iBummed

What is Language?

What is Language?

Since childhood we have seen language as the basis of communication, whether it is verbal or even sign language. All these years, we have learnt different languages and educated ourselves with various linguistic tools in order to communicate better and master the language for professional reasons. Language has always been simple and is a part of our lives without us realizing that it is something that we have learnt in our lives. It can be as simple as a letter or as complicated as a formula. A language can be as simple as creating it and sharing it between two people only.

To illustrate, two friends can invent or even coin words together, add different kinds of sounds to existing words, or even use gibberish. By doing so, the two friends are coming up with a new kind of language, which is only known to the two of them and nobody else around the world. In this way the two friends can communicate secretly even if they are sitting with a group of people who do not understand this language. Wardhaugh (1998) says that pidgin is a language with not native speakers, it is not anyone’s first language but used as a contact language, and is regarded as a ‘reduced’ variety of ‘normal’ language (p.57). As Wardhaugh (1998) says, it can be seen that language in its simplest form can be called a pidgin and is mostly used by people who wish to communicate in a multilingual situation. This helps people to dominate other people in the group by showing that they can communicate in language that others might not know of; a simple way to demonstrate power.

Apart from being simple, a language can also be very complicated. One of the best examples to illustrate the complex meaning of language would be seen through the use of scientific and mathematical formulas used by scientists. Scientists use various kinds of formulas that encode the secrets about their inventions and chemicals. None other than the scientist can understand what he/she has used to and how they have formulated the various chemicals to come up with a new one!

Another example for the complex use of language is Creole which is an extension of pidgin. “Creole is often defined as a pidgin that has become the first language of a new generation of speakers” (P.59), said Wardhaugh (1998). Taking the same example previously seen about the two friends who came up with their own language; if these two friends were to extend the language to other people, and soon assimilate it within a society itself which contains a large number of people, then this small pidgin language will become an official language to the people living in that area and will eventually qualify as a Creole. When a language formulated into a Creole, there is an improvement in its structure, an expansion of its vocabulary with more expressions to address the various meanings that might serve a number of various forms and functions of that language.

Wareing (2004) introduces language by stating:

Language is a phenomenon worthy of study; we use an example of a letter to a newspaper to consider the ways in which language, society and power might be related. The nature of language also considers how its forms and functions may be described and categorised. Many variations are found in language systems, and the social meanings which are attributed to different languages, dialects and accents (p.2).

Wareing (2004) explains that using tools as simple as letters and exemplifying its importance to language and how it is used. Language is made up of letters, words, sentences, paragraphs where the list keeps on going. Another aspect of language is public speeches, which are used by prominent leaders to stir the minds of people towards their political agenda. Such use of language demonstrates a direct connection between language, society and power. Without language, there would be no interaction within a society, without a societal interaction, there would be no speeches, and therefore, it can be concluded that without speeches there can be no power! A connection has been established between language and power, where if one should ask themselves whether language is a phenomenon worthy of study, then with the above explanation the answer is ‘yes’.

Wareing (2004) then moves on to speak about forms and functions, where forms are “manifestations as spoken or written words, or as signs in sign language” (p.2) and functions are “what people use language for” (p.2). Forms and functions are the basis of language without which there would be no interaction. Forms can be described as the alphabets of a certain language, the vocal pronunciation of the letters, the words and its meanings that have been brought together by alphabets, and if it were to be a sign language, then the forms used would be the physical movements of your body parts to relay a certain message.

In addition to forms, without functions, a language would be incomplete. Functions are the different uses or the purpose a language is used for. Wareing (2004) refers to phatic, aesthetic, affect and referential as the multiple functions of a language (p.8). When language is used phatically, it represents it as a social lubricant for the daily use, where a lot of information might be exchanged that might not really be important. This is mostly the everyday dialogues people tend to have with each other, more like gossip. When language is used aesthetically, it is exploited to provide pleasure rather than information. We can refer to poetry as an example where a language employs aesthetics. When language is used affectively, it illustrates the sensitivity related to power or social relationship between the speaker and audience. An example of affect would be order someone around showing the power a person has over them. When language is used referentially, it provides specific information about specific things such as objects or certain events. An example to exemplify the referential use is a person following a certain set of instructions to complete a certain assignment.

The forms and functions of a language are only one segment of the entire subject; another segment that is more significant is about Language as a system. Wareing (2004) personifies language as “a systematic way of combining smaller units into larger units for the purpose of communication” (p.6). Letters are the roots of any language, where each letter is pronounced verbally in a certain way, such sounds of our language are called phonemes. Once the foundation is known (letters) we start to build the language step by step. Lexical items are the words of the language which are put together by using the various phonemes giving the word a structure as per the rules of the language. Lexical items then become a foundation for the syntax. Syntax is the grammatical structure which combines the lexical items together to create a certain sentence. Sentences are put together to make up a story, a conversation or even a speech. Using these foundations of a language, people are educated on various topics about the world such as science, mathematics, astronomy, etc. Therefore, it can be said that language might be the key to obtain knowledge.

Language might be the key to knowledge, but without a meaning assigned to the sound of each word, there is nothing to be gained from language. Singh (2004) states Saussure’s theory of linguistic sign that “formalizes what we have so far been calling ‘sound and meaning correspondence’” (p.20). Saussure defines a ‘signifier’ as the sound sequence (phonemes) which makes up a label (lexical item). The word ‘signified’ is the meaning or concept that is associated to the ‘signifier’. Although the correspondence between the signifier and the signified constitutes the linguistic sign, Saussure did uphold the fact that link between them is arbitrary (Singh, 2004, p.21). The following table facilitates the understanding of this concept.

Signified	Signifier(s)
	Bird (English) Oiseau (French)

 

Now that the concept of linguistic signs has been explained, it will be easier to understand the theory of langue and parole. The links that are established between a signifier and the signified are devised at the level of langue, which is termed by Saussure to be the innate knowledge of a human (Singh, 2004, p.19). Singh (2004) says that langue is the term used by Saussure and he believed that the ideal knowledge of a certain language is in our heads (innate), in contrast to the term parole, which he believed it to be the corrupt version of a language manipulated by people for their personal benefits (p.19,20).

Looking at the meaning of langue, we can understand that this is the true form of knowledge that we have in our minds, which are mainly the meanings that are associated to various labels/words. For example, if we are sitting inside a room, we know that it has a door, it has walls, it has window, etc. We can look at the things around us and associate the meaning within our mind itself.

Parole on the other hand is taking the same knowledge from our minds (langue), and using it in a certain way which might be positive or negative. For example, leaders of various countries, make speeches to get the support in order to win elections, although they have the knowledge in their minds, they use and pick words and sentences that will motivate the general public to vote for them. The fact that these leaders do whatever they say is another story. Another example for parole in our everyday life is the newspaper, editors and journalists utilize their knowledge and write articles very carefully, depending on whether they are trying to improve a certain situation or worsen it, they can choose different ‘angles of telling’ depending on their audience. At the end of the day, it is in their hands, where parole is used to portray the language we use, but might not go with the system of langue in our minds.

Parole has been explained as the actual language used on the basis of the information we have in our mind and use it the way we want. An extension to parole and langue would be the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis which gave an impetus to the theory that “ways of speaking” are based upon the culture (Singh, 2004, p.24). The hypothesis mainly has two parts; linguistic relativity and linguistic determinism. Singh (2004) says “linguistic relativity theorizes that the languages of different cultures comprise distinct systems of representation which are not necessarily equivalent” (p.25). Between different cultures the languages can differ in many ways such as, grammar, vocabulary, semantics, metaphors, etc. the list goes on. To illustrate, the grammatical style in languages of different cultures is not similar; when we write a sentence in English, we follow the order of subject, verb, object, whereas the sentence having a similar meaning but in Japanese follows the order of subject, object, verb (Swoyer, 2003).

“Linguistic determinism proposes that a language not only encodes certain ‘angles on reality’ but also affects the thought processes of its speakers”, said Singh (2004, p.25). Singh (2004) believes that people who use language are usually not aware about the nature of their linguistic systems and how it impacts the way they think (p.25). One of the best examples we can use in the present world would be about the war in Iraq. When we look at the newspapers of two different cultures such as the West and the Middle East, we can easily differentiate between the two with the language they use. If there was a suicide bomber who was successful in blowing up a targeted area, then most probably the media in the West would portray the person as a ‘terrorist’, whereas the media in the Middle East might portray the person as a ‘martyr’. An outsider who does not know the background of this story, reading a newspaper in the West would have a negative impression about this incident, whereas the same person reading a newspaper in the Middle East might have a positive impression about this incident only because of the language in use. In other words, language has the power to determine the person’s perception about a certain situation.

Conclusion

            We have explained many things about a language. We started from the simplest form of language as a system with forms and functions and complicated it by speaking about linguistic relativity and determinism. This is only the beginning of a topic that has no end ever since it came into existence. Language is known among us as a mode of communication. Although other animals might use sophisticated communicative systems, which are not known to us, we can’t make use of their properties that linguists use to define language. We can say that language dates back to the existence of humanity itself, starting with sign language at that time and then evolving into verbal communication.

In daily context, language might not seem very important, but the fact remains that the foundations of our entire civilization since the beginning of mankind are based on language. Without the use of language (whether verbal or non verbal), humans could have never achieved what they have achieved till date. The only reason we know so much about the history of the world is because civilizations before us spoke a certain language and their stories have been imprinted on the historical monuments or parchments.

Apart from the ancient civilizations, language itself is universal and seems to hold the connection between this world and the eternal world. We can see this through the use of language in different religions. Every religion in this world uses a medium which is language to pass on the message to its followers. This proves the fact that language is of high importance compared to anything else because it creates a connection between human and God.

Sources

1.      Wareing, S. (2004). What is language and what does it do? In I. Singh & J. S. Peccei (Eds.), Language, society and power (pp. 1 – 16). New York: Routledge.

2.      Singh, I. (2004). Language, thought and representation. In I.Singh & J.S. Peccei (Eds.), Language, society and power (pp. 17 – 34). New York: Routledge

3.      Swoyer, C. (2003).Relativisim > The linguistic relativity hypothesis (Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy). Retrieved May 10, 2008, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/supplement2.html

4.      Wardhaugh, R. (1998). An introduction to sociolinguistics (3^rd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Posted in: Essays and Reports

This entry was posted on Sunday, March 15th, 2009 at 11:56 pm and is filed under Essays and Reports. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.