Comment on Is there a chart where particular cuneiform or hieroglyphics are actually matched with emojis?

• hakase@lemm.ee ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Written Chinese could arguably be considered its own language.

  Sure, by someone other than people who scientifically study human language, for the reasons outlined above. The study of orthography is its own separate (though closely related) field for good reason, though it’s nowhere as big as linguistics, since it’s not as scientifically interesting.

  There are several spoken languages in China which are unintelligible to each other, but that look the same when written down since the written language doesn’t codify phonemes or even spoken words, but concepts.

  You do understand why this supports my argument, right? Writing is just a largely arbitrary system of (imperfectly) encoding/representing human language, which must be learned, and is not acquired the way human language is. For this reason, it makes perfect sense that what is effectively a “code” for language could be used to represent multiple languages. You could just as easily do the same with written English. Heck, formal logic is specifically designed to do this for all human languages, but that doesn’t make it a language itself.

  Here’s a pop article talking about the distinction, reflecting the discussion above (spoilers for the movie Arrival, which I highly recommend if you haven’t seen it). I can’t point you to any peer-reviewed articles on the subject, of course, because this has been decided science since the publication of Ferdinand de Saussure’s 1913 Course in General Linguistics.

  I hate referring to Wikipedia (again however, there are no articles on this because it’s settled science), but note that the article for Writing system correctly identifies writing as representing human language and not actually consisting of it.

  source

  • sukhmel@programming.dev ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Spoken language is also learnt, not acquired by some magical means

    source

    • hakase@lemm.ee ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Spoken language is acquired, not learned. This is a formal distinction in the literature, used to distinguish unconscious behaviors from conscious ones.

      Learning involves something you have conscious knowledge about - you can learn how to build a birdhouse, and then you can teach me how to build one as well, because you’ve consciously learned the rules for doing so.

      Acquisition is involuntary, and unconscious. Children don’t try to learn languages - any human infant given language input from any human language will acquire that language, seemingly without effort.

      Also, the knowledge we gain from language acquisition is unconscious knowledge - as an English speaker, you can’t tell me why “John hit the ball” is a sentence of English and “John ball the hit” is not, other than to give an explanation that will eventually boil down to “because it just isn’t”. You don’t know why your language is the way it is - you just implicitly know exactly how it is, and how it isn’t.

      So, acquisition being distinct from learning requires no magic - just an understanding of the differences between these two processes, in the same way as we can also understand the differences between writing and language.

      source