Humanities desk
< August 7	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 9 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 8

Do humans have a natural language?

Is it possible to know what "language" a person would speak if they were left to develop it for themselves? For example, suppose two humans of normal intelligence were isolated at birth (from other humans, not from each other) so that any communication between them would have to be developed or arise naturally. Clearly it wouldn't be English or French or any other exisitng language. Is there any way to tell what it might be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.14.76 (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no. infants are capable of making all the phonemes of human speech (I think there's 80-some) and it's only by interaction with other language speakers that they narrow down their speech production to the sounds available in a given language, and start organizing them according to that language's structure. two infants left alone (assuming that all other needs are provided for somehow) would probably not learn any language beyond a simple guttural/gestural form of communication, and that would bear no necessary relation to any particular language. --Ludwigs2 00:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If they were truly isolated from language, then they wouldn't develop full language, as has been seen with "Genie" and other cases of abused children. Pharaoh Psammetichus supposedly ran basically the experiment you proposed, with the claimed result that reportedly the first word was bekos, Phrygian for "bread", but that's all extremely dubious... AnonMoos (talk) 00:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Genie (feral child) (the "Genie" of whom AnonMoos speaks) and Victor of Aveyron, neither of whom really had any language at all. Your two isolated infants would never get old enough to learn to speak, anyway; without other humans, infants will soon die of starvation or thirst or something else similar. Nyttend (talk) 00:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia article Language deprivation experiments... AnonMoos (talk) 01:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These are the languages that humans would naturally speak. Why isn't English or French a natural language? Language is developed. It takes generations. We are still developing language. Bus stop (talk) 01:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"It takes generations" is the very reason that 2 babies left alone to their own devices could never come up with anything like French or English - not even the American version. :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is the famous case of the spontaneously developed Nicaraguan Sign Language. Not quite, what you are asking, but related and quite interesting. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a kind of a "creolization" process... AnonMoos (talk) 21:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've linked Natural language.--Wetman (talk) 17:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And you linked it to an article which is not at all what the OP meant. In the sense of that article, almost all human languages are natural. I've unlinked it accordingly. Algebraist 17:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adamic language would be more relevant (though there's no science there). AnonMoos (talk) 21:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being isolated from birth does not clarify if the child was born to a mute mother. This article says babies cry and babble with distinctive marks of their mother's language. schyler (talk) 23:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

let's be clear about the problem. newborn children make a wide variety of noises (as well as smells...), and there may be some prenatal influences in the noises they make based on what they've heard in the womb. however, language involves taking a subset of that wide variety of noises and isolating them as significant (making up what are usually referred to as phonemes), and then learning rules for combining those phonemes into meaningful units (words), and then learning rules for combining those meaningful units into meaningful structures (grammar). Children raised in abusive situation (where there is little verbal contact with adults) never master grammar properly; Children with no societal interaction at all might never have a need to develop words for things, or if they do they may simply associate any random set of sounds to be the 'word'. I mean, it just doesn't matter what you call a dog, so long as you these sounds consistently refer to that object (which we call in English a dog), and the people you are talking to understand what you mean when you utter them. --Ludwigs2 23:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would not idioglossia be considered somewhat of a natural language, in that it develops without being taught? — Michael J 22:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. idioglossia is always a product of a confused language environment, where children are exposed to (at least) two fully developed languages simultaneously, in such a way that they blend the languages into a patois that only they can decipher. it is not the development of a new independent (much less natural) language. the idea of a natural language died a meaningless death along with the concept of a universal grammar; current theory holds that while children certainly have a developmental zone which is optimal for language acquisition, they do not have anything resembling built-in linguistic tendencies, and will functionally adopt any linguistic environment they are exposed to in the proper developmental frame. --Ludwigs2 06:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recall reading (in a magazine?) about a pair of identical-twin girls who developed their own language, that was incomprehensible to others. Unfortunately, I cannot remember their names. IIRC, the article said they were not feral children but were raised by their mother who suffered from her own psychological problems and that in later life they were studied by psychologists and linguists. Astronaut (talk) 09:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Here we are: June and Jennifer Gibbons. Astronaut (talk) 09:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To go back to the original question: No, man does not have a natural language. One of the principles of Classical philosophy is that there is no inate ideas. If you say so, then you undermine the roots of Epistemology. It would be equivalent to saying that; energy can be lost, in Science circles. MacOfJesus (talk) 17:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

18th century Anglophone accents

In John Adams, most of the major (American) characters speak with an accent resembling that of a contemporary English yokel (for lack of a less pejorative term). Indeed, many of the British characters speak with the same accent. Even George III sounds like a farmer. Was this simply a bit of creative license, an impressionistic stab at something plausibly archaic and at the same time intermediate between "British" and "American", or is there evidence that the people of that time really spoke this way? It's something I've always wondered about, and popular culture is no help. Sometimes (as in The Simpsons), Colonial-era Americans are simply given upper-class British accents, which is odd. Other times (as in 1776) they're given completely modern American accents. One of the strangest things about the John Adams miniseries, accent-wise, is the complete lack of regional differences: Jefferson the Virginian sounds about the same as Franklin the Pennsylvanian, who sounds about the same as Hamilton the New Yorker, who sounds about the same as King George. The only really distinctive accents belong to peripheral Irish and Scottish characters. Everyone else has the same vaguely yokelish accent, with or without rhoticity. LANTZY ^TALK 05:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well George III was known as "Farmer George"! Alansplodge (talk) 11:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an example of a general feature of language change. Language generally changes faster in cosmopolitan and populous regions than it does in rural areas. This means that after the passage of time rural dialects often preserve archaic features that have disappeared from the "standard" (i.e. metropolitan) language. (There are plenty of well-known examples. The second-person pronouns thee and thou disappeared from standard English a long time ago, but are preserved in handful of regional dialects. In French, many terminal consonants are silent in standard (i.e. Parisian) French, but are preserved in regional dialects.) So features of archaic English will appear to be rural to a modern speaker. Gdr 13:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The particular 20th-century type of upper-class British accent (Daniel Jones' Received Pronunciation) did not exist in the 18th century... AnonMoos (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Received Pronunciation is a middle-class accent, not an upper-class one. Did you mean RP, or a particular upper-class British accent (such as the "huntin', fishin' and shootin'" type)? 82.24.248.137 (talk) 21:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen the series, but if the actors are Americans feigning English accents (as they are in The Simpsons), then it's hardly surprising that the accents aren't very precise. Most Americans' stab at what they invariably call a "British accent" (by which they mean, equally invariably, an English accent) is usually a hybrid of RP, Cockney and Mummerset. "Oi say, mate!" and that sort of thing. 80.254.147.52 (talk) 15:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a lot of the actors are British. LANTZY ^TALK 03:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this womb envy?

The Orders of Big Sister - it reads like a case of womb envy to me. The fact that women have the authority to choose to create new life, and males do not. This is particularly amplified in modern Western society where the father of a child has no rights compared to the mother.--Pokemon Merchant (talk) 11:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth considering this in terms of the book Eve's Seed: Biology, the Sexes, and the Course of History which I haven't read but can see the description of.--Pokemon Merchant (talk) 11:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It reads like humour to me. Read into it whatever you want. Matt Deres (talk) 14:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC) (and p.s. - women have just as much trouble creating life without a man as men do without a woman. See sex.)[reply]

Well, it's a neo-Nazi website (essentially), and that particular article was written by Simon Sheppard, so there you go, it's just a bunch of crap. (He was probably trying to be funny, but these sorts of people are actually incapable of intentional humour.) Adam Bishop (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

American Revolutionary War == US War of Independence?

A little while back, Trovatore and I (briefly) discussed the issue of whether the two are synonymous (varying only in the choice of words; normally done along national lines it seems to me) or whether there was a substantive difference. Unfortunately, no conclusion was reached. Does anyone have a source on one of the viewpoints? - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 18:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary War (or better, the American Revolution) is the 'normal' usage in modern US language. The 'War of Independence' wording has been bandied about occasionally because of confusions that arise over the American Civil War (aka War Between the States) which is sometimes referred to as a revolution or rebellion, particularly in southern regions.

I suppose, for whether or not they're synonymous, that I'd ask "what else would either one be?" -- I can't think of any reasonable conclusion that either name refers to another event. As noted above, though, the Lost Cause movement promoted some overly romanticized names for the US Civil War such as the "war for southern independence" or the "second revolutionary war". While these are (intentionally) similar to the two terms above, both are also clearly distinct. So, looping back: I don't have a source either way, but I'd think the burden of proof is to demonstrate that they're not the same thing. — Lomn 20:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here in Texas I often hear The Civil War referred to as The War of Northern Aggression due to the fact that The South felt they had the constitutional right to nullify federal law and secede. In answer to the question: I would use "Revolutionary War" and "War of Independence" synonymously, yes (no clarification for the nation though). For insight I would look into the root of the words. Revolution <L. roll back, Independence <OF. not-hanging down. The two words clearly have different connotations which can possibly stir emotions. Revolt conjures airs of disagreement followed by violent overthrow of powers-that-are. One pictures the Virginian farm-boy taking up arms. Independence is much more romantic still and gives a less bloody mental picture, like the act of signing the Declaration and other diplomacy. schyler (talk) 22:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard that elsewhere in the south, and I suspect they mostly trot that expression out when they're trying to rib us Yankees. Then we remind them who won, and that tends to cool their jets. Technically a "revolution" is more like what happened in France or Russia, where the leaders were overthrown and killed. Here, it was a war for independence. But we also kicked out the old local rulers, so it was also a revolution in that sense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As our article notes, "American/US War of Independence" is the more common British (and Commonwealth) term. Gwinva (talk) 23:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would suspect that's due to the connotations. Britons see Americans as simply having wanted independence from their mother country. Revolution wouldn't be used in those countries, because, well, what was there to revolt about? schyler (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the veracity of that note did come into question. Does anyone have any sources? - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 10:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does this help? 82.24.248.137 (talk) 16:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no distinction between the terms "American Revolutionary War" and "American War of Independence". It's been claimed that Americans prefer the first and Brits the second, but I've never seen any good evidence of that, and plenty of evidence to the contrary. British historians use "American Revolution" frequently, and American historians use "War of Independence" extensively, perhaps even more often than British historians. Examples available upon request.

The real distinction is between "American Revolution" and "War of Independence". Popular writers and the general public often conflate the American Revolution and the Revolutionary War, a tendency so old that John Adams and Benjamin Rush warned against it. The War of Independence, Adams argued, "was no part of the Revolution. It was only an effect and consequence of it." Historians took awhile to come around to Adams's point of view, but with the rise of alternate approaches to history in the 20th century, particularly social and economic history, it became clear that the American Revolution and the War of Independence were distinct (if related) topics. To avoid conflation, careful modern historians of any nationality seem to prefer the term "War of Independence" when talking exclusively about military matters. Indeed, a modern university course on the American Revolution might only barely mention the war. —Kevin Myers 04:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wow. ok, you've gone over my head (and I know a good bit about this). what is the (technical, scholarly, academic) difference between the 'American Revolution' and the 'Revolutionary War' that you are pointing to? maybe it's my Americentric viewpoint (US schools are bad on European history), but what revolution are you referring to if not the revolution of the 13 states against the British commonwealth? --Ludwigs2 06:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I've made it sound more esoteric than intended. The "War of Independence" is just the military part of the American Revolution, and the military part no longer dominates scholarship on the Revolution. Most scholars now primarily focus on other changes that were taking place in the British American colonies at the time, i.e. social, economic, cultural, etc. The most prominent example might be Gordon S. Wood's The Radicalism of the American Revolution (1991), in which military matters are barely mentioned.

For historians like Wood, the central story of the American Revolution is not about battles; it's about the change from a deferential, monarchical society into a republican one. Once, in a review of a book purporting to explain the origins of the American Revolution (Theodore Draper's Struggle for Power, 1996), Wood argued that the author had traced the origins of the War of Independence, but not the origins of the Revolution. For John Adams, the Revolution was a change in American worldview that began and ended before the war that secured American independence was fought. Historians don't go that far; they see the whole era as the "American Revolution", and the War of Independence as one part of the puzzle. —Kevin Myers 17:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unnamed sculpture

I'd like to add a description of this sculpture to the United Nations Art Collection article (or if you feel like doing it, be bold!) but I don't know the name of it. So, what is it? It was a gift of Italy in 1996. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 23:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am betting it is one of the many Arnaldo Pomodoro sculptures that one finds in public spaces all around the United States for some reason. The article says one of them is outside the UN building in NYC, which I imagine is probably what you have there. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like it has to be his work! Any idea of the name? Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 00:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like the two similar sculptures pictured in our article, it appears to be named Sphere Within Sphere. See here and here. Deor (talk) 02:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And here's a photo from the official presentation of it to the U.N. Deor (talk) 02:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Separated at birth? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]