How are natural languages formed?

[L.Y.S.]

I was watching an old movie from my childhood the other day, Nell. On the description I read from netflix it said "Nell an inhabitant from the backwoods of North Carolina appears to have created her own language." It's not the exact description, but that was the most important part.

Of course for all of those who saw the movie, you know Jodie- Foster was Nell. Her mother recently died and Liam Neeson (the doctor) found her in a ranch where she began to speak a weird and peculiar language. Neeson thought that it was a new language so he took it to a clinic where (Natasha Richardson) began to investigate.

Long story short it was actually English. Foster's mother in the movie had suffered a series of strokes. She was reduced to aphasic speech. Foster picked this up and I guess made a dialect of English.

Because of seeing this movie I began to wonder how natural languages are formed. I'm guessing that it starts out with basic words. Progresses to sentences, and then evolves into whole ideas as societies become more complex. I would like to know the general idea behind how linguist believe languages are formed and how long do some of these transformations take place?

[JJM 777]

Languages evolve from each other. I guess you need to go very very very very very very very very very far back in time to find a language that developed from wordless grunts and gestures, rather than from some other spoken language. So far back in time that there is no way of proving how they spoke, we can only try to prove what sounds a fossilized creature was theoretically capable of producing, but capability of producing sounds does not actually prove that the sounds were used, and how they were used and by whom.

[L.Y.S.]

I've heard somewhere that the oldest human language may be less than 20'000 years old. It's just something I heard though. Does anyone know the process and length of how languages form? I've like to see a detailed diagram or see a nice lengthy journal on it.

[c4llum]

You probably want to check out the Indo European language tree for that. It doesn't give you the process but it does show you how languages evolved. :) i hope that helps.

[quarky]

Noam Chomsky is more than a left-wing bat. His theories on language are fairly astute.

[Roboramma]

I remember reading something about children whose parents speak pidgin languages end up creating much more complex languages of out of them... let me see what I can dig up:

Ah, from wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creole_language
A creole language, or simply a creole, is a stable, natural language developed from the mixing of parent languages; creoles differ from pidgins (which are believed by scholars to be necessary precedents of creoles) in that they have been nativized by children as their primary language, making them have features of natural languages that are normally missing from pidgins.

[L.Y.S.]

So are pidgin and Creole languages the precursor to new complex language families? For example can it be assumed that at one point all languages came from a common ancestor? A group splinters off and begins to speak pidgin. This pidgin forms the basis of a new Creole language. Then major cultural reforms transform the language. After several Creole languages and several reforms later new unique languages arise? I like the link roboramma, I just have so many questions. That' why I'm asking you guys :D.

[L.Y.S.]

Mods can you put the blue question mark thingy on the beginning of my thread so people know that this is a question based thread. Thank you.

[Roboramma]

So are pidgin and Creole languages the precursor to new complex language families? For example can it be assumed that at one point all languages came from a common ancestor? A group splinters off and begins to speak pidgin. This pidgin forms the basis of a new Creole language. I don't think it necessarily works that way: pidgins are languages that are a meld between two different languages, mainly they are developed in trading posts where people with two different languages have to communicate and so they end up with a simple language that takes words from both, and which is thus easy for speakers of either language to learn.

But languages evolve on their own all the time, for a variety of reasons that can be completely unrelated to that dynamic.

I just thought this was an interesting reference to how people without access to a language with a complex grammar (children whose parents speak a pidgin) can create a complex grammar out of whole cloth.

In other words, I don't think that this is how most language family's originally formed, but it may give us some insights into the origins of language.

I'm no expert though, and may be misinterpreting what actually goes on...

[Halfcentaur]

I've heard somewhere that the oldest human language may be less than 20'000 years old. It's just something I heard though. Does anyone know the process and length of how languages form? I've like to see a detailed diagram or see a nice lengthy journal on it.

Twenty thousand years old?

I'd like to know more about that, as I find that contrary to what I've learned, especially given the age of modern humans being perhaps one hundred to two hundred thousand years old.

I recall an episode of NOVA which had several guests speaking of language centers in the brain being present in human ancestors as old as Australopithecus, and that the development of language seems to have coincided with the development of our digestive tracts' and teeth' adaptation to cooked meat, that is, the stomach and teeth shrank due to our adaptation to cooked meat. The idea is, while our ancestors were forced to huddle around a fire at night in close proximity, they were forced to socialize and communicate much more than usual. Primitive languages with clicking consonants like the San Bush People's have been posited to be among the most primitive of human languages known, lending themselves well to hunter gatherers needing to communicate while stalking and tracking prey while remaining stealthy, and the clicking travels well and is easily understood in hushed tones.

[L.Y.S.]

Twenty thousand years old?

I'd like to know more about that, as I find that contrary to what I've learned, especially given the age of modern humans being perhaps one hundred to two hundred thousand years old.

I recall an episode of NOVA which had several guests speaking of language centers in the brain being present in human ancestors as old as Australopithecus, and that the development of language seems to have coincided with the development of our digestive tracts' and teeth' adaptation to cooked meat, that is, the stomach and teeth shrank due to our adaptation to cooked meat. The idea is, while our ancestors were forced to huddle around a fire at night in close proximity, they were forced to socialize and communicate much more than usual. Primitive languages with clicking consonants like the San Bush People's have been posited to be among the most primitive of human languages known, lending themselves well to hunter gatherers needing to communicate while stalking and tracking prey while remaining stealthy, and the clicking travels well and is easily understood in hushed tones.

Interesting I had no idea. I think I saw something similar to this on a Nova special. From Ape to Man? or was it Becoming Human? I have no clue. Great answer, it still doesn't answer my question though. How do natural languages form? And how long does it take to form them?

Say I wanted to create a natural language that had almost nothing in common with English and was completely unique, would I be able to do this? Or would it just be another auxiliary language that doesn't adhere to commonly set natural standards?

[quarky]

Look into the study of bird song. There's lots available, and it might give relevant insight.

[L.Y.S.]

Look into the study of bird song. There's lots available, and it might give relevant insight.

Yeah and I guess I'll have to actually read too. I guess I'll have to stomach some Chomsky :(.

Does anyone know where I should start?

[quarky]

Chomsky.


(Read it and weep)

[Giraffe107]

these deaf children invented their own sign language-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/centralamericaandthecaribbean/nicaragua/1471947/Deaf-children-invent-a-new-sign-language.html

The children were left essentially to their own devices, and developed the signing to communicate with each other.

[L.Y.S.]

Chomsky.


(Read it and weep)

Um where's the Chomsky?

[Soapy Sam]

I think "Nell" was to some degree based on the real case of Genie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genie_%28feral_child%29

[quarky]

Um where's the Chomsky?

M.I.T., i believe.

[marplots]

Computers invent their own language: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-13510988

Well, not really, but might shed some light anyhow.

[L.Y.S.]

these deaf children invented their own sign language-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/centralamericaandthecaribbean/nicaragua/1471947/Deaf-children-invent-a-new-sign-language.html

The children were left essentially to their own devices, and developed the signing to communicate with each other.

This is perhaps the most interesting information I've received in this thread. So can people who already know a language like... let's say... anyone of us, could we still create our own devices or would we be too influenced by our own indigenous languages to break the mental barrier required to make our own unique language?

[L.Y.S.]

M.I.T., i believe.

You said chomsky, read it and weep, then you don't post any material? I'm assuming this was just a post for comical effect? :confused:

[L.Y.S.]

I think "Nell" was to some degree based on the real case of Genie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genie_%28feral_child%29

Thanks sam, I've actually watched a few specials on Genie truly tragic. But yeah now that you mention it Genie does remind me an awful lot of Nell in the movie.

[Halfcentaur]

This is perhaps the most interesting information I've received in this thread. So can people who already know a language like... let's say... anyone of us, could we still create our own devices or would we be too influenced by our own indigenous languages to break the mental barrier required to make our own unique language?

I don't know about a brand new language from scratch, but there are plenty of cases of people being stranded or immersed within populations who don't speak the language eventually picking it up without any instruction really, and multiple people being isolated, like Robinson Crusoe, and forming a language between the two to understand each other. We're going to find a way to communicate as long as we're programmed for it from childhood it seems, and the more we communicate the more subtle and in depth we get.

I lived in Saigon and Vietnam for about 5 months, and was fascinated by the way I'd start picking up on things on my own. After a few months, you really start getting familiar with sounds of the new language, and you start to notice when you hear something odd you've never heard before, even not understanding what it means.

I think one of my favorite things to do is get really drunk with a bunch of people who don't speak your language, and still having a great time and communicating through other means.

[L.Y.S.]

I think one of my favorite things to do is get really drunk with a bunch of people who don't speak your language, and still having a great time and communicating through other means.

So true :D

[L.Y.S.]

I don't know about a brand new language from scratch, but there are plenty of cases of people being stranded or immersed within populations who don't speak the language eventually picking it up without any instruction really, and multiple people being isolated, like Robinson Crusoe, and forming a language between the two to understand each other. We're going to find a way to communicate as long as we're programmed for it from childhood it seems, and the more we communicate the more subtle and in depth we get.


Interesting, so it seems that inevitably in a free open group where communication is necessary it will arise. This is a very interesting concept.

[quarky]

You said chomsky, read it and weep, then you don't post any material? I'm assuming this was just a post for comical effect? :confused:

Sorry about that. I suck at making links. i figured you could google him if you were curious. He's known more for his lefty politics these days, but Chomsky is a linguist by trade, and had some breakthrough theories about how language comes about.

[L.Y.S.]

Sorry about that. I suck at making links. i figured you could google him if you were curious. He's known more for his lefty politics these days, but Chomsky is a linguist by trade, and had some breakthrough theories about how language comes about.

I see he wrote an entire library of books. I am truly I'm at a loss for words. I personally don't know where to start. You can start by recommending me some books that I could go back read. Specifically which of his books deal in the theory of language and how languages are formed? I’m assuming since you have recommended his works to me that you have read some of his work. Which books of his did you read? Let's start there.

[quarky]

I see he wrote an entire library of books. I am truly I'm at a loss for words. I personally don't know where to start. You can start by recommending me some books that I could go back read. Specifically which of his books deal in the theory of language and how languages are formed? I’m assuming since you have recommended his works to me that you have read some of his work. Which books of his did you read? Let's start there.

Its been so long, i don't recall the names of the books. I'd be inclined to go with the most recent of the linguistics stuff. He also writes lots of papers and gives talks. I don't know if he still teaches.
maybe someone else can chime in.

[Olowkow]

The OP's question reminds me of the video of Feynman being asked by an interviewer how magnets work. Feynman first had to figure out what the questioner knew about physics, and what sort of answer he wanted. It is a great piece of history. His frustration at trying to simplify a very difficult subject is just a beautiful thing to watch.

The question of how languages work, and how they develop in communities of speakers requires extremely complicated and arcane answers, and frankly little is known about how the mind organizes the syntax. Semantics is even worse, but much is known about phonology and phonemics. I spent many years in the field when "generative or transformational grammar" was just being introduced by students of Chomsky. It has since largely fizzled, and my friends in the field tell me that the modern rage is "minimalist" linguistics, whatever that is.

My area of research back in the early 70's was bilingualism among various communities of speakers. It turned out that a claim could be made that bilinguals used so-called linguistic universals to govern their behavior in code switching, which was at the time a very controversial claim.

I would recommend starting with Haj (John) Ross (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Ross), one of Chomsky's students back in the 60's, and George Lakoff, who is still doing semantics. Ross and Lakoff had some truly astonishing insights that gave the appearance of a real theory of language at times, but there was always a hitch. Language is a real melange of culture, custom, creativity,and mathematics that all gets turned into hand gestures, vocalizations and facial expressions.

Theoretical linguistics requires a certain frame of mind to even begin to understand the problem, let alone any attempt to solve it. The jargon can be very daunting, and my experience has been that most people who speak a language (i.e., everyone) is an "expert" in his own language. The data which has to be studied must be the native speaker's intuitions about grammaticality, which is right away not a very scientific commodity.

Generally speaking, Chomsky and many others came to believe that humans have a built in system that causes the child to search out patterns of grammar (no matter which language) based on certain putative universal linguistic constraints, i.e. what can and cannot be a grammar of a natural language. One seems to lose this ability somewhere around the onset of puberty. As anyone who has kids knows, the child of 2 or 3 years learns grammar effortlessly, and this kind of behavior is still quite a mystery as far as I know.

[L.Y.S.]

Thanks a lot. If I read these works maybe I'll get some true insight on the issue.