Talk:Language

Duplicated section

My goodness, what is the matter with me? I just discovered the entire Language and Culture section duplicated word for word under Culture, including all the refs missing from here! We don't do that I'm pretty sure - if any of you sysadmins know different be sure and let me know. If we did half the encyclopedia would be duplicates, triplicates, etc. Time and time again I have seen material removed as duplicating other material word-for-word. So, in response I am going to remove this material with a link to Culture (its original source) except I will try to use a few phrases by way of introduction. So sorry. This is very sticky. I do not wish to be uncivil, only correct.Dave (talk) 19:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I wrote it with user:Cnilep for the Culture article and then I realized that the article of language did not mention the cultural aspects of language at all so I copied it here as well. I think it is important to treat in both articles.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

There's a question of what you mean by "treat." WP is all interlinked so with a click or at most 2 you can access any treatment. Is a duplication a different treatment or the same treatment? If you mean a different write-up I can see that; you might want to tailor the write-up to the article. If you look above you can see that I left and enhanced write-ups on topics that also appeared elsewhere; that is because I checked those articles and saw that the write-ups were different. Straight duplication, though, is something different. It is like a subroutine in code; why should you include the subroutine code over and over when you can put it once in one place and reference it from many places (at least in writing uncompiled code). So, I would not think it a waste of time if you wrote a special section just for this article, but are you sure you want to do that? Do you have something different to say? Since you are in such a good humor, let me say that in my field (tech writing) an editor of one's work is a precious commodity, seldom can a company afford one, but they sure are useful people to have. A second pair of eyes on your writing is worth money in my field. You have, however, to learn that fact usually the hard way. So excuse me if I edit your stuff; nobody on this earth is perfect and can do things right the first time, although I did know a programmer who gained fame by doing just that; he wrote a difficult program that compiled and ran the very first time. His career was made (until he had the bad luck to meet me), but all the rest of us are just people. So thank you for not reverting that or going any further with resentment. My advice is for you and your friend to do a special write-up just for this article, I will give it an edit, and that will be that. What would you like to say that would be specific to language#culture and not to culture#language? Maybe you need time to give it some thought. No rush. We are worth the effort I do believe but few of us have the time to do it all at once. I'm sorry if I gab too much. I find it hard to communicate without talking.Dave (talk) 21:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll see when I can get time to write a similar section changing the emphasis from culture to language. It could probably also be better referenced than it was. No hard feelings, I was just explaining why it was duplicated (which I btw don't feel is necessarily a bad thing - I think that usually a reader prefers looking for e.g. stuff on language prefers reading all relevant material in one article instead of going off to several related subartiloes).·Maunus·ƛ· 07:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Give me the liberty to freely discuss above all others. I've often used your argument for printed manuals, where you have to do a lot of work heaving books around and running around here and there to try and find them. The network is a different case. WP's main advntage is, it ties all knowledge together in a matrix. A few clicks and you can go anywhere if those anywheres are set up. I appreciate your willingness to discuss. I think in fact the "no repetion" policy (within reason) is WP policy. I'm not an admin so I can't pull rank. The policy for admins is, they shall behave like any other editor, but in fact I have not known any who did not manage to get in a personal dig letting us know who is boss. Well so what. Someone has to be boss. I got no hard feelings. Sometimes I may lose my temper in a flash but there is no colder water on that process than to find out you were wrong after all. I'm going on with the edit. Ciao and happy new year.Dave (talk) 13:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

French Academy

"In modern Western philosophy, speculation by authors such as Thomas Hobbes and later Jean-Jacques Rousseau led to the Académie française declaring the subject off-limits."

This was tagged. It seems suspect to me because the academy is concerned with the purity of the French language not with anthropological speculations on the origin of language. It's regulatory agency. I did an Internet check, couldn't find any such policy or regulation. I did find that judges from the academy sat on the board of the Prix Volney of 1849, amd that some of the works submitted for it were on the origin of language. That seems a paradox, or else the WP statement is wrong, so I'm putting this here for now. Do check it out.Dave (talk) 14:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days.--Oneiros (talk) 18:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Language Classification

Might I suggest adding a section where languages are classified? Maybe a listing of Asian vs. Western vs. Latin languages... or something like that? 205.115.81.37 (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

A section on the worlds languages might be a very good idea, describing the worlds major languages and language families. However "Asian", "Western" and "Latin" languages are not a classification that is used by anyone. ·Maunus·ƛ· 06:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight given to constructed languages

This articles gives much undue attention to constructed languages. In the description of languages constructed languages are mostly irrelevant and not usually given any attention. This also comes down to using the qualifier "natural" before language. Language (without qualification) IS natural language - constructed languages, programming languages (not really languages at all but rather codes) etc. are merely recent developments of with specific uses. A much more relevant distinction would be between language as a particular complex symbols ("A language" - e.g. English) and language as a faculty ("Human language"). ·Maunus·ƛ· 08:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Lead

Proposed text for lead, 2009 version:

Language is the intelligent transformation of thought (cognition) into discrete semantic and logical concepts (words, grammatical particles), and the patterned usage of these concepts (grammars) to form expressions (statements, questions, requests, declarations, conditionals).

(continued...)

Image caption: " Cuneiform is one of the first known forms of written language, but spoken language is believed to predate writing by tens of thousands of years at least. " Language is the intelligent transformation of thought (cognition) into discrete semantic and logical concepts (words, grammatical particles), and the patterned usage of these concepts (grammar) to form expressions (statements, sentences). When used in communication, expressions which contain valid semantics and logic are said to be comprehensible, and may convey meaning and facilitate understanding. In humans, natural language uses speech, wherein words (encapsulations of concept) are communicated audibly by the usage of phonemes —mouth-created sounds assembled to represent words. Combining spoken words in accord with rules of language creates spoken expressions, constituting speech. Writing is a graphical symbolic representation of speech, representing either discrete concepts or phonemes. Communication through speech, along with historic geographical and cultural divergence, has generated a diverse number of differentiated "natural languages" —each being distinguished systems of expression that have particular rules and standards for pronunciation, word formation, and grammar, along with particular cultural traditions guiding expression. Words are assembled in accord with the semantic values and grammatical logic inherent to the particular natural lanugage (ie. lexemes, affixes, operators). Language usage has led to the development of greater conceptualization and problem-solving skills, leading up to the ability to reason and the ability to form complex rational arguments. In Ancient Greek philosophical terminology, the same word, logos, was used as a term for both language or speech and reason, and the philosopher Thomas Hobbes used the English word "speech" so that it similarly could refer to reason, as will be discussed below. More commonly though, the English word "language", derived ultimately from lingua, Latin for tongue, typically refers only to expressions of reason which can be understood by other people, most obviously by speaking.

-Stevertigo (w | t | e) 23:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Sign languages

Is is my eyes or this articles doesn't really mentions sign languages? Not even a link to Sign language! 187.13.6.18 (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Sign language is mentioned in the lede section (fourth paragraph), in the 'see also' and once in the animals section. None of them really discuss it much as a phenomenon though - maybe it would be a good idea to give a bit more mention. Perhaps in either the 'natural languages' or 'properties of language' sections we could include a statement to the effect that the symbols of language are usually verbal or written ones, but that some languages use hand symbols - that seems like a natural way to bring it up. Any thoughts? Olaf Davis (talk) 18:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

New structure proposal for this article

I think the current structure of the article is rather ecclectic (not to say random). I think a rewrite and a restructuring would be a good idea. I have based this outline on other encyclopedias entries on language and on the general build-up of general works on language and linguistics.

1. Lead
2. Defining language (what is language and what isn't. problems of defining language. The differences between language as "a language" (e.g. Swahili), as a cognitive faculty, as a set of symbols etc.)
   1. The study of language
   2. Language as a mental faculty
   3. Language as a formal symbolic system
   4. Language as a tool for communication
   5. Animal language?
3. The parts of language
   1. Sounds and symbols
   2. Syntax
   3. Semantics
4. Origins of language (the current theories of the rise of human language)
5. the physiology of language
   1. Speech production
   2. Language and the brain
   3. Language acquisition
   4. Sign languages
6. Language and culture
   1. Transmission of language
   2. Social differentiation in language
   3. Language varieties: dialect, register
7. Language in history
   1. Language change
   2. Historical linguistics
8. Language classification
   1. Language families
   2. Linguistic typology
9. Constructed languages

I will appreciate comments and additions, and in a while I wil start working on introducing this structure to the article. ·Maunus·ƛ· 00:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Without thinking about your exact proposal very much yet, I see no problems and moreover the basic intention of structuring this article is good. It has tended to develop by accretion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 02:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it makes more sense to have this layout, particularly with "Origin" before "Definition" because something is not defined until it comes into being. I don't even see it as chicken or egg, because language existed long before attempts to define it. --David Shankbone 22:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Endangered languages

These have not been mentioned in the article, please do. Also include a link to Red Book of Endangered Languages —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.223.239 (talk) 08:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

aye bru —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.71.210.5 (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Language and human language

This page should be called Human language. The term language can be used for things such as computer language which are obviously not included here. The Language page should just be a disambiguation page (such as the already existing one). --Jotamar (talk) 11:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Some words are more important than others and this is a clear case where there is a main meaning of language, and then extended meanings which are all extensions of the original meaning and still clearly understood by everyone to be so.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. There's information about this kind of issue here. garik (talk) 13:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Phonology in the intro

In regards to this part:

"All languages rely on the process of semiosis to relate a sign with a particular meaning. Spoken and signed languages contain a phonological system that governs how sounds or visual symbols are used to form sequences known as words or morphemes"

Does phonology really apply to completely signed languages and their visual symbols? Every time I've encountered mention of phonology or phonetics before, it had to do with sounds specifically. A later section of this same article even reads, "The ways in which spoken languages use sounds to construct meaning is studied in phonology. The study of how humans produce and perceive vocal sounds is called phonetics."