Talk:Language

Talk:Language
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Talk:Language".

content

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Language article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1, 2

This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of November 14, 2007.

To-do list for Language:

· history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:

Expand:
- Origins of language
- Written versus spoken language
- Language versus dialect
- Creoles and pidgins

The spoken word version of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles. To participate, visit the project page.

Language portal

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Languages, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, and easy-to-use resource about languages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Additional information:
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. Feel free to make short comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.
	This article is a vital article.
	This article is one of the core set of articles every encyclopedia should have.

NPOV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

opening paragraphs

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

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

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

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

I removed the sentence "Language is emerging as the central preoccupation of our time.^[1]" from the opening paragraphs because I doubt that the majority of people could possibly agree with the statement (even if the principle maintainers of this article could ;-) ). Based on the colloquial definition of the word "preoccupation", I don't think that the sentence can stand without some sort of explanation, and if explanation is necessary, it should be located further down in the page, not in the opening paragraphs. -Stuart 18:17, 16 June 2007 (EST)

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

Deleted Section

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

==Language is not just the spoken word== A very strong type of language is body language. A man is walking down the sidewalk of his favorite city. It is always windy, but it doesn’t bother him a bit because he is too content with the surroundings. As he is strolling aimlessly, he passes a cute little coffee shop pinned between two towering department stores. As he peers in the window, his attention is taken hold of by the sight of the most beautiful woman he has ever seen. She notices him too. They share the most enchanting glance; their eyes locked-in as if they will never look any where else again. It was love at first sight. The man walks into the coffee place and approaches the woman. He introduces himself to—what he hoped to be—his soul mate. The woman pauses for a moment and gives the man a slightly confused look. She begins to introduce herself and the man realizes she is French. He has found his soul mate and they don’t share one common word in their vocabulary. This man and woman were hooked on one enticing look. They had no idea they were of different nationalities; they didn’t care. The minds of most believe thoughts and feelings can only be expressed through the spoken word which obviously has to be shared between two people of the same tongue, but these two very different people shared one of the deepest feelings between each other without ever having to speak a word. If such a strong message can be communicated with one glance, then why isn’t body language considered language? Another very efficient and well-known form of body language is sign language. My Aunt is hearing-impaired; she has to wear high powered sound-enhancing hearing aids in both ears. When she gave birth to her youngest son the doctor was reluctant to inform her that her son was completely deaf. Impaired hearing is common on that side of my family, so it wasn’t anything new to anyone, but it was going to be different for my aunt and uncle. Instead of teaching their son of two years old how to talk, they had to teach him sign language. My cousin didn’t know what spoken language was; all he knew was he could communicate through motions of his hands. Most people believe thoughts and feelings can only be expressed through the spoken word which obviously means both of these people have to be able to hear and speak, but my little cousin expressed everything he had to say through sign language and never had to hear or say a word. Body language is a good example of a form of language that proves the word should be considered in a broad sense, not narrowed to speech. Sometimes the word language can be used to describe a system of symbols and signs used to express information. One example of this is mathematics. I have a friend who is taking calculus II which is taught by a professor from a different country. Naturally, this professor is very hard to understand and she doesn’t always pronounce words and phrases as we would in America. Despite this little difference my friend has with his professor he is doing well because math is a system of communication that can be done through numbers and symbols. This professor does all her teaching on a blackboard so my friend just takes notes and follows her work she is writing. He is able to watch her as she solves different mathematical situations and then go over his notes with the book later and he makes sense of it all. Even though this professor has trouble communicating with her students through the spoken word, she obviously does a good job of communicating on a mathematical stand-point. Another example of a system that uses symbols and a set of rules to express information is the language of computers. A computer is not made up of words and sentences; it makes sense of everything you make it do through ones and zeros. Different patterns of these two numbers make up everything a computer is designed to do; whether it is supposed to run a program, open a document, or send an e-mail. We are able to communicate to each other all over the world through e-mail and this requires no spoken words at all. The computer doesn’t need to use words to know where you want that e-mail to be sent. Computer science is also a good example of how information can be expressed—which is the true definition of language—without ever speaking or writing a word.

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

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

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

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

Why no Language Family picture?

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

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

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

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

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

The requested clean-up begins

Hello everyone,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

what language does and how it does it

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

Citing sources

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

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

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

I specifically quoted that phrase for 2 reasons:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello Everyone,

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

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

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

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

Native American Languages

Where do the languages of Native Americans fit in?

Language Predicated Educational Games

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

auxiliary language vs. constructed language

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

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

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

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

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

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

Enumerating Living Languages

This is both a comment and a request for assistance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Signed Languages

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

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

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

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

Hello, Topmark!

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

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

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

Please, do add more about ASL & BSL.

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

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

Does anyone know how to ...?

Hello,

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

Thanks for your help in advance!

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

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

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

Scope of this article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When you say,

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

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

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

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

Etymology

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

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

The scientific validity of language

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

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

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

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

death due to stop of change???

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

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

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

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

IcycleMort 13:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Origins of Language or Death of a Language

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

Controlling codes in languages

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

Study of languages

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

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

Linguistics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Origin

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

new second intro paragraph of 1 Oct 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your Ad Here

Contents