By Carmen Chang,
We will now examine the advantages of natural languages through a comparative analysis, followed by a focus on their disadvantages in the next article. In other articles, we will also discuss the case of artificial languages.
Among the positive aspects of natural languages, it is important to highlight that they are part of a people’s or nation’s cultural heritage and identity, as argued by Spanish linguist Julio Calvo Pérez (2017: 88) in his article Languages as Heritage. Principle of Priority:
“The first step in everything related to the heritage field is the recognition of the inherited legacy. Then there are others: its conservation, expansion, and finally its transmission to future generations. […] The importance of languages as the heritage of peoples cannot be ignored, even though few authors include them in the lists of reservable or recoverable goods, or they may be considered inoperative from a heritage standpoint, no matter how distinctive they are from an anthropological perspective” (Prats, 1997: 37).
Similarly, Alfredo Ramírez Celestino (2009: 1), a Mexican professor and researcher of Anthropology, History, and Linguistics, in his article Linguistic Heritage: Between Written Tradition, Iconographic Representation, and Orality, emphasizes the importance of natural languages as linguistic heritage for a community of speakers:
“Music, food, mythical-religious beliefs, codices, and language are part of, among other equally subtle elements, the so-called intangible heritage. The very nature of these goods, which are not tangible —like ‘touching’ a pyramid or admiring a pre-Hispanic clay vessel in our hands— is what makes them difficult to understand, let alone legislate on. Precisely, within these lines, I want to talk about linguistic heritage and the legislation that should exist to protect indigenous languages as intangible goods of humanity” (Alfredo Ramírez Celestino, 2009: 1).
Furthermore, the same author (2009: 1) adds that human languages form a part of a people’s cultural identity, enabling speakers to share feelings and a worldview enriched by existing linguistic diversity:
“Language is the most peculiarly human characteristic —this, and perhaps laughter— are what differentiate us humans from the rest of the animals. Moreover, through human languages, people in all societies feel identity and cohesion. Daily communication is the vehicle through which the most complex ideas and purest emotions are expressed. Through languages, culture is built, and through culture, humans transcend. Moreover, every culture is expressed in a language, and through it, reality appears in a unique and particular way. Because, we must say it, reality is one, but each people, each society, views it differently through their language, and therefore offers different solutions; such particularities create diversity, and in diversity lies the strength of human nature” (Alfredo Ramírez Celestino, 2009: 1).
Lastly, we can add another characteristic of natural languages: their adaptive capacity, which is associated with the biological evolution of the human brain. “The brain has co-evolved with respect to language, but languages have done most of the adapting” (Deacon, 1997: 122). In this regard, Juan Carlos Zavala Olalde, a Mexican biologist and anthropologist from UNAM, author of Ontogeny and Biocultural Theory: Bases for the Study of the Person from Childhood Development (2012), in his article The Evolution of Human Language from the Scientific Culture Magazine of the Faculty of Sciences, National Autonomous University of Mexico (2013: 64), defends the theory of the evolutionary mechanism of the macroevolution of natural languages from both a phylogenetic and ontogenetic perspective. This evolutionary trait of the human brain is linked to the acquisition of language, which facilitates the development of “universal grammar”, with social interaction being necessary. There has been much debate about whether language possesses this adaptive value; on the one hand, the existence of an alleged innate capacity to progressively encode more information, which would also have great significance for social cohesion, is proposed. On the other hand, the option of cultural transmission, which would have allowed for the evolution of language, is presented. In both cases, the adaptive value of language for social communication stands out:
“If the cultural transmission of language [a characteristic of natural languages] provides an adaptive advantage, it then becomes a causal element of the biological evolution of our species. And if at the same time, in the evolutionary process, for example, with the increase in brain size, this determines the evolution of learning mechanisms, then individuals will be able to learn a language that is hypothetically developing (ontogenetically and evolutionarily) within the language acquisition module, making the cultural development of our species possible regarding the origin and evolution of language.”
References
- Las lenguas como patrimonio. El principio de prioridad. Valencia: Universidad de Valencia, Debates. Available here
- El cambio lingüístico, la evolución del lenguaje y la hipótesis de la uniformidad de las lenguas. Homenaje a Ángel López García, Zaragoza: Universidad de Zaragoza. 2009.
- El patrimonio lingüístico: entre la tradición escrita, la representación iconográfica y la oralidad, Obra Estado del Desarrollo Económico y Social de los pueblos indígenas de Guerrero. Programa Universitario México Nación Multicultural, UNAM y la Secretará de Asuntos Indígenas del Gobierno del Estado de Guerrero. Available here
- La evolución del lenguaje humano. Revista de cultura científica de la Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Available here
