What is language for? An Essay

The definition of language is as variable and widely debated as language itself – perpetually shifting and developing. The world in which people live is a linguistic composition. Such definitions speak not to the purpose of language: language is for humans. Exploring it as the process and practice that it is, allowing for both external observation and introspective curiosity, gives insight into the way in which language embodies humanity. A linguist could surmise, in the simplest terms, that language is comprised of interactive and expressive functions; while present-day linguists comb through universalism versus relativism, practice versus process, communicative versus innovative function, the ulterior truth remains: humanity is language and language is humanity.

The primary form of external linguistic interaction would be interaction between people – in layman’s terms: communication. One of the original postulated hypotheses for explaining language was that it is simply verbal behavior (Skinner, 1957). Now, were this view still valid, language would not be solely for humans. Skinner’s theory worked on the basis that language can be reduced to rote memorization and behavioral patterns, and in order to illustrate this he created five verbal operants depicting the scenarios to which humans learn to respond to the point where it becomes instinct. Shortly after publication, Chomsky responded with a review attacking Skinner’s behaviorist stance (Chomsky, 1959). Instead, he proposed that the response is in no way dependent on the stimulus. Observation of young children and the way they were capable of mastering both language and grammar - two exceptionally complex concepts - led him to believe that language is closer to an inherent ability of humans rather than that suggested by Skinner. It has since been posited that language can be defined by a set of sixteen features - Charles Hockett’s design features. According to Hockett, “even the most basic of human languages possess these sixteen features.” This sets human language apart from all other animal forms of communication in that no other system fulfills all sixteen traits. Arbitrariness - that there is no natural connection between the words said or even the sounds produced and the corresponding meaning; cultural transmission - whereby humans are not born with the capacity to speak a specific language and instead acquire it from the environment that surrounds them; discreteness - that the sounds we make and use never see themselves being confused with another; displacement - the ability to refer back to incidents that have already occurred or are yet to occur; duality - the notion that there are two realms in language, the individual sounds such as /b/, /a/ and /t/ and then the words “bat” and “tab” which we can derive from them; and finally productivity - the capability to create and invent new linguistic forms on command (Hockett, 1966,). The significance of the above is that this set of characteristics can only be found in their entirety within the language use of the human race. Those sixteen features are crucial in determining the extent to which language is androcentric as opposed to any communication system used by even the most intelligent of other animal species.

Let us consider one of Hockett’s features of language in greater detail: cultural transmission. Cultural transmission is unique because it is reliant on humans and how they interact with the world around them, often without direct dialogue. An interesting example of this is when a book is written and published. Assuming that this is read by people around the world, the author is reaching these people with his message and ideas without the need for face-to-face contact. This process of enculturation is essentially independent of time, with the Bible being the greatest example of that notion. Ideas demonstrated in the Bible continue to dictate the lives and choices of millions of people in the world today, instigating serious events including conflicts and wars. The significance of this is that in any creature community other than humans there is no such everlasting effect, everything that happens in life is frequently nothing more than a fleeting moment, soon to be forgotten. Linguists have noticed the rise of technology in modern society and how this has affected cultural transmission. They have begun to use the terminology first and second order organisms which describe living beings and the technology they use respectively, highlighting how the permanence of technology is impacting the cultural transmission of language (Cavalli-Sforza and Feldman, 1992). Something which has been the subject of extensive research is that of pidgins and creoles, with focus directed towards younger children. When children are learning a pidgin they are able to discern grammatical rules that have not been dictated yet, simply by being fully immersed in the cultural surroundings (Gordon, 2006). Not only this, but when the children mature to adulthood, they are able to pass on the new creole from something which began as a somewhat cruder innovation. This underlines why language is for humans because not only are they capable of understanding existing languages and fully appreciating the grammar, but also of formulating new and original languages as well, thereby passing on such linguistic knowledge through immersion and interaction.

Language is not only the vehicle through which humans interact externally, but it also plays mediator between external and internal cognitive functions. Language takes the abstract concepts and thoughts in the mind, such as emotions and desires, and makes them expressible in the real world. This makes organized humanity possible. Within neurolinguistics, extensive research has been conducted into a sector of the brain known as Broca’s area. This section of the brain plays a vital role in our linguistic capability (Caplan, 2006). Its primary role lies in organizing syntax and sentence structure, allowing humans to develop and arrange our thoughts and feelings in order to be able to articulate them outwardly in a sensical way. A genetic ancestor to the modern-day Homo Sapien Sapien, Homo Habilis, was found to have the beginnings of Broca’s area in development, which would facilitate some neurological pathways leading to the ability to organize the people into something more than a disorganized rabble (Kemmer, 2012) - the beginnings of society. The debate persists as to whether the brain is pre-wired for language or not, however what cannot be denied is that at the very least the brain functions as an organ which develops in sync with language, providing evidence that the human brain has advanced in order to accommodate the acquisition of such. Shortly after Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus arrived and began developing a more coherent language and the ability to coordinate themselves into a civilization not otherwise seen in animals, with the ability to produce more specific commands and directions in order to arrange complex activities (Wynn, 1998). On occasions where animals do exhibit similar grouping behavior it is often biological groups, such as the type of behavior commonly seen in gorillas. In the sense of neurological development, not only is language built for humans but the human brain functionally evolved for language.

Focusing on the capacity of language to aid in humans rationalizing their innermost thoughts, it is again apparent that language differentiates itself from the communication systems that animals utilize. Something which the human race possesses - more definitively than nearly all other species - is sentience; for instance, if a dog saw itself in a mirror it would most likely bark at the mirror, believing that what it sees is not itself but rather another dog. There is no awareness of its own existence. Nevertheless, human sentience would be rendered useless without the presence of language. Language allows humans to conceptualize thoughts and processes to the point where it is possible to think about what one is thinking about - metacognition. This incorporates being conscious of inner emotions in order to command them when necessary (Swartz and Perkins, 1990). The intriguing thing is that all inner-thoughts, from emotions to desires to abstract ideas, are nothing more than a feeling within the body until language is employed to illustrate them in a concrete, expressible way. Without language to frame the plethora of thoughts that occur in the brain, there would be an inextricable gap between what was felt and what could be expressed and acted on. Once more, this applies to the notion of language mediating between the internal and external.

Defining language – this perpetual trial for linguists – is neither a simple nor clear-cut conquest; however, despite the tribulations facing researchers of countless perspectives in deciphering language, the common ground stands as stark and simple as this: humanity. One could both juxtapose and combine contrastive linguistic views to see the common human factor emerge. Exploration of said factor allows for the development of insight; for example, not only is language for humans, humans are made for language (in a manner that no other being can attest to). Furthermore, language is not only for individual human societies or civilizations; language encaptures humanity while humanity embraces language.