Talk:Language

Peer Review

Language

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review becaus I've recently expanded it drastically, and would like some outside imput before deciding whether to nominate for GA. Given that the topic is so huge I am sure I've left out something important, but at this point I am blind to it myself. Also it would be good with a second pair of eyes to scout out any erroneous or dubious statements I may have introduced unwittingly.

Thanks, ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Review by Peter Isotalo

First off, I think this is a great undertaking. You barely ever come across such a general article topic that is this well-written. In my view, this is prime FA material that seems appropriately complete in terms of contents. The concerns I have is mostly a matter of improving prose and straightening out a few unclear statements. So here we go:

• I don't like the Babel image sitting on top of the article. It's a well-known language myth, but language myths don't really have much to do with linguistics. I think it should be moved down to "Language endangerement" where the Babel myth is actually mentioned. Otherwise, I'd look at it as unnecessary undue weight of a Biblical perspective through graphics.
• Consider explaining "suprasegmental" at least once. An important term, but bound to seem obscure to non-linguists. it was already explained in both of the cases where it appeared.
• I think it would be good to explain "formant" in just a few words. It's a fairly technical phonetic term.
• Much of what comes after the first sentence of "Grammatical categories" is quite difficult to follow without thorough knowledge of linguistic terminology. Could it be lightened up somehow?
• Concerning the Yupik example, it seems as if the number of translations doesn't quite match the apparent number of Yupik morphemes. Is ksaite by any chance "say-negation"? (it was just a dash instead of a period making it seem as if there was a morpheme to few, -uq is third.person.singular.indicative)
• "For example in the Australian language Dyirbal a married man must use a special set of lexical items when speaking in the presence of his mother in-law." – "Lexical items" is a bit jargon-ish. Would "vocabulary" or maybe just "words" suffice?
• "(corresponding to German fater - fiʃ, and Nordic faðer – fisk)" – Why "ʃ"? What exactly is the spelling based on? Because clearly this is not modern German, or it would be Vater and Fisch. And the "Nordic" words seems more like Old Norse judging by the "ð". Clarification would be good.
• "gradual petrification of idioms" – Is it possible to find a slightly less obscure word for "petrification"?
• In "Language contact", the use of "adstratum", "substratrum" and "superstratum" comes without much explanation. Could more common terms be used, or could they perhaps be explained somehow?
• Why are "Chinese languages" in the Ethnologue table counted the same way as languages that are generally considered mutually intelligible? As far as I know, Wu, Hakka and Yue are about as similar to Chinese as German is to English. Are there no figures for just Mandarin Chinese (the dialects, that is, not the standard language)?
• The last two sections seem somewhat weaker prose-wise than the rest of the article. I think they could use a working-over. Lightening up repetitions and getting the sentence to flow a bit better would be a nice improvement.
• The article touches upon relevant examples of how language matters to humans. Is it possible, though, to somehow stress the importance that language has for human culture(s)? For example, something really quick about how nationalism and language has gone hand in hand in the modern period, and how ethnicity is often extremely tightly bound to language.
• There are a few paragraphs without notes at the end. I'm personally not that bothered by this since much of the information is very general in nature and not particularly contentious. But it might be good to cover your bases anyhew. After all, there are plenty of sticklers for referencing out there... Also, some of the longer paragraphs with just one note could be looked over. Unless it amounts to pure reference repetition, an additional note might sooth the nerves of at least some of the most ardent note-hunters out there.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Btw, feel free to cross out or put a check mark next to any concern you feel you have remedied.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Revise lede to ensure readers understand that signed language is language, writing is a language-related technology

I am proposing a change to the lede as follows:

Current lede: "A language is a structured system of communication used by humans. Languages consist of spoken sounds in spoken languages or written elements in written languages.[1][2][3] Additionally, a language may consist of other symbolic elements like hand gestures in sign languages."

Proposed lede: "A language is a structured system of communication used by humans. Spoken languages consist of sounds, signed languages consist of gestures. Some languages have writing systems, and these systems can be composed of glyphs encoding sounds, syllables or meanings, or combinations of those." --AmyFou (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the change. My copyedit on your proposed language, including acknowledgement that signed languages can be represented in writing as well (rarely though they are): "A language is a structured system of communication used by humans consisting of sounds (spoken languages) or gestures (signed languages). Some languages have written representations composed of glyphs that encode the sounds, syllables, gestures, or meanings of the languages, or combinations of those." Largoplazo (talk) 17:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree too. It is a significant improvement over the current version. The wording in the current second sentence makes a spurious distinction between "spoken languages" and "written languages" ("spoken language" and "written language" makes more sense), but fails to point out the secondary nature of "written language", which (almost) always is a representation of spoken or signed language. Signed languages are not secondary, although some of them were initially devised so. –Austronesier (talk) 18:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Add: of course we can also return to the long-standing version[1], which does not go into such details at all. –Austronesier (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

thanks to you both, excellent suggestions! I'll work on this in the near future AmyFou (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Current 'lede' is flawing from the truth. I'm proposing the real lead, which has been devolving into nothing ever since lede' up until now; language is, at it's most abstract form, is a skill discovered by humans in a emotion that performs a change in an otherwise related shared experience amongst one another. Those who aren't in emotion use it in a leveled form to reach premeditated or post meditative objectives based upon a concept of motivation. Physical form follows the function of it's complexity which progresses it's transformation into future tensity. Noclipping (talk) 08:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I may also point out the fact that language serves no purpose without the story of it's most detailed emergency in historical nature. Such as the biblical ones. Noclipping (talk) 08:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

"Language and dialect" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Language and dialect and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 8#Language and dialect until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 02:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Changes to lead section

I reverted two edits that User:Lispenard made to the lead section, though I don't mean to suggest that the content of the edits was necessarily problematic. I know, however, that questions such as whether language is unique to humans, or how to describe the place of grammar and lexicon within language as such are sometimes controversial. The edits caught my attention mainly because they were marked as 'minor', as opposed to any specific objection I had to their content. Cnilep (talk) 06:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2022

The following sentence needs modification because it misinterprets and misuses the reference article which it uses to justify its claims.

The Sentence In Question: Human language is unique among the known systems of animal communication in that it is not dependent on a single mode of transmission (sight, sound, etc.), is highly variable between cultures and across time, and affords a much wider range of expression than other systems. [1]

The reference provided at the end of this series of claims leads to "The Myth of Language Universals" (Evans and Levinson, 2009) This article is concerned with arguing against the notion of "linguistic universals," and it does not dedicate itself to discussing animal communication and/or comparing it with human language. If you read this article from top-to-bottom (as I have), you will only find two short (and essentially similar) references to the capabilities of non-human species:

1. "We are the only known species whose communication system varies fundamentally in both form and content. Speculations about the evolution of language that do not take this properly into account thus overlook the criterial feature distinctive of the species. 2. "... we are the only species with a communication system that is fundamentally variable at all levels."

Niether of these claims are backed up with reference to previous studies, nor are they backed up by the content of the article itself (which, as mentioned, is concerned with arguing the non-universality of human language, and is not concerned with the finer details of animal communication)

As such, I do not think it constitutes a legitimate reference for justifying the claims made by ‘the sentence in question’

Therefore, I propose the following change:

Change: Human language is unique among the known systems of animal communication in that it is not dependent on a single mode of transmission (sight, sound, etc.), is highly variable between cultures and across time, and affords a much wider range of expression than other systems. [1]

To: “Human language is not dependent on a single mode of transmission (sight, sound, etc.) and is highly variable between cultures and across time [1]”

Alyx2022 (talk) 03:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done Madeline (part of me) 14:42, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

== Early human languages

It is believed that early humans conversed with each other through noises rather than speech, much like animals do. Over time, the sounds became more complex and developed into speech. Should this be mentioned? Can you find a source for this? 2601:282:C00:ABB0:C79:215D:53BF:6A4E (talk) 19:01, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

It's not just believed, it's obvious, as all the primates communicate through noises, as do mammals in general! The Origins section mentions this: "It was mostly undisputed that pre-human australopithecines did not have communication systems significantly different from those found in great apes in general." It goes on to cover the theory that the noises developed into speech (the continuity-based theory) in contrast to the non-continuity-based theory. Largoplazo (talk) 19:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

It is believed that early humans conversed with each other through noises rather than speech, much like animals do. Over time, the sounds became more complex and developed into speech. Should this be mentioned? Can you find a source for this? 2601:282:C00:ABB0:C79:215D:53BF:6A4E (talk) 19:01, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

It's not just believed, it's obvious, as all the primates communicate through noises, as do mammals in general! The Origins section mentions this: "It was mostly undisputed that pre-human australopithecines did not have communication systems significantly different from those found in great apes in general." It goes on to cover the theory that the noises developed into speech (the continuity-based theory) in contrast to the non-continuity-based theory. Largoplazo (talk) 19:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Scope

Is this article primarily about human language or should it be about language in general?

Someone has created Language (general concept) which would seem better merged into here. But perhaps a separate article on Human language is needed? (This is currently a redirect to this article.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:23, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, as written, the scope is clearly just human language. Whether it should be is another question. There's probably a case for merging the other article into this one to meet the implied scope of this article title. I guess an alternative is to move this to Human language and the other article to Language (it needs to be used as the title of some article!) but I suspect most readers would assume Language primarily refers to human language. DeCausa (talk) 08:44, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Claim Accuracy

Near the bottom of the article, there's a claim that the more languages a country has, the more stable it tends to be, and it cites such things as the American Civil War and the Rwandan genocide as proof of this. Only I think whoever wrote that bit was cherry-picking because the Rwandan Genocide set off the chaos in the DR Congo. The DR Congo has been a wreck ever since, and it has over 200 languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.36.177.45 (talk) 17:39, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

You've misinterpreted it. It says there's a common belief that the opposite is true, that language diversity promotes conflict. Then it provides the US Civil War and the conflict in Rwanda as counterexamples to that common belief. It makes no generalization in the other direction. Largoplazo (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

It's mostly the fact that they use "Many" that I don't like. 136.36.177.45 (talk) 22:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Language as a human physiological ablity to perceive reality syntactically.

Please, consider to study: https://philpapers.org/go.pl?id=BRETMF&proxyId=&u=https%3A%2F%2Fphilpapers.org%2Farchive%2FBRETMF.pdf and: https://philpapers.org/go.pl?id=BREHI-2&proxyId=&u=https%3A%2F%2Fphilpapers.org%2Farchive%2FBREHI-2.pdf I believe this can bring discussion to the new and healthy outcome. V.breskin (talk) 05:35, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Writing system use in lede

The lede mentions the following "The vast majority of human languages have developed writing systems that allow for the recording and preservation of of the sounds or signs of language." What this reads to me is that speakers of the vast majority of languages use some writing system for their language, this claim seems dubious to me. There used to be a page up on Ethnologue mentioning that 4,065/7,139 use a writing system, but this page has since been removed. this is at least half, but like the page mentioned it is unknown how many of these are widely used.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220418125329/https://www.ethnologue.com/enterprise-faq/how-many-languages-world-are-unwritten-0

I have some other issues with the lede (it still is not clear that spoken and signed are the primary modes for doing language, languages don't develop writing systems, most languages adopt existing writing systems instead of newly developed ones) but I see that this paragraph has been messed with a lot so I won't add to that. That claim about the vast majority of languages seems particularly unfounded so it should be removed. Hrothwulf (talk) 17:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I removed that sentence because there is nothing in the body of the article that covers it, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section (i.e., the lead should include only statements that summarize content in the body of the article). If someone can find a reliable source for that factoid, they can add it in an appropriate place in the body of the article, although I'm not sure it belongs in the lead even then. Donald Albury 20:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)