Talk:Language/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Number of languages

A recent change by Maunus seems to group signed languages with written language and opposed to spoken (oral/aural) languages. This division is problematic. While it is certainly the case that oral languages are more numerous that signed ones, both oral and signed languages are "grown" natural languages while written language is a "made" system derived from such languages. I find Kwami's grouping far superior (though it is my impression that Maunus's numbers are more widely accepted). Cnilep (talk) 03:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I group signed langauge with written languages only in terms of the modality of the channel. I'll rephrase it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

There are two issues here. Ethnologue's figures are widely thought to be exaggerated; they are not a language survey, but a catalog for translating Scripture. I compromised at 6,000.

There is no tactile language, so the wording there is spurious. There are two primary modalities: oral and sign. There are secondary modalities, such as whistling, song, and writing; within writing, there is visual (print) and tactile (braille), with tertiary derivatives (semaphore, Morse code, etc.) Writing is not language, it is only the encoding of language. No-one's language is only written, the way languages are only spoken or signed. — kwami (talk) 04:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The point about tactile language is a red herring I am not saying that there is a tactile language but that language can and does use this modality. Your point about the difference between the fact that some languages are only signed (which is not completely true since signed languages can also be written) is well taken - signed languages should be grouped with spoken languages. Indeed I think I have made quite a bit of effort to include sign languages on equal foooting throughout the article. The point that ethnologue is a catalogue for translating scrupture is a red herring - yes that is one of its functions - but far from the only one at this point, and there are many, many good and professional linguists involved in producing it. Regarding your distinction between primary, secondary and tertiary encoding systems that is a good point as well - and it appears in Trask 2007, but I haven't seen the distinction made elsewhere and am uncertain whether it has wide currency. Do you think the distinctions should be outline somewhere in the article, and if so, where? ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

We should cite the number of languages with a RS (i.e., not Ethnologue). Dalby (Dict. of Languages) says "over five thousand languages" are spoken (as of 2004). — kwami (talk) 04:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no reason Dalby should be considered a more reliable source than Ethnologue. Ethnologue has its problems but it is basically the best we have for most of the world.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

There is one: Ethn. has an often noted bias: it's not intended as a survey of the world's languages, but as a guide to translating Scripture. The number of varieties considered distinct for that purpose is higher than what you'd get if you were to consider them on other principles. They have twice the count of Romance languages (nearly 50) as most other sources, for example. — kwami (talk) 01:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is wrong. And your reasoning is backwards if Ethnologue was just about translating then they would be interested in identifying fewer languages, not more. The reason ethnologue classifies more languages than others is because 1. they are more acquainted with minority indigenous languages than most other sources 2. they don't respect national political standards but classify based on intelligibility which means that what many governments classify as dialects of a language they classify as separate languages(e.g. Danish is three languages). This is linguisticaly more sound than just adopting the political classification.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Not backwards at all. If you want to reach every person with Scripture, then you want to make sure that you divide up languages narrowly. You might want separate American and English translations, for example. That doesn't make American and English separate languages. Some of the entries are explicit about this: they separate two mutually intelligible varieties because speakers of one don't want to use the Scripture of the other, not because they can't understand it. — kwami (talk) 05:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

On the number of languages, sources vary hugely and the most reliable ones tend to hedge. The LSA pamphlet "How Many Languages Are There in the World?" hems and haws and cites sources (none of them iron-clad) for numbers anywhere from 1,000 (Encyclopedia Britanica 1911) to 6,900 (the aforementioned Ethnologue). National Geographic's Enduring Voices makes off-hand reference to "more than 7,000" without clear reference. I have vague recollections of popular and scholarly sources asserting numbers anywhere from 5,000 to 7,000 within about the last decade. I think "approximately 6,000" is about as close as one could hope to find for a consensus number. Cnilep (talk) 05:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

NatGeo is not a linguistic source. — kwami (talk) 00:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• Ethnologue is considered a reliable sources by linguists working with language endangerment. Austin and Sallabank uses Ethnologue's numbers (noting that they are problematic, but providing no others), Evans and Levinson in their paper on myths of language diversity call the ethnologue the most reliable source of numbers of languages. Choosing the number in some other arbitrary source is ...arbitrary. I think the mostv accurate is to give a range and say that it depends on how one defines the distinction between languages and dialects - which is discussed in the body of the article. I am going to include even more hedging. I am a little put off by the fact that Kwami chooses not to lend a hand throughout the entire process of editing this article, even ignmoring my requests for help - only to choose to arrive and editwar over an arbitrary number.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to review the entire article. I noticed some factual errors in the lead.

Not edit warring over the number, but over your spurious claim of braille as a tactile language. The only primary tactile language mode I'm aware of is tactile signing, though I don't know if any is developed enough to be considered a distinct language.

Ethnologue is not considered a reliable source. It's considered the best we have, because nothing else of its scope is available. ELL2 notes that in their preface. — kwami (talk) 00:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

"The best we have" = reliable source for wikipedia purposes. It is used by plenty pf linguists, whether you find it to be wrong is irrelevant

You are not reading what I am saying I explicitly say that Braille encodes language into the tactile modality not that braille is a language. And the article also wasn't saying that. If you have a problem with something you're not sure what is supposed to mean it is usually a better idea to try to dialogue and and get the other party to explain than just editwarring over it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you're too close to the text to see it. It clearly implied that braille was a kind of language, alongside oral and sign language. Considering how many people confuse language with writing and words with letters, we should be very clear that is not the case. — kwami (talk) 05:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• UNESCO says 6000 plus.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Possible from Ethn. Unesco is not a linguistic source. — kwami (talk) 00:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, UNESCO's red book of endangered languages is a linguistic source.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Why not just mention the range of numbers and sources that are out there, cite Ethnologue and their numbers as one of the commonly used claims, and then explain the problems with it (i.e., why the numbers need to be taken with a grain of salt, what the inherent problems are in counting the number of languages)? rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

That is indeed the reasonable approach.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Oral languages, signed languages

The discussion above got somewhat side-tracked; my fault for making a parenthetical remark on a controversial issue.

I would still like to see discussion focused on signed, oral, and written (and I guess tactile) modalities. There is discussion above, but I think it deserves focus. To summarize:

• "both oral and signed languages are "grown" natural languages while written language is a "made" system derived from such languages" (Cnilep)
• "There is no tactile language, so the wording there is spurious. There are two primary modalities: oral and sign. There are secondary modalities, such as whistling, song, and writing; within writing, there is visual (print) and tactile (braille)" (kwami)
• "I am not saying that there is a tactile language but that language can and does use this modality" (Maunus)
• "Your point about the difference between the fact that some languages are only signed (which is not completely true since signed languages can also be written) is well taken - signed languages should be grouped with spoken languages." (Maunus)
• "The only tactile language I'm aware of is tactile signing, though I don't know if any is developed enough to be considered a distinct language." (kwami)

Cnilep (talk) 01:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm actually not unhappy with the current wording, "Natural languages are spoken or signed, but any language can be encoded into media using auditory, visual or tactile stimuli for example in graphic writing, whistling or braille." I might be happier calling these 'secondary modalities', but if this is at all controversial, leave it out. Cnilep (talk) 01:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think we need to make a distinction between primary modes that are picked up without instruction (oral, sign) and secondary modes that depend on those primary modes and need to be taught (writing, etc). I don't know what to do with tactile sign, since I know nothing of the topic. Is that just how a blind person picks up sign, the way the deaf may learn to lip read? Or are there distinct tactile sign languages? — kwami (talk) 01:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Danish?

The first paragraph of "Linguistic diversity" says that "the Danish language that most scholars consider a single language with several dialects, is classified as three distinct languages by the Ethnologue". I checked it out, but could only find one example, Jutish. What's the third supposed to be? Sign language? Traveller Danish?

I'm wondering if there might not be better examples of this. Italian is one example that comes to mind, but I'm not sure exactly what the common opinion is about the relative "unity" of the Italian dialects/languages.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

the third is Bornholmsk which ethnologue considers a variety of Scanian spoken in Denmark - feel free to change the example, that was just the first one that came to mind. Norwegian and Swedish are not good examples since they are well known to be diverse. I'm not sure about Italian since Italy as a country and Italian as a language is a rather new invention. The point is to have a language that linguists tend to treat as a sinngle language with dialects and show that ethnologue divides it. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Scanian has (finally) been removed from the latest edition of the Ethnologue. So it's really just two. But I see your point about Italian, and I can't think of any specific example that is better than Danish right now. If I come up with anything, I'll let you know.

Peter ^Isotalo 20:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Changes

"It is impossible to know precisely how many languages there are in the world, and this depends on a partly arbitrary distinction between languages and dialects. However, estimates vary between around 5000 and 7000 in number."

5000 and 7000 what? Languages or dialects? Also, we need a citation for this once this is clarified and added. MrsCaptcha (talk) 19:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Leads don't generally require separate citations. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Citations. Have you read the section Linguistic diversity where this is discussed in more detail?

Peter ^Isotalo 20:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I see that now. But don't we need to cite it at the top of the article even if it comes up in a later section? MrsCaptcha (talk) 14:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

No, if it is cited in the body of the article we don't need to cite it in the lead as well. That's part of the manual of style.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Btw, I fixed the estimates according to what the article says, eventhough the 10,000 number is considered rather high. And to me it seems quite clear that the estimates refer to "how many languages there are in the world" while the mention of dialects is there to indicate an uncertainty. By splitting the estimate into a separate mini-sentence, it seems to me that you made that less clear.

Peter ^Isotalo 20:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

agreed.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

A few observations| LEAD and Innate

Mental faculty, organ or instinct, only discuss the innate pov. Where is the POV of Sapir et al? Where is the text for the position that language is a purely human and non-instinctive method of communicating ideas, emotions, and desires by meaning of a system of voluntarily produced symbols. Lead - Hierarchy of notable points. t is impossible to know precisely how many languages there are in the world, and the number depends on a partly arbitrary... is much less notable than information on the uniqueness of human language and the age of language (which I am yet to find). I think the order of content in the lead needs a 2nd look.--Inayity (talk) 17:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if I find much of a problem of the current order, but I suppose it wouldn't hurt fiddling with it. However, the age of human language seems far too uncertain and diffuse to establish in the lead.

Peter ^Isotalo 19:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

If by "age of language" you mean the age at which individual humans acquire language, that is described in the section Language acquisition, and the lead currently states "children generally speak fluently when they are around three years old". If instead you mean the historical age of language as a faculty of hominids, that is hugely controversial, having been studied for centuries with no clear answers. I agree with Peter Isotalo that it is too uncertain to be included in the lead section.

I also think the section "definitions" does a pretty good job balancing innatist versus other points of view. Sapir's is an important voice, and he and a few other anthropologists might be mentioned alongside the philosophers currently listed in Tool for communication. Cnilep (talk) 02:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see the text i have inserted, and judge if it is in the correct place. I find the title of the section awkward. I assumed it was in relations to the thread i created below this one. Is there any place where the age of hominid acquisition of language is mentioned in the article or at least the debate around it. Either way I think we should play with the priorities of notability in the lead. because it seems to start going into too much detail at the expense of getting to other important language points--Inayity (talk) 15:25, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Language acquisition is covered under "Origin", a very intuitive section title to place it under in my opinion. Have you actually read through the entire article?

Peter ^Isotalo 21:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

No Peter it is a very big article, my understanding of a well structured article means that if i want info, it should be ordered in such a way that is easily gained. My first issue was with section that seems like it is going to debate innate vs. not, and yet it did not(True or False). The second issue (which you guys clarified), was the origins of language in homo. But i think the structure of how things are ordered might be the biggest issue. I hesitate a little b/c when you just show up on a page, you need to get acquainted with what has been done. But in my opinion the structure is not very good. It goes into deep detail, and then right at the bottom brings in a new topic. For example in origins, I would start with the sentence that says " Because the emergence of language is located in the early prehistory of man, the relevant developments have left no direct historical traces and no comparable processes can be observed today." Reworded a little, and try and lay a good short clear over view. B4 talking about Chomsky. I think the most important thing for the reader is to understand the issues of origin, together with the issue of innate to humans etc. Just my thoughts, dont shoot me, I accept i could be wrong, but I came here and did get a little confused. Because Language is a big topic I prefer the natives on this article agree and suggest if my points have merit. --Inayity (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, read the article through before you start suggesting all kinds of changes.

Peter ^Isotalo 05:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, I do not have to read an entire article to see the issues I have pointed out, what wiki rule is that? Makes no sense, the issues I have stressed have not changed since reading the disorder. And if this is the limit of your contribution, I hope others will be more constructive. --Inayity (talk) 07:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you do because your proposed changes ignore the fact that the issues you mention are already addressed elsewhere in parts you didn't bother to read. For example the alternative to the innatist position is described in detail in the very next section and the sentence you inserted simply breaks with the organization and internal coherence in the paragraph by inserting material that belongs in a different section. The lead has to be a summary of the rest of the article and your proposals to cut material from the lead would make the lead not work as a summary. The article has been written as a whole with attention to coherence and organization, not piecemeal, and if you want to improve it you need to at least make the effort to read the entire thing before proposing substantial rewrites. Not doing this is the opposite of being constructive. Maunus (talk · contribs) (logged out and on wikibreak)

Inayity, you're expected to inform yourself about stuff you pass judgment on, yes. Any serious, experienced editor who has worked on promoted articles knows that. We're not here to guide you through a basic reading of an article text. Griping about being told do your own homework will not get you anywhere.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Instinctive or Not

A section which is presenting views on instinctive or not, then needs to present those views. The current section Organ and Instinct (whatever) only presents one side of the debate. only 4 reference to the word exist in the entire article. So Sapir (dead or not, old or replaced) is relevant. If not then replace his arguments with the current leading person for non-instinctive view on language. The Ip has deleted it based on "he has been dead for 70 years" well just change the tense, not delete reference material which is placed there to balance the section. to let the reader know that the debate between instinctive and non-instinctive. And no it is not adequately discussed anywhere. Making it hard for a novice reader to understand a title that does not deliver balance and only shows one argument. If the current majority argument is instinctive, then the article can just saw that. --Inayity (talk) 15:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see what that quote from 1921 actually achieves. If you want to stress the non-innatist standpoint, you should reference the current academic debate. The IP has a point there, you know.

Peter ^Isotalo 20:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I didnt object to that, I am no linguist, so if that is the ip true concern he should replace it with the current, I still believe Sapir has something to offer, but I think you guys who work here long term would know better than me. --Inayity (talk) 23:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I've removed it again because 1. Sapir wasn't arguing against the nativist point of view since it didn't exist in his time. 2. he was simply point out that actual words and morphemes are socially learned and not innate something with which nativists agree. 4. it is out of place in that section since the non-nativist view is described in the section below, and the sentence is out of place in the section on nativism and makes section incoherent. 138.16.110.253 (talk) 16:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Advantages of a Common Lingua Franca

Notwithstanding claims that the world would be better off if most adopted a single common lingua franca such as English or Esperanto, there is a general consensus that the loss of languages harms the cultural diversity of the world. It is a common belief, going back to the biblical narrative of the tower of Babel that linguistic diversity causes political conflict, but this belief is contradicted by the facts that many of the world's major episodes of violence have taken place in situations with low linguistic diversity, such as the Yugoslav and American Civil Wars, or the genocides of Nazi Germany and Rwanda, whereas many of the most stable political units have been highly multilingual.

I'm pretty sure that you could find other claimed reasons to adopt a common lingua franca beyond the prevention of violence and conflicts. For instance, a common lingua franca can facilitate trading, geographic mobility of the workforce, and the diffusion of new ideas and technological innovations.
BTW, the allusion to the Tower of Babel is a departure from the neutral tone that anyone would expect in an encyclopedia due to its religious connotations. The Tower of Babel isn't even a historic event. Was this the most compelling argument in favor of the adoption of a common lingua franca that you were able to find? 80.174.254.239 (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

a minor compression proposal

Concerning this partial revert, best to move to the talk page:

• Concerning the bit about being on Earth, "so far" is indeed perhaps weird sounding, but so is what it attempted to replace. Do we need anything here logically? What about just "on Earth"? Less wordy (but it does indeed also sound as weird as any other alternative). Concerning weirdness, I guess it can not be avoided without over-expansion unsuitable for a lead. I suggest just removing. The rest of the paragraph explains it.
• Concerning "generally closed systems" and "limited functions" I think this is repetitive and for most readers far more difficult to understand than the explanations and wikilinks already offered in the lead. For example

  "...human language is modality-independent. When used as a general concept, "language" may refer to the cognitive ability to learn and use systems of complex communication, or to describe the set of rules that makes up these systems, or the set of utterances that can be produced from those rules."

  and

  "In contrast to non-human communication forms, human language has the properties of productivity, recursivity, and displacement. Human language is also the only system to rely mostly on social convention and learning."

• Concerning "mostly genetically rather than socially transmitted" I think this is covered below by "Human language is also the only system to rely mostly on social convention and learning."

Please consider.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at solving these issues, see what you think.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

OK by me--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Is Language a Technology?

If so, it should be treated as one on the article, which means be added to a category dealing with technology and navigation templates which are related to technology. Galzigler (talk) 13:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

No it is not.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

It might not be something physical, but it's still an invention, which makes it a technology. The question is, is language something created naturally and exists in any animal which lives in a group? If the answer is not, it's provably not an invention, because it's a part of nature in living things. Galzigler (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Language is not any more an invention than your brain or your eyes. It is a natural part of being human.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that's a false dichotomy, Galzigler. Whether or not language exists among all social animals is irrelevant to the question of whether human language is an invention or not. Steven Pinker's view, for example, is that language is the product of natural selection; Noam Chomsky believes it's innate to humans, but has less straightforward views about the role of natural selection. Neither of them thinks that other animals have language, and neither of them thinks language is an invention. This is the dominant view among linguists. A few people (e.g. Dan Everett) hold that language is in fact more like an invention, and I'd say that this view is gaining ground (indeed, I'm sympathetic to the idea myself). However, it remains a minority view, so it would be unwarranted to add this article to the category you mention. garik (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand Everett to be arguing that language is an invention. He argues that specific languages are the result of social convention, but language - as as the cognitive infrastructure that makes it possible to invent languages I'm pretty sure he agrees is an ingerent part of what makes us human.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

It depends what you mean by "cognitive infrastructure". As I recall (and it's been a little while) Everett doesn't consider any of it to be language-specific. In other words he considers language to be the product of general cognitive mechanisms (again, as I recall—I may be wrong). This is still consistent, incidentally, with language being integral to what makes us human. All other animals may (and probably do) lack the relevant domain-general cognitive capacities that gave us the wherewithal to produce language. To make an analogy: Clothing is human specific, and probably beyond the cognitive capacities of most other animals, but I think we can agree it's an invention (a technology even). garik (talk) 02:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it depends on what one means by cognitive infrastructure: for Chomsky the infrastructure determines grammar, for Everett and other functionalists grammar is developed through social convention and communication. So for Chomsky the cognitive infrastructure is Language, for others it merely enables it. It is not however at all comparable to clothing or other material technologies, because it is not continuously reinvented, but rather a cognitive faculty available to all humans exposed to it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

After all, Everett's book Language: The Cultural Tool is essentially an attempt to make the case "For the alternative proposal, that language is invented and transmitted culturally [for which] empirical support comes from the general wattage of human neurology, our capacity for learning, and from the knowledge that many properties of language are forged by forces outside the brain." (Page 6; my emphasis). garik (talk) 02:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Garik he is talking about the learning of an individual language, he is exactly saying that the human brain is naturally equipped to learning a language socially. The question is whether the innative ability to learn languages also constrains the form langauges take or whether that is entirely a cultural construction/invention. For Chomsky the innate ability determines the structure of language, for Everett and other functionalists it doesn't, but the form of language is determined by social convention and the communicative uses to which it is put. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

This sounds like an interesting theory, but including it in a top-level article seems like it would go against WP:UNDUE since it doesn't have widespread support in the linguistic community. We can't include every imaginable theory of language in what is supposed to be a general summary.

Peter ^Isotalo 09:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, Peter. I said as much above. Maunus: I disagree. If he means the learning of an individual language, then why does he say "language" without an article? In any case, for the reasons Peter mentioned, I'll take this discussion to your talk page and draw a close to it here. garik (talk) 12:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Because he argues it is true for all individual languages.And yes, no-one also not Everett has argued that language is a technology or an invention - it is rather a convention. So yes we shouldn't include it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I continue to disagree, for reasons I raise on your talk page, Maunus. I suggest we take the discussion there. garik (talk) 12:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

This discussion got too deep into philosophy views. When I talked about animals, and if it's something natural, I meant of course it's natural selection. There is a part in the brain which deals with management of language. I'm sure you'll agree all languages are built quite the same (the systems they are made of). My knowledge about the evolution of languages isn't wide enough. We can see that in human languages there is logic, semantic, structure (like the way a sentense is built, for example) - all of the above we evolve by development through the years of us as humans, who learned from the environment. The language got more complex, because it was necessary for us as a way to describe and transfer data and knowledge. Galzigler (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Just like the human femur changed to allow bipedal walking. That doesn't make walking a technology. "technology" implies that someone made it through a wilfull act of creativity in order to serve a specific purpose. Language serves dozens of different purposes from thinking and socializing to transfering knowledge and to exerting power - and it was never wilfully created by anyone.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

If we take math for example. The ability to calculate and to understand what quantity (arithmetics) is is something we are born with, a part in our brain which is responsible for that. And we aren't the only creature which has this ability. But math was developed during the years, and got more complex, and this development was made by many people and cultures. The basic ability is an integral part of us, but it's development was made by studies. In the case of language, we may born with the ability to communicate, but the entire development of the language has no real connection to nature, for example writing isn't an integral system of a language we are born with, it's acquired by learning. Actually, the language itself it's acquired by the person. The development and changing (or evolution) of the language happens by the people who gained the ability to speak the language only after they learned it. Galzigler (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Entirely different thing. Mathematics as we know it has been invented by specific named mathematicians who dedicated thought to doing it. Noone has ever done that to language. It simply emerged naturally from human interactions. This is also evidenced by the fact that math is not a human universal, many cultures do not have math. All cultures have language. Without math we are just people who dont calculated. Without language we are closer to being chimpanzees and nothing of the things we consider to be what makes us unique as humans (including math) is possible without language. But we digress. This is not a forum and we shouldnt treat it as such. When you find a reliable source considering langauge a technology we can start discussing whether to include that perspective. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Math became a field of study beform the term "mathematician" was exist. The same in language, it started as something basic. During the time, it was developed - new things were added to it (I mentioned it before). Today, it's also a field of study called "linguistics". Anyway, I asked about it, I didn't mean it will become such a discussion. By reading the comments here, some showed this theory exists. By searching around here, I saw the article Origin of language, which talks about some concepts in language, like the fact humans embraced the use of voice for languages. The invention of language itself mentioned there, but in context of mythology: "Most mythologies do not credit humans with the invention of language". I'm guessing it won't be added to the article (even about dealing with this question, because it's more a philosophy than a proven fact). At least I learned some new things from this. Galzigler (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Crystal ball

Predictions made by Austin, Sallabak and Moseley, about the extinction of many languages by 2100, are close to ignoring the WP ban on using a Crystal Ball. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.106.44 (talk) 11:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

No they are not. This is a strong consensus among linguists based on projections of speaker demography.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Lead Point by POint

The first thing to be asked what is the most essential things about language? Get those out of the way first. before dealing with secondary issues. I have stressed what i think is not critical for the opening.

Language is the human capacity for acquiring and using complex systems of communication, and a language is any example of such a system of complex communication(poor writing). The scientific study of language is called linguistics. It is impossible to know precisely how many languages there are in the world, and the number depends on a partly arbitrary distinction between languages and dialects. (excessive not needed for the lead) However, estimates vary between around(Just Estimated at) 6,000 and 7,000 languages in number. Natural languages are spoken or signed, but any language can be encoded into secondary media using auditory, visual or tactile stimuli, for example in graphic writing, braille, or whistling. (No idea what this is trying to say and why it needs to say it here, why is it before the uniqueness of language which is more universal true than Braille?) This is because human language is modality-independent.(is what, which lay person knows what that means?) When used as a general concept, "language" may refer to the cognitive ability to learn and use systems of complex communication, or to describe the set of rules that makes up these systems, or the set of utterances that can be produced from those rules.(This can be joined to lead in a simplified way, one sentence, with the opening sentence about complex systems of communication.)

The entire section is problematic, but I am just focusing on the open. It can be made so much more concise I believe.On a minor note the article is about language not scripts, have no idea why the images emphasis scripts. 90% of the world had no script up until the 18th century, so clearly we should avoid linking the two so tightly. --Inayity (talk) 23:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't share any of the concerns you have with the lead. It brings up basic facts about language that I would expect to see in a general encyclopedic article and despite your comments, I don't see any lack of clarity.

Peter ^Isotalo 05:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

"Language is the human capacity for acquiring and using complex systems of communication, and a language is any example of such a system of complex communication(poor writing)" (and this is okay for you? Thanks for your opinion in the development of the lead then. I hope others will also be allowed to suggest making this article better. (the point of fresh eyes reviewing).--Inayity (talk) 07:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

As a long time watcher of this article I think the lead has become a bit awkward, but this is a side effect of the extensive work Maunus did on it recently, which I think has been a net benefit to the article overall. My feeling is that the wordings could be simplified and compressed now a bit in some areas. So Inayity you could look through the article history for ideas. In any case I reckon the best way to discuss this type of thing is to make proposals for new wordings here on the talk page. I know from experience that most editors on this type of article are amenable to that type of approach. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

"Human" can be omitted from the lead — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.218.10.1 (talk) 00:22, 24 September 2013

The lead looks pretty okay to me. If there is something wrong with it, I'd really like to know what the matter is more specifically. "Poor writing" is really just "I don't like it". It's not constructive criticism. Please be more specific.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

We heard you the first time, Thanks Peter, The lead has been changed AMEN!--Inayity (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Illustrations

I think illustrations are ridiculous and not appropriate for the matter. --Aleksd (talk) 12:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Which illustrations? ... which "matter"?
Please write constructively rather than simply being negative.
Your providing an edit summary would be a good action too. Thanks –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard|— 12:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not negative. I am shocked. I came here expecting something reliable as information. But not. Better read Bloomfield next time, cause the quality of this article is too low. --Aleksd (talk) 12:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Essay stylistics

Essay stylistics should be avoided: What makes human language unique. Really if we consider this encyclopedia but not a primary school initiative. --Aleksd (talk) 12:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Is your "What makes human language unique." a question without a punctuation question mark? –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard|— 12:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

This is NOT my question. This is a 'title' from the article. --Aleksd (talk) 12:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed

Noam Chomsky believes it's innate to humans - pure fiction

Noam Chomsky believes it's innate to humans - is pure science fiction to try to conceal his ignorance regarding how we learn to communicate and how we learn to develop and use langauge. There is no attempt to explain how communication and langauge evolved, nor the neurobiology of language production and langauge processing. There is liitle or no independent secondary research from other re4lated disciplines to support Chomsky's claims which may have had some credance back in the 1950s, due to the lack of present day research technology. Which means that much of this article is pure unssupported speculation or science fiction. If the article is describing a theory, or theories, then there needs to be a Theories section to indicate that the content is not scioentifically supported fact, and lets the readers know that they should not base any life decisions on this articles content regarding child development and education. These theories have found their way to many other articles regarding child development etc and provide false information as to how children acquire speech, and develop langauge and makes a nonsense of an internet based encyclopedia which appears to be based on the science fiction written by Chomsky and others to fill in their knowledge gaps. dolfrog (talk) 03:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Chomskian linguistics is still widely believed in the US, though the past 20 yrs have seen a negative reaction to it. However, it never did have much traction outside the US, so if we're going to follow WP:WORLDWIDE, we should present Chomsky's ideas as influential but controversial. We should certainly not present them as facts anywhere, except perhaps "in universe", in articles specifically on those ideas. However, language may prove to be innate to humans even if Chomsky is debunked. — kwami (talk) 06:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I've deleted your tags. Many were rather ridiculous, such as demanding a citation for saying that this article is about language in the linguistic sense. What possible ref could we find for that? Refs are also not needed in the lead, since the lead is just a summary of the text. — kwami (talk) 06:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Thia an international encyclopedia, and not a US talk page. So yes there is a need to provide citations to define linquistics, and to define langauge, before making any bogus or unsubstanciated claims. There is no proof that langauge is innate quite the opposite, and currently this article is citing chomsky as some form of diety and the fountain of all truths with no independent scientific support for these claims, which is as you say more about the needs of US politics than universal understandeing of human communication. So you need to provide the citations to demonstrate universal support for what many see as unsupported theories being used by lesser US academics to support their personal beliefs which is their personal point of view and not supported by universal independant research. Evolutionary development is the only universal approach, but there are still many information gaps, the so called innate concept is just another false assumption used to avoid explaining the current lack of supporting information; to create the illusion that US academia is all knowing and has all the answers, or academic snake oil. dolfrog (talk) 12:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

So langauge comes in manmy forms as a means of communication, and this article need to explain that, and that the content of this article is limited to human sound based langauge,which is a samll part of wider human and other species methods of communication. The lead of this article give the bogus impression that sound based langauge is the only form of human communication. And that lingusitics is the font of all knowledge. So I have repalce the citation tags to demonstrate the bogus basis of this article, which as you say needs demonstrate a universal understanding of langauge as a tool of communication, or to define the article as to be only concerned with human communication from a USA political perpsective. dolfrog (talk) 12:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

There appears to be a cabal of ill informed opinion editing this article, and I have no intention of becoming involved in editing war with any form of cabal, but unfortunately this is the nature of so many areas of wikipedia to maintain finacial or political based lobbying interests. dolfrog (talk) 13:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

No known species has language other than humans, though some are able to understand human language. If you have a ref to the contrary, strong enough to balance the entire linguistic literature, please provide it. — kwami (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

So according to you no other species is able to communicate with others. Only humans using their own form of communication. Well that explains the nonsense that eminates from liquists very well, so I would be wasting my time by taking this any further as linquists seem to world of their own. dolfrog (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

No-one said that. You might want to educate yourself enough to know what you're talking about before accusing others of ignorance. But, as you say, you might be wasting your time. — kwami (talk) 22:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

dolfrog, do you understand that "communication" ≠ "language"? There is no dispute whatsoever that many, many non-human species communicate in various ways, but there is no clear evidence of language in any living species other than homo sap.

On reading upward some through the thread, I have to agree with kwami that you are arguing from ignorance and misconception. I am a linguist, and have been through my whole career. I see that you are also knowledgeable about some aspects of language; not this, though. --Thnidu (talk) 22:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 

Heh, pretty funny how someone can be screaming "cabal" after a conversation with a single person.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'll confess to being a member of the same "cabal" as, say, the snake oil salesman who wrote, "Nature, as we often say, makes nothing in vain, and man is the only animal whom she has endowed with the gift of speech" (Politics). My shameful status notwithstanding, though, I'm holding out for standards of editing that conform to these WP:Five pillars. Cnilep (talk) 01:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• It is our task to represent what is published in a duly weighted manner. That is how Wikipedia works. So our personal feelings and ideas should not be determining what we put in the article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Is what follows below a problem?

Resolved

 – Broken link replaced with same source material uploaded elsewhere.

I haven't done wikipedia stuff in a very long time and so ask your indulgence.. I was reading the article and followed a link in the reference section to a page that no longer existed. I am telling you folks hoping one of you will verify this and correct it. Your reference link was about "What are the uniquely human components of the language faculty." The link was to a Professor's page http://groups.lis.illinois.edu/amag/langev/paper/hauser03whatAre.html . On this page was a link to the article wikipedia refered to. This link was to a pdf but the pdf is no longer available online at that url. Also on the Professor's page was a link to a "Source." This link was also dead. So, maybe this does not warrant correction... thx for your time. (I was looking forward to reading the dang thing.. :( TimoleonWash (talk) 09:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out! Fixed. AudiblySilenced✉ 20:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

"A language in this sense"

At first look I was fairly confident that this edit introduced an error. I think that User:FelixRosch's edit makes the sentence mean that an artificial languages are "a system of signs for encoding and decoding information", but I think the original sentence was intended to refer to languages generally, including natural as well as artificial languages. I nearly changed the wording back, but the more I look at it the less sense that section makes to me. So my questions are (1) what was the intention of the original sentence and (2) is that a fair definition of "language"? Cnilep (talk) 06:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The original intention of the sentence is to make it clear that the article is not about a language under the definition that includes formal languages. This has proven necessary because several times editors have quarreled with the article saying that it should include computer languages. I think it sclearly shouldnt because the definition of language that groups programing languages and human languages together is restrictive and not the primary topic for the topic language - which is clearly only human language. For this reason your second question is redundant because it doesnt matter whether the definition is fair or not, because it is exactly the definition that the article explicitly states that it does not use. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Definition

This is a place to discuss the recent changes to the definition, that are arguing that language should not be defined as the capacity to acquire a complex system of communication but as the complex system itself. I understand this view and do not disagree with it, but the problem is that the definition of language=faculty/capacity is commonly found in the literature. For Chomsky and Pinker for example feral children are irrelevant, because while they do not acquire "a language" due to the particular circumstances under which they are raised, they nonetheless do have language, in the sense of Universal Grammar being built into their minds giving them the capacity to do so if they had been raised under favorable conditions. The problem is of course that we are currently defining language as being something that not all people considers it to be, this is a general problem with articles on topics that have many competing definitions. Perhaps it does make sense to change the definition to one that is more generally acceptable rather than the current one which is mostly acceptable to certain specialists. What about a definition that says: "Language is the kind of complex communication system used by humans, and the cognitive ability to acquire such a system, a language is anty specific example of such a system."?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

It is fairly standard to use the term "Language" and not "Formal language" in theoretical computer science and mathematics. Similarly, "language" in computer science and IT can refer to programming language. Therefore, "formal language" and "computer language" not partial matches but some of the meanings of the world "language". Consider, for example, the meanings here: http://www.wordreference.com/enfr/language — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vkuncak (talk • contribs) 09:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but we have to make sure that articles are about topics, not terms. Formal languages, though called languages, is a very different thing than human languages (and so are animal communication systems), and I don't think it makes sense to treat them as a single topic.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, and galley can also mean "kitchen on a ship or airplane", but the primary topic is still the oared vessel used from Antiquity onwards. And there's no caveat in the lead about its secondary meaning. We likely have thousands of examples of synonyms where one is considered to be more relevant than the other and therefore occupies the main entry on its own. Virtually all articles in an encyclopaedia are about specific concepts or topics, not terms. For example school is an article about the place of learning only. The synonyms as in "schools of thought" are not included.

The definition of "language" as a programming language is also clearly an offshoot of the original meaning of human language. It is not studied by linguists, but in a completely separate academic field. There are very obvious reasons for treating it separately.

Peter ^Isotalo 09:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Language/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 13:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll take this on. Quite a topic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

General comments:

"...many languages...", "several languages...": Wikipedians are wary of such generalisations. I hate language lawyering (ahem, given the article's subject), but these phrasings are probably best avoided, using such things as "some languages..." unless you're really sure in a specific case (when "most languages" or "Indo-European languages" or whatever would be better).

"today", "currently": these quickly go / may have already gone out of date. Please replace such time-dependent words or phrases with specific dates.

Specific comments:

There needs to be a sentence or two on the philosophy of language in the lead, to summarize (well, at least to mention) the range of views discussed in the Definitions section.

Definitions, Main article: Philosophy of language: I think this section is probably underweight, given the range and strength of views on the subject. For FA the article will definitely need to cover more of the philosophy of language; for GA, Kant/Chomsky/Fodor are probably covered sufficiently, as are de Saussure and Wittgenstein. W.V.O. Quine does I think deserve a mention, however; and it might be best at least to mention the theories of empiricism and of Tarski briefly.

Unless Maunus beats me to it, I'll try to improve this at the library this weekend. Not my strongest suit, though.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I've done some work on that. See if you like it.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Definitely an improvement. Is Tarski going to get a line or two? Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I think Tarski could only be briefly mentioned in the section on language as a formal symbolic system. I've added a sentence on formal logic.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

OK. Of course that might need a ref too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Mental faculty: do we need to have the word "often" in there (twice)? Seems a bit weaselly. By the way, can we do better than "One definition sees..." - could we not say something like "The mental faculty view of language ..."?

Mental faculty: "Kant and Descartes": perhaps say "the philosophers...".

The lead image in the Syntax section correctly describes predicate (grammar) in the caption but fails to show it in the image. It would be best if the label "Predicate" could be added to the image at the (unlabelled) node above "Prepositional phrase". This would both clarify the structure of the tree shown in the image and match the caption.

Anatomy of speech: there seem to be too many uses of italics here. Scientific English words like uvula should not, I think, be in italics (they're just English words, as confirmed by the lack of italics for that article's title). Please review all the uses of italics in the section (if not the whole article) and remove all that are not essential.

"The study of the genetic bases for human language is still on a fairly basic level": suggest link to genetics (or something more specific), and avoid the word "basic" (and probably "fairly", which sounds OR-ish) in the context. "positively implied" -> "definitely implicated".

"fossils can be inspected to look for traces of physical adaptation to language use". Some examples of what such traces might be would be worth giving (not obvious); in fact, this would be a good place for a photograph of such evidence.

" Often, semantic concepts are embedded in the morphology or syntax of the language in the form of grammatical categories". Please provide a brief example (could with benefit be an image with caption). Actually I'm unsure what is meant by categories here. Pinker in Words and Rules p4 says "the word's part of speech, or grammatical category, which for rose is noun (N)", whereas the WP article says "Categories may be marked on words by means of inflection." Which is meant here?

I think this is just Pinker using the word "grammatical category" in a non-standard way using it as synonymous with syntactic category (which perhaps some people do in the generative tradition). In basic linguistic theory grammatical categories are all semantic and syntactic categories that are morphologically or syntactically marked. I will try to think of an example.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

"the beginning of the Bronze Age in the late Neolithic period of the late 4th millennium BC": there's something wrong here. Suggest remove mention of Neolithic unless a specific point is being made about overlap of ages, in which case the word "overlap" should appear somewhere.

"Language change may be motivated by "language internal" factors, such as changes in pronunciation motivated by certain sounds being difficult to distinguish aurally or to produce, or because of certain patterns of change that cause certain rare types of constructions to drift towards more common types" uses "certain" three times. Please rephrase.

Language contact: does this section need four "main" links? Language contact already links to pidgin, creole etc.

BTW the formatting of names in citations is not a GA matter, but "de Saussure" is certainly the man's surname. He wasn't christened "De". Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

That is correct, but I think he is usually cited as Saussure, not de Saussure. And he is always alphabetized under S.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Just as we list books and plays that begin with The or A under the next word. But that still doesn't make "de" a forename. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Just as putting it within the field "first=" in the reference template also doesnt make it a first name. It is just the easiest way to make the template syntax work while citing him as "Saussure" instead of "de Saussure". User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear, what a hideous kludge. Still, worse things happen in databases every day. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Images:

Images should generally be of default width, i.e. should use "thumb" with "upright" as needed; this has the clear advantage of resizing automatically for different user preferences, providing a measure of future-proofing also. I understand the impulse to make maps in particular appear large, but their thumbnails cannot be made large enough to be fully readable, and giving a fixed size is awkward for users of mobile devices, and fails to accommodate change and user preference.

The de Saussure image is out of copyright in Europe but its USA status is unclear, so this needs fixing (on Commons).

The descriptions of the Hangul wi symbol and the KSL wi hand gesture as spectrograms on Commons are wrong. (this is a display bug)

All other images ok (all on Commons).

References:

The citations are in 'Author (year:page range)' format, with 7 exceptions. This does not matter for GA but would need to be tidied up for FA.

I have marked up places where citations are needed in the main text.

Quite a number of references (e.g. 10 Saussure, 13 Chomsky, 21 Tomasello, 22 Deacon, 34 Trask, 72 Bauer, 73 Haspelmath, 80 Nichols, 80 Comrie, 82 Greenberg, 84 Campbell, 91 Kennison, 93 Foley, 94 Agha, 97 Aitchison, 102 Labov, 103 Labov, 108 Thomason & Kaufman, 108 Thomason, 109 Matras & Bakker, 110 Lewis, 113 Katzner, 113 Comrie, 113 Brown, 114 Moseley) are to entire books. This may be appropriate in some cases (e.g. to the general drift of The Language Instinct) but looks wrong in other cases, where suitably narrow page ranges are needed. Especially in cases like the multiple uses of 113 Katzner, Comrie and Brown, separate page ranges are probably required for each usage of each book, rather than lumping the whole of three entire books together. This could be a critical issue for GA.

On reflection I think most of these are not critical for GA, but will need fixing for FA. That said, properly filled-in page ranges are highly desirable, and many editors expect to see them throughout. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually most of these are meant as sites to the entire book, as a source for more information rather than as specific cites for a piece of information. For example when I wrote the sentence on "mixed languages" giving Michif and Kriyol Ayisiyen as examples. I referred the reader to the three main works on contact linguistics Kaufman and Thomason, Matras and Bakker, and Thomason. The reason I do this is 1. to lead the reader to the best available literatiure on the topic, 2. because each sentence is a highly condensed description of an entire field of linguistics, meaning that it contains information that is not found on a specific page of the cited works but which is a summary of the cited works. Similarly the references to Chomsky and Labov are references to entire works, because the statement they support is meant as a summary of those works. I will look through the references to see if some of them can be replaced by narrow ranges or page numbers, but I think that in writing I have supplied pagenumbers for all the references that I mean to cite as specific pages, and not done so whenever I meant to refer the reader to broader literature. I know some FA referees are anal about page numbers and dont understand that it is often appropriate to refer to entire works, but oddly I dont find this problem with peer reviewers in journals, who tend to have no problem with referring to full works when not citing a specific fact but pointing towards a set of ideas (e.g. "Evolutionary theory is the hypothesis all known life forms share a single common origin (Darwin 1858)"). User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty much with Maunus on this one. A quality article about such a general topic is a rarity. GANs, and especially FACs, deal with articles are built up of facts and statements that are seldom, if ever, the topic of entire books. This article, however, is full of very general statements that are very hard to reduce to page ranges. Any reader who will actually want to verify what is being said will easily be able to do this with the reference provided. This is especially true when it comes to sections like "Language families of the world". Works like Katzner (2009) or Comrie (2009) are basically miniature encyclopedias with separate entries for each language or language family. Anyone who can find that book will be able to find what they need even without specific page refs.

I'm going to spend some time at Stockholm University Library this weekend. I'll go through the general refs and see if anything can be improved overall. Right now, however, I can only really agree that (from the list above) Thomason & Kaufman, Thomason, Matras & Bakker and Lewis could use some specifications. Chiswick, if you disagree or believe there I'm missing specific statements lacking specific refs, lemme know and I'll see what I can dig up. The SU library isn't half bad.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I basically agree with Maunus also. As I wrote above, I think the 'general' reffing is fine in some cases, more doubtful in others, and while desirable, not critical here at GA. However GA reviewers always raise the matter in my experience, as do ordinary editors when one supplies a wide page range, and rightly so. I would like to direct your energies to closing out the remaining items, leaving the references for FA. I will pass the article here as soon as the remaining non-reference items are closed out. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The Newmeyer 2005 dead link would be best fixed using Wayback Machine or a similar archive service, or else replaced. Needed for FA.

I've added the live link, it was just moved on LSAs webpage.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Overall:

This is an elegantly written and well-structured article. A few issues remain to be fixed. The work of bringing major (top-level) topics to GA is very welcome. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC) I am now happy to pass this article at GA. Thank you to everyone who contributed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Thanks for taking the time to review. A few comments to begin with:

• "Many/several languages": statements in connection with these terms are so general that it might be difficult to specify them. The point of these statements is to show various aspects of how languages can work, not to make claims about how common they are. I think it's better if you try to identify specific problems, because all of them can't be rendered more specific.

I identified two specific ones which I'd like you to change by removing the weasel-like terms; I suggest you also scan the article for other possible problems.

• "Today/currently": pretty much the same as above. Statements like "Linguists currently recognize many hundreds of language families" is not something that is helped by an "as of 2012"-type specification. It will most likely never change. Which ones can actually go out of date in your view?

Then simply remove the "currently" please, rather than arguing. I've taken out some of them now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• It was published before 1923, so I believe it's PD in the US as well (added additional license).

OK.

• I don't follow your comment about Korean wi. What's wrong on Commons and why is it relevant to this article?

Ah, it's a bug in the multiple-image display, not on Commons, which displays the first caption as if it were a description of the later images when one of these is selected and displayed. The only thing we could do about it would be to avoid using the multiple-image mechanism. I can't say I like it but its use is not inappropriate here.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe these 'Discussion' items are all satisfactorily resolved in the article now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for striking out stuff. I was having some difficulty keeping track of stuff. I'm currently looking into your comments about general refs. To my great chagrin, Comrie (2009) was nowhere to be found at the Stockholm University Library. :-(

Peter ^Isotalo 18:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@User:Maunus, User:Peter Isotalo: this GA process is in danger of timing out for lack of activity. We need to round this off now; if you need more time I can put it on hold. Please let me know your timetable for closing out the remaining issues. I would also say that while the issue of page ranges is not necessarily a show-stopper, I am surprised that no action has been taken to supply any of them at all; most GA articles are fully cited with exact page numbers. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not really a part of the review process except in a supportive function. I am a way from my books and cannot help with the page ranges.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The support is valued. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I second that.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for dawdling. I had actually gone through list of page range issues, but got the impression that you didn't deem it necessary for GA status. I'll make a full reply regarding this and the other outstanding issues later today.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Lead sentence

The first sentence of the lead has been changed, mid-review, from "Language is the human capacity for acquiring and using complex systems of communication, and a language is any specific example of such a system." to suggesting that language is a "tendency". Since "human capacity" seems to this reviewer to be exactly correct, and to reflect the body of the article, I'd suggest we put it back as it was, unless there are strong reasons to the contrary. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

(discussion below copied from user page)

Human beings have the capacity to acquire written language. However, anybody defines written language as "the human capacity for acquiring writing systems". All the best, James343e. 10 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, since we agree on 'capacity', I assume we can revert the text to that effect. Thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

"Tendency" is not an accurate way of describing what is basically universal to all humans. "Capacity" is clearly the most accurate summary of the content of the article (and the general opinion of linguists).

Peter ^Isotalo 18:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• The word capacity is used as a theory neutral way of referring to what Chomsky calls the Universal Grammar and the Language Acquisition Device, and which Pinker calls the language instinct and others call. Many other linguists would disagree with this formulation but would agree that there is a certain innate capacity for language that is prior to the acquisition of any specific language. This can also be called the language faculty, but this phrasing I think would be more confusing for the lay reader. That is why capacity is both necessary and a better formulation than for example "tendency" or "ability".

Number of languages again

A well-meaning editor from 93.210.145.219 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) changed the estimated number of languages from "6,000 to 7,000" to "5,000 to 6,000". The editor cited Dirven and Vespoor (2004), who do indeed say, "It is still impossible to state exactly how many languages are spoken in the world today. Estimates range from 5,000 to 6,000". In light of the 2012 discussion archived at Talk:Language/Archive 4#Number of languages, however, I have changed the article to read, "Estimates of the number of languages in the world vary between 5,000 and 7,000." In the process, I removed the citation of Dirven and Vespoor. Cnilep (talk) 03:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Notes and refs

Regarding this edit and my reverts of those. The terms "references" and "[cited] sources" are synonymous, ei works that we use to back up claims so that readers can trust us. It's common to refer to notes as "references", but notes are really nothing but specifications of sources/references. This is established practice in academia and fact literature. I don't see why this needs to be changed.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

@Peter Isotalo: Thank you for giving your view on these. I think the "references" should be renamed, because references are a general type of citation. What we have here is a group of cited and non-cited sources, so this can be renamed "Bibliography and further reading". The footnotes, however, are different. The explanatory notes are, technically, referring the user to the explanation, while the citationary notes are actually referring the user to what is now "References". "References" is not incorrect in itself, but it is very broad. However, as this is unimportant, it is not worth arguing over, so I will not revert again if my edit is undone. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The Manual of Style makes it clear that the editors choose the specific titles for the sections with sources. That means that it should never be the case that someone who is not a regular editor of an article simply comes and renames the section headers without prior discussion. Secondly it mentions that "references" is the most common way to name the section that contains the cited sources, and it specifically mentions problems with the use of bibliography (which can contain both cited sources and further reading). I think that for that reason it makes most sense to keep the section as they are "References" "notes" and "citations" being kept separately. All the sources in the references section are cited in the text by the way, when you say that it combines cited and non-cited sources that is incorrect.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

We can name the section "cited sources", then, and "notes" can be under "references". I haven't heard of a policy that says that non-regular editors of an article can't change the reference styles. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It is basic practice that when MOS offers options it is the main editors of the article who choose and that drive-by changes to optional MOS issues are discouraged.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Well, now I know. Thank you. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

See e.g. WP:CITEVAR. It simply avoids pointless editwarring over arbitrary style preferences.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Good to know. But the references are still too broad. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by references being "too broad". This is a broad topic, one of the broadest, and I have worked specifically to have as general level references as possible. Articles by a topic of this broadness should be based mostly on tertiary sources such as handbooks and specilist encyclopedias and only on the broadest and most well respected secondary sources.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Chart of languages

Is this chart worth including as link? Sources are stated at the bottom left. I am not sure of the accuracy of the chart. http://www.lucasinfografia.com/filter/Infographic/Mother-tongues Jcardazzi (talk) 11:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi

I dont think it is a good External Link.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Definition of Language

Human beings have the capacity to acquire and use both written and spoken language, so the definition "language is the human capacity for acquiring and using complex systems of communication" is problematic. If we accept this definition, then language cannot be characterized as an instinct or mental organ. We all agree that there is no such thing as an instinct or mental organ for written language (a cultural system of communication), so I assume we can revert the text and define language as "the human tendency to acquire and use complex systems of communication". — Preceding unsigned comment added by James343e (talk • contribs) 18:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• No, that is not how it works. We write what we write based on sources and what specialists say. Not based on how you personally interpret the implications of the wording. Humans also have the capacity to acquire space flight, but no one has ever argue that it is an innate module in the human brain that cause them to do so universally. Neither has anyone argued that for writing. Writing is a technology, whereas language is a mental faculty.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer, Maunus. Peter Isolato clarified me that "Btw, language covers written language". However, one of the sections of the article defines language as a "Mental faculty, organ or instinct". If language includes written language then this claim is false, because not all language is a mental organ or an instinct. Only natural language can be considered a mental organ. James343e (talk • contribs) 21:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you know anyone who has acquired written language without first acquiring spoken or signed language? Written language is a technology that depends on the capacity of acquiring spoken or signed language. It is a mode through which natural language (spoken or signed) can be communicated through the visual channel. And it is the capacity of language, regardless of the mode through which it is expressed, that linguists talk bout when they define language as a Capacity or faculty or instinct. So no, your logic is wrong, and you have non sources in your support. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Maunus: you are misinterpreting me. In any case, this is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. I will not continue the debate here. If you want, we can continue the discussion on my talk page. (talk) 12:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC).

I am not interested in debating. I am trying to explain why your specific edit to the article is unacceptable. If you no longer insist on changing the article then the conversation is over.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually I disagree with you but there is no need to debate the issue. I will not insist on changing the article. (talk) 19:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC).

This article is very well written and complete. But it can be ever improved, in order to achieve a neutral point of view. The current definition of language is acceptable to Chomsky and Pinker, but not for others. Not all academic authors consider that language is innate or hard-wired in the brain from birth. There is an important debate about the innateness of language. For instance, Cowie (2008) is skeptic about the innateness of language. Tommasello (1995), Sampson (2007) and Everett (2012b) consider that not only specific languages but also language itself is a cultural tool acquired as a result of social interaction and our general cognitive abilities.

“There are other examples of cultural evolution in birds and monkeys, but these are just interesting oddities. It is our own species that really shows what cultural evolution can do. Language is only one example” (Dawkins [1976] 2006, p. 190)

“In all, it would seem that language is a much poorer candidate for the status of innate module (or instinct) than are several other domains of cognition. Languages are cultural artifacts that differ radically among different cultures” (Tomasello 1995, p. 152)

“There is no reason to doubt that languages are wholly learned cultural creations (…) ASL, like spoken languages, is learned rather than biologically governed (…) I conclude that there is no language instinct. On the available evidence, languages seem to be products of cultural evolution only” (Sampson 2007)

“Universal Grammar doesn't seem to work, there doesn't seem to be much evidence for that” (Everett 2012a)

“But no one has quite gotten around to weaving together the findings of modern linguistics, psychology and anthropology to flesh out the meaning of the hypothesis that language is an artifact, a cultural tool. An instrument created by hominids to satisfy their social need for meaning and community. This is our ambitious project” (Everett 2012b, p. 11)

The definition of language as the “human system of communication” is non-neutral (it doesn’t reflect the standpoint of, for example, Chomsky and Pinker). On the other side, we must consider the degree of neutrality of the current definition presented by the article: “Language is the human capacity for acquiring and uses complex systems of communication”. I do not doubt the logic of this claim. The problem is that human capacities are very varied, and the term “capacity” can be considered for many authors inexact or unnecessary for the definition of language. For example, take into consideration this definition of chess: “Chess is the human capacity to play a two-player strategy board game”. All normal people have the innate capacity or aptitude to both play chess and use language, and we are the only animals with this capacity. But “capacity” is not necessarily required in the definition of chess or language. It can be said that capacity is required for universal traits, but this is not necessarily the case. Fire making is found in all human societies, and it is not defined as “the human capacity to use fire” but as “the process of starting a fire artificially”. The word capacity is not always necessary for universal traits. Moreover, all human societies have language, but the universality of language in every human being is, at least, disputable.

Please note that the point of this discussion is not why one view of language is wrong and why another view is correct. It is necessary to reflect a neutral definition of language, not only the accepted by proponents of the innateness position.

Peter Isolato: I suggest adopting the definition of language previously proposed by Maunus: “Language is the complex human communication system, and the specific cognitive ability to acquire such a system. A language is any particular example of this communication system.” I think this small change could substantially improve the impartiality and neutrality of the article.

Cowie, Fiona (2008). “Innateness and Language”. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy .

Dawkins, Richard (1976) 2006. The Selfish Gene. New York: Oxford University Press.

Everett, Daniel L. (2012a). “There is no such thing as universal grammar”. The Guardian, Sunday 25.

Everett, Daniel L. (2012b). Language: The Cultural Tool. Pantheon Books: New York.

Sampson, Geoffrey (2007). “There is No Language Instinct”. Ilha do desterro, 52, 35-63.

Tomasello, Michael (1995). “Language is Not an Instinct”. Cognitive Development, 10, 131-156. (talk) 19:06, 13

September 2014 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned James343e (talk) 17:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I happen to agree with Tomasello and Everett and the many other linguists who dont believe that language is an instinct or that Universal Grammar exists. But that does not mean that everyone agrees on this, so we cannot define language in a way that only accomodates the anti-UG view. I still think that my proposed wording "“Language is the complex human communication system, and the cognitive capacity to acquire such a system. A language is any particular example of this communication system.” works. But we cannot have a definition that does not also encompass the instinct/UG view.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Seems somewhat ungainly to me. More importantly, I don't see how "specific cognitive ability" would differ from "capacity" in this context. And why would one be clearly pro-Chomsky/Pinker while the other is neutral?

Peter ^Isotalo 22:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

"language is not something that one might call a capacity. There is a distinction that should be made between the capacity (or ability) that we demonstrate when using a language, and the language itself. Language itself is not a capacity, but a cognitive structure" (Traykova 2012)

Traykova, Aleksandra (2012) "Language research as a means of understanding cognitive capacity" Philosophia. E-Journal of Philosophy

Why not "faculty"? It's more neutral and widely used by both, Chomsky and Pinker. To my knowledge, Pinker has never written that language is a capacity. Moreover, I think "faculty" is not confusing for the general reader.

"Language is the human faculty for using complex systems of communication"

What do you think? James343e (talk) 14:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Both "faculty"[1] and "capacity"[2] are very close synonyms, and it's not like they are strictly defined linguistic terms. There are no guidelines or even established practicec that force us to stick to the wording of any particular source unless it obviously changes the meaning of the prose. If this is actually a matter of neutrality, the somewhat simpler "ability" seems more appropriate. And I think "acquiring" should stay since this is such a fundamental issue for linguistics.

Peter ^Isotalo 06:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

OK. I will put ability. If you disagree, feel free to change it. James343e (talk) 20:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I dont have a problem with capacity, faculty or ability.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Perfect. James343e (talk) 17:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

To confirm termin "ability" as a unique part of physiology of human - here are references:

1. John R. Searle "What is Language: Some Preliminary Remarks" from http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~jsearle/whatislanguage.pdf 2. Vladimir Breskin from http://philpapers.org/rec/BRETMF 58.111.188.228 (talk) 02:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101219070627/http://spinner.cofc.edu:80/linguist/archives/2005/08/whats_the_diffe.html?referrer=webcluster& to http://spinner.cofc.edu/linguist/archives/2005/08/whats_the_diffe.html?referrer=webcluster&

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Languoid section

I have removed the section for a second time, for the following reasons. 1. the concept of languoid is extremely minor in linguistics it is only used by few linguists and in only one major work. It does not receive any coverage in most general introductions to language - hence it should also not receive undue coverage in this article. Consider for example that the concept of Universal Grammar and the entire field of semantics receive only about half the space suggested to be alotted to the concept of "languoid". 2. The section breaks the formatting of sources and layout, and stands out from the rest of the article. (if there is a consensus that the languoid concept merits a section this should be fixed, since the article is a GA). I do not think the concept merits more than at most a sentence in this general article, but a separate article about the concept Languoid would be both useful and welcome - that article could then be linked from this article if deemed necessary.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Maunus. --Taivo (talk) 21:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

That's ok. Nonetheless I'd like to point out that your application of WP:DUE is misguided: as note 3 says, "[t]he relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered" (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#cite note-3). Cfr. later on, "[k]eep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." So you should have provided a primary source stating that the languoid-doculect model is a minority POV. Moreover, this model falls under the second point in WP:DUE, since it is held by a significant minority (Cysouw, Good, Haspelmath in Glottolog, and a few others). As for point 2., that is not a problem: formatting can be adjusted as to conform to the one of the article. Moreover, the article is GA, that's true, but "language" both means "human faculty" and "a language", so modelling what a language is formally could well be part of the article (maybe the information provided in the section could have moved earlier or after, to your preference, and/or summarised, without removing it altogether, action that is not contemplated by WP:DUE, as for above). As I said, it's ok. I'll not reinstate the section. I'l avoid writing a one sentence summary of the model, since it will just be unclear and subject to subsequent deletion. Regards. --SynConlanger (talk) 09:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Those are mostly misunderstandings of policy. A source stating that it is a minority view is not required - weight is determined by how much weight a concept gets in RS about the topic. You will not find the concept of languoid being treated more in depth than the concept of semantics in any book about language ever written. Maybe in the future it will be, but not yet. That is why it is entirely impossible to allot the concept the amoount of weight in this article that you propose. Note that I am not saying that "languoid" is a fringe or minority viewpoint, am saying that it is a minor concept which does not merit this much attention in an article that is a general overview of everything related to language. It is not about how to weight views against eachother but about how to organize a well balanced article about a broad topic. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I guess you are talking about WP:GEVAL. However, that is about viewpoints, not about "how to organise a well balance article about a broad topic." Would you point to me (just for me to know) the part that states that, if in a book on a broad topic, a specific topic is not given as space as another, that proportion should be given in the article? I cannot find this statement nor any other statement that could be directly interpreted as such. WP:STRUCTURE seems not to state what you are. I'm sorry for the inquiry, but I mostly collaborate on it:Wikipedia and rules are slightly different there, so I may be mislead by the common practice there. 😊 Thanks! --SynConlanger (talk) 10:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not about neutrality - it is about weight given to different aspects of a topic - this is covered for example in Wikipedia:What_is_an_article?#Article_scope, and also in criterion 3b of the Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria. For articles on broad topics the challenge to writing a good coherent article is that no single subtopic should receive undue prominence within the article. For example I am particularly interested in historical linguistics and native american languages, and I might very well think that a long section with subsections for comparative method, the history of indo-european linguistics, Edward Sapirs contributions to native american historical linguistics are so important that I would write a long section about it that when finished would make up half the article. But articles are supposed to be written in WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, and should not go in to long discussions of minor aspects of the general topic - instead these should be addressed by a link to another article where the minor topic is treated in detail. That is why an article on languoid would be excellent - and why the topic should not be described in detail here.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I also concur with Maunus on this. This is way too specific. I believe several snippets from the abstract of the cited article[3] provides obvious hints of the relevance of this concept in a top-level article in a general encyclopedia:

• "It is perfectly reasonable for laypeople and non-linguistic scholars..."
• "However, for the linguistics community..."
• "...when used in academic discussion."
• "We propose..."
• "...especially useful to researchers..."

This is a very specific theory intended for use by fairly specialized linguists. It doesn't even seem to be a very established theory. And as with all new theories, no matter how good they are, they don't belong in very general articles. No amount of wrangling of policy will change the fact that at its core, WP:UNDUE is about not exaggerating the importance of things. Giving this more room than descriptions of generative grammar or giants like de Saussure clearly makes no sense. If there's more than a single article about this, I recommend describing it at languoid (which shouldn't be a redirect here, btw).

Peter ^Isotalo 16:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Human language vs. animal communication

An editor is editwarring to remove the "human" from the definition sentence. The word is there after many long discussions about the scope of the article. Here is one of them. The consensus has been that this article is about human language, and that human language is the primary topic for the article "language". Linguists study human language. Humans study human languages. And it is a controversial question whether any form of animal communication can be meaningfully compared to human language, and if it can be called "language" at all. For these reasons the "human" needs to be in the definition. The vast majority of linguists consider that no form of animal communication can be considered "language". It is correct that the word "language" is sometimes used to describe systems of animal communication and programming codes, but those are not languages in the primary sense of the word, the sense that is used by linguists, and in everyday conversation. Rather such descriptions are best understood as metaphors or comparisons. Beedance is not a language. It is a system of communication. A gorilla that knows 500 signs does not have language, it has acquired parts of human language and uses it as a system of communication. Human languages has properties, syntax, phonology, recursivity that are not found in any documented systems of communication used by any other species.

Consensus may change so any new arguments are welcome. But please dont edit war to make a change that has been discussed and rejected by a large group of editors several times before.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

---

The scope of the article in question is one thing, with the definition of the term being another entirely. Consensus is one thing, truth is another ha. I see a bias in the animal subsection. I have since largely corrected it. It's sad to see certain humans try to impose their views on reality by making grand, unqualified, absolute assumptions about their special place in earth culture.

First of all, "language" is not absolute, but rather a matter of degree in complexity.

We're not discussing "every day communication" with regards to the definition of "language", but rather the technical/actual definition of language.

Sign language isn't a language? Wow. Be sure to tell sign linguists that! Sign language contains all of the above mentioned properties as far as I'm aware. A "system of communication" is a language. Djayjp (talk) 00:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I have removed your changes because they do not represent the view that is found in the literature on language. To change the definition you would have to provide some sources that are better and more reliable than the ones currently used.I dont think you will find those, because there is not currently any linguists defending the claim that language is not a uniquely human faculty. Yes it is a matter of degrees of complexity and the section on the unique status of human language describes in detail what it is that makes the human language so much more complex than any known system of animal communication, that it warrants it own category. You also dont seem to have read the article very carefully. Sign languages are languages. They are used by humans. The article emphatically includes human signs languages under the definition and explicitly mentions them several times. Linguists study sign languages. Linguists dont study animal communication (except in order to understand how they differ from human language, or how they have mechanisms that underlie human language). Linguists dont study computer languages (except to understand universal aspects of communication systems). Not all systems of communication are languages, under the most used definition of the word. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Djayjp, Wikipedia always aims to write about well-defined encyclopedic topics. Only rarely are articles actually about words. This is not one of them. We leave the task of defining what words mean to Wiktionary.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Maunus and Peter Isotalo: now that the opening sentence has been a little bit changed, I want to make some little suggestions. Please don't get angry with me. I think the current opening sentence is virtually perfect, but I have some minor suggestions. Here are my thoughts:

This is the current definition of "language":

Definition 1: "Language is the ability to acquire and use complex systems of communication, particularly the human ability to do so"

Establishing an analogy, we can define "chess skills" as follows:

Definition 2: "Chess skills are the ability to acquire and use chess knowleddge, particularly the human ability to do so"

Maybe both definitions have problems. According to definition 2, a person who doesn't know how to move a single chess piece, would have chess skills, because he has the ability to "acquire" that knowledge whenever he wants. According to definition 1, a person who is unable to say a single word would still have language, because he was born with the ability to "acquire" such a knowledge. Therefore, feral children and deaf children who are born in rural villages and have never been exposed to sign language, would still have language. The assumption that every human being has language is debatable, not all researchers agree with that view. I think the current opening sentence of the article implicitly says that feral children and deaf children unexposed to sing language still have language.

Maybe this lead sentence would be fine: "Language is the ability to use complex systems of communication, and particularly the human ability to do so"

What do you think? Please, don't be rude with your answers. If you think the current opening sentence is perfect, I will not insist anymore James343e ^James343e 12:53, November 18, 2015 (UTC)

The definition needs to be broad enough to include all of the different definitions that linguists currently have about what language is- that is why the definition has to be vague and a little clumsier than one might prefer. Since some linguists specifically consider language to be the instinct or mental module that enables language acquisition, we to mention the fact that it is sometimes understood as the ability to acquire complex communication. The fact that lingusts debate whether feral children have or does not have language is exactly the reason we have to have a definition that encompasses both of the debated viewpoints.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

James, your concern about whether a person is "able" to say a word seems like it might be mixing up linguistic performance with linguistic competence. It is definitely possible to "have" language while simultaneously being physically unable to produce it. This is often the case for, e.g. patients with neurological conditions (e.g., locked-in syndrome). rʨanaɢ (talk) 09:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks for both responses. James343e ^James343e 00:36, November 19, 2015 (UTC)

Obviously false and irrelevant quote

The fact that works of the quoted researcher are only available in Russian doesn't make the the removed quote false or irrelevant. Moreover, there are many examples of humans ignoring or even destroying something simply because we didn't manage to understand its value before it was too late. Respectfully, --Frhdkazan (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

It does not seem to have any relevance for the specific section or for the article in general no. It is not a notable quote, and it doesnt provide any information that is necessary for the reader. It does not improve the article in any way, so it shouldnt be included.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Malame Baase (Malame Langauge)

Extended content

Malame is 2nd Largest people speaking Language in Dakshina Kannada after Tulu and 3rd Largest Speaking language is Beary Bashe.The language spoken by the Malayali community in the Dakshina Kannada(Mangalore) Districts & boarder of Madikeri districts of Karnataka and [[Kasaragod] district of Kerala by Hindus and Muslims. Referenced locally as "Kasrod Malayalam" or "Malama" or "Malame" or "Malame Bashe" Malame is deeply influenced and contains words from Tulu, Kannada, Arabic, Urdu, Hindi, Tamil, Beary bashe etc.. It is a very rapidly evolving language, adding new words into the language very frequently. The vocabulary of the language is so advanced that it provides single word substitutes for expressions even unavailable in the original Malayalam. Adaptation of vocabulary from various language helps the native speakers to learn and adapt to a new language with relatively low effort.Languages. As far as language is concerned entire Southern Karnataka & Northern Keral occupies a unique position in the map of South India. There are as many as seven languages used actively by a considerable number of people in Entire Malame area. Though the administrative language is Malayalam, Tulu, Beary bashe, Kannada, Marathi and Konkani are also spoken. Furthermore, there are ever so many dialects and tribal languages that augment the cultural resplendence of Malame area. The version of Malayalam spoken here varies a lot from the standard Malayalam and is generally considered difficult for the people from southern Kerala. It is often referred to as Kasrod malame or Malame. Unlike the other Dravidian languages it shows little influence of the Sanskrit language. Studies in this idiom have been useful in knowing the nature of evolution of the South Indian languages. Extensive usage of 'ny' sound, lack of or loss of Approximant consonants, presence of sound 'b' instead of 'v' are some of the salient features of Malame or Kasaragod Malayalam. In Malame words often end with aa whereas in standard Malame it ends with o. Generally pronouns are used during direct conversation. Arabic influence Malame Baase is strongly influenced by the Arabic language. Most of the Bearys especially in coastal area still use a lot of malamised Arabic words during their daily transaction. Saan, Pinhana, Gubboosu, Dabboosu, Patr, Rakkasi, Seintaan, Kayeen, are the few words used in Malame Bashe that have their roots in Arabic. Malame Bashe also has words related to Beary and Malayalam. kannada, beary and Malayalam Speakers can understand Malame up to an extent of 75%. Lyrics Malame have brought out numerous lyrics and songs in Malame Baase. Malame songwriters and music composers have published a number of Malame albums, thousands of followers are for Malame songs & atricles. Compared to the standard Malame or Kasaragod Malayalam is very spontaneous and natural-sounding. The time taken to complete a sentence in malame is nearly half that taken to complete the same sentence in the South Kerala dialect of Malayalam. Malame is deeply influenced and contains words from Tulu, Kannada, Arabic, Hindi, Tamil, etc. It has an advanced vocabulary that provides single word substitutes for expressions that are unavailable in standard Malayalam. The language is rapidly evolving and adds new words to it frequently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zvittal (talk • contribs) 17:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Edits by User:GodenDaeg

I have recently reverted a series of edits by GodenDaeg (talk · contribs) and here I want to explain why I did it and invite GodenDaeg to discuss how vbest to improve the article. Basically I reverted because while the information added is correct, I consider it to be introducing an unwarranted degree of detail and specificity that is not conducive to the overall purpose of the article, namely to provide an extremely general overview of language and the study of language. At high level general articles like this there is a very real risk of losing oneself in interesting details, in a way that in the end comes to obstruct the helpfulness for the reader. Details about Chinese transliteration practices are not necessary for the reader to understand how phonology or script works. Nor is the concept of orthographic depth crucial for the reader who just needs to understand how letters can represent speech sounds. Hence I consider that most of the edits (in fact all) introduce unnecessary detail that makes the article less elpful for the reader. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151016003513/http://mind.cog.jhu.edu/faculty/smolensky/050.341-641/Readings/Hauser%20&%20Fitch%2003%20Evolution%20of%20Lg.pdf to http://mind.cog.jhu.edu/faculty/smolensky/050.341-641/Readings/Hauser%20&%20Fitch%2003%20Evolution%20of%20Lg.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Philosophy of Language

Can somebody write an in depth piece on the Philosophy of Language including Philosophers, such as Wittgenstein, who dealt with it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:192:101:D470:1951:3A43:CF50:6979 (talk) 05:17, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

See Philosophy of language. Cnilep (talk) 06:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Image captions

User:Backthrow changed the caption of the image of girls speaking ASL, adding description of the language. User:Seba5tien and then I both un-did the two sets of edits. Backthrow's edit summaries suggest that the longer caption contributes "consistency of elaboration". Consistency is probably desirable. MOS:IMAGES also suggests that captions should be succinct and normally not complete sentences, among other recommendations. With that in mind, we might want to make all the captions succinct enough to describe the images without excessive elaboration.

Do other editors have suggestions or preferences regarding the captions of these or other images on the page? Cnilep (talk) 04:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I think that the existing captions are appropriate as the images they describe present the major forms and implications of language, and the captions describe the significance that they hold to the history of language and the article itself. Backthrow (talk) 19:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Genetics

Besides FOXP2, the are now more genes implicated in genetic Language disorders. For example, SETBP1, TM4SF20 and FMR1, CNTNAP2 AND others — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcastellanos (talk • contribs) 15:49, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

If you could link to some recent review articles on the topic that would be great and make it easier to integrate the information.--Maunus (talk • contribs) 16:31, 27 November 2016‎ (UTC)

Thank you. Recent reviews include: and .Gcastellanos (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

References

Language or communication?? There's a huge difference

The whole article has mistaken "language" with "communication". Language is NOT communication. In fact, Chomsky asserts that communication could be a tertiery function of human language. (And of course many, many more linguists for that matter). How can the article then boldly claim that language is simply communication? That's just inconsistant with virtually all linguistics books I have read Linguist91 (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Chomsky does not decide what language is and isnt. This article doesnt provide one single definition of the topic because there are many. The Chomskyan definition is described as are the others. And this is how it should be. The article never claims that language is simply communication, I dont know where you have this idea from.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC).

The Latvian student was struggling with his assignment. I had asked all the students in my writing class at Maastricht University in the Netherlands—where instruction was in English—to translate one of their stories into their native language.

The Latvian student, B., was one of 23 who had signed up for the first year of creative writing minor I had designed for the university. This inaugural class comprised one of the most linguistically diverse groups I had ever taught. Only one—my single American—was monolingual. The rest spoke 12 different languages among them. For most of my students, English was their second or third language and yet they used it beautifully, writing stories and poems that were among the most interesting I had come across as a teacher of writing.

First sentence in lede section

Recently, I changed the first sentence from

Language is the ability to acquire and use complex systems of communication, particularly the human ability to do so, and a language is any specific example of such a system.

to:

Language is the ability to acquire and use complex systems of communication, especially among humans.

Afterwards, Maunus changed it back [4], suggesting that my change was contrary to the source-code message to leave "human" in the sentence: "Do not remove the qualifier "human" without first reading the article or consulting the discussions about this issue.". Of course, I left "human" in the sentence, but Maunus also suggests that we need consensus for the change I made. Note that I was seeking some shorting of what seems like an awkward sentence. I am here enquiring about this issue with the community of Wikipedia editors. Thank you. BangkokBeauty (talk) 18:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Your suggested change is unacceptable because it removes half the definition - specifically the necessary distinction that "a language" is used about specific systems - i.e. the word has two closely related by distinct meanings both of which are covered in the article. If you want to suggest a "less awkward" phrasing, then it will still need to convey the same information and establish the same relevant distinctions - i.e. the distinciton between the language faculty and individual language systems (since linguists may study one without studying the other, and many linguists study both).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, let us see what others say too. Thank you and have a good day. BangkokBeauty (talk) 18:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Let's keep the other half of the definition in the introduction. Just plain Bill (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bill, perhaps something like this:

Language is the ability to acquire and use complex systems of communication, especially among humans; a language is any specific example of such a system.

Thank you, BangkokBeauty (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

That seems like it would work, as long as the appropriate bold text is kept:

Language is the ability to acquire and use complex systems of communication, especially among humans; a language is any specific example of such a system.

Is OK? Just plain Bill (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thank you and have a nice day. BangkokBeauty (talk) 20:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

No, because it is not especially among humans, but specifically among humans. Also "a language" is not merely "an example" of a language system, it is one. It seems to me that either of these proposal makes the definition less clear and more waffly. I think we need to be conservative in changing the definition because eveyr other week someone comes by with an example they think is clearer or better or more accurate etc, but the pre-existing version had been the result of repeated discussion among multiple editors. I think @Just plain Bill: should revert to the longstanding definition and try to get wider input before changing (for example through an RfC).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Done. If someone thinks this is worth an RfC, then they are free to start one. Just plain Bill (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

"Language" and "a language" refer to two entirely different things, a difference which should underlie the structure of this article.

A human being can invent "a language", but no-one could have invented "Language".

It's my opinion, one which I could not find reproduced anywhere, so cannot be included in the article: language is the thirteenth organ system of the human body. Language has come about due to major evolutionary changes in the brain, the oral cavity and the larynx, producing something entirely unique to human beings. Thus it seems to fit the definition of an organ system.

It's not hard to see how such changes could have arisen gradually, as early members of the genus Homo developed increasingly effective methods of communication and so became better adapted to deal with the problem of survival.

Dictionaries differ on the definition of linguistics: sometimes it is the study of language, sometimes the study of languages. The true definition must be the latter, since linguistics generally shows little interest in human physiology. The study of Language should be a branch of physiology, and that is certainly what linguistics is not.

In fact, most linguists show very little interest even in phonetics, which is the most obvious area where language and physiology intersect. Linguistics sometimes draws certain conclusions, or at least hypotheses, about the nature of language in general, but these are based on the study of languages.

All human communities have Language, but the bewildering variety of languages has confused us all. This seems to be another case of the Two Cultures, as defined by British philosopher CP Snow: that people go into the study of science or of the humanities, and are almost incapable of discussing any topic together.

I believe that this article needs to be restructured, or at least needs a new introduction. Luo Shanlian (talk) 04:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

"Unique status of human language"

I made some edits to this section which is full of bold claims from either outdated or poorly cited sources (e.g. whole books without page numbers) I added in some articles which challenge the supposed 'uniqueness' of human language, but ideally I think this article should be stripped down much further. There's not much left of the supposed uniqueness of human language except for the fact that it can be written down. The statement on human language being the only language which is modality independent is nonsense, suggesting that animals don't use non-verbal gestures or tactility for communication.

The article heading should be changed to "Differences and similarities between human and non-human languages" or something to that effect. It would be a better launching point for a more thorough and up-to-date article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alyx1985 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2018

In the section Social contexts of use and transmission, please change "These types of acts are called speech acts, although they can of course also be carried out through writing or hand signing." to "These types of acts are called speech acts, although they can also be carried out through writing or hand signing." per Manual of Style#Instructional and presumptuous language. 2A01:388:289:150:0:0:1:137 (talk) 20:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Language

The opening sentence has the problem of being effluvious. A simple strikeout has meritousness: "Language is a system that consists of the development, acquisition, maintenance and use of complex systems of communication, particularly the human ability to do so; and a language is any specific example of such a system. -Inowen (nlfte) 01:43, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2018

Remove this entire paragraph from the Origin section:

START: One prominent proponent of a discontinuity-based theory of human language origins is linguist and philosopher Noam Chomsky.[29] Chomsky proposes that "some random mutation took place, maybe after some strange cosmic ray shower, and it reorganized the brain, implanting a language organ in an otherwise primate brain."[30] Though cautioning against taking this story too literally, Chomsky insists that "it may be closer to reality than many other fairy tales that are told about evolutionary processes, including language."[30] END

JUSTIFICATION: It is argued here http://www.lausti.com/articles/languages/origin-of-language.html that "the whole point of the passage is ironical: because of the lack of evidence, all accounts on the origin of human language are just stories". In the paragraph quoted above is not clear that the context was "an ironical passage", so the reader could be confused and think that there was more significance in Chomsky's words. Also, the paragraph looks disconnected from the previous paragraph, because it starts with "One prominent proponent [...] is [...] Noam Chomsky", sounding as if Chomsky wasn't mentioned before, but he is (in the segment "[...] theories based on Chomsky's generative view of language [...]" of the previous paragraph). I think the section would be clearer by removing that entire paragraph. Samuelpspz (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree with this. The whole thing seems sort of fishy, but I'll let someone who knows this stuff better decide. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

If by "ironical" you mean "not literal", I think the phrase against taking this story too literally does that – although perhaps the word too should be removed. To the coherence question, though, I agree that the full description ("linguist and philosopher Noam Chomsky") should come in the earlier paragraph, with a reduced mention (e.g. "Chomsky is a prominent proponent of...") in the subsequent paragraph. ADDENDUM: Earlier in his career, Chomsky did suggest that the evolution of the language faculty was beyond his interests, and perhaps beyond linguistics as such (sorry, no citation readily at hand). In recent decades, he has written specifically about that evolution (e.g. Hauser, Chomsky, and Fitch 2002). Cnilep (talk) 00:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

OK, I couldn't let it go. Here's an example of Chomsky's earlier position. "...we cannot guess to what extent there are physically possible alternatives to, say, transformational generative grammar, for an organism meeting certain other physical characteristics of humans. Conceivably, there are none – or very few – in which case talk about the evolution of the language capacity is beside the point" (Chomsky, Language and Mind 1972, page 86). Cnilep (talk) 00:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Rather than remove the paragraph, I have elided the "ironical" bit about cosmic rays and added a quote from Language and Mind. I also change the attributions to make the connection between paragraphs suggested by Samuelpspz. Cnilep (talk) 03:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2018

At the end of firrst para please add % Language production (e.g. speech, writing) involves encoding meaning into signs, while language comprehension (listening, reading) is the reverse. 212.250.152.37 (talk) 14:02, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2018

Suruzzaman Sujan (talk) 06:37, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Suruzzaman Sujan is son of Md. Ashraf Ali. His Father profession is Teacher.

He cames from Sirajganj Ullapara,

• Caption1
  Caption1

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 06:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

False language: pseudoglotty / pseudoglossy / pseudoglottia / pseudoglossia

Anything that resembles informational transmission, without to actually be.

Some claim that pseudoglossia opens the possibilities of a true language via genetical and/or cultural evolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:587:4117:a100:ed7b:dc44:2f3e:e80d (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Not done: If this is a request for addition or changes to the page, please specify what you think should be changed using the 'Change X to Y' (or 'Add Y') formulation, and please suggest reliable sources for the information. Cnilep (talk) 01:41, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2019

We use different languages all around the world.These are some useful translations: English Hindi Gujrati Kachhi Tagalog Nice Achha Saaru Saaro pretty Sundar Sundar Sundar Maganda Come Aa Ao Ach Go Jaa Jaao Van Tara Eat Kha Khao Khaa 2.50.31.211 (talk) 04:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Þjarkur (talk) 08:26, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Image of language lesson

I've just re-added the image File:Kituwah Academy.png. User:Biosthmors removed it yesterday with the edit summary, "see New Kituwah Academy for details as to why this information is inaccurate". I'm not sure what "this information" refers to. Presumably it is not the image as such, but the caption. The caption Biosthmors removed said in part "Cherokee language is the medium of instruction from pre-school on up"; New Kituwah Academy says that the school is dual immersion K-6. I've changed the caption to say "Cherokee language is a medium of instruction". Is that acceptable? Or was there some other issue? (I also removed some extraneous formatting, by the way). Cnilep (talk) 05:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I was scratching my head at that one for a while too, even if some information is inaccurate in the image description, that's not a reason to remove the whole image.--Megaman en m (talk) 06:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Actually I think we should revert edits like these as "unexplained removal of content". The editor expects us to do mind-reading, which is not the proper way. I handled another identical edit accordingly. –Austronesier (talk) 08:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

"Lingvo" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Lingvo. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

"Language" vs. "a language"

Calling SUM1, Woodstone for a consensus: The lead actually defines two meanings of "language", language (uncountable noun without article) in the abstract general sense, and language (countable noun with article) in the concrete particular sense. So MOS:BOLDSYN may not exactly apply here. I suggest we restore an older version of the lead where the article was in bold face too. As an alternative, a language could be set in italics. – Austronesier (talk) 10:15, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Italics would be totally acceptable. "A language" would be wrong, because "a language" doesn't redirect to Language. SUM1 (talk) 15:34, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Seems uncontroversial; done. Just plain Bill (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Language for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Language is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Language until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:03, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Ifaamedian kan baname guyyaa hardhaantanaa kana baga gammaddan baga gammanneon 28 November 2019

Namni bootii kana banees obboleeysa keysan ustaaz gammachuu mahammad

196.190.154.235 (talk)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — IVORK _Talk 21:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Definition of 'Language'

User:Oldstone James recently changed the definition of language in the lead section of this article. As the definition of language has been debated in some depth, I think such a change warrants further discussion. I therefore restored the earlier version of the page. I would invite editors to review past discussion of the definition in /Archive 1, /Archive 3#opening paragraphs and #Various expressions, and /Archive 4#Definition and #Definition of Language, inter alia. Cnilep (talk) 07:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Cnilep: I appreciate your disapproval of my edits; however, I believe it'd be both more appropriate and more helpful if you had explained what your problem with my edits was, as lack of consensus alone is not a valid reason for reversion.

Either way, here is the version that I am proposing:

A language is a structured means of communication. Language, in a broader sense, refers to the ability – particularly human ability – to communicate using a language.

And here is the current version:

Language is a system that consists of the development, acquisition, maintenance and use of complex systems of communication, particularly the human ability to do so; a language is any specific example of such a system.

First of all, the current version is trivially false, as if the definition of "language" indeed included "acquisition" of a language then the statement "to acquire language" would be tautological and hence false; however, this very phrase is given as an example by the Collins Dictionary, so Wikipedia's current definition is false.

Secondly, as pointed out by the phrase particularly the human ability to do so in the current version, "language" is an ability and not at all a system. If it were a system then the development of language would have systematic elements; however, it is clear that people and even animals use language in completely different ways, so calling it a system is, to say the least, far-fetched; and, at most, it's just plain wrong. Also, not a single dictionary on Earth defines "language" as a system.

Thirdly, the current version is very clumsy and incredibly difficult to read; one has to re-read the sentence a couple of times before they can make proper sense of it. My version is cleaner, more concise, and reads easier and better.

Finally, it is important to note that a language is a structured system or means of communication; if that clarification is not made, ants and bacteria would be speaking languages.^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 22:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Might be best resolved by referencing reliable source, probably from linguistics, .. and have therefore added citation needed template? Bruceanthro (talk) 10:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

De Saussure offers a definition of language in bits and pieces:

• "Language is a well-defined object in the heterogeneous mass of speech facts."
• "...language ... is homogenous."
• "Language is concrete."
• "Language is a system of signs that express ideas, ..."

Some other definitions from linguists:

• "A system of arbitrary vocal symbols by which thought is conveyed from one human being to another."
• "A language is a system of abstract objects analogous in significant aspects to such a cultural object as a symphony."

All three use "system" in their definitions of language. - Donald Albury 15:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@Donald Albury: Of course, a language is a system, as I point out in my proposed definition. However, the unquantifiable noun "language" is not. Two of the three definitions that you have provided define a language rather than language; and the other defines "language", an unquantifiable noun, as "a system", a quantifiable noun, which is a basic grammatical mistake. I think taking a look at definitions from various dictionaries would be more useful:

• Oxford Leaner's: "the use by humans of a system of sounds and words to communicate"
• Google (I can't recall what dictionary Google uses): "a non-verbal method of expression or communication"
• Collins: "the use of a system of communication which consists of a set of sounds or written symbols"
• Dictionary.com: "communication by voice in the distinctively human manner"

Notice how all dictionaries seem to agree on the definition of language, all stating that it is the general method of - particularly human - communication, this method being the use of a language. I think we should trust the dictionaries and go ahead with the definition that's currently in the article.^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 16:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Yes, language is most certainly a system. Moreover, saying that this system includes language acquisition does not turn the phrase "to acquire language" into a tautology. To "acquire" a language means to take part in the acquisition part of the system. Calling this a tautology is like saying "to eat food" is a tautology when the definition of food is something that one eats. Moreover, WP:ISAWORDFOR prompts us to avoid phrasing like "language, in a broader sense, refers to..."

I agree that the current wording is a bit obtuse, but that can be solved with a bit of a compromise. Perhaps we want something like A language is a structured means of communication. Language, in a broader sense, is a system that consists of the development, acquisition, maintenance and use of complex systems of communication, particularly the human ability to do so; a language is any specific example of such a system. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 15:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@Aeusoes1: It does. Your example of "eating food" is not appropriate, as if we replace the word "food" with "eating what is being eaten", the sentence is meaningful, despite being a tautology. However, if we replace the word "language" with "acquisition of a language" in "acquire language", we get "acquire [the process of] acquisition of language", which is totally meaningless.

Furthermore, "a system" is quantifiable, while "language" isn't. So language can't be a system.

I honestly think the current wording is fine. I don't see any reasons to change it.^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 16:35, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

If we replaced "language" with "acquisition of a language" that would certainly sound absurd, but considering that the definition of language isn't "acquisition of a language" we wouldn't be prompted to do so in the first place. In the example of food, the replacement would be "eating that which is eaten." In the example of language, it would be "acquiring that which is acquired." Both are equally tautological statements.

With quantifiability, your reasoning falls apart with another example of something similar. Let's take another noun that has different meanings when it is quantifiable vs unquantifiable. When unquantifiable, democracy is "a form of government in which the people have the authority to choose their governing legislation." When quantifiable, democracy is a particular government under such a form. I don't imagine that you take issue with our definition of democracy just because it uses a. That a noun is unquantifiable doesn't mean that we can't use articles like a or the in their definition. Inferring this sort of thing is just plain goofy reasoning. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 17:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

You're making a mistake here again. If language was defined as "an acquisition" (i.e., a thing that has been acquired), then I have no problem at all with the grammar (of course, we'd then need to specify when and by whom language was acquired to avoid vagueness). However, the word "acquisition" as used in the previous version of the article was unquantifiable, as it was placed in a list with the word "maintenance" and was preceded by the article "the" rather than "an". Therefore, the meaning that the word had in the context of the article was "the process of acquisition". Indeed, if we replace "language" with "process of acquisition", the phrase "acquire language" becomes "acquire the process of acquisition".

The second one is a fair point, but I still have a justification, and I think this justification should be intuitive to most people. When we say "X is a form of Y", what we really mean is "Y has a partition/branch that represents X". Therefore, in your example, the meaning of "democracy" changes from an unquantifiable noun represented by the general term "democracy" to a quantifiable noun with the meaning "a partition/branch representing democracy". A similar transition in meaning can be seen in the sentence, "language refers to the ability to communicate a language". Language itself doesn't actually refer to anything; it's the term "language" that we are talking about in the sentence. An easier way to see this would be to isolate the subject, predicate, and - in the former case - the defining object in both sentences and see if the resulting sentence makes sense. Of course, neither "democracy is a form" nor "language refers" make any sense, two lots of democracy aren't two forms (this is a bad example because the term "a democracy" also exists when referring to an entirely different concept; the contradiction would be more apparent if we replace "democracy" with "money") and language doesn't have the ability to refer to anything. On the other hand, in the case of "language is a system", the word "language" doesn't have any change of meaning, and there is no justification for such a discrepancy in quantifiability. Indeed, two lots of language aren't two systems, so the sentence "language is a system" isn't grammatically correct. To me, all of this seems intuitive. I am surprised that this sentence doesn't just "read funny" to you.^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 00:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I can't say I follow all of that and it seems as though the article's wording is changing already (including the use of refer), so I'm not sure if there's much merit to trying. I should say that democracy is a better example than money, since the latter can't be paired with the definite article a like both language and democracy can (*a money). That's why I chose it as an example. I should also say that the statement "language is a system" isn't grammatically correct shows a poor understanding of what "grammatically correct" means. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 01:08, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, I tried my best. Hopefully, somebody can explain it better than I can. In short, the sentence "democracy is a form of government" is really a contracted form of "the concept called 'democracy' is a form of the concept called 'government'". The phrase "a form of" defines "the concept" - not democracy itself. Hopefully, that's a bit clearer.

I wouldn't be so rash in claiming that I have a poor understanding of what "grammatically correct" means. Would you agree that the sentence "moneys are means of payment" is grammatically incorrect?^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 01:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

No. You're mistaking semantic issues with grammaticality. See colorless green ideas sleep furiously. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 02:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I think this is already beyond the topic of the conversation, so I suggest we both delete our last posts once our conversation is finished due to Wikiepdia not being a forum. Anyway, as far as I am aware statements like "a scissors" and "one money" are grammatically incorrect. "Language is a system" would fall under a similar bracket, in my opinion. Correct me if I am wrong.^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 05:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment: Of course we can defend our POVs and preferences here in order to achieve the goal of consensus (I hope that's the goal for all participants in this discussion), but to say that the statement "Language is a system" is grammatically incorrect is, uhm, incorrect. Form a linguistic perspective, there is no constraint against uncountable nouns appearing as subject of clauses with countable predicative nouns. Nor is the statement "Language is a system" as "far-fetched" and "wrong" as Oldstone James claims:

• "Language is a system for encoding and transmitting ideas." (Kay 1985:251)
• "First, then, language is a system, which implies regularity and order. (Edwards 2009:53)
• "Linguistics is the study of language. Language is a system of brain circuits." (Pulvermuller 2002:270)

References

–Austronesier (talk) 10:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

We now have examples of a number of linguists saying, "language is a system" in books published by academic and other major presses. Linguists study language, and can therefore be presumed to understand what is or is not grammatical, and the editors at those presses apparently agree. Rules found in or inferred from prescriptive grammars often do not represent how native speakers of a language use and understand that language. I think "language is a system" is the best way to start a definition of "language". Now, what does that system do? - Donald Albury 16:21, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

The proposed wording "A language is a structured means of communication" is much too broad, except for 'language' in the metaphoric sense (body language, the language of love, etc.) Pheromones are not language, nor are the different colors we paint curbs, a symphony, or many many other structured ways that animals and even plants and bacteria communicate. — kwami (talk) 22:59, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurat (word)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurat (word) has been relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Bookku (talk) 07:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Edits undone March 2020

I just undid five edits by User:Weidorje. While these edits were intended to make the article easier to read – a goal I can agree with – some had the effect of introducing errors, and several removed information from the article. This page has been wrought by a large number of knowledgeable editors and offers a relatively nuanced view of human language as understood in various fields: especially linguistics, but also psychology, education, anthropology and other allied fields. I think, therefore, that efforts to prune content should be hashed over by more than one editor. Cnilep (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion: Perhaps we could help Weidorje get a Simple English version started? That would address the "making content easier to understand" for those not versed in the subject. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 03:11, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Let's not get confused. I think this article should be reformatted to simpler English because it should serve as a beginner's introduction to linguistics. This is however not the issue. The issue is that the article is of somewhat poor quality and misinformative as a whole (i.e. it's a bit of a mess that's also difficult to read). User:Cnilep is primarily aiming at protecting a sociobiological bias which is visible in that they want to have the 'organic' view of language first although it appeared last chronologically and is not backed by any scientific research. The subsequent humanistic definitions of language are also confused with sociobiological ideas in this article. But the main issue is obviously the claim that Chomsky invented formal linguistics. Cnilep argues that I'm challenging a consensus. However, Smith and Alcott in Chomsky: Ideas and Ideals do not claim that Chomsky invented formal linguistics. They say that he made "a minor contribution". Likewise, Chomsky's Syntactic Structures cites Hjelmslev's work, and there is no claim of Chomsky's lectures being original research. The question is properly addressed in Seuren's Western Linguistics which I was using as a source. So what exactly is it I'm challenging, on a factual basis? I'm raising the claim that Wikipedia is being used to propagate an obscurist view of linguistics.Weidorje (talk) 08:26, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

"Before evaluating this claim, we need to distinguish it from a separate issue concerning the axiomatization or logical formalization of the linguistic analyses provided by working linguists. For Chomsky the interest and importance of analyses of language reside in the implications they have for philosophical and psychological issues. This is clearly not incompatible with a mathematical axiomatization of those analyses. Indeed, Chomsky’s early work was renowned for its mathematical rigor and he made some contribution to the nascent discipline of mathematical linguistics, in particular the analysis of (formal) languages in terms of what is now known as the Chomsky Hierarchy."

— Neil Smith (in Chomsky – Ideas and Ideals, 2nd edition, p. 147 )

"What makes glossematics relevant and interesting is its projected way of specifying the possible combinations of primitive formal units into larger structures, i.e. its notion of algorithmic production of strings of symbols, and the empirical and formal constraints it imposes on any such specification in the light of an evaluation with respect to alternative specifications. Here Hjelmslev's ideas clearly prefigure the theory of generative grammar... it is probably accurate to say that Hjelmslev was the first to try and apply [the notion of an algorithm as a purely formal production system for a set of strings and symbols] in natural language"

— Pieter Seuren (Western Linguistics: An Historical Introduction, p. 164, 166 )

This article is not an introduction to linguistics, but to language. The notion that the article's authors should somehow have a sociobiological bias is frankly laughable.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, if the article is about language, then, technically, it's a linguistics article. Also, to be more precise, it's not the authors that have a sociobiological bias, but their writing. Laughter is the best medicine anyhow. Weidorje (talk) 17:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Difference in Languages

I think the differences in languages arises from several main factors. the size of lunges determines ratio of vowels to consonants; bigger lunges support more wovels and two wovels in a row (diphtong) and more syllables and eventually support agglutination and sticking prepositions to the end of the words and therefore is a base for SVO. other factors are size of jaw and thickness of muscles surrounding the jaw and lengths of the lips and thickness of lips and size of larynx. Thick lips is suitable for labials. spelling a is difficult for small lips.having thick muscles around the jaw prevent spelling many syllables and slide it to diphtongs. these are not quotes just my ideas.in future there could be researches to fact find about it. 194.86.153.167 (talk) 13:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Many thanks Amir Arab194.86.153.167 (talk) 13:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Greetings. Your interest is terrific, but please see WP:TALK#USE. These talk pages are only for discussing improvements to the article, based on information that already exists and can be verified from WP:reliable sources. They aren't a forum for general conversation, even related to the article's subject, or for speculation. Thanks for understanding. Largoplazo (talk) 14:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Amir Arab 194.86.153.167 (talk). Unfortunately we don't study languages here, but I recommend WALS (please notice that there are further chapters on list page 2). Please click here for the material. Aila Lila (talk) 14:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2021; update link from Yerkish page to `lexigram concept` sub-category on Yerkish page

Change: Several species of animals have proved to be able to acquire forms of communication through social learning: for instance a bonobo named Kanzi learned to express itself using a set of symbolic lexigrams.

To: Several species of animals have proved to be able to acquire forms of communication through social learning: for instance a bonobo named Kanzi learned to express itself using a set of symbolic lexigrams. Seawolfsoftware (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. There's also no change between the current text and your proposed text. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2021

in Code, Code is defined and language is given as an example: "In communications and information processing, code is a system of rules to convert information—such as a letter, word, sound, image, or gesture—into another form, sometimes shortened or secret, for communication through a communication channel or storage in a storage medium. An early example is an invention of language, which enabled a person, through speech, to communicate what they thought, saw, heard, or felt to others."

in Langauge, Language is defined: "A language is a structured system of communication used by humans, based on speech and gesture (spoken language), sign, or often writing." This makes Language an instance of Code.

I suggest the following edit to Language:

Change: A language is a structured system of communication used by humans, based on speech and gesture (spoken language), sign, or often writing. The structure of language is its grammar and the free components are its vocabulary.

to: A language is a structured system of communication used by humans, based on speech and gesture (spoken language), sign, or often writing. Language is an example of Code (Compare with Source code, Genetic code and Code of Law). The structure of language is its grammar and the free components are its vocabulary.

Thank you. Bardia323 (talk) 10:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The lead is a summary of the article itself, and the article does not discuss this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

"Angkentye" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Angkentye. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 26#Angkentye until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Certes (talk) 16:55, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2021

Linkfix: [[Recursion#Recursion in language|recursivity]] -> [[Recursion#In language|recursivity]]

(Alternatively, {{anchor}}ing that section to the title used here may be the more robust solution - that article is protected as well, though.)

- 2A02:560:42FA:5E00:D098:5A6F:47BC:2259 (talk) 14:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done Largoplazo (talk) 14:48, 5 December 2021 (UTC)