Talk:Natural language

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Linguistics / Applied Linguistics  (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Applied Linguistics Task Force.
 
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Native speakers of constructed languages[edit]

Constructed languages can still have "native" speakers, if children learn it at a young age from parents who have learned the language.

Why is this factoid about here but not in constructed languages? --Ed Poor
I don't think this is actually true, unless the constructed language obeys universal grammar, which I don't know of any that do. Unless there is a citation for this? -- Beland 19:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if got this right, but you seem to be saying that 1) constructed languages cannot have native speakers if they do not obey "universal grammar", and 2) you don't know any constructed languages that obey it. But it is a well-known fact that there are native speakers of Esperanto, whereas universal grammar is a disputed theoretical concept that does not have any commonly accepted definition. --AAikio 06:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, in the same section, the article mentions that Esperanto has not been "naturally standardized" by children who would supposedly rid the language of irregularities. While in some languages this may happen, I've added a few words to that sentence as it sounded patently absurd as written, implying that natural languages should be more internally consistent due to the influence of children. Natural languages are full of irregularities though many children have had to learn and use them, and one of the primary goals of a constructed language is to eliminate as many of these irregularities as possible. MXVN (talk) 16:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
The requirement that natural languages be "naturally evolved" isn't particularly clear and a better criterion would be that a child has acquired it as a native (first?) language and "language" refers to the communicative system learned by the child (which may be strictly different than the "correct" form of, for example, an artificial language spoken to the child by his parents). Universal grammar (which as a concept is not particularly controversial; however its extent and content surely is a matter of intense empirical investigation/debate) doesn't really have much to do with it, although it is a useful theory for explaining why children "tweak" constructed languages that are taught to them by non-native speakers (see for examples of this, Modern Hebrew, Czech).

Modes of languages[edit]

I'm not sure if it should be added, so I'll let someone else do so if they think it's worth noting. In the opening sentence, it is mentioned that languages can be spoken or signed. I'm wondering if that should be eliminated or expanded in a list. There are many more language modes, which would not fit into a concise sentence. They should either be listed or left out. The modes I can come up with are: spoken written signed tactile Certainly the different modes of a language are related, and not all languages have exist in each mode. Actually, 4 modes could be incorporated into a sentence. I'll try.

Sign and Signed Languages[edit]

This section is bizarre. First of all, it contains a clear bias against sign language leading to what is essentially an advertisement for oralism, listing natural sign language last among the options available to deaf people. Secondly, it grossly overinterprets the cited study (Shabata, 2007), suggesting that due to the relatively low white matter growth of the superior temporal gyrus (which is related to spoken language processing) in early-deaf people, sign language is somehow not a natural language. It also relies on the study's vague definition of fluency in ASL, ignoring important factors such as early exposure to the language. Thirdly, the section hardly mentions sign languages at all, focusing instead on deafness and possible "solutions" to the "problem" thereof. Finally, this biased diversion is irrelevant in any case, since a link to the main article for sign language would be entirely more appropriate. I suggest that we do this instead.Danebell (talk) 04:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It is bizarre indeed, or to be more precise, it seems out of context and quite inaccurate. It is true that sign languages develop only in societies where the rate of deafness is high (vocal languages are always the default), but in these societies hearing people acquire it and use it naturally. One doesn't have to be deaf in order to acquire a sign language as a mother tongue. Also, sign languages are not directly related to gestures or hand movement during speech. This is a whole different subject. Indeed this section should be rewritten. DrorK (talk) 04:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I've changed it according to my earlier suggestion. Ideally, the subsection wouldn't be a recapitulation of the main article, but it's a start.Danebell (talk) 05:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Like spoken languages, sign languages can be "natural" or constructed. I added the example of SEE with a citation. I stopped short of calling it "not natural" because that would have been original research (wp:nor). - Mrevan (talk) 11:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

A merger is required![edit]

I think that the article 'human language' should be merged into this one (Natural Language). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.176.210 (talk) 03:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I certainly concur. Nowhere does this article talk about the communication practices of whales or chimpanzees or even ants 99.67.184.222 (talk) 05:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)Dan
No, the two are not synonymous, as human language and the lead of this article do explain: "Human language" is broader, encompassing both natural and (human-accessible) constructed languages. --JorisvS (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
objection The notion of Human language is an umbrella term for constructed languages and natural languages. So, it should not be merged. Sae1962 (talk) 14:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Disagree with the above objection. The other article doesn't have any relevant information which is not present here in greater depth, and this article focuses mainly on human languages anyway. In fact, the entire text of that article is a mere four sentences long, and even says that that "human laguage" and "natural language" are often used synonymously. It makes little sense to have separate articles in this case. Even as you say, "The notion of human language is an umbrella term for constructed languages and natural languages," and that is exactly what is discussed in this article here. MXVN (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
who cares? the fact that they are distinct concepts is enough according to the rules. If the articles contain redundant material, then you should just harmonize them.128.214.200.46 (talk) 07:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Acquisition of spoken vs. written language[edit]

The claim:

Furthermore, natural language acquisition during childhood is largely spontaneous, while literacy must usually be intentionally acquired.[citation needed]

When adding a citation, 91.148.159.4 wrote in the edit summary:

Written languages: whoever requested a citation for *this*?

For the record, I requested it. I was sounding out words in the newspaper before age 3, and during ages 4 to 6, every phrase that went through my mental tape loop would show up in printed or written text on my mental sketchpad before I understood it. I wonder whether I "acquired" reading English in the same way that people "acquire" listening and speaking English, or whether it was just a Tetris effect from teaching myself to read. But then I'm diagnosed gifted. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 01:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Language diversity[edit]

After all, the Language diversity section seems more a depiction of the way Ethnologue classifies languages rather than a summary of studies and data about how many languages are there and how different they are. What I am saying is not that I despise ethnologue, but I would rather see other sources. --MarcelloPapirio (talk) 07:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Suspected copyright problem[edit]

A tag was placed here in good faith misunderstanding of the copyright status of the content: [1]. The book that is linked is actually taken from Wikipedia; on the first page, it says, "Language Editor: By Wikipedians". (See [2]). You'll note that the publisher is PediaPress.

The content has subsequently been removed for copyright concerns - [3]. There is no need to remove this content for copyright reasons, but the source that was cited cannot be used to sustain it, as it is a circular source. It may be appropriate not to return it to the article anyway, without a source. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Verify source[edit]

Source #2 appears to be of dubious authenticity. It is not actually from the book cited, and links to a Google Books document called "Language, by Wikipedians." The section I tagged appears to be from page 56, but as large portions of the book are missing and no e-book is available, no source can be apparently ascertained. --71.116.235.10 (talk) 05:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)