Contents
2.1 Language as a communication system
Any system of communication can be broken down into potentially three components: signs, structure, and semiotics. At the basic level, all systems comprise a collection of codes or signs. Optionally, some systems may prescribe methods or rules for ordering these signs in a structured manner. However, all systems include a conventionally established manner of interpreting its collection of codes, in other words a semiotics for these signs that has been agreed upon by its community of users.
With regards to language, formal linguistics has long divided this communication system into three such components. At the basic level, spoken and signed languages make use of language-specific stores of speech sounds (audio-vocal signs) or manual gestures (visuo-manual signs), which falls within the study of phonetics and phonology. All languages employ a system of rules for combining and ordering these signs into structured words and sentences, which falls within the study of morphology and syntax. Finally, within a community of language users there are conventionally established ways of interpreting these patterns of words and sentences, which falls within the study of semantics and pragmatics.
|
Figure 1: A componential view of language as a communication system |
|
| Communicative | Linguistic |
| Collection of signs | phonetics & phonology |
| Rules for structuring | morphology & syntax |
| Conventions of interpretation | semantics & pragmatics |
2.2 Language as a human cognitive faculty
In 2007, the evolutionary biologist William Tecumseh Fitch published an article on the evolution of language, in which he corresponded these three main components of language to three broad cognitive capacities underlying the human language faculty. In so doing, Fitch offered a view on the nature of language as a uniquely human communication system owing to its cognitive complexity across each of its three components.
2.2.1 Signal imitation
Natural languages have far larger stores of signs – traditionally, the number of consonant and vowel patterns in spoken languages – compared to other animal communication systems.
Accordingly, Fitch argues that humans must possess the cognitive capacity for complex, structured imitation – the starting point for a community for language users to build up a large lexicon of mutually agreed upon signs.
2.2.2 Structure generation and mapping
Natural languages have various systems of rules of great complexity and computational power which govern the combinatorial and hierarchical patternings of these signs.
Accordingly, Fitch argues that humans must possess the cognitive capacity to process such computationally sophisticated rules, particularly those responsible for the key property of recursion in syntax.
2.2.3 Semiotic drive
Natural languages have highly complex semiotic systems, in which the meanings of linguistic signs are dependent on and affected by their contexts of use. Crucially, language contrasts with other animal communication systems, in being a dedicated and intentional system for expressing and communicating ideas. For example, vervet monkeys instinctively produce alarm calls the moment they perceive nearby predators, however language users do not find themselves compelled to speak or sign due to similar external influences. Thus, when humans use language, they do so with full intention.
Accordingly, Fitch argues that humans must possess a cognitive appreciation of a “theory of mind”, unlike other animals. This means that language users understand that any conversation involves two or more distinct minds, and thus they use language as an intentional and specific means for creating or altering thoughts in the minds of their fellow language users, rather than under the influence of external stimuli.
|
Figure 2: Fitch’s tri-componential view of language |
||
| Communicative | Linguistic | Cognitive |
| Lexicon of Signifiers | phonetics & phonology | Signal imitation |
| Patterning/ Ordering rules | morphology & syntax | Structure generation and mapping |
| Signified meanings | semantics & pragmatics | Semiotic Drive |
2.3 Evaluation of Fitch’s components
Fitch’s analysis of the human language faculty helps us understand the various uniquely human cognitive capacities underlying language. However, in order to explain how these components interact with each other to form language-in-practice, as an empirical phenomenon, we feel that a dual approach combining both featural and componential analyses is necessary, which will be the topic of the following section.