catapult magazine

I have a query about language, and I really need help. I’m in the midst of writing a position paper in my Master’s program, and I’m really struggling with it. It’s a position paper on language, and I’m not sure what I think about language.

Is language an innate ability? Is it universal—is it by nature of our creation in the image of God that each person on earth has the ability to use language?

Can the similarities across languages (all languages are more similar than they are different) be due to some kind of innate knowledge of language and how it works, or is it socially constructed, or a combination of the two?

Is the ability to use language structural?

Does anyone know of any Christians who have taken on this topic? I’m having trouble locating good sources.

Thanks!

now that’s a packed question. Sounds like it would take me several years to come up with a decent answer. Is there any way to narrow it down? Is it just supposed be about ‘language’ in the abstract?
Fascinating topic though.

Dave Schelhaas, or was it Jerri…I can’t remember which. I think it was Dave. Anyway, whoever it was mentioned something about the innate ability of humans to understand language. A study was mentioned about infants repeatedly turning to the person who was speaking in complete sentences instead of baby talk or even fragments. It was concluded that even before babies can speak, they have a fundamental understanding of the structure of language. Interesting stuff anyway. That’s actually how I introduce grammar in my classes. I’ve found that the kids do better if they know that, inherently, they already understand it, and it’s just a matter of finding where it is in their heads than starting all over again every time grammar pops up in the curriculum.

On a completely different note, I met a guy who spoke 30+ languages fluently. He was the minister of foreign affairs (or something like that) in Germany. In one summer he learned three languages spoken near Israel. I’m sure that there are some people to whom languages come a bit more naturally, just as there are artists and athletes.

Yeah—there’s some research on what they cal “universal grammar.” I think Noam Chomsky originated the theory that everyone is “programmed” that way.

I think it could be true, but then how do you account for the different languages in the world? Could it all be language change and shift? What about the fact that language is socially-constructed?

I don’t know about the socially-constructed thing. Language is obviously socially manipulated and changed. I like the idea of the ability for language being an inborn trait. It’s almost a romantic idea. God calls us to converse with eachother. Even those incapable of spoken language (very small children, dumb) are capable, quite easily, of relaying that information to others. Differences in language probably are socially based. Italian and German created Romansch between the two countries. That seems to be a geographical/social development. But the evolution of language and the nature of language are two seperate things.
What exactly do you mean by language change and shift?

As you both have mentioned, even before our innate ability to learn language is our ability to interpret sounds. Somehow, we are able to connect sounds with human emotions even before we are born. Perhaps infants know language when they hear it because they have an innate sense for communication and have experienced the relationality of things already in the womb (of the mother’s heart rate to certain emotions etc.). Language most likely grows out of our desire to relate to others in the fullest way possible.

As far as why we have different languages, is it childish of me to believe the Tower of Babel story as an explanation for lingual diversity?

I think Bridget was going beyond Babel to the evolution of languages. Latin into the romance languages and so on, and the more I think about it the more I can’t see any other variable than social/cultural ones. Is that what your paper is exploring? I don’t want to bend your intent in the wrong direction. Language as changer of culture or culture as changer of language? I don’t know. I’m losing focus.

The question I was trying to get at, and I didn’t express myself very clearly, is the question (in its simplest form)—why are there different languages if we all have an innate language ability?

When I mentioned language change and shift, I should have explained. Regardless of what people say about languages “going down the drain” and being mis-used, all languages are constantly shifting and changing. A language cannot be stagnant and continue to exist, it’s simply not possible. People complain about English being abused all the time, but if it were to stay the same it would die out.

But the question is this—Going with the idea that we all have an innate ability to use language (And I agree w/Grant—I think it’s probably part of our being response-able beings), why are languages in the world different? Is it because of the changes our languages have made? i.e.—all Romance languages coming out of Latin, or, is it because of the ways society has constructed language (perhaps a “culturing” of language)?

My paper is quite nebulous—the only guideline is that it has to be my position on language. I’m trying to figure out what that is. Somehow my classmates don’t seem bothered by these questions…It’s actually interesting to me b/c one of my other classes in Principles and Practices in Langauge Teaching, and it really shows me how I was well-prepared in college to deal with these issues. A lot of other students, although they have degrees in linguistics and are brilliant, are saying wait, um, I don’t get it—principles are behind practices? How does that work? And then I’m thankful for my training. But I digress…

Hi Bridget- I know this is many, many months since your last post on this thread, but I was wondering how this paper ended up for you. I too have great interest in the nature of language and have done a bit of research in the area. If you would be willing to think back on your paper, I’d love to hear about it, and exchange ideas if you are still working on it.

You might also do some research on ideoglassia (sp.?) which is the special languages that some identical twins seem to develop between each other. For a while, I think there was some pretty itneresting study going on to try to figure out if those invented languages (which usually develop long before the twins start speaking English) had a structure that imitated our own. I think Benjamin Lee Whorf also did some interesting stuff with native American languages.

I confess, though, that Grant has me thinking. Why are we all passing over the Tower of Babel as a sourse of information on this topic? Wouldn’t it bear thinking on? It is one of the most dramatic parts in the Bible where God speaks to the questoin of language development (and he IS God after all ) :)

Part of the reason I keep coming back to the Babel story is because I don’t know of an explanation that is any more credible. Not to say that the Babel story is to be viewed as a piece of scientific evidence, but with the issue of the origin of language, all we have to go on is myth and story. So, why not Babel?

Since our language is always the “given” we have to work with, it’s almost impossible to think of language in terms of origin because it has no origin for us. We always come into it AFTER THE FACT. Trying to find the history of language depends on language itself. And what we discover about the history of our language only explains the current use of our language to get to that point. Studying language only leads us to the realization that our study is of a certain culture that differs from another. So, the question becomes: where do we find the unity of these differences?

The Bible says the unity is in the Word of God. The Babel story answers the question of unity only in relation to the beginning of Acts, where the apostles once again can communicate God’s Word to people of all tongues and cultural backgrounds. So, I would imagine you would find, bridget, that your fellow students wouldn’t see the issue as you do. They are starting with the practice of language itself and deny that the practice depends on a God from whom language was given.