Is there a natural language?

[Paintbucket]

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...=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


- FreezBee

[Philosophickle]

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...=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.