THE NATURE OF HUMAN LANGUAGE
DR MADHUSUDAN MALLIK
The
study of the nature of human language is the most fruitful subject that can
ever be thought of. Language is in many ways man’s most wonderful possession
and achievement. Without language there would be no communication of ideas and
without communication of ideas, no progress in arts, science and literature can
be registered.
Language
is a constant feature in man’s daily life. It is as common as the air we
breathe or the bodily movements we make. Language though so common a feature in
everyday life, yet is not so easily workable like other bodily activities. A
child born in a society will not automatically develop speech although his
physical organs to produce a human language will remain the same. He will in
the act of a speech require the fostering guidance of a society. A child taken
away from one society will not speak the language of the society where he was
born but will develop the language of the place where he is transferred. Language
is thus a human activity that varies from society to society and is the result
of a long continued social heritage.
Language
is a distinguishing feature in man which differentiates him from all other
forms of aloga, i.e., speechless
beings. No animal is ever found to possess it. No society of man either existed
in the past or exists in the present where the gift of speech is absent. As a
vehicle of thought and culture language is endlessly flexible and adaptible. As an instrument to communicate events of
history it is unique, as a media to reproduce literary niceties or subtleties,
it is infinitely suggestive, as an object of curiosity and metaphysical reality
it is surprisingly wonderful.
Language
is familiar to us. It is common, very common to us. We live in the midst of language, we have our being in language. So
common and so natural is language to us that we seem to forget its very
existence. A moment’s reflection shows that it is extremely fascinating,
curiously suggestive, definitely practical and highly repaying. We all know
what language is but the real difficulty begins when we attempt to define it.
Definition
It
is customary in matters scientific to start with definitions. All definitions
are taken as dangerously necessary. A definition is not a description. A
definition usually tries to set forth the proper qualities that give it a
definite shape, a distinctive feature and a diagnostic value for recognition. A
definition is not static. It is dynamic and moves with every change it faces.
To
define language with precision is an exacting task. Language is looked at from
a multiplicity of viewpoints. It is a subject of philosophy, psychology and
sociology. The neurologist, the physicist and the logician take note of it. The
literary artist and linguist regard language as their special preserve. Even
people in the ordinary walk of life have of late evinced a keen interest in
language irrespective of their understandings of the nature and function of
language. There is, therefore, no wonder that the definition of language will
differ. A few of the definitions are reproduced below:
i.
“Language is the expression of thought by
means of speech sounds.”–Sweet.
ii.
“The ever-respected labour
of the mind to utilise articulated sounds to express
thoughts.”–Humboldt
iii.
“Language is defined as the learned
system of arbitrary
vocal symbols by means of which human beings as members of a
society interact and communicate in terms of their culture.” –G. L. Trager.
iv.
Language is a purely human and
non-instinctive method of communicating ideas, emotions, desires
by means of a system of voluntarily produced symbols.” –E. Sap.
The
definitions given above are not mutually exclusive but supplement one another
and bring out different aspects of language.
Etymology
Language
is derived from Middle English ‘langage’ is from old
French ‘language (from langage ‘tongue’) which is
ultimately from Latin, lingua, ‘tongue.’
Language and lower
animals
The language of man and that of animals differ, as the lower animals can only vocalise, i.e., they can express a limited meaning with calls, grunts, yells, mons, etc. Furthermore, the sounds made by the animals continue in the same form, whereas human language varies at all times. The animals emit the same sounds–dogs bark, cats mew, lambs bleat, horses neigh, donkeys bray, lions roar, etc. Even birds (the parrot, the maina, etc.) that imitate human sounds make a restricted use of sounds. Their sounds are unconnected and they cannot speak like human beings. No human group, however primitive or backward or illiterate, is found on earth which does not possess the faculty of speech.
As
distinct from lower animals man can verbalise, i,e., can express judgments with
verbal symbols. Words separate man from lower animals. It is by means of words
that man can transmit his information from generation to generation and can
store and disseminate knowledge. Man can further augment knowledge already
acquired in previous generations but lower animals, it is presumed lose
everything when they die. Animals can no doubt communicate but man has the
dexterity to make his communications a unique pattern of human behaviour.
A
human language is adaptable to any circumstances–past, present or future. It
can delve into the hoary past and even can prognasticate
the future. Animal communications can only refer to here and now. It is
instinctive, inflexible and invariable. Man can create concepts, combine words,
invent idioms and phrases and evolve sentences, while lower animals can only
repeat their utterances over and over again for countless eons of time. No
primate has ever evolved a prototype of speech, no anthropoid has ever added
anything to its vocabulary and no human child in isolation (cf,
the Hessian Wolf-Boy of 1349, Lithuanian Bear-Boy of 1661, Wild Peter of
Hanover of 1724, Ramu of Indian sub-continent, etc.)
has developed a speech. Language is an acquirement, it
thrives only in a linguistic community.
Speech
is a faculty which differentiates man (man ‘to think’) from the lower animals.
The development of speech in man is a slow and painful process. The Greeks had
a fine word ‘aloga’ (a = without and logos = speech)
for animals. The animals can communicate their feelings by means of certain
sounds which are hardly worth the name of a language. To be language properly
so called the power of thought must lie at the back. Language is the medium of
communications and speech is the machinery through which the medium is
operated. Language embraces wider domain including the society and speech is concerned
with individuals. Language is enduring (so long as it is accepted in society)
whereas speech is transient. Language has two aspects–i.
individual act of speaking (abstract) and ii. conversation (concrete).
As
a result of the synchronistic study of language, importance was naturally
attached to the study of living languages and speech in particular assumed an
all-embracing position. Thus the Swiss savant, Ferdinand de Sassure
(1857-1913), came forward with a theory of language. He made a three-fold
aspect of language and concentrated mainly on two of them. He regarded language
(human language as a whole) as having two aspects–langue (the
language system) and parole (the act of speaking). His idea may briefly
be illustrated.
Le langage
It
has no exact English equivalent. It embraces language in all its forms and
manifestations. It includes two complimentary
aspects:
i.
Le langue ‘language’,
the sum total of speech sounds used in a community and the meaning attributed
to them.
ii.
La parole ‘speech’,
man’s capacity to use language as a means of
communication.
Language and Dialect
It
is difficult to draw a distinct line of demarcation between a language and a
dialect. A
A
dialect is spoken by a section of a speech community in a certain portion of a
territory having a whole set of speech differing from that of others in
pronunciation, grammar, forms and meanings. Dialects are so similar that
speakers of neighbouring areas do not experience any
difficulty in understanding one another. Dialects are not in all cases a
corruption or mutation of standard language. Every great language owes its
origin to certain dialect or dialects.
In
our day-to-day conversation we notice differences in the speech of a highly
educated person, an ordinary fellow and a rustic. A dialect is a variety of a
language current in a district or locality and has its specialities
in pronunciation, vocabulary and phrases. The character of a dialect is that it
is delightful, racy, pithy and vigorous. A dialect may be indigenous to a
particular place (cf. the Pennsylvanian Dutch, a blend of Frankish or Allemanmc. It has now produced a literature). Dialects may
also be geographical or social (cf. different classes, castes or occupations).
Dialects
are not of conscious creation. Their origin is steeped in obscurity or like the
beginning of human speech buried in oblivion. In a community having constant
communications individual differences tend to merge in the general speech of
the community and some sort of uniformity prevails. If by chance separation of
one community from that of another takes place and lasts for a reasonable
length of time differences gradually crop up between them. The differences may
be great or small according as the different lengths of time. If the length of
time after separation is considerable the difference may be greater which
ultimately leads to the development of a new and separate language.
Notwithstanding this difference a number of common features persists which
enable us to surmise that they were at one time one and the same dialect. Thus
the kinship between English and German is apparent in many words (cf. Eng.
milk; Ger. milch; Eng. bread; Ger. brot ; Eng. waster; Ger. waster, Eng. flesh, Ger. fleisch, etc.). The connection between English and Latin
may similarly be illustrated (cf.
It is easy to differentiate English
from Italian. But in
Standard language
Standard language is a language with
an official recognition and use by the educated members of the society (cf. the
King’s or Queen’s
English in
Characteristics of a
language
A number of special traits is usually associated with a language. A few of them may be
enumerated below:
i.
LANGUAGE IS A SYSTEM
A system implies some sort of unity,
regularity and meaningfulness in certain observable features of behaviour. Thus a legal system denotes an orderly
description of laws prevalent in a country with their relations to one another.
The screaming of an infant does not constitute language but when it
systematizes the noises it is language. Language thus as a
system means that the units comprising it are coherently whole. The
sounds of a language are not haphazard, they are not capricious, they are
well-ordered and follow definite rules, i.e., they are a code or body of rules
which have places within the system.
ii. LANGUAGE IS A SET OF SOUNDS
Language is made up of sound or
sounds but all sounds do not form the rudiments of a language. Sounds like ah,
oh or interjections convey ideas but they do not constitute language. The cry
of the cuckoo, the bleating of the lamb, the hooting of the ape, the quackling of the duck, etc., are fairly articulate but they
are not language, as they do not combine together to form ideas and judgments.
The communication of mammals are also sets of sounds.
By sounds animals can indicate dangers to their companions but they cannot
locate the nature of the danger. If any source or location is indicated, it is
merely instinctive.
iii. LANGUAGE
IS A SYMBOL
A symbol indicates a dualism, the
signifier or the thing signified or better the form
and the meaning. A linguistic symbol tries to represent externally (by means of
work-symbols, etc.) what is manifest internally, i.e., emotion, volition, etc.
It is not always physically possible to bring out what is passing in the
innermost recesses of the mind. So expressions like “I cannot tell, words
betray me, etc.,” are not vague utterances but are symbols of the inherent
difficulties. A linguistic symbol is normally unconscious but on occasions it
becomes conscious. Thus when an endeavour
is made to suppress one language in place of another or to revive one language
in favour of another, linguistic symbols become
conscious.
A symbol is a token of the thing
rather than the thing itself. There is nothing in the nature of things that
gives the symbol a meaningful content. It is the tacit agreement or convention
that gives the symbol an arbitrary character. A symbol is different from a sign
which has a direct bearing on the object (cf. water falling from a tree is the
sign of rains). Linguistic symbols if juxtaposed cease to operate as symbols.
iv.
LANGUAGE SYMBOLS ARE VOCALIC
Language symbols are vocal. There
are other symbols:
(a) Gesture: Gesture is intimately
bound up with tonal expressions. A gesture, however enlightening, cannot
express a complicated thought process. The lexicons of human gestures comprise
a vocabulary (i.e., distinct and expressive movements of the hands, arms, fingers,
faces, etc.) of more than 700,000 forms. Other gestures are–sign-language of
the North American Indian: Hand imagery of the Hawaian
Hula; Dances of Bali, Cambodia, etc.; Japanese flitation
of the fan; Devices in the sports world; Signs used by merchants and traders;
Heliographs, etc.
(b) Special Codes: Semaphore, a highly developed form of gestures-Morse
code, etc.
(c) Written signs: Signs of arithmetic and algebra (plus,
minus, equals, etc.)
(d) Colour signs: A red stop
light, a green light, etc.
(e) Picture signs: Road signs.
(f) Sound signs: Beating of drums, Chiming of bells;
Tickling of clocks; Calling of bugles; Blowing of whistles, etc.
None of the symbols, however illuminating, constitute
language. Vocal symbols are thus the sounds produced by the human vocal organs
(lungs, larynx, lips, teeth, etc.). All sounds produced by the human vocal
organs are not linguistic symbols. Sneezing, coughing, crying, etc., have no
symbolic values, since they do not represent anything outside themselves. It is
only when they convey some sort of conventional meaning,
they may stand for some marginal place in a linguistic community.
v. LANGUAGE IS CONVENTIONAL
There is no necessary connection between linguistic means
and what it symbolises. Thus an animal may be called
horse in English, cheval in French, pferd in German,
etc. None of the forms seem to be more adequate or important for the animal to designate.
Even onomatopoetic words on analysis turn out to be conventional in character.
Take the Bengali work ‘kal-kal’, English ‘gurgle’,
French ‘glou-glou’, etc. They all imitate natural
sounds but they are quite different. Thus the sounds of a dog are expressed in
English as ‘wow-wow’; French ‘gnaf-gnaf’, etc. All
these words are appropriate signs, since they are formed by tacit agreement by
members in distinct social groups.
vi. LANGUAGE, A MEANS OF COMMUNICATIONS
Language is one of the many means of human communications,
others being already referred to.
vii. LANGUAGE HAS A PATTERN OF
ITS OWN
Every language
has a pattern, a structure of its own. It is the pattern which determines the
model of a language and to which the utterances of the speakers conform.
viii. LANGUAGE IS COMPLETE
It does not mean that every language
has a word for everything. It simply means that the speakers of any language
can express any object or idea ever if it is absent from its vocabulary. Its
absence from the vocabulary merely indicates that its speakers did not like
that.
ix.
LANGUAGE IS A LEARNED BEHAVIOUR
Many of us think that speech is
automatic and innate. We take it for granted that we can walk or climb, so we
can speak. Nothing could be more erroneous than this. The act of speech is not
the result of physical activity. Left to himself a child can develop his
walking ability, and children born in any part of the world develop the habit
of walking in almost the same way. But left to himself
a child would not develop talking, he would require the knowledge of verbal
symbols agreed upon by people in a society. Speech is thus a learned behaviour. It involves extremely complicated physiological
processes. It also takes into account an equally difficult social and
psychological process of oral communications.