretty much what communication is, and language is a type of communication. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC) Some basic responses for your considerable considered consideration: Jargon? Like what? Thought? Transformation? Concept? Expression? "Semantic and logical" (linking to linguistics) is at least questionable, but that's basically what distinguishes 'linguistic concepts' from other concepts, like pain, love, etc. Lede: This is a matter of taste, preference, and style. Instead of leads which introduce themselves ambiguously, and then try to surf over everything, I much prefer ledes which at least attempt to be definitive. Its possible, through consensus and sourcing, to write something better than what is there. Sourcing: One source is not enough? That's one more than the current version - the one you and Slr apparently prefer. Hypocrisy? Perhaps, but I would not make such a suggestion. The concepts are pretty straightforward, and IMHO, the current version "Language is a form of symbolic communication in which elements are combined to represent something other than themselves", has problems. (Not too different from how Arthur Digby Sellers in The Big Lebowski "has health problems.") "the lead should distinguish language from the concept with which it can most easily be confused, communication, but it did the opposite." Example, please. I often write ledes which are thick with related links, and try my best to indicate what the relationships are. Indicating a relationship typically rules out their interpretation as the 'same thing.' I don't see exactly where Ive been ambiguous in that way. Its a matter of definition, not research. We all know what language is, basically, because we all use it. We transform thoughts into concepts into words into phonemes into writing. But if that's controversial, I can agree to something less. "Recent research" as Slr puts it, has abstracted the concept from the domain of natural language to the domain of cognition. I used "cognition" in a prior version, but chose to use "intelligent transformation" instead, anticipating your concern that there be plain language used here. There is silliness. I agree, and any silliness can be changed, not simply reverted to an even sillier version: "Language is a form of symbolic communication " - is there any other kind of "symbolic communication?" Concepts are either discrete or combined. "Language" covers both. "..in which elements are combined to represent something other than themselves" - this 'says a lot of stuff, in a really easy to understand way.' I think what its trying to say is that language is symbolic and therefore representational. "Representational" of what, one might ask? "Of concept" indeed is the answer. You rightly singled out the statement "when used in communication, expressions which contain valid semantics and logic are said to be comprehensible, and may convey meaning and facilitate understanding", but fail to understand the very arcane notion that language is language, even when its not communicated. Communication puts language in another domain, namely that of interaction; which, to be sure, is one concept which my attempted high-level treatment failed to link to. I can find few others in my version; many more such omissions in yours. -Stevertigo 21:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC) Jargon. I think it is obvious that there is an overload of jargon. Jargon is sometimes justified when there is no other way to explain something, and when the jargon involved is clearly defined. Neither is the case here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC) Lede style. This is not really up to your personal preferences. Have you considered publishing in another medium than Wikipedia? There is also a purely logical problem: you can not really fit all ideas into a lede.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC) Sourcing. My main point about sourcing is that the more unorthodox the text being proposed, the more that you need to justify it. This is just a result of how Wikipedia works.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC) Distinguishing language and communication. You asked for an example. "When used in communication, expressions which contain valid semantics and logic are said to be comprehensible, and may convey meaning and facilitate understanding". So how does this distinguish language from the calls monkeys make when they see a snake?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC) OR versus definition. Again sticking to one example, it is possible that you intend something uncontroversial with "the intelligent transformation of thought into discrete semantic and logical concepts, and these concepts into symbolic expressions" but that is not clear. Terms like intelligent, concept and expression are all words with different ways of being used, and the sentence needs all of these terms carefully defined, as well as what is intended by distinguishing discrete and combined concepts. Opening an article this way just does not work.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC) You ask "is there any other kind of "symbolic communication?" Why not? Are you arguing that all symbolic communication is language? Are you proposing that a better opening line would be "Language is symbolic communication"?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC) "language is language, even when its not communicated". This is not a new idea, and of course it should be discussed in the body of the article, which it was already. However, the word "language" is not always used to refer to the uncommunicated version, and so this needs explanation. It is not something for the first few sentences.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC) Point-by-point responses to above comments: "" Jargon. I think it is obvious that there is an overload of jargon. Jargon is sometimes justified when there is no other way to explain something, and when the jargon involved is clearly defined. Neither is the case here. If I had proposed text like "Language is the magic behind speech", or "language is the stuff you say when you rattle off to another person, plant, animal, or mineral," I might understand your point. So, failing to see your point, what terms did/do I use that can be called "jargon?" Is "concept" 'jargon?' Is "expressions" 'jargon?' I just don't see your point. Please explain. -SV "" Lede style. This is not really up to your personal preferences. Have you considered publishing in another medium than Wikipedia? There is also a purely logical problem: you can not really fit all ideas into a lede." WP:OR implication: Presumably you mean to say "publishing in [a] medium [other] than Wikipedia." Don't know: Is Wikipedia written only by accredited and registered professionals, who only directly quote universally accepted authorities in particular subjects? Seven years here makes me certain that its not, though the old Nupedia (remember them?) folks have been just waiting for us to fail. Wikipedia articles have to be actually written and improved upon, not just left untouchable. Where sources are concerned, there is disagreement. Where expressions are concerned, consensus actually works. Which brings me to your second point: Its not about "fitting all ideas" - its about defining the concept as best we can. Emphasis on "we." -SV "" Sourcing. My main point about sourcing is that the more unorthodox the text being proposed, the more that you need to justify it. This is just a result of how Wikipedia works." Certainly. How is it unorthodox to define language as a faculty of the mind? -SV """Distinguishing language and communication. You asked for an example. "When used in communication, expressions which contain valid semantics and logic are said to be comprehensible, and may convey meaning and facilitate understanding". I don't understand what you are referring to, or what I'm supposed to understand from your exised quotation. Context and point, please. -SV PS: Looking above, I said: "the lead should distinguish language from the concept with which it can most easily be confused, communication, but it did the opposite." Example, please. I often write ledes which are thick with related links, and try my best to indicate what the relationships are. Indicating a relationship typically rules out their interpretation as the 'same thing.' I don't see exactly where Ive been ambiguous in that way. You apparently are using the quotation as an example of ambiguous writing. OK, it could be better. "Communication" appears to be somewhat fundamental to "natural language", and seems to belong in that domain. OK perhaps its a fundamental aspect of "language" (faculty) too, but I don't see how anyone can make that point without promoting some kind of Sapir-Whorf theory. I tried to treat "communication" as being secondary to faculty (language), but a prerequisite to the form(s) (natural language): kind of an inbetweener, but without any undue weight given to it. While I was at it, I tried to include the concept of evaluation, though that part admittedly kinda sucks: meaning and understanding are not really relevant to language > communication, are they? -SV ""OR versus definition. Again sticking to one example, it is possible that you intend something uncontroversial with "the intelligent transformation of thought into discrete semantic and logical concepts, and these concepts into symbolic expressions" but that is not clear. Terms like intelligent, concept and expression are all words with different ways of being used, and the sentence needs all of these terms carefully defined, as well as what is intended by distinguishing discrete and combined concepts. Opening an article this way just does not work. Here's a question: Is the current version perfect? If not, what changes/version would you suggest? (see #Various expressions below). ""You ask "is there any other kind of "symbolic communication?" Why not? Are you arguing that all symbolic communication is language? Are you proposing that a better opening line would be "Language is symbolic communication"? Actually "language is [the human faculty for cognitive] symbolic [expression and] communication" might be alright. I would prefer not using "symbolic" though, because, well its too.. "symbolic" actually (for "concept"). But I can deal with that. -SV """language is language, even when its not communicated". This is not a new idea, and of course it should be discussed in the body of the article, which it was already. However, the word "language" is not always used to refer to the uncommunicated version, and so this needs explanation. It is not something for the first few sentences. Well you seem to be a form before faculty guy (see discussion below). -Stevertigo 23:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC) PS: It occurs to me that my version (buy it here: #Various expressions) (curiously) deals with both the faculty and form concept in the same lede sentence. (!) I can see how that kind of expression could be problematic, though, even if its all but sweet linguistic perfection. -SV Snicker and snort Thanks Andrew for a detailed and thoughtful response. Frankly, I think Stevertigo says it all here: "Its a matter of definition, not research." He will use any lame excuse not to do real research and just to waste Wikipedia time and space by using it sa s platform to insert his own BS views into the article "I don't have to research!" what crap - just an excuse to violate NOR. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC) This um .. adds so much to the ostensibly thoughtful responses (I haven't really looked at them yet) above by Andrew. So far the only thing you've contributed to this conversation is: "I dont like Stevertigo", "I dont like anything he does", "I am expert", "Stevertigo is full of 'original research'" and "all Stevertigo's base are belong to us me" (paraphrasing). Do please ask your linguist friends — I'm sure you have at least one: Your concoction (ie. the one you apparently support) ranks at about a 3.5. My concoction (ie. the one I constructed from the agreeably fundamental constituent concepts, in accord with the dominant theoretical concepts) ranks about an 8. By my reckoning that means there is still around two points worth of room for improvement, and you can of course contribute to that purpose. Understand that part of what we do on Wikipedia is not "research" as you call it, but the direct quotation of well-defined definitions from notable sources and better; ie. authorities in the subject. Where people disagree about what concepts and autorities are actually authoritative, we can sort of do our best to write something which is in agreement with most definitions. It would only be linguistically impotent, academically speaking, to do otherwise. So here are some concepts for you to consider: We can, on Wikipedia, write in English. We can use established English words, arranged in standard English structures, to create expressions (yes, "creativity" is involved) which define relationships between words. Words indicate discrete concepts, semantic andor logical, and good English writing tends to use concepts which fit the context. I'm suggesting that we can do one of two things: we can find an agreeably definitive definition and quote it directly, or write one of our own and find concensus on 1) the concepts it uses and 2) whether or not the expression we form represents a consensus of a number of published definitions. There are problems with both of these main choices. Quoting some encyclopedia, dictionary, book, or paper might get an expert's expression of the concept, but people may not like it because it has proprietary aspects, references a greater proprietary or 'problematic' theory, or could elsewise be less than perfectly in accord with or in consideration of other definitions that might be usable candidates. Consensus-construction of our own has the problem that one of us might not like the idea of consensus construction and will try to derail the concept in favor of a substandard or widely disagreeable version. People might feel left out, wanting to contribute, but lacking either the expressive skills or concepts required to form exemplar expressions. I don't want to leave you out, and I'm sure you feel likewise. I can contribute certain things, and Im sure you can do more here than just revert anything I do out of a personal vendetta (how many personally-motivated reverts just this week alone?), or else out of a haughty academic claim to yet-unsubstantiated know-it-all-ism (← Hey, an example of constructed word formation!) Whoops, I was (unusually) wrong: that word has already been well defined: "know-it-all-ism". -Stevertigo 21:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Various positions

Collapsed to save space

SLR restored the previous version, claiming "no consensus" for a new version. SLR, like Chuck Norris, doesn't need consensus, (he uses sheer force of will), and its amazing that he even uses the term. The prior version stated: "A language is a dynamic set of sensory symbols of communication and the elements used to manipulate them, which symbolically represents something other than itself." Which would be considered atrocious, if only people on Wikipedia considered third-grade writing to be a general atrocity. SLR, not to be outdone by either me nor the previous version, took it upon himself to make a rewrite, in only two minutes: "A language is a form of symbolic communication in which elements are combined to represents something other than themselves." Ugh. Its so awful.. I have to go do something else for a while. In that time, I give you SLR a chance to come up with something better. Consult your linguist friends, and try out a few versions. Go over it in your head, and we'll talk. I have always, always, always considered it possible, regardless of the context or subject, that you might know quite well how to deal with things expertly and exactly. I will not say whether this precision has in fact been demonstrated, but I will say that I would appreciate it if you could demonstrate so here. If not, please defer to superior expressions, and contain your expertise to those topics for which you are less misunderstanding. -Stevertigo 23:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Stevertigo asks me to respond to his comment. Steve: you have displayed no knowledge of linguistics, and current research on language. Yet you make a flurry of edits without any support. I find your edits to be practically nonsensical, and I know they are unsupported by research, so I delete them. You have either two choices: study language and linguistics so you can make meaningful additions or changes to this article, or leave it for people who do know about language and linguistics to work on. Your edits were by no means minor changes to wording to improve clarity. You changed content, expressing your own beliefs about language. That violates WP:NOR, and should be reverted on the spot. My advice: edit articles on topics you know or are willing to do serious research on. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC) Please don't be a jerk and instead (novel concept) answer the question. You asked "Please provide verifiable sources." And I responded thusly: "I did, and you still had a problem with it. The previous version, the one which you reverted to, has no source whatsoever. The current version, the one you partly authored and apparently prefer, likewise has no cited source. What then is one to make of your objections, or your claimed adherence to either Wikipedia policy or to standards of scholarship in general?" -Stevertigo 21:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC) I also responded to you, and you should likewise respond. I wrote: "What sources does the previous version provide? "Omnibuts" - please define or correct spelling. How does the prior article lede "introduce the article?" Call me a "BS artist", but in writing ledes I prefer not to "introduce articles" but to "introduce concepts." How does that previous lede "provide all significant views?" That version does not. Mine is abstract, and not "strange" at all to anyone who actually knows what they are talking about." -Stevertigo 21:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC) When you introduce an article, you are summarizing material that is already well-researched and sourced. A lead that introduces the article as a whole is simply summarizing the product of a collaboration by many editors. But your idea of introducing "concepts" just means you are introducing your own views. That is wrong, here or at any other article. Any concepts relevant to language should be in the article, with proper sourcing, and context so we can distinguish between majority and minority views. The concepts you want to add to the article by changing the introduction has little or nothing to do with mainstream scholarship on language, it is just your own POV. That is wrong. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC) (Cutting in): See above. Andrew Lancaster is writing me under the foolish concept that using intelligence and reason in dealing with particular points, line by line, might make his comments actually respectable and useful. "Useful" is only a relative concept though, and you should take no particular meaning from the fact that I am now dealing with his comments in greater substance than yours. I will however ask that you read the above discussion, as it might be useful to you. -Stevertigo 22:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC) I agree with Steve that the definition in the lead can be improved - but I disagree that his version is substantially better. I'd suggest looking at something like this: [3] ·Maunus·ƛ· 22:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC) Its vague, but it tries to cover everything. Note there are basic problems with it: It states (comments in parentheses are mine): "The word language (defining the term, not the concept? This has problems - we deal with concepts first here, the terminology is secondary or later) has two rather distinct senses that should be kept apart (in the explanation below, the first "distinct sense" takes up three paragraphs before getting to the "second sense" a brief overview of the two "senses" would IMHO be more useful) corresponding to French langue 'a particular language' and French langage 'human language, the ability to speak and understand speech' (an etymology is nice, but in the lede? The 'human language' definition is interesting and useful as it deals with mental concepts like 'ability' and 'understanding' - essential concepts; its curious as to why Andrew and Slr find these to be 'confusing jargon' or 'original research'.).-Stevertigo 23:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC) I understand Maunus's opening and have no objection, but why not use de Saussure's langue/parole distinction? If we go with Maunus's opening, I think it would make sense to have two more sentences, one elaborating on lange and the other elaborating on langage. At least this sounds a lot closer to how scholars actually understand language! Slrubenstein | Talk 23:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC) @Steve: the reason it defines the word is because it refers to two different concepts "langage-the language as a human faculty" and to "langue - a particular, but arbitrary set of symbols used to encode communication" this distinction would be useful in the lead.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC) Maunus, I do not think you ned to respond to Steve when he says BS like "we deal with concepts first here, the terminology is secondary or later"- this is just his excuse for inserting OR, it is not policy and there is no rule at Wikipedia about this. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC) I actually agree with the point both of you make. (Yes, Slr actually made a point). There is the cognitive faculty ("language"), and the various articulated forms ("a language" "[natural] languages"). The question is, which comes first? AISI, its fairly obvious that it should be faculty first, then form. But I'll admit its not an easy question, and honest people can disagree. Leading with the form of course satisfies people looking for the colloquial concept. Leading with the faculty of course gets to the nitty gritty, and defines the form as secondary to the faculty..:a novel concept. (..and the faculty as secondary to cognition itself). I think the latter is quite easily doable (hey, not a complete definition, but at least a more correct one), and AISI, people who disagree do so largely because they think its impossible to introduce faculty before form, as if its more proper to deal with the 'visible' aspect before the underlying process, or else the subject is so arcane that people just cant deal with it abstractly. Who is the audience? Do we write for 8 year olds, or 19 year olds, or 41 year olds, or 73 year olds (raised on Sapir-Whorf, maybe)? -Stevertigo 23:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC) American Iron and Steel Institute? As for which comes first, I do not think there is an obvious answer, but I do think the question is easy to answer: look at some linguistics textbooks (I have none at hand) and find out whether all linguists agree that one comes before the other, or whether linguists are divided and there is a majority and minority viewe. Steve, you introduced the question, you say the answer is obvious, what is your verifiable source for this? Do linguists view "language" as a "cognitive faculty?" I didn't think de Saussure did, what is your source? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC) Been busy with site issues. I'm reading up a little right now. Chierchia's overview is pretty good, though the whole evolutionary "language organ" concept is a bit obtuse. Got more books than I can read ATP. -Stevertigo 20:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Various expressions

Current version (Supported by: Noone) Language is .. a form of symbolic communication in which elements are combined to represent something other than themselves.

Basic version - form (compare with current version) Language is a form of communication. Basic version - facility Language is the facility for making speech.

Grade 3 version - facility (for comparison to above): Language is the magic behind making words. Grade 3 version - form Language is the stuff you say when you talk to someone.

Human expressions

Formatting:

1. Use strikeout tags for text changed/deprecated from a previous version.
2. For open (visible) linkage representation, use 'single-quotes for the visible term' (followed by parenthesis indicating "link: article").

Steversion

(Work in progress, like anything here.)

1. Language is ..

1. the usage 'intelligent transformation' (link: cognition) of thought
2. into concepts/words discrete 'semantic and logical' (link:linguistics) concepts,
3. and the symbolic 'patterned formation' (link: grammar) of these concepts
4. into expressions.

Slrubenstein

(Note:)

1. Language is ..

1. the ..

Andrew Lancaster

(Note:)

1. Language is ..

1. the ..

Maunus

(Note:I've used this:[4])

1. Language is ..

1. a mental faculty
2. that allows the usage of
3. a systematic means of complex communication
4. by using a conventionalized set of symbols (e.g. sounds, glyphs, signs)

and the word in its countable form ("a language/languages")also refers to..

1. specific sets of symbols
2. with their corresponding conventions of usage
3. as applied in linguistic communicaton (e.g. French or English)

·Maunus·ƛ· 03:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this article really needs to start with what is most obvious, that it is most obviously a form of communication associated with humans, with the most obvious example being spoken languages. I agree that an article on language can not avoid dealing with symbolic thinking, because consideration of what makes language different from animal calls for example has always led theorists to also call un-communicated language (conscious rational thinking), a type of language. I also think long sentences and unnecessary jargon should be avoided where possible.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

DRAFT. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Language is a term most commonly used to refer to so called "natural languages" - the forms of communication considered peculiar to humankind. By extension the term also refers to the type of human thought process which creates and uses language. Essential to both meanings is the systematic use and creation of sets of symbols referring to concepts different from themselves.

The most obvious manifestations are spoken languages, such as English or Chinese, but there are also written languages, visual symbols, sign languages and so on. For example the English word "language", derived ultimately from lingua, Latin for tongue, and "tongue" is still a word which can be used in English to refer to spoken language.

Although some other animals make use of quite sophisticated communicative systems, and these are sometimes casually referred to as animal language, none of these are known to make use of all of the properties that linguists use to define language in the strict sense.

When discussed more technically as a general phenomenon then, "language" always implies a particular type of human thought which which can be present even when communication is not the result, and this way of thinking is also sometimes treated as indistinguishable from language itself.

In Western Philosophy for example, language has long been closely associated with reason, which is also a uniquely human way of using symbols. In Ancient Greek philosophical terminology, the same word, logos, was used as a term for both language or speech and reason, and the philosopher Thomas Hobbes used the English word "speech" so that it similarly could refer to reason, as will be discussed below.

One thing to keep in mind here is that Natural language is a different article. Although when people talk about "a language" they almost always mean a natural language, this article's definition should be more general to make the distinction clear. Another thing to consider is that the mass noun "language" may have a different definition from the count noun "(a) language", and the lead should probably cover both. —Angr 10:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

These remarks seem reasonable to me. I am working on the draft above as ideas occur.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

A good step in the right direction. I am not a linguist and defer to linguists. My thoughts about the article are general - I think it makes more sense to work on the body and then write an introduction that introduces the body. That said, I think the concept sof "utterances" as a source of data, and "speech community" are important, somewhere. I imagine the langue-parole distinction is important, and concepts used in structural linguistics. Obviously the concepts used in descriptive linguistics, l;ike morphemes and phonemes, need to be introduced. Concepts used in historical linguistics, including a thoughtful discussion of "dialect" in relation to langugage (today's dialect can be tomorrow's language) is important. I think it is important to signal that language has social functions besides communication. There should be a section on the relationship between language and culture, and on the evolution of language - and yes, I think in all discussions of what makes human language distinct "symbols" is important, not in the context of symbolic logic but in the context of either a de Saussurian or a Peirceian semiotic. I just want to see the body of the article do justice to all these in a well-organized way; then the introduction should be easy to write. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with reviewing the intro based on the body to make sure they match - or the reverse. Why shouldn't different editors work on whatever they want to at particular times? But we can not fit everything into the intro, and I think we have to be careful about jargon in the intro because language is a subject which all types of readers will need to be able to read. Where jargon is introduced I think it needs to be in the body, where there is time to explain what it means?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I was pleased to find that the current version is different from the version which you (Slr, Andrew) previously defended. I'm glad you understand that that previous version was incorrect, unusable, and maybe even substandard. I only wish it hadn't taken most of a week and most of the talk page to make you both realize you were defending the indefensible: not just the article version, but the very concept you were operating under that Wikipedia articles are fine just the way they are, and don't require actual improvement.

With that out of the way, I do want to congratulate you both in both agreeing to form a better version, and attempting to formulate one which is much better. Indeed it is. The previous version was under 3. The current version is 170% better. Er, maybe 190%. -Stevertigo 20:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Maunus version point-by-point

Collapsed to save space

Maunus version with comments by Stevertigo 20:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC): Language is .. // Good start a mental faculty // "Cognition" is the actual faculty. Above, I improperly sused the term "faculty" rather than the correct term "facility" - a different term, but not altogether a great one in this (lede) context, admittedly. that allows the usage of // a "faculty" doesn't actually "allow" anything. "Provides the capacity or facility" for something, would be more correct, but that means dealing with cognition, not the "faculty [called] language" as youve stated it a systematic means of complex communication // is there anything "complex" that is not also "systematic?" Not counting women of course, though even that in case it may be accurate. by using a conventionalized set of symbols (e.g. sounds, glyphs, signs) // "symbols" isn't as conceptual as "concept", and therefore not part of the cognitive domain. "By using" seems to be inaccurate - do the symbols come before the language? Do such symbols have to be "conventional" first too? and the word in its countable form ("a language/languages")also refers to.. // Countability is not really a key concept here is it? specific sets of symbols // specificity is also not key, nor is symbols, as above with their corresponding conventions of usage // There are more "conventions" in language than just usage as applied in linguistic communicaton (e.g. French or English) // Not actually accurate... though communication is a key concept. My comments on the remarks of Stevertigo about the Maunus idea...--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC) I don't see what the word cognition adds. I don't see that the word is obviously something which refers to a mental faculty at all. What is Stevertigo's point about this word? Why is it better to refer to this unclear and less used term than to a term which everyone can understand?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC) I disagree that language is the same as cognition, as implied by the above. The language article should be about language.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC) I don't see what is wrong with the word "allow" as a word meaning "makes possible" especially in contrast to the equally metaphorical "provides for". "Provides the capacity for" effectively means "allows the allowing of" or "makes possible the possibility of" and seems hopelessly confused.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC) I disagree that complex and systematic are equivalent terms in any way.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC) It is orthodox and mainstream to say that language uses conventional systems of symbols. There is no obvious reason to equate symbols and concepts, which would loose the point, and focus away from what language most obvious is. The article is once again about language, and not about cognition and concepts.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC) I agree with one thing which is that language does not only use pre-existing systems of symbols. Language is also the making of those systems.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC) Some basic responses to the above critique (note, I changed Andrews formatting; bullets are now numbers): Well, "cognition" might be in fact the real faculty behind language, the accurate domain of this topic, the most relevant and dominant related scientific field, and accurate to a fault in describing in one word the basic language faculties of doing fun stuff with concepts, like linking, set operations, and patterning. That said I agreed it is sort of a clumsy word to use, if people don't know what it means, and that's why I used 'intelligent transformation' instead, and linked that to cognition. Important concept; 'intellgent tranformation' is IMHO quite accessible terminology, even when people might not understand cognition. The third-dimensional ability to link a combination of words to the relevant sciencey-named article is actually fairly new, and no doubt should raise interesting ideas about how hypertext articles can be and are written differently from pulptext. -SV I disagree that that I ever wrote, claimed, or "implied" that "language is the same as cognition." I may have said something like "language is in the domain of cognition", but who's to say? I agree with the point that "the language article should be about language," but fail to see how or why one should or could avoid at least linking to cognition. I won't argue too much with your point about "allow", as your point is both partially correct and misses my point completely: "allow" in precise language, to me at least, has some relationship with the concept of "allowance". In order for something to be "allowed", something else must do the "allowing". I'll admit "provides" isnt great either; does the brain "allow" thought? Does thought "allow" language? Isch donst tsink so. -SV I did not say "complex" and "systematic" were equivalent. I said: "is there anything "complex" that is not also "systematic?" implying a serious correlation; a relation, not an equivalence. A possible answer, for example, might be "biology"; or chemistry. Which of course might be a good guess, but even these concepts, when they became better understood, were found to be quite systematic. Biology rests on organized chemical reactions. Chemistry rests on systematic quantum processes. Applied to the current subject, Language is indeed "systematic", but much of that systematic functionality rests in cognition, not just in language. Its like saying a computer program "computes" something, when in fact the program is really just an interface and its the processor that does the computing. Andrew wrote: 5.1 "It is orthodox and mainstream to say that language uses conventional systems of symbols. 5.2 "There is no obvious reason to equate symbols and concepts, which would loose the point, and focus away from what language most obvious is. 5.3 "The article is once again about language, and not about cognition and concepts. Responses: 5.1. It is not. Only "a language" uses symbols at all, let alone conventional systems of them. ""Language" transcends much of the concept implied by the term "symbols," except for the 'symbolic linkage to concepts' part. There is of course some usage of 'symbols' to represent 'discrete thoughts in cognition', but 'symbol,' typically refers to something less abstract, while 'concept' is purely abstract, fundamental to the definition of cognition, and therefore just about as good a word as we can use. Of course, some people might think we just don't have the capacity to use words in any definitive way at all, and imagine a future world when everybody familiarly uses 8,900,000 concepts and can deal with anything. Won't ever happen; we don't see too many neurosurgeon/Haskell programmers, do we? 5.2. Obviousnessness: Give me an obvious example, please of another case where the obvious is obviously not the obvious answer. 5.3. Well, the aricle "is about" giving people a good overview of language. I can't quite figure out how any article can deal with language without dealing with words, and defining what words are a bit. Of course that is if actually explaining things is not outside of Wikipedia's mandate. So, in short when writing articles, we usually treat subordinate concepts within the superior concepts/topics, (ie. language>words|concepts), and we also link to superior concepts/topics from the subordinate concept article (ie. words<language<cognition). Andrew wrote: "I agree with one thing which is that language does not only use pre-existing systems of symbols. Language is also the making of those systems. Um, yeah. Regards, -Stevertigo 21:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC) I think the best response is to be very frank. Your way of writing is extremely confusing, apparently even to yourself. You seem to want to say everything at the same time without explaining the steps in between, and you seem to find it impossible to think of normal clear words (like "makes possible" instead of "allows" or "provides for"). There is no good reason to allow the actual article to become like that. This is the type of subject where many people with many different educational backgrounds need to be able to get the gist.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC) Now in more detail, using the 6 point of Steverigo. (Following his lead I've adjusted formatting in his post a bit.) 1 and 2. How about "thinking" or "thought" as a nice normal word instead of "cognition" or "intelligent transformation"? This is what is now in the article. If these normal words lack something, let's discuss that more specifically. 3. How about "makes possible" as a normal way to say "allow" or "provides for". Again, if these normal words lack something, then let's discuss it very specifically so we can find the right way to say it. 4. Complexity and systems. I think many things are "like women" to use your metaphor. I do not get the point you are trying to make. Going back to Maunus' text he had "a systematic means of complex communication". Are you just saying that the adjective "complex" can be dropped? 5.1-3. I am not sure what your points are here and whether they are different from what is discussed above. The basic question has to be though: what are you suggesting for the wording of the intro of the Wikipedia article? Obviously you want to make sure that language is in some way inseparable from a type of thinking which involves the creation, maintenance and use of a system of symbols. What else? Is it that you want to talk more about what the symbols refer to (like thoughts and things)? But then isn't this a rather complex subject that needs discussion in the body?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC) Various points by Andrew with responses "I think [..] your way of writing is extremely confusing, apparently even to yourself." That's why we are talking about it. I think your writing is extremely excellent. But your understanding of the concepts is not, and as such whatever formulations you propose have thus far failed to take these concepts into account. "You seem to want to say everything at the same time without explaining the steps in between," Fair enough. But that's what links and second sentences are for. We can still get 80 percent of the concept in the first sentence, and go on to explain it in detail. I've never claimed that my formulation was perfect, merely that it was better for the simple reason that it touched on the relevant, constituent, aspects of language. "you seem to find it impossible to think of normal clear words (like "makes possible" instead of "allows" or "provides for")." I'm expressing the arcane view that language, even mine, try to be accurate. Words contain semantic and logical properties, and these properties must be taken into account when writing something like an article lede sentence. "There is no good reason to allow the actual article to become like that." Like what? Written accurately, in accord with modern concepts, referencing the constituent concepts, and with consideration for the meaning of every single word used in the expression we will call a lede sentence, paragraph, section, whatever? "This is the type of subject where many people with many different educational backgrounds need to be able to get the gist." I agree with that, but if you aren't quite clear on what "the gist" actually is, how can you argue otherwise? --SV (Continued) Andrews comments/points in detail Andrew: "How about "thinking" or "thought" as a nice normal word instead of "cognition" or "intelligent transformation"? This is what is now in the article. If these normal words lack something, let's discuss that more specifically. This is a great comment. I like the idea of accessible words (is "accessible" actually an accessible word?), and support their usage. "Thought" is not a bad word to use here, and in spite of its problems (doesn't reference thought process (cognition), a bit vague, article has problems), I won't argue much against it here. Note that, according to your dislike for "jargon" terms like "cognition" and "concept", the thought article references those concepts quite directly. Is it in your view, that "thought", a fairly common word and therefore a fairly common topic, needs to be rewritten using only "nice normal word[s]?" Andrew: "How about "makes possible" as a normal way to say "allow" or "provides for". Again, if these normal words lack something, then let's discuss it very specifically so we can find the right way to say it. Eh. We can work on it. Write out your formulation, using your jargon and I'll make comments about each part. Can be more than one sentence, but keep it at a paragraph for now. Andrew: "Complexity and systems. I think many things are "like women" to use your metaphor. I do not get the point you are trying to make. Going back to Maunus' text he had "a systematic means of complex communication". Are you just saying that the adjective "complex" can be dropped? Reference to women being complex - and maybe even "systematic" - was a "joke," (albeit not the funniest one). There is a concept here; if by communication, we mean all animal communication, then yeah, we can sort of describe what communication is. If you understand, as most or all cognitive scientists and linguists do, that "language" is exclusive to the human domain, then saying "communication is complex, systematic, and organized" sounds a bit unnecessary, don't you think? Andrew: "I am not sure what your points are here and whether they are different from what is discussed above. The basic question has to be though: what are you suggesting for the wording of the intro of the Wikipedia article? Erm, I dunno. I think I wrote one somewhere. #Human expressions maybe. Andrwew: " Obviously you want to make sure that language is in some way inseparable from a type of thinking which involves the creation, maintenance and use of a system of symbols. What else?" Well like I said above, there is the faculty facility and there is the form. The current version deals with each separately, which is fine. Starting off with the colloquial concept of form wouldn't be my choice, but its fine as long as it gets to the facility "aspect" - (!) I used "aspect" here to refer to the "facility of language" as an "aspect of language", ie. "'language' is an aspect of the general concept 'language'". :-{ You get it? Andrew: "Is it that you want to talk more about what the symbols refer to (like thoughts and things)? But then isn't this a rather complex subject that needs discussion in the body?" You're hung up on "symbols." Indeed, without actually dealing with what the word "symbol" means and what "symbolism" itself means. I agree its a sexy word; much moreso than concept. But, is the shortcut to Firefox on your desktop the actual program itself, or is just a symbol that links to the program executable? -Stevertigo 20:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Continued

That number format is not working for you! :) I am going to pick and choose and therefore break the number system again anyway...

• "We can still get 80 percent of the concept in the first sentence, and go on to explain it in detail" sounds very ambitious. What have you got against full-stops?
• "language, even mine, try to be accurate". No disagreement likely from anyone on this aim. Hopefully it is clear that I do not believe "cognition" to be a more clearly defined and accurate word that "thought"?
• "Reference to women being complex - and maybe even "systematic" - was a "joke". Understood. But the metaphor/joke is not a bad one. It got your point across better than some other things so far! :)
• "I think I wrote one somewhere." Yes, but no-one liked it. Or perhaps no-one understood it. Or both. What next? You seem more happy with the intro as it now stands, than the previous one. That is progress. Is there anything still critically wrong with it?
• I might be hung up on symbols, but you seem to be hung up on concepts. It is still not clear to me what you point is there though.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm just leaving you a note here to acknowledge that I've read your comments, and will respond to them later. I agree that we've made progress. I am now going to click on the symbol-button with the symbol-letters "save page" on it. :) -Stevertigo 22:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Responding to some points by Andrew.

• "sounds very ambitious. What have you got against full-stops?" I agree there probably would be some stops in the article. Are you saying. The stops should. Constrain sentences to. Less than say. Ten words? What's the number? I think dealing with thought → words and patterning → expressions covers it, and isn't asking too much of a first sentence.
• "I do not believe "cognition" to be a more clearly defined and accurate word that "thought". Well, note that you're not dealing with my point that the thought article itself rests heavily (as it should) on the concepts of "concept" and "cognition".
• "the metaphor/joke is not a bad one." Thanks.
• "Yes, but no-one liked it. Or perhaps no-one understood it. Or both. What next? You seem more happy with the intro as it now stands, than the previous one. That is progress. Is there anything still critically wrong with it?" Yes. Its inferior to any expression that deals with thought → words and patterning → expressions.
• "I might be hung up on symbols, but you seem to be hung up on concepts. It is still not clear to me what you point is there though." The point is that we talk about it, and work on it, as we have been - point by point by point. I think you've been eminently capable in this area itself, even if you don't quite see it my way yet. Slrubenstein I respect too, perhaps more for his past considerable consideration in handling controversial issues and even in dealing with me personally, though recently he seems to have let things get to him. At times I have expressed myself in ways which could be interpreted as being erratic and even sarcastic; I'm not immune to stress either. So I suppose we can all try to not destroy each other quite as much; at least not personally. Back to the article issues, I will deal with creating another expression matrix like the one at #Various expressions, in order to sort of deal with the problems with the current lede version. Again, there is a basic difference between us in how we approach this kind of subject; you appear to be a form before facility person while I am otherwise. There is nothing wrong with that, and it seems that my view on that approach is in the minority. Still there is the matter of which concepts to include, and we must figure out the best way to pattern these into the expressions we will soon from now call a very good article. Anyway, regards. -Stevertigo 17:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Why not try a draft intro here like I did? If you think the current version has good bits to it then why not try to modify from that? It is very hard to understand exactly what you are recommending. There is no point writing someone no-one can decipher. Hint, this won't work: thought → words and patterning → expressions--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, but let's do it right. --Stevertigo 19:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

How did you become king and get to define what is the right way? We already went through your draft above. Are you just trying to ignore that and start again with a new flashy format? Wikipedia is not about being complicated. If a text is harder to understand than it needs to be then that is not good.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Didn't mean to appear dictatorial here. And I wasn't expecting my fancy newfangled template transclusion based collapsible commentary blocks would be met with anything but glee at their efficiency and usefulness. Indeed, it didn't occur to me until just yesterday that people might actually like to see their text upfront, and not hidden under some contraption. Likewise the small font thing is a bit useless. For now I'll try just expanding the main boxes, so that people can actually see that there's words in there. And changing your browsers Tools>Options>Content>Fonts&Colors>Advanced>SetMinimumSize (or the equivalent), should suffice for now if the text is too small. I'll see about using a better collapse template, or just go back to normal formatting in a subpage. Anyway, whatever works; if it doesn't, we'll fix it. Point taken and noted. -Stevertigo 22:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Drafts

Andrew's version: #Draft A. Stevertigo's version: #Draft B.

Draft A

This text is in a subpage at Talk:Language/draft A. Click section [edit] to the right to edit the text and comments below, and those changes will be transcluded here.

Andrew's draft version, and comments

Current caption: " Cuneiform is one of the first known forms of written language, but spoken language is believed to predate writing by tens of thousands of years at least. " Language is a term most commonly used to refer to so called "natural languages" — the forms of communication considered peculiar to humankind. By extension the term also refers to the type of human thought process which creates and uses language. Essential to both meanings is the systematic creation, maintenance and use of systems of symbols, each referring to concepts different from themselves.

• Language is "a term", true, but its not that confusing here to just say what that term means, in the form "language is.." -SV
• Why make it confusing at all?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
• Um, when I said "not that confusing" I was not indicating that it was all confusing to use terms like "cognition." I was simply stating that such usage was not as confusing as you make it out to be. Further, I think not using these terms is confusing, and creates expressions which belong more at simple.wikipedia than here. -SV

The most obvious manifestations are spoken languages, such as English or Chinese. For example the English word "language", derived ultimately from lingua, Latin for tongue, and "tongue" is still a word which can be used in English to refer to spoken language. But there are also written languages, and other systems of visual symbols, sign languages and so on.

• In a human context, "obvious manifestations [of language]" are too obvious to not point out how obvious it is to state this. -SV
• Don't be snobby. There are good reasons that even very well informed intelligent people should start any discourse with what is most clear and obvious. On Wikipedia it is even more important. If you do not do that for an article like this you expect the text never to settle down because every clever person will want to out-clever the others.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
• OK. I lose a point for this one. I concede that it was too obvious for me to even mention how obvious it is, and my mention was itself obvious. -SV

Although some other animals make use of quite sophisticated communicative systems, and these are sometimes casually referred to as animal language, none of these are known to make use of all of the properties that linguists use to define language in the strict sense.

• Animal language isn't entirely relevant at this point, though I agree there is sufficient interest in the concept to warrant dealing with the distinctions. Note also, this distinction is not really just limited to language. See next comment. -SV
• Humans aren't "animals," in the important sense of the word; ie. the word ("animals") as commonly used to distinguish human beings from ("other") biological organisms that cannot be considered "beings." In any context where cellular biology, biochemistry, and even genetics (including evolution, when limited to biological concepts) are concerned, humans are "animals" in only the crude sense that deals with the material form - the human body. In any context dealing with intelligence, sapience, sentience, and actual being, human beings are rather distinct, wouldn't couldn't you say? We don't ever say "animal beings" do we? -SV
• The word animal is not most commonly used in the way you use it, and your way also has no special etymological or other status. (The term is Graeco-Roman and implies a soul. So also classically humans are animals.) So it is not tenable. Don't try to force others to use it this way. -Andrew
• "The word animal is not most commonly used in the way you use it" Actually it is. When I say "I shot an animal" one doesn't think '?did he shoot a human being', unless (case two) he means "that person is an animal", in which case one infers that he means "that person is not a human being" (ie. not posessing the qualities of a "human" being) and not just simply "a member of the animal kingdom classification." Ie. if one shoots a human being, one does not say "I just shot an animal," unless of course that person really is "an animal." You said "and your way also has no special etymological or other status." Certainly. You argue for 'plain language' in one context (the introduction to language), and then say that a plain term in common usage (animal ≠ human), isn't "special" enough for you. But you do add: "The term is Graeco-Roman and implies a soul. So also classically humans are animals." Certainly one could argue that a termite has a soul, because it is "an animal" after all. But that negates intelligence, in at least a couple ways. We could of course discuss higher level organisms, but then you would be applying a largely theological term (soul) to organisms (animals) which are not really relevant to theological concepts. Or are they? -SV
• Humans are animals (though not all animals are humans). That usage is not only the original one, and the modern scientific one, but also at least as common as any other in normal discourse. It is less common to say that non humans have a soul like Aristotle did, but more generally we can say that the word soul, as well as any discussion about "crude" "material" senses of words versus "important" senses of words which have to do with "intelligence, sapience, sentience, and actual being," have gotten very vague indeed in recent generations, because of changes in what people believe. Is it generally agreed that "actual being" involves only intelligence, sapience, etc? So these terms and ideas are not good to use in order to achieve clarity about another word.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

When discussed more technically as a general phenomenon then, "language" always implies a particular type of human thought which can be present even when communication is not the result, and this way of thinking is also sometimes treated as indistinguishable from language itself.

• "when discussed more technically as a general phenomenon" (!) Are you saying the "[technical term]" is used to refer to the "[general concept]" ? Hm. Think about that. If it refers to the general concept, I almost don't care how "technical" it is; I would almost always deal with it. -SV
• Your personal preferences are not really what we are trying to distill though?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
• Certainly you misunderstand language. By saying 'I would almost always deal with it' I meant that, with few exceptions, my preference is that we should deal with it, based loosely on the WP:ENC concept. -SV
• I can not follow your point here and I doubt anyone can.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

In Western Philosophy for example, language has long been closely associated with reason, which is also a uniquely human way of using symbols. In Ancient Greek philosophical terminology, the same word, logos, was used as a term for both language or speech and reason, and the philosopher Thomas Hobbes used the English word "speech" so that it similarly could refer to reason, as will be discussed below.

• !Obvious alert: "language has long been closely associated with reason"

1. "Associated with reason" - If you can "reason" with someone else without using language, I'll give you a dollar. In fact, if you could even "reason" with yourself alone, without using language, I'd give you a ten dollars. -SV
2. "long been" - Has there ever been a time when language was not

so "associated?" -SV

This was not obvious because first there had to be clear concepts of both language and reason before someone could start to see the connection. Most people go through their whole life not seeing this connection as obvious. Again, don't be snobby.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

1. Western, Hobbesian concepts: In a global encyclopedia, we have to do better; just simply referencing Westernism doesn't cut it. Hobbes is of course relevant, but only within a rather large field of rather notable philosophers. -SV

• I will agree with something like "language has facilitated the development of what we call 'higher reasoning' skills," but not that its just "associated with reason". The real point here is that while reason is a nice higher-level concept to reference here, its not fundamental to language as cognition is. In fact reason's own fundamental constituents are cognition and language. --SV
• Me personally, I see language and reason as basically the same. Maybe I should push my POV in? No, because I'd have to explain and justify this, which would make it too long or else I would be accused of OR. One way or another someone would revert me. It pays to start with what everyone can agree with. Hobbes is just here as an example who used English in order to show how the words for language and reason have had cross over in English. This is English Wikipedia. If we just mention the general point that this happens in some languages, then someone will delete this comment as irrelevant.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
• You wrote:

1. "Me personally"
   1. You're introducing a personal attack with a confession? -SV
2. "I see language and reason as basically the same."
   1. I don't think you mean that. -SV
3. "Maybe I should push my POV in? No, because I'd have to explain and justify this, which would make it too long or else I would be accused of OR. One way or another someone would revert me. It pays to start with what everyone can agree with."
   1. I see, so instead of dealing with my critique that your assertion "[language and reason] [are associated]" is a bit too simplistic, you're teaching me a lesson about how my understanding of the concepts is "OR," and your version, which is in need of correction on at least a couple fundamental points, is 'more agreeable to people.' Please deal with the arguments, and then we can move on to matters of style and 'agreeability.' -SV
4. "Hobbes is just here as an example who used English in order to show how the words for language and reason have had cross over in English."
   1. I've got no problem quoting Hobbes, and in fact I think you make an interesting point. But dealing with the concept of language and reason or reason and language cannot be done with sufficient justice in the lede section of this article on language as a general concept. At best we can reference these other concepts, as I did with cognition, and as you did with reason. The difference here is that while cognition is fundamental, you disagree with its usage. You reference reason, and I disagree with its importance in a lede which doesn't bother to mention cognition. Dealing with both is the 'obvious' solution here. -SV
5. "This is English Wikipedia. If we just mention the general point that this happens in some languages, then someone will delete this comment as irrelevant."
   1. Um, no. Take a look at, for example international English, or the {{globalize}} tag, and ask yourself, 'what is this about?' The English language is not just an aspect of Western culture anymore; its a powerful tool that's open to anyone to use, and has few implicit cultural localizations that would inherently cause the English Wikipedia to be exclusively Western in its concepts. Unlike a language like Arabic, which for example uses dar al-Harb (house of war, ie. 'object of conflict,' or 'enemy lands') to refer to what we call the 'Western World.' Just an example. But note, just as anima has little connotation in English with soul, so too does dar al-Harb have a certain limited connotation with its etymological meaning, though there is arguably less conceptual distance there than between English "soul" and Latin "anima." Certainly its complicated to judge which controversial etymological concepts have currency, but anyway the point was that English has less such concepts, and cases such as "crusade" or "niggardly" these terms are generally deprecated and retired from usage. Deprecating them is a requirement if English is to be considered neutral, and therefore suitable as the undisputed/undisputable lingua franca, even though ethnocentrists might want to continue using the deprecated words and their concepts. -SV

• next

I can not see what the point is of the above.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Draft B

This text is in a subpage at Talk:Language/draft B. Click section [edit] to the right to edit the text and comments below, and those changes will be transcluded here.

Steve's draft version, and comments

Image caption: " Cuneiform is one of the first known forms of written language, but spoken language is believed to predate writing by tens of thousands of years at least. " Language is the intelligent transformation of thought (cognition) into discrete semantic and logical concepts (words), and the patterned usage of these concepts (grammar) to form expressions. When used in communication, expressions which contain valid semantics and logic are said to be comprehensible, and may convey meaning and facilitate understanding. In humans, natural language uses speech, wherein words (encapsulations of concept) are communicated audibly by the usage of phonemes —mouth-created sounds assembled to represent words. Combining spoken words in accord with rules of language creates spoken expressions, constituting speech. Writing is a graphical symbolic representation of speech, representing either discrete concepts or phonemes. Communication through speech, along with historic geographical and cultural divergence, has generated a diverse number of differentiated "natural languages" —each being distinguished systems of expression that have particular rules and standards for pronunciation, word formation, and grammar, along with particular cultural traditions guiding expression. Words are assembled in accord with the semantic values and grammatical logic inherent to the particular natural lanugage (ie. lexemes, affixes, operators). Language usage has led to the development of greater conceptualization and problem-solving skills, leading up to the ability to reason and the ability to form complex rational arguments. In Ancient Greek philosophical terminology, the same word, logos, was used as a term for both language or speech and reason, and the philosopher Thomas Hobbes used the English word "speech" so that it similarly could refer to reason, as will be discussed below. More commonly though, the English word "language", derived ultimately from lingua, Latin for tongue, typically refers only to expressions of reason which can be understood by other people, most obviously by speaking. I've generalized the concepts from the original text. -SV Strictly speaking, language is considered to be an exclusively human mode of communication. Although other animals make use of quite sophisticated communicative systems, sometimes casually referred to as animal language, none of these are known to make use of all of the properties that linguists use to define language.

Comments

I tried once to edit this per method advised and did something wrong. I do not see the point of the unnecessary complication. Here are some comments, by sentence.

1. This does not distinguish itself from animal communication, except perhaps that the words intelligence and cognition are intended to help do this? I think relying on these two words fails. Intelligence and cognition are jargon words, but not not jargon words with a stable meaning. So they do not help.
   1. While I don't agree that intelligence an cognition are "jargon words", and it would be interesting to see if others agree with this opinion, you're right in that the distinction between communication of human beings and that of biological organisms needs to be made a little more clear. Naturally, the difference between human and creature intelligence translates to language, and that part at least goes without saying. -SV
2. Again everything hangs on unclear terms "valid semantics and logic". I think it is not at all orthodox to say that comprehensibility is defined by the validity of semantics and logic. I would say the causation is the other way around. Also I see no clear distinction between comprehension and understanding. In any case, why would this sentence be the second sentence in an encyclopedic article about language?
   1. I agree that there is an issue with that phrase, in that it tries to deal with certain distinct aspects of evaluation as a part of natural language processing. Your suggestion is actually fairly good, even though there is a problem with using the phrase "is defined by.. the validity of.." Natural language comprehension essentially deals with what happens when an expression gets into one's head? AIUI, it gets checked for grammar to see if meaning can be extracted from it, and the meaning itself is checked for semantics (compared to one's own understanding) to see if it makes any sense. If one listens to broken English for example, we can usually re-parse the expression to fix the grammar so that it is more better, and consider the reformed expression's meaning. I agree that in this context, "understanding" is a bit ambiguous with comprehension, which has more NLP relevance. -SV
3. Are you saying sign language is not a natural language? Are you saying words are defined as "encapsulations of concept"? I am not sure about these. But in any case again I wonder why this is one of the first things a person will read when they look up "language".
   1. A sign is a concept-expression given in a form which we generally don't call a "word;" which is a unit in natural language that deals with grammar and semantics. Signs typically have semantics, but no grammar to combine them. Still, signs and words do much the same thing, and thus can be arranged in a way that draws upon much of what we call "language." Conversely, and to address your second issue, that is why we can say "words" are concept-expressions that conform to rules of language (grammar (logic), semantics (meaning)), and natural language conventions (speech (phonetics (audio))). Note also that sign a part of natural language. Example, the expression "I hate you" has a certain general meaning. "I hate you :)" on the other hand has quite another. :) -SV

...and so on. Really I think the overall style gives an impression that what you want to do is show off some ideas you have. I don't think the style is appropriate.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I tend to give lots of impressions, but you state the first part of the "problem" quite accurately: "[my] overall style gives an impression".. Which puts the concept in the proper domain, in that it is the style, not the substance, that raises a flag.

The second part, "that [I] want to show off some ideas," is an interpretation that criticizes the substance which doesn't really follow from your criticism of the "overall style" does it? I mean, if one has a problem with a matter of substance, they could say it had problems with component a, b, c, etc. You've generally tried to do that, even though in this comment you appear to be lumping substance in with the "style." An extreme example would be someone undoing a major edit simply because there were basic grammatical errors that they could have easily fixed but they just didn't want to because they were not behaving like an actual human being. They might criticize the substance or the policy aspects later, but in discovery we often find that their concerns were superficial, personally motivated, or based in a faulty understanding of the concepts.

We're also talking about "concepts;" which concepts belong in the lede, and why certain concepts and groups of concepts better serve the goal of introducing the subject. Your criticism of my "ideas" generally comes from a reductionist approach; less is more, fancy is bad, simple words are better, common concepts ideas are better. If you like reductionism we can apply this modality to how we approach organizing a better version, and I hope you outline your reduced concepts in the section below. Anyway, "style" has another meaning altogether. -Stevertigo 21:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

List of fundamental concepts

Concepts

This text is in a subpage at Talk:Language/concepts. Click section [edit] to the right to edit the text and comments below, and those changes will be transcluded here.

Concepts relevant to language, in ordered precedence

Stevertigo Language: cognition, intelligence, thought, semantics, logic, concept, word, grammar, expression, communication: language processing, parsing, evaluation,comprehension,interpretation, meaning, understanding Natural language: speech, phoneme, word, writing, Built on language: reason, society, Andrew Natural language: communication, etc. Language:

Maunus

Language is:

• Productive - language allows the generation of an infinite number of messages
• Rule governed
• Socially transmitted

request for source

"In linguistics the term is extended to refer to the human cognitive facility of creating and using language." Is this true? Do linguistics use the word "language" to refer to a cognitive capacity? Can someone provide a reliable source for this? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Certainly not exclusively - and that usage is much more common in some schools of linguistics (and within some subdisciplines) than in others.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

moved section

I have mpoved this section which gives completely undue weight to one particular theory about the origins of language. The section was badly formatted and would have to be rewritten for it to fit in the article (e.g. references don't go at the end of a section in mid article). If someone wants to reinstate it they should do this first.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Language May Have Evolved from Visual-Spatial Working Memory During the Evolution of Stone Tool Technology

Vandervert (2009a, 2009b; Vandervert, Schimpf & Liu, 2007) proposed a neuro-cognitive explanation of the evolutionary relationship between reason and language. According to this view, a new class of mental capacities evolved within human working memory which was selected in a step-by-step collaboration with evolving cognitive functions of the cerebellum. This new class of mental capacities evolved from visual-spatial working memory, which we share with animals, and came to constitute the articulatory speech loop of working memory (see working memory). Noting that the human cerebellum has experienced a fourfold increase in size in the last million years, Vandervert believes the main drivers of the evolutionary selection toward uniquely human mental and communicative capacities (of which language is only a portion) were the requirements of coordinated working memory-cerebellar control during 100’s of thousands of years of stone tool technology evolution. That is, over millennia the making of stone tools required progressively more complex blending between structured, planned intentions of the central executive of working memory and refined, repetitive composite series of perceptual/motor control by the cerebellum (see Hautzel, Mottaghy, Specht, Muller & Krause, 2009 for central executive functions of the cerebellum). The cerebellum constantly refined the processes of working memory on the one hand, and the repetitive execution of complex knapping (stone sculpting) movements on the other; thus this process formed a positive feedback loop between the two.

Specifically, Vandervert (2009b) described the working memory/cerebellar feedback loop leading to language as follows:

In terms of cerebellar modeling architecture, it is proposed that the selective advantage of language evolution was that it enhanced the speed of control and the further decomposition and re-composition (Flanagan et al., 1999) of working memory’s flow of visuospatial imagery in socially and technologically (stone technology at first) adaptive ways. These are precisely the management properties of cerebellar models within the cerebellum’s hierarchical control architecture. Within this view it can be speculated that the selective evolution of language allowed visuospatial imagery (which we share to a great extent with other animals) to be analytically manipulated in working memory and to be directly communicated in finely articulated ways, a tremendous competitive advantage in any survival context—but this would also have greatly enhanced the internal silent speech dialogue necessary to learning. (p. 25)

Vandervert connects stone tool technology with the structural form and abstract qualities of language, art, music (Brown, Martinez & Parsons, 2006), and mathematics, by arguing that (a) stone tool-making selected working memory toward a structure capable of sequential composite tasks (much like following a recipe) involving considerable planning and social coordination, and (b) advances in stone tool-making, in itself, represented a huge selective shift toward new working memory processes which could envision/manipulate the environment into wholly new forms of tools which did not exist in nature. He contends this shift involved the selection of central executive functions in working memory that could compose abstract entities divorced from given concrete realities. In the transitional process from visual-spatial working memory to the abstractions of the articulatory speech loop, structured links evolved in working memory, and these constitute a universal grammar. In ontogeny, these links guide the development of speech language acquisition in the infant.

References

Brown, S., Martinez, M., & Parsons, M. (2006). Music and language side by side in the brain: A PET study of the generation of melodies and sentences. European Journal of Neuroscience, 23, 2791-2803.

Flanagan, R., Nakano, E., Imamizu, H., Osu, R., Yoshioka, T., and Kawato, M. (1999). Composition and decomposition of internal models in learning under altered kinematic and dynamic environments. Journal of Neuroscience, 19, 1-5.

Hautzel, H., Mottaghy, F., Specht, K., Muller, H. (2009). Evidence of modality-dependent role of the cerebellum in working memory? An fMRI study comparing verbal and abstract n-back tasks. NeuroImage, 47, 2073-2082.

Vandervert, L. (2009a). Working memory, the cognitive functions of the cerebellum and the child prodigy. In L.V. Shavinina (Ed.), International handbook on giftedness (pp. 295-316). The Netherlands: Springer Science.

Vandervert, L. (2009b). The emergence of the child prodigy 10,000 years ago: An evolutionary and developmental explanation. The Journal of Mind and Behavior, 30, 15-32.

Vandervert, L., Schimpf, P., and Liu, H. (2007). How working memory and the cerebellum collaborate to produce innovation and creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 19, 1-18.

Nada in your Language Wikipedia Article 08/08/09

You state that nothing is similar between Hindu and Spanish word for Nada. However, if you understood the roots of language as found in Hebrew you would understand that both mean, "Wandering Ruler". Thus, one uses Nothing as "poor" ruler who has nothing (Spanish), and the Hindu uses it as the back and forth of a loom stick or the back and forth wanderings of a needle. Michael Wellington —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.115.168.163 (talk) 21:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the idea is conveyed in the article just fine... my opinion... 205.115.81.37 (talk) 15:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

See also

See also is being used here for an outline of the topic in articles. I do not think that is what "see also" is for. See also is for additional article refs, which supplement the topic or are of additional related interest. Some of the problems of using it for an outline are now surfacing. This is a nowhere near adequate outline compared to the dozens, even hundreds, of linguistics articles now on WP. If we were to expand the outline to include them, we would obtain a very long lists. However, the list idea has already been thought of and there are several lists and an article explaining the organization of linguistics. Those lists reference or could be made to reference all the linguistics articles. I recommend we not swell the section with article lists that are already being handled in another, more proper way. Let us merge this article list into the other article lists and in place of the current "organization" put the lists section. As it stands now that is just another "see also" in a distinct section. We don't need two "see also"'s. Why don't you think about it and if no one has different ideas I will be changing it toward the end of my stay on this article.Dave (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Needs another edit

This is rated as a B article and I do not usually work on articles that high. However, there are some things that need to be fixed. I can only presume that creepitis has infected the article and it has in effect been tagged "don't go to the doctor." That is, new changes since it was evaluated have diminished it some. That is, someone puts something in and does not pay attention to the overall effect so it starts to decline, but no one pays any attention because it's a B article and B articles never need to be fixed. Or maybe the B was too high. First of all refs. It is incompletely or inconsistently ref'd. That will be my primary target. We don't need, for example, a separate section for one ref, and that gigantic title in the origins section was just too whimsical. You KNOW we don't do things that way. So, I'm going over it. I hope I do not have to be here long as I'd like to get back to the Latin articles, but usually it is I who have to look up all the page numbers and what not and try to see what you are talking about and fix the prose if necessary. I'd rather you had done it, then I could say, wow, what a great article, and you'd feel good and so would I.Dave (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Some unreferenced statements

"Later in the West, the success of science, mathematics, and other formal systems in the 20th century led many to attempt a formalization of the study of language as a "semantic code". This attempt resulted in the academic discipline of linguistics, the founding of which is attributed to Ferdinand de Saussure.

Where do Wittgenstein and Quine argue this? Philosophers such as Ludwig Wittgenstein, W. V. Quine, and Jacques Derrida have disputed the possibility of such a rigorous study of language by questioning many of the assumptions necessary for such a study, and have put forth their own views on the nature of language. There is no end in sight to this debate."

Saussure seem to have been the first with the code approach. However, linguistics was an academic field long before the turn of the 20th century. What about Meillet? He and others were academics teaching linguistics under tha name (lingustique) well before Saussure. Saussure certainly did not found linguistics. As for the success of science, etc., that is too broad a generalization and is editor opinion, apparently. If you find someone who says that, put it back in. In any case it would have happened long before the 20th century, at least 3 or 4 centuries earlier. Linguistics is not identical to Saussure's views. For the commented out remarks, I think this must have applied to text long removed as it has about as much to do with the topic as basket-weaving. No debate is mentioned here. No sense in letting it take up space. Overall critique: oversimple. So, I have attempted a remedy by supplying more detail, which does not appear to be in the other articles. How much is enough here? I don't know. More than what was there, but still minimalist, as there are other articles.Dave (talk) 13:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Franz Boas, founder of American anthropology

"Franz Boas, founder of American anthropology, like his German forerunners,"

Well, it seems not quite. The WP article says "father of American anthropology" I have not worked on the Franz Boas article so I do not know why someone gave him that tag. However, he was not American, he was born, raised and educated in Germany. Then he came to America and decided to stay. I suppose then you could say he was American. So, in a sense, he is his German predecessors. Long before he got here Lewis H. Morgan, the first American anthropologist, had already done and published his work among the Iroquois. Morgan is generally credited with being the first American anthropologist, but he wasn't the first to study native Americans, the English had already done that. Morgan's work was taken up by the Marxists so sometimes scholars try to ignore him. Nevertheless he himself was not a Marxist; he was quite independent, a lawyer from New York turned anthropologist. His work is as anthropological as any of the times. Without offending you I hope I will alter the text by a couple of words so Boaz is no longer the founder. Maybe he's the father, I don't know. I would pick Morgan as the father, but who am I?Dave (talk) 18:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed sentence: "Boas was the first anthropologist who considered it unimaginable to study the culture of a foreign people without also becoming acquainted with their language." Well really, how can that possibly be so? Morgan knew Iroquois; moreover, Edward Burnett Tylor, founder of cultural anthropolgy, studied languages in Central America. He in fact wrote of the linguistics of those languages. I do not wish to be at all incivil, only accurate, so I hope you will forgive me for taking it out. Woops - the one reversion rule - well, we can still follow that. If you revert it I will just tag its accuracy. Thanks. Best wishes.Dave (talk) 18:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand, Boas is by many accounts the founder of the SCHOOL of American Anthorpology. Of course there were others who did the same before, but they did not found schools. Scholars such as Brinton also combined the study of American langauges with anthropology but it was Boas who put linguistics at the center of the study of indigenous cultures. It will not be difficult for me to supply quotes from textbook about this central role of Boas as the founder of both modern Anthropology and linguistics in the US (notice the qualifier "modern").·Maunus·ƛ· 19:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Well, my suggestion is that you explain that; maybe a few more words would make it clear. If I misunderstood there are sure to be others who did so. I will finish my edit then I will give you a chance to update everything and then I will take a new look. Sometimes you can write so condensed you become unclear. I'm still thinking of the Yoga Sutra of Patanjali where you look at one sutra at a time and you might be on just one for weeks trying to make sure you understood it. I doubt we really want to be that condensed. When I was doing yoga, however (many years ago), I never did manage to levitate, so Patanjali was so condensed that I cannot say I ever did understand him. Is that what we want?Dave (talk) 21:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Duplicated section

My goodness, what is the matter with me? I just discovered the entire Language and Culture section duplicated word for word under Culture, including all the refs missing from here! We don't do that I'm pretty sure - if any of you sysadmins know different be sure and let me know. If we did half the encyclopedia would be duplicates, triplicates, etc. Time and time again I have seen material removed as duplicating other material word-for-word. So, in response I am going to remove this material with a link to Culture (its original source) except I will try to use a few phrases by way of introduction. So sorry. This is very sticky. I do not wish to be uncivil, only correct.Dave (talk) 19:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I wrote it with user:Cnilep for the Culture article and then I realized that the article of language did not mention the cultural aspects of language at all so I copied it here as well. I think it is important to treat in both articles.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

There's a question of what you mean by "treat." WP is all interlinked so with a click or at most 2 you can access any treatment. Is a duplication a different treatment or the same treatment? If you mean a different write-up I can see that; you might want to tailor the write-up to the article. If you look above you can see that I left and enhanced write-ups on topics that also appeared elsewhere; that is because I checked those articles and saw that the write-ups were different. Straight duplication, though, is something different. It is like a subroutine in code; why should you include the subroutine code over and over when you can put it once in one place and reference it from many places (at least in writing uncompiled code). So, I would not think it a waste of time if you wrote a special section just for this article, but are you sure you want to do that? Do you have something different to say? Since you are in such a good humor, let me say that in my field (tech writing) an editor of one's work is a precious commodity, seldom can a company afford one, but they sure are useful people to have. A second pair of eyes on your writing is worth money in my field. You have, however, to learn that fact usually the hard way. So excuse me if I edit your stuff; nobody on this earth is perfect and can do things right the first time, although I did know a programmer who gained fame by doing just that; he wrote a difficult program that compiled and ran the very first time. His career was made (until he had the bad luck to meet me), but all the rest of us are just people. So thank you for not reverting that or going any further with resentment. My advice is for you and your friend to do a special write-up just for this article, I will give it an edit, and that will be that. What would you like to say that would be specific to language#culture and not to culture#language? Maybe you need time to give it some thought. No rush. We are worth the effort I do believe but few of us have the time to do it all at once. I'm sorry if I gab too much. I find it hard to communicate without talking.Dave (talk) 21:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll see when I can get time to write a similar section changing the emphasis from culture to language. It could probably also be better referenced than it was. No hard feelings, I was just explaining why it was duplicated (which I btw don't feel is necessarily a bad thing - I think that usually a reader prefers looking for e.g. stuff on language prefers reading all relevant material in one article instead of going off to several related subartiloes).·Maunus·ƛ· 07:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Give me the liberty to freely discuss above all others. I've often used your argument for printed manuals, where you have to do a lot of work heaving books around and running around here and there to try and find them. The network is a different case. WP's main advntage is, it ties all knowledge together in a matrix. A few clicks and you can go anywhere if those anywheres are set up. I appreciate your willingness to discuss. I think in fact the "no repetion" policy (within reason) is WP policy. I'm not an admin so I can't pull rank. The policy for admins is, they shall behave like any other editor, but in fact I have not known any who did not manage to get in a personal dig letting us know who is boss. Well so what. Someone has to be boss. I got no hard feelings. Sometimes I may lose my temper in a flash but there is no colder water on that process than to find out you were wrong after all. I'm going on with the edit. Ciao and happy new year.Dave (talk) 13:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

French Academy

"In modern Western philosophy, speculation by authors such as Thomas Hobbes and later Jean-Jacques Rousseau led to the Académie française declaring the subject off-limits."

This was tagged. It seems suspect to me because the academy is concerned with the purity of the French language not with anthropological speculations on the origin of language. It's regulatory agency. I did an Internet check, couldn't find any such policy or regulation. I did find that judges from the academy sat on the board of the Prix Volney of 1849, amd that some of the works submitted for it were on the origin of language. That seems a paradox, or else the WP statement is wrong, so I'm putting this here for now. Do check it out.Dave (talk) 14:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days.--Oneiros (talk) 18:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Language Classification

Might I suggest adding a section where languages are classified? Maybe a listing of Asian vs. Western vs. Latin languages... or something like that? 205.115.81.37 (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

A section on the worlds languages might be a very good idea, describing the worlds major languages and language families. However "Asian", "Western" and "Latin" languages are not a classification that is used by anyone. ·Maunus·ƛ· 06:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight given to constructed languages

This articles gives much undue attention to constructed languages. In the description of languages constructed languages are mostly irrelevant and not usually given any attention. This also comes down to using the qualifier "natural" before language. Language (without qualification) IS natural language - constructed languages, programming languages (not really languages at all but rather codes) etc. are merely recent developments of with specific uses. A much more relevant distinction would be between language as a particular complex symbols ("A language" - e.g. English) and language as a faculty ("Human language"). ·Maunus·ƛ· 08:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Lead

Proposed text for lead, 2009 version:

Language is the intelligent transformation of thought (cognition) into discrete semantic and logical concepts (words, grammatical particles), and the patterned usage of these concepts (grammars) to form expressions (statements, questions, requests, declarations, conditionals).

(continued...)

Image caption: " Cuneiform is one of the first known forms of written language, but spoken language is believed to predate writing by tens of thousands of years at least. " Language is the intelligent transformation of thought (cognition) into discrete semantic and logical concepts (words, grammatical particles), and the patterned usage of these concepts (grammar) to form expressions (statements, sentences). When used in communication, expressions which contain valid semantics and logic are said to be comprehensible, and may convey meaning and facilitate understanding. In humans, natural language uses speech, wherein words (encapsulations of concept) are communicated audibly by the usage of phonemes —mouth-created sounds assembled to represent words. Combining spoken words in accord with rules of language creates spoken expressions, constituting speech. Writing is a graphical symbolic representation of speech, representing either discrete concepts or phonemes. Communication through speech, along with historic geographical and cultural divergence, has generated a diverse number of differentiated "natural languages" —each being distinguished systems of expression that have particular rules and standards for pronunciation, word formation, and grammar, along with particular cultural traditions guiding expression. Words are assembled in accord with the semantic values and grammatical logic inherent to the particular natural lanugage (ie. lexemes, affixes, operators). Language usage has led to the development of greater conceptualization and problem-solving skills, leading up to the ability to reason and the ability to form complex rational arguments. In Ancient Greek philosophical terminology, the same word, logos, was used as a term for both language or speech and reason, and the philosopher Thomas Hobbes used the English word "speech" so that it similarly could refer to reason, as will be discussed below. More commonly though, the English word "language", derived ultimately from lingua, Latin for tongue, typically refers only to expressions of reason which can be understood by other people, most obviously by speaking.

-Stevertigo (w | t | e) 23:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Sign languages

Is is my eyes or this articles doesn't really mentions sign languages? Not even a link to Sign language! 187.13.6.18 (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Sign language is mentioned in the lede section (fourth paragraph), in the 'see also' and once in the animals section. None of them really discuss it much as a phenomenon though - maybe it would be a good idea to give a bit more mention. Perhaps in either the 'natural languages' or 'properties of language' sections we could include a statement to the effect that the symbols of language are usually verbal or written ones, but that some languages use hand symbols - that seems like a natural way to bring it up. Any thoughts? Olaf Davis (talk) 18:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I might be mis-remembering this statistic, but I think that sign languages are more common than languages that are written, so "usually verbal or written" is not quite right. Oral languages are more common that manual ones, though. Cnilep (talk) 02:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

New structure proposal for this article

I think the current structure of the article is rather ecclectic (not to say random). I think a rewrite and a restructuring would be a good idea. I have based this outline on other encyclopedias entries on language and on the general build-up of general works on language and linguistics.

1. Lead
2. Defining language (what is language and what isn't. problems of defining language. The differences between language as "a language" (e.g. Swahili), as a cognitive faculty, as a set of symbols etc.)
   1. The study of language
   2. Language as a mental faculty
   3. Language as a formal symbolic system
   4. Language as a tool for communication
   5. Animal language?
3. The parts of language
   1. Sounds and symbols
   2. Syntax
   3. Semantics
4. Origins of language (the current theories of the rise of human language)
5. the physiology of language
   1. Speech production
   2. Language and the brain
   3. Language acquisition
   4. Sign languages
6. Language and culture
   1. Transmission of language
   2. Social differentiation in language
   3. Language varieties: dialect, register
7. Language in history
   1. Language change
   2. Historical linguistics
8. Language classification
   1. Language families
   2. Linguistic typology
9. Constructed languages

I will appreciate comments and additions, and in a while I wil start working on introducing this structure to the article. ·Maunus·ƛ· 00:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Without thinking about your exact proposal very much yet, I see no problems and moreover the basic intention of structuring this article is good. It has tended to develop by accretion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 02:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it makes more sense to have this layout, particularly with "Origin" before "Definition" because something is not defined until it comes into being. I don't even see it as chicken or egg, because language existed long before attempts to define it. --David Shankbone 22:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Endangered languages

These have not been mentioned in the article, please do. Also include a link to Red Book of Endangered Languages —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.223.239 (talk) 08:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

aye bru —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.71.210.5 (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Language and human language

This page should be called Human language. The term language can be used for things such as computer language which are obviously not included here. The Language page should just be a disambiguation page (such as the already existing one). --Jotamar (talk) 11:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Some words are more important than others and this is a clear case where there is a main meaning of language, and then extended meanings which are all extensions of the original meaning and still clearly understood by everyone to be so.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. There's information about this kind of issue here. garik (talk) 13:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Phonology in the intro

In regards to this part:

"All languages rely on the process of semiosis to relate a sign with a particular meaning. Spoken and signed languages contain a phonological system that governs how sounds or visual symbols are used to form sequences known as words or morphemes"

Does phonology really apply to completely signed languages and their visual symbols? Every time I've encountered mention of phonology or phonetics before, it had to do with sounds specifically. A later section of this same article even reads, "The ways in which spoken languages use sounds to construct meaning is studied in phonology. The study of how humans produce and perceive vocal sounds is called phonetics." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.156.4.2 (talk) 11:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, phonology applies to signed languages. The "phonemes" of a signed language are often called cheremes, but the ways in which they are combined and used can be studied in the same way. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Simple English link

Instead of the Simple English link going to http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language, how about having it go to http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_English? GreenPine (talk) 08:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Basic English is not the same thing as language. sonia♫ 10:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with sonia.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

What type of Language?

What is this, Who can Read it, where did it come from, and why do we have it?

ဂယ်လီလီယို ဂယ်လီလေး

Darkened wiki (talk) 15:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Some comments

Taking the current state of the article as a basis, I have started with some comments. The structure of the article is quite another question, and below I have only addressed some details related to this question:

“When used as general concept ... from a finite number of elements.” This part expresses a position confined to nativism which is more often than not confined to the formalist / generativist approach to language. Such positions may certainly find their place within this article, but not in the lead.

“The word "language" can also be used to describe the set of rules that makes this possible, or the set of utterances that can be produced from those rules.” This statement is at the junction of artificial language and those theories of language that have modeled their formalisms accordingly. A construction is not a rule, and I believe there is hardly anybody in linguistics these days who would define a language as a neatly delimited set of well-formed utterances. This sentence can therefore be relegated to a part of the article that deals with artificial languages.

“The word "language" has two meanings:” Ha! Is there anyone around who couldn’t come up with some third?

“Languages other than English often have two separate words for these distinct concepts.” The French words given as examples are terminology. If we could conjure up, say, four languages from four language families that are and were not in contact with each other and that have such vocabulary, one might support such a statement, but it is not immediately credible on the face of it.

The different definitions of language exclude one another to some degree, and that could be mentioned. So it is rather (or partly) competing models to explain language.

“These kinds of definitions are often applied by studies of language within a cognitive science framework and in neurolinguistics.” I cannot tell myself, but I hear that things are changing here as well.

In “A formal symbolic system”, the term “structuralism” is used with two meanings: structuralism proper and something very close to formalism. Second, the frameworks cited there have ceased to be the most commonly used frameworks for language description, having ceded this place in Europe, Russia and China, even if they still have the upper hand in the US and Japan. And I don’t understand why semiotics (which, apart from language as a system, also has a certain affiliation to pragmatics) must be included here.

In “A tool for communication”, one might mention that these approaches explain the genesis of linguistic forms from their communicative functions. Cognitive grammar might be mentioned here.

“Human language is also unique in that its complex structure has evolved to serve a much wider range of functions than any other kinds of communication system.” I don’t understand to what this sentence refers. Just that human language can cover more semantic areas than animal communication? Clarify, or maybe delete.

“Language can be studied from many angles and for many purposes:” Doesn’t this part raise all your body hairs? It is as if we were back in the 70s. Historical linguistics before the word “grammaticalization”. And the entire absence of the belief that these diverse approaches interact and enhance one another.

“The study of language” does not really range until today. Generativism and the functional / typological approach are missing, if we stay with the main lines. Both add essentially new qualities. But this article should confirm itself to the basic thoughts related to these lines: the deep structure idea with its rationalist appeal and the multilanguage approach as recognizing what can be a human language from what can be found in the languages of the world. One paragraph for each (with cross-reference to a related main article) would do.

“meaning that the elements out of which linguistic signs are constructed are discrete units” - in the human mind, that is, but much less so in acoustic phonetics.

“The meaning that is connected to individual signs, words and phrases is called semantics.” No, definitely not. Semantics relate to the linguistic code at all levels, from morphemes up to texts.

“Semantics” - I will not argue that the concepts discussed here are not mainstream, but still they very much relate to how linguistic theory conceptualizes language. Only the last statement is nonsense - while some semantic theories try to ascribe a truth value to every statement so that they can function, there is no intuitive or language-inherent need to ascribe truth values e.g. to imperatives (which do predicate e.g. actions).

The part on sounds (and their correspondents in written language) seems to sum it up rather well. But one point about which I am wondering: what about references for such basic stuff? “Grammar contributes to producing meaning by encoding semantic distinctions in forms that are systematic. The predictability resulting from systematization allows language users to produce and understand new words and meanings by applying their knowledge of the language’s grammatical categories.” I can phantom what this is intended to mean, but saying that I understand it would go too far. And if this article is aimed at a general public - well.

Mentioning languages with a closed word class of adjectives and an open word class of pronouns (such as in Korean) might be interesting here. The distinction between (relatively) closed word classes and open word classes should be mentioned anyway.

“Many other word classes exist in different languages, such as conjunctions that serve to join two sentences and articles that introduces a noun.” Wanna convey the idea that all languages are reduced versions of English or at best carbon copies? This is the way to go, girls! Instead, e.g. mentioning something like classifiers or spatials would be more fun.

We might want to render all cited language material into cursive letters, taking away signs like “”.

“Syntax, then ...” This part is problematic because the notion of “head” (which is implicitly employed here) has never been defined well enough to prove this phrase structure analysis. One should drop it and replace it with an analysis that holds both in phrase structure grammar and construction grammar.

G Purevdorj (talk) 12:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

All of your points are valid. I would encourage that in improving the article we should fight the temptation to go into excssive detail about the linguistic intricacies and write as basically and clearly as we can as the readers here are likely to be lay people with no background in linguistics. This I think will sometimes require us to sacrifice precision and detail. I definitely agree that it would be good to introduce a more crosslinguistic perspective on word classes, grammatical categories and syntax. But exotic categories will take up extra space to explain well and should be chosen with care. As for structure I still believe the one I presented above is a good way to go. Further sections and subsections can be added and moved around as needed.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I have tried to respond to (most) of your concerns as best as I could. I have had to leave some unaddressed as I simpoly didn't know how to proceed. I am still chewing on how to include more cross-linguistic variability.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Fluent

What percentage of people on Earth are fluent at speaking 6 or more languages? Pass a Method talk 15:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. This question is probably better off asked at the language reference desk. This talk page is for discussing changes to the Language article itself. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 22:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Language acquisition

I have started a section "Language acquisition". I placed it below "Language and its parts" and above "Language and culture", but would have no objection to moving it elsewhere.

I agree with Maunus that we should keep things general for what is an article on a broad, general topic. Accordingly, I've tried to write in a very general, "for beginners" frame of mind, but of course like any expert I may be blind to what is difficult or controversial for outsiders. Advice or changes are welcome.

I have mentioned sign language and spoken languages, and suggested that their acquisition is "essentially the same" for L1 acquirers. I think that this is true and supportable, though obviously there are differences. For example, vocabulary development is generally several weeks earlier for children acquiring signed languages. I felt that this level of detail was unnecessary, especially given the "wide degree of variation" among individuals. I know from teaching intro classes, though, that many people are curious about Baby sign language and its relationship to "ordinary" language acquisition.

I plan to add another paragraph on L2 acquisition in time. Are there other elements that should be added? Cnilep (talk) 02:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Great, Thanks! Really well done!·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you think you would you feel up to writing a section on culture and language socialization?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Disagreement between Articles

Section 8 on Artificial Languages, especially its first paragraph, defines "artificial languages" very differently from the Artificial language article that it links too. I don't feel I am experienced enough to make suggestions on how to deal with this discrepancy.50.104.206.237 (talk) 18:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Aspiration

The contast between "pin" and "spin", with only "pin" having an aspirated /p/, is only valid for British varietis of English, and not for North American or Indian varieties. This example will confuse American or Indian speakers.  Andreas  ^(T) 12:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I think its valid for most American speakers as well. I don't think I've ever heard an American pronounce initial p without aspiration.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It's true for Americans, Brits, and Australians. Don't know about Indians, but they already know they have an Indian accent. — kwami (talk) 12:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Kwami - please do chip in if you see anything odd with the phonology and phonetics sections!·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Scope

I have a mind to remove the three last sections on natural, artificial and animal languages. I think the primary topic for this article is and should be natural human language - I think programming languages (which are not actually languages but codes or notation systems) and animal communication systems can be accessed from the disambiguation page. The meaning of language is clearly primarily about human language the meaning of which can then be extended to similar systems such as artificial languages, programming languages and animal communication. Unless I get some good indication that removing those sections would not be supported by consensus I think I will remove them within a week or so - the article is getting very large by now.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I support that, as well as supporting your recent change to the hatnote. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 15:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Programming languages don't look like they're within the scope of this article. Most animal communication is also irrelevant (except maybe as a contrast), though it's my understanding that we know of a handful of examples of learned animal communication, such as whale songs and crow calls. Mentioning some of these, at least briefly, would be appropriate IMHO. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 15:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I think both should definitely be mentioned, but as you say as contrasts, not as examples of kinds of "language". ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, hey, we have animal language. That's better suited to cover the issue anyway. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 16:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

My 2p: while most of the stuff about animal communication probably should be covered at its own page, I think there should at least be a one-paragraph summary here, with a {{main}} link, summarizing the question of whether or not animals have language/can learn human language. I think this is a basic enough question that it can be addressed here without straying far from the scope of this article. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

How about a couple of more sentences in the "what makes human language unique" section?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe that would do it. Someone coming here specifically looking for stuff about "animal language" might not find it, but if there's a hatnote at the top of the page then that should be enough for them. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I've added a "main" link to Animal language at the top of that section and expanded the description of differences between human language and the types of communication that animals can learn.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I heard that human speech may be caused by the same gene as chirping of birds(FoxP2 gene) Gelmint (talk) 09:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that it incorrect. Speech is not caused by any single gene, the FOXP2 gene is involved in the development of some of the motor areas that are related to speech but many animals have the gene, which can therefore not be expected to be related to the specifically human aspects of speech. The gene is mentioned in the article.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Phonemes and writing

Removed some material written by Ehrenkater (talk · contribs) in the section on sounds and symbols. I think I understand the point and agree that something along those lines should be included, for example noting that the phoneme principle may have perceptional effects and that there may not be isomorphism between spoken and written language. Those are good and reasonable points, but they should be presented slightly differently I think and be supported by a source. First of all I don't think the wording used to describe the perceptual and articulatory aspects of the phoneme princple was accurate - it sounded as if speakers have difficulties producing allophones, which of course they don't they do so naturally and unconsciously all the time. And furthermore I think the question of the psychological reality of the phoneme is a little bit more tricky and controversial than the sentence made it look. The section about relations between writing and spoken language I think used too many words to describe something relatively simple. I will think of how to include this material and look for supporting sources, but untill we have a better idea of how to include it I think it is better left out. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Forster Renfrew Hypothesis

I noticed that earlier this month you removed a reference on Language, saying that its theory was too recent and too speculative for inclusion. I don't see why this information, published in Science (a major peer-reviewed journal) should not be considered a reliable source. Can you clarify? Thanks in advance! Tim dorf (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

It is of course a reliable source for the claim, but the claim is not sufficiently significant for inclusion in the main language article. The authors have no expertise in language or linguistics, their claims are rather extraordinary and are mostly backed by speculation, and we shouldn't include them until they are accepted by specialists. Just because it is published in science it doesn't mean that it is true or that everyone in science accepts it - and it certainly doesn't mean that it has to be included in wikipedia articles unless there is a consensus that the claims it makes is notable and relevant. Here is a response to their article by two of the world's best historical linguists[5].·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate that Huntley and Bowern have objected to the claimed correlation between Y chromosomes and prehistoric language change. However, since Huntley and Bowern published their letter online last year, more genetics papers have now confirmed Forster and Renfrew's observation. Here is a selection: Caucasus languages: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21571925

West African languages: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22130972

Southern African languages: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22929022 (This last paper illustrates nicely the change of the language by Bantu males, but occasional retention of some of the Khoisan clicks by the surviving females.)

I suggest it would therefore be very timely for Wikipedia at least to refer to the Forster-Renfrew hypothesis, possibly adding the controversy with Huntley & Bowern, if you decide their criticism is still relevant given the new papers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim dorf (talk • contribs) 20:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I will state my position again for the record: 1. I think the main article on language should only include well established highly notable views that are likely to be included in general textbooks. Recent speculative hypothesis that contradict basic findings and assumptions of linguistics should not be included untill such a time as they are well established in the literature on language (i.e. not the literature on population genetics). 2. I don't think that even if the hypothesis were to be widely accepted by linguists (which I don't think it will because it rests on erroneous assumptions about the nature of language transmission, but that's beside the point) I don't think it is relevant to the main topic of language, but rather in the article on Language transmission or Language change. This is because it would be excessive detail for the main article which only has room give the most general and essential points about these topics. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Maunus view on this. This theory seems to have a lot going against it, and is not part of mainstream linguistics. It belongs in sub-articles, not here, or we could just as well include an endless list of more or less controversial linguistic theories (like Nostratic languages). This would not benefit the casual readers that this article is aiming to inform.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)