← Back to home

Natural Language

For the theory of inborn linguistic ability, see Universal grammar.

A natural language, or perhaps more aptly termed an ordinary language, is not some engineered construct or a fleeting thought. It is the very fabric of human interaction, a spoken language or signed language that arises organically within a human community. It's the messy, beautiful, often illogical byproduct of millions of minds attempting to communicate, emerging without conscious premeditation, and evolving through the relentless churn of repetition and change. Unlike the pristine, rule-bound systems humans occasionally attempt to impose, natural languages are born from necessity, shaped by usage, and inherently fluid.

This sprawling category embraces the full spectrum of human linguistic expression, from the revered standard dialects, often cloaked in an aura of high social prestige, to the unvarnished authenticity of nonstandard or vernacular dialects. What it decidedly excludes are the neat, artificial confines of fictional constructs, the deliberate precision of constructed languages like those dreamt up for fictional worlds or international discourse, and the rigid, unforgiving logic of formal languages found in domains such as computer programming or pure logic. These formal systems, while impressive in their own right, lack the inherent chaos and adaptability that define a truly natural tongue. Even an official language, one perhaps painstakingly regulated by an august body like the Académie Française for Standard French, remains firmly within the realm of natural language. Its prescriptive aspects, while attempting to corral its wilder impulses, are ultimately insufficient to transmute it into something as sterile as a constructed or controlled natural language. The very essence of its organic origin persists, a persistent hum beneath the veneer of linguistic governance, making it a prime subject for fields such as natural language processing. Indeed, the very notion of an inborn linguistic ability, often explored through the lens of Universal grammar, speaks to the deep-seated, almost unavoidable nature of these linguistic systems within humanity.

Categorization as natural excludes:

The distinction between natural and non-natural languages is not merely academic; it clarifies the fundamental differences in their genesis and evolution. To categorize a language as "natural" is to implicitly exclude several distinct forms of communication, each serving its own purpose but lacking the spontaneous, unguided development characteristic of human speech and sign.

Specifically, this classification immediately sets aside:

  • Artificial and constructed languages: These are the products of deliberate human design, often crafted with specific goals in mind, whether for fictional universes (like Klingon or Elvish), philosophical exploration, or the ambitious aim of universal communication. They are built from the ground up, their rules and vocabulary meticulously planned, rather than emerging from the collective linguistic unconscious of a community.
  • Constructed international auxiliary languages: A specific subset of constructed languages, these are engineered with the express purpose of facilitating communication across diverse linguistic groups. While noble in their intent, their planned genesis and often rigid structures stand in stark contrast to the fluid, often illogical growth of natural languages. We'll delve into these more thoroughly later, but suffice it to say, they are the linguistic equivalent of a perfectly manicured garden versus a wild, untamed forest.
  • Non-human communication systems in nature: Fascinating though they may be, the intricate signals exchanged by the animal kingdom, while complex and effective within their species, do not qualify as natural human languages. One might observe the profound intricacies of whale and other marine mammal vocalizations, a symphony of clicks, whistles, and moans that traverse vast ocean distances, or marvel at the precision of honey bees' waggle dance, a sophisticated navigational instruction set. Yet, these are instinctual, genetically encoded systems, lacking the open-ended creativity, symbolic abstraction, and recursive grammar that define human language. They are perfect for their purpose, but they are not ours.

Controlled languages

Main article: Controlled natural language

Sometimes, even the inherent wildness of natural language needs a leash, particularly when precision, clarity, and unambiguous interpretation are paramount. This is where controlled natural languages enter the scene, existing as carefully curated subsets of their more expansive, chaotic progenitors. The very concept is a fascinating paradox: an attempt to impose order on inherent disorder, to make the messy elegant without fully stripping it of its organic essence.

These controlled languages are not new creations, but rather existing natural languages subjected to rigorous restrictions on their grammars and dictionaries. The primary objective behind such linguistic pruning is to drastically reduce ambiguity and complexity, thereby minimizing the potential for misunderstanding. This linguistic domestication can be achieved through various means. For instance, designers might actively discourage or outright forbid the excessive use of superlative or adverbial forms, which can introduce subjective nuances and shades of meaning that complicate precise interpretation. Similarly, the often bewildering landscape of irregular verbs, a testament to the organic, unpredictable evolution of language, might be streamlined or regularized to ensure consistent parsing.

The typical motivations for developing and subsequently implementing a controlled natural language are often pragmatic. One significant purpose is to significantly aid understanding by non-native speakers, who might otherwise struggle with the idiomatic expressions, syntactic complexities, and vast vocabulary of an uncontrolled natural language. By simplifying the linguistic landscape, comprehension becomes more accessible. Another crucial application, particularly in our increasingly digitized world, is to ease computer processing. Natural language, in its raw form, is notoriously difficult for machines to parse and interpret accurately due to its inherent ambiguities and contextual dependencies. A controlled version, with its predictable structure and limited vocabulary, offers a far more tractable dataset for algorithms and artificial intelligence systems.

A prominent and widely adopted example of a controlled natural language is Simplified Technical English (STE). Originally conceived and meticulously developed for the highly critical domains of aerospace engineering and avionics industry manuals, STE demonstrates the immense value of such an approach. In fields where a single misinterpretation could have catastrophic consequences – imagine a flight technician misreading a repair instruction – clarity is not merely a preference, but an absolute necessity. STE achieves this by employing a restricted vocabulary, simple sentence structures, and a clear, unambiguous style, ensuring that complex technical information is conveyed with maximum precision and minimal room for error, regardless of the reader's native language proficiency.

International constructed languages

Main article: International auxiliary language

The human impulse to connect, to bridge the divides of disparate tongues, has led to the creation of a peculiar category of linguistic endeavors: the international auxiliary languages. These are, by their very definition, constructed. And precisely because they are constructed, they are generally not considered natural languages. The distinction is critical: natural languages are grown, not built. They are the organic outcome of human communities, evolving through countless generations of daily use, mispronunciations, innovations, and pragmatic adjustments. In contrast, constructed languages like Esperanto and Interlingua are products of conscious design, born from a blueprint rather than the chaotic, beautiful mess of collective usage.

The notable exception, a linguistic anomaly that occasionally stirs debate, arises when such a constructed language acquires true native speakers. If a language, even one initially engineered, becomes the primary tongue passed down from parent to child within a family, then it begins to exhibit some of the characteristics of a natural language, having been absorbed and adapted by a new generation rather than merely learned as a second language. However, this is a rare occurrence, more a fascinating footnote than a foundational shift in classification.

The fundamental divergence lies in their evolutionary paths. Natural languages, in their relentless march through time, undergo constant, incremental improvements – or at least, changes – in vocabulary and syntax, all driven by the fluid requirements of human communication. They adapt, shed old forms, embrace new ones, often with little regard for logical consistency but with an undeniable efficacy. Esperanto, on the other hand, was not the product of such organic unfolding. It was the meticulously crafted brainchild of Polish ophthalmologist L. L. Zamenhof, brought into existence in the late 19th century with the explicit goal of fostering international understanding through a simple, regular, and easy-to-learn language. It was an intellectual achievement, a testament to human ingenuity, but not an organic phenomenon.

Curiously, nature often finds its own way to "standardize" languages, sometimes achieving a synthesis remarkably similar to the goals of constructed languages, but through an entirely organic process. This occurs when two or more pre-existing natural languages converge over a relatively short period, giving rise first to a pidgin. A pidgin, an improvised communication system, is often characterized by a simplified grammar and limited vocabulary, typically used for trade or other inter-group interactions. It is not, in itself, considered a full language. However, if a pidgin becomes the primary language of a community and is acquired as a first language by children, it then develops into a stable creole language. This process, known as creolization, imbues the language with its own comprehensive grammar, expanded vocabulary, and often a rich cultural context.

A powerful illustration of this organic standardization is Haitian Creole. Far from being a mere dialect or a simplified tongue, Haitian Creole boasts its own distinct grammar, a vibrant vocabulary, and a burgeoning body of literature. It is spoken by well over 10 million people worldwide, a testament to its vitality and utility, and holds the distinguished status of being one of the two official languages of the Republic of Haiti. Its very existence underscores the dynamic, adaptive capacity of natural language to forge new forms from existing ones, a process that, while rapid, is fundamentally different from the top-down creation of languages like Esperanto.

As of 1996, the phenomenon of native speakers of Esperanto was documented, with approximately 350 attested families worldwide raising their children with Esperanto as a primary language. This intriguing development, while not fundamentally altering Esperanto's classification as a constructed language, highlights the potential for any language, given sufficient community and time, to take on some of the characteristics of a natural tongue. In contrast, other ambitious linguistic projects, such as Latino sine flexione, an international auxiliary language derived from simplified Latin, have not achieved similar widespread adoption and are no longer widely spoken, fading into the annals of linguistic experimentation.

See also

Notes

  • ^ Lyons, John (1991). Natural Language and Universal Grammar. Cambridge University Press. pp. 68–70. ISBN 978-0521246965.
  • ^ Norris, Paul F. (25 August 2011). "The Honeybee Waggle Dance – Is it a Language?". AnimalWise. Archived from the original on 20 August 2016. Retrieved 10 April 2019.
  • ^ Gopsill, F. P., "A historical overview of international languages". In International languages: A matter for Interlingua. Sheffield, England: British Interlingua Society, 1990.