Thoughts on
Language
Mark van Vuuren
2015
Language
is the armoury of the human mind, and at once contains the trophies of its past
and the weapons of its future conquests.[i]
Anywhere on
Earth, individuals of any age, sex, economic or political dispensation, in any
situation, are communicating through language. This strange, patterned
vocalisation is not universally identical but the capacity to vocalize is.
When and how did
this happen? Chomsky argues that 100 000 years ago a single chance mutation
occurred which instilled a language faculty.[ii]
This allowed for communication and the development of a language structure,
e.g. pronunciation (phonetics and phonology), grammar, vocabulary, orthography
(conventional spelling systems) and meaning (i.e. semantics). Chomsky’s
argument raises questions: if there was a singular chance mutation then
one assumes an original language was formed. This might imply that as
the mutant gene spread then the capacity for language was instilled, and this
common language became the basis for future languages (monogenesis). A
counter view is that language developed more or less simultaneously in several
places (polygenesis), and one might ask why this phenomenon did not
occur earlier, if at all.
If there was one
or many points of origin, language still needed to develop. How? Otto Jesperson
(1860-1943) identified 5 theories on the origin of language:
1. The
bow-wow theory, where speech develops through imitating sounds from the
environment, especially animal calls
2. The
pooh-pooh theory, where speech develops through making instinctive sounds, such
as pain, anger, sorrow
3. The
ding-dong theory, where the reaction to a stimulus creates a sound, such as mama
which reflects the lips movement as the mouth approaches the breast
4. The
yo-he-yo theory, where communal labour produces a shared exertion and shared
vocalisation; this develops into communal, rhythmical grunts, which develops
into chants and then into a structured language
5. The
la-la theory, where romantic intimacy initiates human language, i.e. sounds of
offering love, appreciation of love, poetic feeling, even quasi-song
It’s interesting
to note that the first written language was Sumerian or Egyptian (about 3200
BC), and that the oldest written language still in existence is Chinese or
Greek (about 1500 BC).[iii]
Early discourse
on language exists in Plato’s Cratylus,[iv]
in which Socrates debates with Hermogenes and Cratylus. No firm conclusion is
reached, but more importantly, the initial question is asked: Is language a
system of arbitrary signs, or do words have an intrinsic relation to the things
they signify?
In terms of
words, Greek has 5 million words,[v]
and Latin has 5,3 million.[vi]
English has been influenced by both these languages: a 1973 study concluded
English has Greek influence (5%), Latin influence (28%), French influence
(28%), Old & Middle English/ Old Norse/ Dutch influence (25%) and other
(5%);[vii]
English currently comprises 1 025 109 words.[viii]
Currently, the world’s top 10 languages (of 6500)[ix]
are as follows (assume a population of 7 billion)[x]:
Language
|
No. speakers (approx.)
|
|
1
|
Chinese
|
1,197 billion
|
2
|
Spanish
|
414 million
|
3
|
English
|
335 million
|
4
|
Hindi
|
260 million
|
5
|
Arabic
|
237 million
|
6
|
Portuguese
|
203 million
|
7
|
Bengali
|
193 million
|
8
|
Russian
|
167 million
|
9
|
Japanese
|
122 million
|
10
|
Javanese
|
84,3 million
|
Top 10 global languages and
number of speakers
This is where things become interesting:
Were I a native English speaker who was suddenly
transformed into a native Greek speaker, would my worldview remain the same? A
different language is a different vision of life.[xi]
This question would be difficult to prove, and one which might lead to the
conclusion that cultural differences define a worldview, not linguistic differences.
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (1938) combines 2 principles:
1. Linguistic determinism -
language determines the way we think
2. Linguistic relativity - the
distinctions encoded in one language are not found in any other language
The following table shows the language families
of the world, by continent. To focus on the concept of language determining the
way we think (where the emphasis is on the type of thinking as well as the
complexity thereof), one wonders what it must feel like to transform from an
English speaker into a speaker of these language families.
Africa
|
Afro-Asiatic, Indo-European, Khoisan,
Niger-Congo, Nilo-Saharan
|
Australia &
surrounds
|
Australian Aboriginal, Austronesian,
Austro-Asiatic, Indo-Pacific
|
Europe
|
Caucasian, Indo-European, Uralic
|
Asia
|
Altaic, Dravidian, Japanese, Korean, Palaeosiberian,
Sino-Tibetan, Tai, Uralic
|
South America
|
Andean Equatorial, Ge-Pano-Carib,
Macro-Chibchan, Penutian
|
North America
|
Algonquian, Aztec-Tanoan, Eskimo-Aleut, Hokan,
Macro-Siouan, Na-Dené, Penutian,
|
The language families of the world
If one focuses on the complexity of language,
and includes the first principle of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (namely, that
language determines the way we think), the assumption is made that complex
language promotes mental complexity. Given the structure and number of
words in Greek, would Plato’s philosophy have existed if spoken in, say,
Esperanto, which has a mere 900 root words.[xii]
Esperanto is notable in that it is an artificial
language, i.e. a language specifically designed to facilitate international
correspondence. There are many artificial languages, here are 10 from 1880 to
1980:
Artificial language
|
Date
|
Comment
|
Volapuk
|
1880
|
8 vowels, 20 consonants
|
Esperanto
|
1887
|
5 vowels, 23 consonants
|
Idiom Neutral
|
1902
|
|
Latino Sine Flexione
|
1903
|
Latin without inflections
|
Ido
|
1907
|
Modified Esperanto
|
Occidental
|
1922
|
Largely based on Romance languages
|
Novial
|
1928
|
Ido vocabulary and Occidental grammar
|
Interglossa
|
1943
|
|
Interlingua
|
1951
|
Romance-language grammar
|
Glosa
|
1981
|
Modified Interglossa
|
Artificial languages for the period 1880 to 1980
The overriding benefit of an artificial language,
the theory goes, is that it prunes what is not required, and makes
communication more efficient and effective. A second assumption is
presented: Any reasonable person would prefer more to be said in less words.
What would a modern, artificial and efficient
language sound like? My guess is it would contain shorter words able to bridge
with one another. Zipf (1950) comes to mind, who showed that an inverse
relationship exists between word length and
frequency.[xiii]
It is possible that language can both influence human cognitive capacity and
at the same time be improved by said improved cognitive capacity. How? One
answer is the Flynn Effect,[xiv]
which holds that environmental complexity results in a substantial and
sustained increase in IQ scores. The third assumption is presented: As
mental complexity advances, language becomes more complex.
As I write this sentence, and as you read said
same sentence, three elements are evident: Our cognitive capacity has increased
in the last 100 000 years, as has our environmental complexity, and thirdly, language
has developed as well. The end of human creativity is not in sight, and so one
wonders where the peak of human cognition lies and the standard of language
that will accompany that peak capacity. At that point, to sum, we will say what
we mean and mean what we say, efficiently.
It is possible that peak cognition and efficient
language will never materialise, and the language proficiency we utilise now is
as good as it gets. Why? Technology.
·
Currently (2015) the technology[xv]
exists whereby, using a neuro-headset, one can operate an iPhone, move
characters in a computer game, operate an electrical wheelchair or a remote
device like a toy helicopter or a driverless car.
·
Brain-to-brain[xvi]
[xvii]
communication technology; brain-to-brain human communication across 5000 miles has been achieved.
The first limitation to language is our genetic
make-up, and this, one assumes, is still developing. A second limitation is our
environment, and a third is language itself. Is 1200 words the shortest way to
present this essay? Brain-to-brain communication sounds promising; technology
might signal the end of verbal language, but not of communication.
- end -
[i] "Language is the armoury of the human mind, and at once
contains the trophies of its past and the weapons of its future
conquests." Samuel Taylor Coleridge
No comments:
Post a Comment