Talk:Language (general)

Talk:Language Archives

Archive 1, 4-27-07: Talk:Language/Archive1

proposed refocus of this article

The Language article is currently heavily weighted towards natural language but I think that might change simply by moving some of that material out into a natural language subarticle and adding other categories. Absent objections, I may do that. I also would like to remove the {{Linguistics}} template, on grounds that this particular article is headed towards becoming cross-disciplinary, of interest in Computers, History, Philosophy etc. Pat Palmer 23:46, 13 May 2007 (CDT)

I just did it already. Pat Palmer 00:18, 14 May 2007 (CDT)

I don't know about removing the {{Linguistics}} template. Yes, this article is certainly getting cross-disciplinary (as it should), but the study of Language per se (including that beyond natural language) is the defining characteristic of linguistics as a discipline! (That would be akin to removing the Biology Workgroup from the Biology page because the disciplines of anthropology, psychology, and chemistry have a significant stake in the article.) Perhaps removing anthropology and philosophy as secondary workgroups is in order (and I say this as an anthropology editor, too) if we're trying to resist disproportionate influence of some disciplines over overs. But I worry that removing secondary workgroups would diminish the visibility of the article, which could reduce the contributions by a wider range of particularly relevant authors. —Richard J. Senghas 10:23, 14 September 2007 (CDT)

Hi Richard, thanks for working on this page. In my opinion, Linguistics should be the first workgroup categorizing this article. I'm not convinced on the template down the side though. I recently came across this quote in CZ:Sage_advice_on_writing_CZ_articles: "The value of a good summary article is in the choice of what details to leave out. ---Jaron Lanier". The word "language" means something quite different in, say, computer science than in linguistics. It feels wrong to me to slant the very top article towards linguistics by adding a linguistics template down the side, since language has strong meanings in many contexts besides linguistics. My opinion at present, anyway. I'm open to additional ideas here. But I wouldn't go and put a "computer science" template on the Computer article, because I also consider that word (computer) to have (at the most general overlook of a top-level article) perhaps of very widespread applicability across several fields of study.Pat Palmer 20:36, 16 September 2007 (CDT)

I am not so sure that the term language as used in linguistics is necessarily all that different from that used in the computer sciences and other disciplines. (I was in the Silicon Valley computer R&D field before returning to academia, so I say this with some familiarity of both those worlds.) Many linguists do work with/on computer languages, as well as artificial languages of various sorts, and the field of computational linguistics is yet another area of overlap. Perhaps your view of what counts as linguistics is a bit narrower than what I espouse. I do think, though, that we do want more sources that address the very definition of language in this article. Among others, we'll have to have at least Hockett's "design features" mentioned....

I agree that the template down the side pointing to the rest of linguistics might be overly directive. I misunderstood your initial comment, erroneously thinking that you were referring to the metadata template and linguistics as the proper workgroup. I was probably over-tired when I responded above (9/14).

Richard J. Senghas 22:42, 16 September 2007 (CDT)

Please have a go at the article and do with it what you think needs doing.Pat Palmer 18:18, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

PS - At the time the above trail started, the article was completely different. I've pretty much restarted it since then. It needs more expert oversight than I can provide.Pat Palmer 18:20, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

archive of removed material about "animal language"

This stuff was controversial anyway. I didn't write it and I don't necessarily know if it needs to be included. I'm placing it here for now in case it needs to be retrieved:

The term "[[animal language]]s" is often used for non-human 
languages. Most researchers agree that these are not as 
complex or expressive as [[human language]]; they may 
better be described as [[animal communication]]. Some 
researchers argue that there are significant differences 
separating human language from the communication of other 
animals, and that the underlying principles are unrelated.

In several publicised instances, non-human animals have 
been trained to mimic certain features of human language. 
For example, [[chimpanzee]]s and [[gorilla]]s have been 
taught hand signs based on [[American Sign Language]]; however, 
they have never been successfully taught its grammar. There 
was also a case in 2003 of [[Kanzi]], a captive bonobo 
chimpanzee allegedly independently creating some words to 
mean certain concepts. While animal communication has 
debated levels of [[semantics]], it has not been shown to 
have [[syntax]] in the sense that human languages do. 

Some researchers argue that a continuum exists among the 
communication methods of all social animals, pointing to 
the fundamental requirements of group behaviour and the 
existence of "[[mirror cells]]" in [[primate]]s. This, 
however, may not be a [[scientific]] question, but is 
perhaps more one of [[definition]]. What exactly is the 
definition of the word "language"? Most researchers agree 
that, although human and more primitive languages have 
[[Analogy|analogous]] features, they are not 
[[wikt:homologous|homologous]].