Is there a natural language?

[Paintbucket]

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=104750&page=7

Freez and I were talking about Social Sciences and this question came up. I figured this would be a good place to put it. Look on Page 7 for the start of our discourse.

Is there a natural language that humans use?

[FreezBee]

How would we test the claim of a natural language?

[Tanakh Keeper]

How do you define the term "natural language"?

[Paintbucket]

I'll throw out an idea. Most languages have words for things right? There are some examples of some things that don't, for instance the Icelandic language has no word for telephone or tank. Instead, the translation would equate to "cord" (telephone) or "creeping dragon" (tank). The Sioux language has no word for goodbye, instead a phrase equating "I will see you later" is stated. In the Hawaiian language, Aloha means several different things.

However, most languages have a word for sky, water, woman, god, etc. Perhaps language is just spoken differently form place to place, and we all have the same words we use with minor variations.

[NeilUnreal]

Many years ago, when I studied liguistics and cognitive psychology, I remember we studied the restrictions and patterns that seem to be common to most human grammars. There were enough universals that organic roots seemed apparent, though there was no hard data at the time tying grammar to specifics of neurology. (Aside from a very few studies conducted on patients with organic brain problems, etc.)

-Neil

[slaveofone]

I suppose you're not really thinking about spoken or written language...

It does interest me, however, how NEW the alphabet is... I mean, it doesn't seem to have come into existence until about the middle to late bronze age. But an alphabet does seem so simple and natural. Even in these forums, you can scroll down the lists of newest posts and come across entire threads that are playing off of the alphabet. But the world seemed to get along well and dandy without an alphabet for quite some time... Is there something about an alphabet that enables language to become more natural? Or is it simply easier?

[Johnny MacManky]

I can only remember scant bits of this tale. A Scottish king (asking the OP question) was supposed to have sent two newborns to live with a mute women to see what language they would speak. Supposedly they spoke Hebrew... I'll see if I can find any more info.

[Dave G]

I took an advanced grammar course about 15 years ago. The course taught a metalanguage and gave complete credit to Noam Chomsky. Chomsky's grammar, or "Transformational Generative Grammar" was a deep structure, or a kind of algebra of language. For example, a rule might state, for every determiner, a noun follows. Broken down farther it becomes "If d then n." Generative grammar presupposes a deep structure that applies to all languages.
Wiki shows that more than Chomsky worked, and still work, on the problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_semantics

[FreezBee]

I suppose you're not really thinking about spoken or written language...

It does interest me, however, how NEW the alphabet is... I mean, it doesn't seem to have come into existence until about the middle to late bronze age. But an alphabet does seem so simple and natural. Even in these forums, you can scroll down the lists of newest posts and come across entire threads that are playing off of the alphabet. But the world seemed to get along well and dandy without an alphabet for quite some time... Is there something about an alphabet that enables language to become more natural? Or is it simply easier?

Obviously, an alphabet presupposes some kind of writing. Archaeologists have found stone age deer bones with carvings in them, so some kind of writing was alreadu around back then. As for the English alphabet, it is based on the Latin alphabet, which was based on the Greek alphabet, which was based on the Phoenician alphabet (from which also the Hebrew alphabet originated), which was based on the hieratic Egyptian script, a simplified variety of hieroglyphs, used for example for commercial documents.

Of course, today the alphabets seems almost innate for anyone familiar with it -- but believe it or not, children still need to learn it :smile:


- FreezBee

[Philosophickle]

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=104750&page=7

Freez and I were talking about Social Sciences and this question came up. I figured this would be a good place to put it. Look on Page 7 for the start of our discourse.

Is there a natural language that humans use?

I don't know if it counts as a natural language or not, but the brain is predisposed to think of certain symbols in a certain way. Shape of a symbol influences the way one thinks about the sounds of a symbol. For example, if one were to show a picture of a roundish, rolling symbol (like an "m"), the brain associates flatter tones. But if one sees a sharp, highly contrasting symbol (like a "k" or a "z"), inflection varies and the tone reflects the shape.

[Nicholas]

I don't know if it counts as a natural language or not, but the brain is predisposed to think of certain symbols in a certain way. Shape of a symbol influences the way one thinks about the sounds of a symbol. For example, if one were to show a picture of a roundish, rolling symbol (like an "m"), the brain associates flatter tones. But if one sees a sharp, highly contrasting symbol (like a "k" or a "z"), inflection varies and the tone reflects the shape.

I'd heard about that study as well.

[Jnthn]

You should read the book "Snow Crash" by Neal Stephenson; one of the strands of his book is that Sumerian was the natural, low level language of humanity until a Babel event resulted in languages diversifying. I've no idea what historical credence this has but he is an author that's known for his fanatical attention to detail and deep research.

J

[Lightknight]

Sumerian could be a good guess, but I don't know about that.

I don't think we can ever really know because languages are constantly influenced by other languages. All of human history teaches us that.

[FreezBee]

Sumerian could be a good guess, but I don't know about that.

I don't think we can ever really know because languages are constantly influenced by other languages. All of human history teaches us that.

If there is a natural language, even just a natural language structure, it is built into our brains and not dependent on languages influencing each other, I'd think.

- FreezBee

[Sparko]

I think the "natural" language is "body language". All humans share common visual cues regarding facial expressions and body language. You can tell a lot about what someone is thinking by observing body language and expressions even to just the tone of voice.

In fact, our pets (especially dogs) are so good at reading our body language it almost seems like they are reading our minds sometimes.

[Lightknight]

If there is a natural language, even just a natural language structure, it is built into our brains and not dependent on languages influencing each other, I'd think.

- FreezBeeWell, yes, but what I was talking about was that we can never know if this is the case because other languages and cultures have influenced other languages and cultures too much for us to have any hope of finding true similarities that we can know for certain weren't influenced.

[Storico]

Sparko said what I was going to. If there's any one 'natural language' we can all understand, it's body language. Facial expression, the way we hold ourselves and move, all "speak" volumes. I remember being in first or second grade when I met an ESL student who'd come here from Africa. He didn't speak a word of English (or if he did, not enough to communicate with), and if he spoke French, I sure didn't know any at the time; nothing past "bonjour" anyways. I remember our teacher asking us to welcome him and greet him, and I wondered "how?"

Doing so was easier than I thought. A smile, a "come here" motion with your hands, someone bouncing a ball towards you, and someone handing you some cookies on the playground are all apparently great ways to communicate even when you don't speak a word of the same language.

[Nicholas]

I think the "natural" language is "body language". All humans share common visual cues regarding facial expressions and body language. You can tell a lot about what someone is thinking by observing body language and expressions even to just the tone of voice.

In fact, our pets (especially dogs) are so good at reading our body language it almost seems like they are reading our minds sometimes.

They had actually had a special on the last part you mentioned on National Geographic. It seems that dogs are extremely good at reading us. They were discussing the fact that a scientist was testing the intelligence of a chimpanzee and found that while they good at solving problems independently, they performed horribly at understanding human cues, such as someone pointing at the cup under which food was hidden. Another scientist said his dog could do better, so they brought it in, and he was right.
Another interesting thing is that dogs know that we can't see them when our eyes are closed, which is apparently a neat trick in other species. If you have your eyes open and look at a treat on the floor, a dog trained not to take it won't steal the treat. If you look away, it will take it, but it will also take it if you look at it, but have your eyes closed.

Though I wonder why we should be surprised, after all, they've spent thousands of years living with humans.

[Storico]

If my cat is ANY good at reading body language, she's great at ignoring that fact. She'll try and get my meat or my milk whether I'm looking or not. I could be yelling "get off the kitchen table" and show obvious signs of frustration, and she'd be lying there, yawning, curled up on the table. :sigh:

[FreezBee]

Sparko said what I was going to. If there's any one 'natural language' we can all understand, it's body language. Facial expression, the way we hold ourselves and move, all "speak" volumes. I remember being in first or second grade when I met an ESL student who'd come here from Africa. He didn't speak a word of English (or if he did, not enough to communicate with), and if he spoke French, I sure didn't know any at the time; nothing past "bonjour" anyways. I remember our teacher asking us to welcome him and greet him, and I wondered "how?"

Doing so was easier than I thought. A smile, a "come here" motion with your hands, someone bouncing a ball towards you, and someone handing you some cookies on the playground are all apparently great ways to communicate even when you don't speak a word of the same language.

Yes, body language seems ceratinly to be more universal than spoken language, and many people actually 'speak' with their entire body. I have often seen people talk in telephone and using body language at the same time, as if the listener in the other end could see as well as hear :smile:

Still, body language has its dialects and is subject to social conventions. The gestures may be 'natural' (part of our biology), but the exact meaning may still vary.


- FreezBee

[Storico]

I do that all the time -- gesture while I'm on the phone, especially at work when I'm trying to explain something technical to someone. And the sad thing is, I absolutely realize I'm doing it, and know the other person can't see me or understand me any better. The thing is, that doesn't really matter. The gesturing helps me talk my way through something. I talk with my hands constantly in person -- waving them around, you name it, so I'd be driven crazy if someone told me I wasn't allowed to when I was on a phone call. I think that humans communicate MORE by how they move, look and react physically to one another than by what they actually say. That's what makes working in a phone environment challenging for me: I have to pick my words carefully, and if I want to let someone know I'm joking or smiling, I find ways to word what I say, appropriately.

Nonverbal communication is a fascinating study, and it seems to cut across cultures in a way no spoken language can.

[shunyadragon]

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=104750&page=7

Freez and I were talking about Social Sciences and this question came up. I figured this would be a good place to put it. Look on Page 7 for the start of our discourse.

Is there a natural language that humans use?

I would describe all languages as having natural linguistic roots in the sounds that our vocal cords are able to make and the natural sounds of the world around us. Chinese is an interesting language, because I believe it retains any of these primal words that reflect these natural roots. The words for some animals sound like the animals, like 'ya' for duck sounds like one of the sounds a duck makes. The words commonly used for the family members are similar to the first word-like sounds and infant speaks like mama, gege, and baba. similar sounds and words can be found in many languages.

The written Chinese language also preserves many natural symbol roots of pictographs found in other Neolithic cultures.

[FreezBee]

I do that all the time -- gesture while I'm on the phone, especially at work when I'm trying to explain something technical to someone. And the sad thing is, I absolutely realize I'm doing it, and know the other person can't see me or understand me any better. The thing is, that doesn't really matter. The gesturing helps me talk my way through something.

Interesting point :thumb:

Yes, it is as if the gestures themselves help the spoken conversation along, even if the other party is not seeing them.


I talk with my hands constantly in person -- waving them around, you name it, so I'd be driven crazy if someone told me I wasn't allowed to when I was on a phone call. I think that humans communicate MORE by how they move, look and react physically to one another than by what they actually say. That's what makes working in a phone environment challenging for me: I have to pick my words carefully, and if I want to let someone know I'm joking or smiling, I find ways to word what I say, appropriately.

I alsways try to minimize the time used in telephone conversation, because I find it natural. Back in the mid-1990s I worked at a research department in a hospital. The IT department was at the other end of the hospital, but if I needed to talk with someone from the IT department, I always walked over there in stead of using the phone.


Nonverbal communication is a fascinating study, and it seems to cut across cultures in a way no spoken language can.

Yes, that's true -- and we probably also have some nonverbal communication in common with apes.


- FreezBee

[historic salve]

If there is a natural language, even just a natural language structure, it is built into our brains and not dependent on languages influencing each other, I'd think.

- FreezBee
I don't think there is a structure, at least not in terms of syntax. Languages really differ in that aspect.

[Crow]

I think that what is universal is a propensity to use language. Even children who are deaf from birth make vocalizations to communucate, but they don't sound like words. They "know" that they should make sounds to communucate, but they can't hear sounds others are making to know what sounds they "should" be making. Identical twins have been known to develop a private language that they use only with their twin, but it doesn't sound the same from one set of twins to another.

"Ma" and "Pa" (or "Ba" or "Fa" or "Da") for mother and father, and "ooh" for surprise or pleasure are very common in most languages. This is probably because they are the sounds infants are naturally capable of forming first. (except for their legendary ear-splitting screeches)

All societies use body language, but it doesn't mean the same in each language. If someone raised in the US greets someone looking steadily in their eyes that is considered being open and attentive. In other parts of the world it is considered rudeness, and the proper response is to make brief eyecontact then look down before making eye contact again.

[Sparko]

I think that what is universal is a propensity to use language. Even children who are deaf from birth make vocalizations to communucate, but they don't sound like words. They "know" that they should make sounds to communucate, but they can't hear sounds others are making to know what sounds they "should" be making. Identical twins have been known to develop a private language that they use only with their twin, but it doesn't sound the same from one set of twins to another.

"Ma" and "Pa" (or "Ba" or "Fa" or "Da") for mother and father, and "ooh" for surprise or pleasure are very common in most languages. This is probably because they are the sounds infants are naturally capable of forming first. (except for their legendary ear-splitting screeches)

All societies use body language, but it doesn't mean the same in each language. If someone raised in the US greets someone looking steadily in their eyes that is considered being open and attentive. In other parts of the world it is considered rudeness, and the proper response is to make brief eyecontact then look down before making eye contact again.


when I talked about body language I was talking mostly about facial expressions of emotions. We all use the same facial expressions for happiness, puzzlement, anger, fear, etc. Laughing and crying is universal.

Perhaps I should say "emotions" are our native language.

[Philosophickle]

I don't think there is a structure, at least not in terms of syntax. Languages really differ in that aspect.

Modern cognitive findings contradict you here. As has been noted by Dave, Chomsky has provided a theory of universal grammar that is more or less undisputed. Recent work in Broca's area (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broca's_area) give neurophysiological support to his theory.

[FreezBee]

when I talked about body language I was talking mostly about facial expressions of emotions. We all use the same facial expressions for happiness, puzzlement, anger, fear, etc. Laughing and crying is universal.

Perhaps I should say "emotions" are our native language.

Well, to a great extent I will agree.

However, while laughing and crying are universal, it need not mean the same in every culture. Not even within one culture. You can laugh oout of fear/frustration. A couple of month ago, a person with a gun and disgusing himself with a towel around his head tried to rob a 7-11 shop. The sales person started to laugh hysterically, which wasn't the reaction the would-be-robber had prepared for, so he soon retreated unsuccessfully.

There are certain expressions of memotions our facial muscles enable, but there's more to what they mean than that.


- FreezBee

[Teluog]

Wouldn't our "natural language" be the "googoo" and "blurthsdm" sounds that babies make? Because babies those are usually their first "words." They need to be taught how to say words like "mama," which only happens after they speak gibberish.

[Sparko]

Well, to a great extent I will agree.

However, while laughing and crying are universal, it need not mean the same in every culture. Not even within one culture. You can laugh oout of fear/frustration. A couple of month ago, a person with a gun and disgusing himself with a towel around his head tried to rob a 7-11 shop. The sales person started to laugh hysterically, which wasn't the reaction the would-be-robber had prepared for, so he soon retreated unsuccessfully.

There are certain expressions of memotions our facial muscles enable, but there's more to what they mean than that.


- FreezBee


I daresay any culture would have the same fear responses (hysterical laughter for example) - just because we can laugh when scared or cry when happy doesn't mean that those are still not universal. They are.

[FreezBee]

I daresay any culture would have the same fear responses (hysterical laughter for example) - just because we can laugh when scared or cry when happy doesn't mean that those are still not universal. They are.

Quite right, but that still means that there isn't a 1-1 relationship between emotions and expressions.

- FreezBee

[Sparko]

Quite right, but that still means that there isn't a 1-1 relationship between emotions and expressions.

- FreezBee

yeah but I dont think I ever said there was. I just said that body language (expressions of emotions) is about as "natural" language as we have. MOST people can tell whether you are happy, sad, scared, being shifty, etc by your body language.

Have you ever seen that show on the scifi channel about Derren Brown?

http://www.derrenbrown.co.uk/

he is basically like an illusionist, but what he does is subtley use key words to manipulate you, and he is really really good at reading body language and muscle tension/twitches.

He can make it look like he is reading your mind just by using some cold reading techniques and watching your face. There was one show where he somehow guessed some word a person was thinking about just by asking questions and watching their eyes.

our bodies give away a lot. most of us just don't pay conscious attention to it.

[hamandcheese]

"Is there a natural language."

No. There is no evidence that language is completely innate (extreme nativism). In fact, it is a fundamental assumption amongst linguists (not without reason) that verbal sounds which we apply to words is essentially arbitary. This is what allows so many languages to develop.

We do have innate conceptuals however, that work through metaphor, aesthetics, and Chomsky's universal grammar. This is called Conceptual Linguistics. In other words, humans have an innate understanding of causality, substance, mass, and a slew of other things, which render themselves universally among all languages, and are used in creating, combining, organizing, and learning new words. These are the particulars of language.

Another problem with "natural language" is that if it is more complex than strictly the fundamental conceptuals (and the conceptuals aren't themselves capable of being language) then it be evolutionarily impossible and very noticeable. For example, it would require that one has the concept of "Trombone", "Gatorade", "Horse", and "Dagger" as innate concepts: an absurdity.

[FreezBee]

We do have innate conceptuals however, that work through metaphor, aesthetics, and Chomsky's universal grammar. This is called Conceptual Linguistics. In other words, humans have an innate understanding of causality, substance, mass, and a slew of other things, which render themselves universally among all languages, and are used in creating, combining, organizing, and learning new words. These are the particulars of language.

So, some structure and a few building blocks are innate?


Another problem with "natural language" is that if it is more complex than strictly the fundamental conceptuals (and the conceptuals aren't themselves capable of being language) then it be evolutionarily impossible and very noticeable. For example, it would require that one has the concept of "Trombone", "Gatorade", "Horse", and "Dagger" as innate concepts: an absurdity.

But why is a horse then called a "horse" and not a "spade"?


- FreezBee

[hamandcheese]

Again. The sounds in languages are arbitrary. You could study the etymology, to see from what arbitrary sound it is derived, and understand why a spade is called a spade.

For example, spade comes from the Old English word spadu, which is in turn came from a series of languages before it. You will eventually find the documentation runs dry, because ultimately it is arbitrary, or is based of similarities in other words that are themselves arbitrary: Like in the case of "Shovel". Shovel gets its name from the verb Shove, so Shovel it could be said is not arbitrary, but eventually you'll play this game until you find (or get lost) it's meaningless origin.

Onomatopoeia are often quasi-non arbitrary origins for word sounds, but then again, looking at the onomatopoeias of different cultures, even they range along a long line of seemingly arbitrary voice cracks.

[Paintbucket]

Why is the origin meaningless?

[hamandcheese]

When I said "meaningless origin" I was referring to the arbitrariness in word sound. A word is simply a vocalization with meaning attached. What the vocalization is is entirely arbitrary.

[FreezBee]

When I said "meaningless origin" I was referring to the arbitrariness in word sound. A word is simply a vocalization with meaning attached. What the vocalization is is entirely arbitrary.

Yet there must have some reason or another for the choice, no?

- FreezBee

[Teluog]

Yet there must have some reason or another for the choice, no?

- FreezBee

This is what I'm curious about. Why do we attach the word "fork" to the utensil that we eat our food with? Why don't we call that utensil "spoon" or "booger" or "sfhksfasf" instead?

[hamandcheese]

Yet there must have some reason or another for the choice, no?

- FreezBee

If there were it would not be arbitrary. Onomatopoeia is the only quasi-objective origin for a word sound, but other then that, word sounds are arbitrary (though after a while languages start to have a certain tone: for example, French words avoid the H sound). If word sounds weren't arbitrary then we wouldn't have the plethora of different languages we have today.

[FreezBee]

This is what I'm curious about. Why do we attach the word "fork" to the utensil that we eat our food with? Why don't we call that utensil "spoon" or "booger" or "sfhksfasf" instead?

Yes, that's my point. I don't think our ancestors grabbed the words out of a bag.


If there were it would not be arbitrary. Onomatopoeia is the only quasi-objective origin for a word sound, but other then that, word sounds are arbitrary (though after a while languages start to have a certain tone: for example, French words avoid the H sound). If word sounds weren't arbitrary then we wouldn't have the plethora of different languages we have today.

Well, they are arbitrary in the sense of not necessary, yet they must have some history. I have a great interest in the etymology of words, but of course we can only trace words back to the first written sources, or even less in the case of languages without written sources.

Still, why is a fork called a 'fork'? It's from latin furca, but where is that word from?


- FreezBee

[Sparko]

if we called a fork a "sfhksfasf" you would be asking the same question. its moot.

[Ratnat]

Yes, that's my point. I don't think our ancestors grabbed the words out of a bag.



Well, they are arbitrary in the sense of not necessary, yet they must have some history. I have a great interest in the etymology of words, but of course we can only trace words back to the first written sources, or even less in the case of languages without written sources.

Still, why is a fork called a 'fork'? It's from latin furca, but where is that word from?


- FreezBee

Etymology seems to be Fleshhook of Phorkys which is based on the Pheonician/Egyptian hieroglyph of a deity holding a trident.

The greek deity phorkys sounds like forkus. All sea deities were represented in glyphs with a trident. The trident was a fleshhook used by priests in many of the archaic religions. The use of the trident can be found in 1 Samuel 2:13

[Ratnat]

if we called a fork a "sfhksfasf" you would be asking the same question. its moot.

All words have a traceable origin.

[Teluog]

Yes, that's my point. I don't think our ancestors grabbed the words out of a bag.

But maybe they did in the same way that babies do when they begin speaking. It could be that the first human made random noises that eventually developed into a series of noises, which became the first speech?

[Sparko]

But maybe they did in the same way that babies do when they begin speaking. It could be that the first human made random noises that eventually developed into a series of noises, which became the first speech?

or it could be that God made man with a language. After all, how did Adam talk to God or Eve?

[Zeluvia]

Women invented language.

Men were perfectly happy with gestures and clicking noises, and imitating animal sounds, and other bodily noises.

I would say that there is no natural language beyond a template for interpretative sounds, that all animals have. A similar template probably exists for body language.

But I do remember reading somewhere that the clicking languages are some of the oldest linguistically.

[Teluog]

or it could be that God made man with a language. After all, how did Adam talk to God or Eve?

Clicking noises? Or maybe they developed the language starting from baby noises.

God could have made them with a pre-installed language no doubt, but I'm not sure if Genesis is clear enough to conclude that Adam n Eve communicated with each other verbally, or can we?

[FreezBee]

Clicking noises? Or maybe they developed the language starting from baby noises.

God could have made them with a pre-installed language no doubt, but I'm not sure if Genesis is clear enough to conclude that Adam n Eve communicated with each other verbally, or can we?

No, I think that Adam just clubbed Eve until she did what he wanted.

But supposedly Adam came up with the names of animals, so apparently he was able to make some sounds.


- FreezBee

[FreezBee]

Women invented language.

Men were perfectly happy with gestures and clicking noises, and imitating animal sounds, and other bodily noises.

Actually, in my humble experience women appear in general to be perfectly happy with grunts and, at best, words expressing aggressivity.


I would say that there is no natural language beyond a template for interpretative sounds, that all animals have. A similar template probably exists for body language.

But I do remember reading somewhere that the clicking languages are some of the oldest linguistically.

And now, how would we know that? How many 100.000+ years old records do we have?


- FreezBee

[Sparko]

Clicking noises? Or maybe they developed the language starting from baby noises.

God could have made them with a pre-installed language no doubt, but I'm not sure if Genesis is clear enough to conclude that Adam n Eve communicated with each other verbally, or can we?

huh? If you actually read genesis you can be sure. If you choose to reject it then you can believe whatever you wish.

[Teluog]

huh? If you actually read genesis you can be sure. If you choose to reject it then you can believe whatever you wish.

I was actually too lazy to check it that day, since I was pretty sick and tired :wink:

[FreezBee]

Just found this article: The Piraha challenge: an Amazonian tribe takes grammar to a strange place (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_24_168/ai_n16029317).

It is about the language of the Piraha people in South America. The Piraha have a language as complex as other languages, yet they lack words for abstractions.

According to the article:

Everett expected criticism. His findings challenge the influential theory that all spoken languages draw on common grammatical rules. Proponents of that premise believe that the human brain comes equipped with grammar networks, as a biological consequence of Stone Age evolution.

Instead, Everett champions an approach that held sway in the first half of the 20th century. Influential anthropologists and linguists of that era argued that cultural values mold how people talk, just as a language's expressive power shapes a culture's traits. If that's the case, basic elements of grammar can differ from one culture to the next, and cultural and social forces continually alter the fundamental rules of language.


- FreezBee

[Zeluvia]

Interesting = )

[FreezBee]

Interesting = )

I knew, you'd like it :teeth:

- FreezBee

[Paintbucket]

That's a pretty neat article. I think we should dumb down civilization so I don't have to learn as many words, kind of like an Orwellian Newspeak.

[Sparko]

words bad. pearls good. give pirate pearls.

[JHardin]

I apologize if this has already been mentioned, but it would seem logical that the most complex of all spoken languages should also the be the original spoken language. Over time, other variations of that original spoken language will have dropped words of phrases, or will have simplified phrases by compounding words,

I'm not a linguistics expert, it's just a thought.

[greentwiga]

Actually, JHardin, you are not far off in your idea. Trade languages all follow certain simple rules. They are what might be called natural languages. All languages get more complex over time. Arabic is one of the hardest. Scholars say 3 year olds have a reasonable mastery of a trade language, 5 years olds have a reasonable mastery of English, but it isn't until 7 that they have a reasonable mastery of Arabic. I don't know the criteria they used.
Another way of determining how ancient a language is, is to analyze all the cognate languages for the most stable words, such as ma (mother). That is how they determined that the IndoEuropean languages originated near the Caucasus. Semitic languages could have originated in Kurdish territories. Similar versions of both techniques are used in genetic analysis.

[JHardin]

Actually, JHardin, you are not far off in your idea. Trade languages all follow certain simple rules. They are what might be called natural languages. All languages get more complex over time. Arabic is one of the hardest. Scholars say 3 year olds have a reasonable mastery of a trade language, 5 years olds have a reasonable mastery of English, but it isn't until 7 that they have a reasonable mastery of Arabic. I don't know the criteria they used.
Another way of determining how ancient a language is, is to analyze all the cognate languages for the most stable words, such as ma (mother). That is how they determined that the IndoEuropean languages originated near the Caucasus. Semitic languages could have originated in Kurdish territories. Similar versions of both techniques are used in genetic analysis.

Very interesting.

[Catholicity]

Perhaps, since it appears, that humans first communicated through body language of sorts....maybe our gestures, facial expressions, dances, fingers, are the natural language.
For example, a baby's cry....its universal, it always means "I need something" perhaps it is at the root. An angry or stern face. A tear of laughter or joy. Could that be a "natural language" of some sort? Just a thought.

[JHardin]

Perhaps, since it appears, that humans first communicated through body language of sorts....maybe our gestures, facial expressions, dances, fingers, are the natural language.
For example, a baby's cry....its universal, it always means "I need something" perhaps it is at the root. An angry or stern face. A tear of laughter or joy. Could that be a "natural language" of some sort? Just a thought.

I listened to this podcast episode about a year ago and your post reminded me of it. Apparently a scientist studying Asian language thinks she has found something along these lines.
http://www.wnyc.org/flashplayer/player.html#/play/%2Fstream%2Fxspf%2F58272

[YourMaster]

There's a bunch of work out there on this, but biologists and linguists aren't completely sure whether the neural wiring that allows for human language evolved as an adaptation for language, or spandrels (other evolutionary processes that are nonadaptive consequences of exapting structures formerly used for other functions). However, the majority view favors adaptation and a common ancestor for language (but beyond that there's numerous theories & the data is pretty obscure).

[greentwiga]

Perhaps, since it appears, that humans first communicated through body language of sorts....maybe our gestures, facial expressions, dances, fingers, are the natural language.
For example, a baby's cry....its universal, it always means "I need something" perhaps it is at the root. An angry or stern face. A tear of laughter or joy. Could that be a "natural language" of some sort? Just a thought.

Even now, there is some debate as to how much of our communication is nonverbal. It is quite high. Still, chimpanzees share this nonverbal to a fair degree, though the verbal language in its complexity is unique to humans.

[Analytic Theist]

I'm a linguistics and philosophy major, so I'll answer the topic's question. Languages can be divided into natural languages and artificial languages. Natural languages are all human languages as a biological feature of the homo sapiens. Artificial languages, like symbolic logic or programming languages, are man made for a specific use e.g. philosophy and computer programming. The term "natural languages" is couched in philosophical and linguistic discourse to differentiate human languages from machine languages, mathematical symbols, etc.

[JHardin]

I'm a linguistics and philosophy major, so I'll answer the topic's question. Languages can be divided into natural languages and artificial languages. Natural languages are all human languages as a biological feature of the homo sapiens. Artificial languages, like symbolic logic or programming languages, are man made for a specific use e.g. philosophy and computer programming. The term "natural languages" is couched in philosophical and linguistic discourse to differentiate human languages from machine languages, mathematical symbols, etc.

I am by no means a linguistics expert, but wouldn't any elaboration of a natural language in essence be artificial? For instance, we use mathematical symbols to express ideas, and we also invent new words and phrases to express ideas. Fundamentally the mathematical symbol and the new word are no different.

So, would natural language only define those languages which aren't artificially perverted?

[Analytic Theist]

I am by no means a linguistics expert, but wouldn't any elaboration of a natural language in essence be artificial? For instance, we use mathematical symbols to express ideas, and we also invent new words and phrases to express ideas. Fundamentally the mathematical symbol and the new word are no different.

So, would natural language only define those languages which aren't artificially perverted?

Coining neologism and adding them to the lexicon doesn't make human languages less natural. Languages are dynamic systems, so they're prone to changes on all linguistic levels.

Here's an analogy: humans can have several means of transportation. Either they can use their legs as natural means, or they can use an automobile as artifical means. Our legs are a natural outgrowth of us as humans, while an automobile isn't found anywhere in nature but must be manufactured for use.

[JHardin]

Coining neologism and adding them to the lexicon doesn't make human languages less natural. Languages are dynamic systems, so they're prone to changes on all linguistic levels.

Here's an analogy: humans can have several means of transportation. Either they can use their legs as natural means, or they can use an automobile as artifical means. Our legs are a natural outgrowth of us as humans, while an automobile isn't found anywhere in nature but must be manufactured for use.

That seems to be comparing apples to oranges. The force behind an automobile is what is artificial. As for language, the force behind all language is the human mind despite whether that language is spoken, written, typed or conveyed by other external means. Language would not be language at all if it didn't have it's origins in the human mind. So to me it seems that all language is natural, they are only differentiated by their means of conveyance.

[Analytic Theist]

That seems to be comparing apples to oranges. The force behind an automobile is what is artificial. As for language, the force behind all language is the human mind despite whether that language is spoken, written, typed or conveyed by other external means. Language would not be language at all if it didn't have it's origins in the human mind. So to me it seems that all language is natural, they are only differentiated by their means of conveyance.

A language is natural if it evolved through natural means outside human control. Artificial languages were made through premeditated human action. Please learn this universally accepted distinction before we die of old age.

[shunyadragon]

A language is natural if it evolved through natural means outside human control. Artificial languages were made through premeditated human action. Please learn this universally accepted distinction before we die of old age.

I have some interest in Linguistic Anthropology in my long study of the Jade Culture of China, and personal study of the evolution of primitive cultures. Natural languages evolved intimately with the function and purpose of primitive from two aspects, the female and male roles in culture. The female roles evolved languages centered on raising and care of children, safety and local gathering of food. The male language centered aspects of life such as hunting, and hierarchial and territorial conflict. In the late Neolithic trade became an important aspect of language and contributed greatly to the evolution of written languages. I believe over time these evolved into the languages we have today.

There are interesting attributes of the Chinese language that reflect ancient roots clearly. Many family names actually reflect infant sounds such as mama, gaga, and baba. Names of animals often mimic animal sounds. The written language retained its primitive picture theme, which is very revealing about the evolution of culture and language in China.

[Neb Hu Hika]

Mox discipuli se liberabunt.