Invited talk. Organizer: Spectrum. 16 May 2022, Brainwave, Science Park, Amsterdam

1. One species, many languages
Linguistic universals and specificities in human languages
Federico Gobbo, F.Gobbo@uva.nl
16 May 2022, Brainwave, Science Park, Amsterdam 1

2. What does ‘language’ mean?

3. Do cows “speak” languages?
2

4. How a programming language is a language?
3

5. Is English only one language?
4

6. Is Limburgish really a language?
5

7. Are sign languages real languages, like spoken ones?
6

8. Is Esperanto, an artificial language, like the others?
7

9. Can Hollywood make a language up, from scratch?
8

10. Natural, artificial, unnatural,
non-natural languages

11. The ambiguities of the expression ‘natural language’ (Gobbo
2012)
English French Italian
language langage linguaggio
natural language langue lingua
9

12. The ambiguities of the expression ‘natural language’ (Gobbo
2012)
English French Italian
language langage linguaggio
natural language langue lingua
• naturalness1 basis to form a society (e.g., Chinese, Dutch, German)
9

13. The ambiguities of the expression ‘natural language’ (Gobbo
2012)
English French Italian
language langage linguaggio
natural language langue lingua
• naturalness1 basis to form a society (e.g., Chinese, Dutch, German)
• naturalness2 constrained by nature (species-specific, see UG)
9

14. The ambiguities of the expression ‘natural language’ (Gobbo
2012)
English French Italian
language langage linguaggio
natural language langue lingua
• naturalness1 basis to form a society (e.g., Chinese, Dutch, German)
• naturalness2 constrained by nature (species-specific, see UG)
• naturalness3 acquirable by users as a normal part of the process of
maturation and socialization (by children, spontaneously)
9

15. The ambiguities of the expression ‘natural language’ (Gobbo
2012)
English French Italian
language langage linguaggio
natural language langue lingua
• naturalness1 basis to form a society (e.g., Chinese, Dutch, German)
• naturalness2 constrained by nature (species-specific, see UG)
• naturalness3 acquirable by users as a normal part of the process of
maturation and socialization (by children, spontaneously)
• naturalness4 conforming to the researcher’s expectations about what is
normal or typical (anything?)
9

16. Cows do not speak human languages, even if they have accents
• natural1 they are slightly different according to their groups
10

17. Cows do not speak human languages, even if they have accents
• natural1 they are slightly different according to their groups
• natural2 limited by the limitations of their species (emotions are expressed)
10

18. Cows do not speak human languages, even if they have accents
• natural1 they are slightly different according to their groups
• natural2 limited by the limitations of their species (emotions are expressed)
• natural3 cows raise calves
10

19. Cows do not speak human languages, even if they have accents
• natural1 they are slightly different according to their groups
• natural2 limited by the limitations of their species (emotions are expressed)
• natural3 cows raise calves
• (un)natural4 “Cows are not humans!”
10

20. The place of computer programming languages
• unnatural1 they form communities (e.g. Python programmers) but not
societies
11

21. The place of computer programming languages
• unnatural1 they form communities (e.g. Python programmers) but not
societies
• unnatural2 constrained by their expressive power (Turing-completeness)
11

22. The place of computer programming languages
• unnatural1 they form communities (e.g. Python programmers) but not
societies
• unnatural2 constrained by their expressive power (Turing-completeness)
• unnatural3 you can’t raise a child speaking in Bash, or Java
11

23. The place of computer programming languages
• unnatural1 they form communities (e.g. Python programmers) but not
societies
• unnatural2 constrained by their expressive power (Turing-completeness)
• unnatural3 you can’t raise a child speaking in Bash, or Java
• (un)natural4 “functional programming languages are more natural than
object-oriented ones”
11

24. The place of English(es), a world language
• natural1 polycentric language, with different norms
12

25. The place of English(es), a world language
• natural1 polycentric language, with different norms
• ⇒ some norms (e.g. British and American) are more equal than others
12

26. The place of English(es), a world language
• natural1 polycentric language, with different norms
• ⇒ some norms (e.g. British and American) are more equal than others
• natural2 double articulation (i.e. phonemes vs morphemes)
12

27. The place of English(es), a world language
• natural1 polycentric language, with different norms
• ⇒ some norms (e.g. British and American) are more equal than others
• natural2 double articulation (i.e. phonemes vs morphemes)
• natural3 learnt informally (L1) as well as formally (L2)
12

28. The place of English(es), a world language
• natural1 polycentric language, with different norms
• ⇒ some norms (e.g. British and American) are more equal than others
• natural2 double articulation (i.e. phonemes vs morphemes)
• natural3 learnt informally (L1) as well as formally (L2)
• natural4 “Of course it is!”
12

29. The place of English(es), a world language
• natural1 polycentric language, with different norms
• ⇒ some norms (e.g. British and American) are more equal than others
• natural2 double articulation (i.e. phonemes vs morphemes)
• natural3 learnt informally (L1) as well as formally (L2)
• natural4 “Of course it is!”
• ⇒ fully elaborated (Ausbau) for its political power
12

30. The place of Limburgish, a Regional and Minority Language
• natural1 language by distance (Abstand) with Dutch and German
13

31. The place of Limburgish, a Regional and Minority Language
• natural1 language by distance (Abstand) with Dutch and German
• ⇒ not fully elaborated (Ausbau) for its scarse political power
13

32. The place of Limburgish, a Regional and Minority Language
• natural1 language by distance (Abstand) with Dutch and German
• ⇒ not fully elaborated (Ausbau) for its scarse political power
• natural2 double articulation (i.e. phonemes vs morphemes)
13

33. The place of Limburgish, a Regional and Minority Language
• natural1 language by distance (Abstand) with Dutch and German
• ⇒ not fully elaborated (Ausbau) for its scarse political power
• natural2 double articulation (i.e. phonemes vs morphemes)
• natural3 learnt informally (L1) as well as formally (L2)
13

34. The place of Limburgish, a Regional and Minority Language
• natural1 language by distance (Abstand) with Dutch and German
• ⇒ not fully elaborated (Ausbau) for its scarse political power
• natural2 double articulation (i.e. phonemes vs morphemes)
• natural3 learnt informally (L1) as well as formally (L2)
• (un)natural4 “it’s not a language, it’s a dialect / patois / way of speech!”
13

35. The place of sign languages
• natural1 different modality (signing) but natural, and they are many
14

36. The place of sign languages
• natural1 different modality (signing) but natural, and they are many
• ⇒ (ASL, BSL, LIS, NGT, etc, with their own mapping)
14

37. The place of sign languages
• natural1 different modality (signing) but natural, and they are many
• ⇒ (ASL, BSL, LIS, NGT, etc, with their own mapping)
• natural2 double articulation (i.e. phonemes vs morphemes)
14

38. The place of sign languages
• natural1 different modality (signing) but natural, and they are many
• ⇒ (ASL, BSL, LIS, NGT, etc, with their own mapping)
• natural2 double articulation (i.e. phonemes vs morphemes)
• natural3 deaf learn them L1, hearing L1s bilingual; moreover: L2
14

39. The place of sign languages
• natural1 different modality (signing) but natural, and they are many
• ⇒ (ASL, BSL, LIS, NGT, etc, with their own mapping)
• natural2 double articulation (i.e. phonemes vs morphemes)
• natural3 deaf learn them L1, hearing L1s bilingual; moreover: L2
• (un)natural4 “They are not written, so they are not natural”
14

40. The place of sign languages
• natural1 different modality (signing) but natural, and they are many
• ⇒ (ASL, BSL, LIS, NGT, etc, with their own mapping)
• natural2 double articulation (i.e. phonemes vs morphemes)
• natural3 deaf learn them L1, hearing L1s bilingual; moreover: L2
• (un)natural4 “They are not written, so they are not natural”
14

41. The place of sign languages
• natural1 different modality (signing) but natural, and they are many
• ⇒ (ASL, BSL, LIS, NGT, etc, with their own mapping)
• natural2 double articulation (i.e. phonemes vs morphemes)
• natural3 deaf learn them L1, hearing L1s bilingual; moreover: L2
• (un)natural4 “They are not written, so they are not natural”
• ⇒ (Ethnologue, 24th: 7,139 living languages, 4,065 have a developed
writing system, 3,074 are likely unwritten)
14

42. The place of Esperanto: a QNL, according to Lyons (1981)
• non − natural1 constructed by convention, then spoken
15

43. The place of Esperanto: a QNL, according to Lyons (1981)
• non − natural1 constructed by convention, then spoken
• natural2 double articulation (i.e. phonemes vs morphemes)
15

44. The place of Esperanto: a QNL, according to Lyons (1981)
• non − natural1 constructed by convention, then spoken
• natural2 double articulation (i.e. phonemes vs morphemes)
• natural3 mostly L2, but circa 1000 bilingual L1 Esperanto speakers in
families exist
15

45. The place of Esperanto: a QNL, according to Lyons (1981)
• non − natural1 constructed by convention, then spoken
• natural2 double articulation (i.e. phonemes vs morphemes)
• natural3 mostly L2, but circa 1000 bilingual L1 Esperanto speakers in
families exist
• (un)natural4 “It is artificial, therefore it is not natural”
15

46. The place of Esperanto: a QNL, according to Lyons (1981)
• non − natural1 constructed by convention, then spoken
• natural2 double articulation (i.e. phonemes vs morphemes)
• natural3 mostly L2, but circa 1000 bilingual L1 Esperanto speakers in
families exist
• (un)natural4 “It is artificial, therefore it is not natural”
• ⇒ struggling to be fully elaborated (Ausbau)
15

47. The place of Dothraki and other Hollywood languages
• non − natural1 constructed for marketing, speech mainly on stage
16

48. The place of Dothraki and other Hollywood languages
• non − natural1 constructed for marketing, speech mainly on stage
• natural2 double articulation (i.e. phonemes vs morphemes)
16

49. The place of Dothraki and other Hollywood languages
• non − natural1 constructed for marketing, speech mainly on stage
• natural2 double articulation (i.e. phonemes vs morphemes)
• not − so − natural3 only L2, mainly written in the web, no families (still?)
16

50. The place of Dothraki and other Hollywood languages
• non − natural1 constructed for marketing, speech mainly on stage
• natural2 double articulation (i.e. phonemes vs morphemes)
• not − so − natural3 only L2, mainly written in the web, no families (still?)
• (un)natural4 “It is a joke, it is not in the real world!”
16

51. The place of Dothraki and other Hollywood languages
• non − natural1 constructed for marketing, speech mainly on stage
• natural2 double articulation (i.e. phonemes vs morphemes)
• not − so − natural3 only L2, mainly written in the web, no families (still?)
• (un)natural4 “It is a joke, it is not in the real world!”
• ⇒ not pretending to be fully elaborated (Ausbau)
16

52. Other QNLs: not only Esperanto
A second class of non-natural languages, not sharply distinguishable in
principle from languages such as Esperanto, may be referred to collec-
tively as quasi-N-languages (QNL). It has as its members all those (more
or less unnatural4) languages which may be constructed from attested N-
languages by deliberately changing one or more of their structural prop-
erties. There are of course indefinitely many such languages […] Children
construct [them] for themselves (and in part decostruct – if I may so ex-
press it) at a certain stage in the normal (natural3) process of acquiring
English. (Lyons 1991, 69-70)
17

53. Other QNLs: not only Esperanto
A second class of non-natural languages, not sharply distinguishable in
principle from languages such as Esperanto, may be referred to collec-
tively as quasi-N-languages (QNL). It has as its members all those (more
or less unnatural4) languages which may be constructed from attested N-
languages by deliberately changing one or more of their structural prop-
erties. There are of course indefinitely many such languages […] Children
construct [them] for themselves (and in part decostruct – if I may so ex-
press it) at a certain stage in the normal (natural3) process of acquiring
English. (Lyons 1991, 69-70)
⇒ Paradox: children speak Quasi-Natural-Languages!
17

54. Absolute and relative universals in
human languages

55. What is truly universal in human languages?
• ambiguous neither formal descriptions nor dictionaries can capture their
complexity in full
18

56. What is truly universal in human languages?
• ambiguous neither formal descriptions nor dictionaries can capture their
complexity in full
• beyond deixis they can indicate references beyond ‘here and now’
18

57. What is truly universal in human languages?
• ambiguous neither formal descriptions nor dictionaries can capture their
complexity in full
• beyond deixis they can indicate references beyond ‘here and now’
• dialogical they can express Q&As, sharing information
18

58. What is truly universal in human languages?
• ambiguous neither formal descriptions nor dictionaries can capture their
complexity in full
• beyond deixis they can indicate references beyond ‘here and now’
• dialogical they can express Q&As, sharing information
• argumentative they are used to convince or persuade
18

59. What is truly universal in human languages?
• ambiguous neither formal descriptions nor dictionaries can capture their
complexity in full
• beyond deixis they can indicate references beyond ‘here and now’
• dialogical they can express Q&As, sharing information
• argumentative they are used to convince or persuade
• grammar all languages have patterns to recycle linguistic material
18

60. What is truly universal in human languages?
• ambiguous neither formal descriptions nor dictionaries can capture their
complexity in full
• beyond deixis they can indicate references beyond ‘here and now’
• dialogical they can express Q&As, sharing information
• argumentative they are used to convince or persuade
• grammar all languages have patterns to recycle linguistic material
• predication pole all languages mark actions and transformations
18

61. What is truly universal in human languages?
• ambiguous neither formal descriptions nor dictionaries can capture their
complexity in full
• beyond deixis they can indicate references beyond ‘here and now’
• dialogical they can express Q&As, sharing information
• argumentative they are used to convince or persuade
• grammar all languages have patterns to recycle linguistic material
• predication pole all languages mark actions and transformations
• stative pole all languages mark entities, in particular, humans
18

62. What is truly universal in human languages?
• ambiguous neither formal descriptions nor dictionaries can capture their
complexity in full
• beyond deixis they can indicate references beyond ‘here and now’
• dialogical they can express Q&As, sharing information
• argumentative they are used to convince or persuade
• grammar all languages have patterns to recycle linguistic material
• predication pole all languages mark actions and transformations
• stative pole all languages mark entities, in particular, humans
• recursion you can nest linguistic structures (e.g. clauses)
18

63. What is truly universal in human languages?
• ambiguous neither formal descriptions nor dictionaries can capture their
complexity in full
• beyond deixis they can indicate references beyond ‘here and now’
• dialogical they can express Q&As, sharing information
• argumentative they are used to convince or persuade
• grammar all languages have patterns to recycle linguistic material
• predication pole all languages mark actions and transformations
• stative pole all languages mark entities, in particular, humans
• recursion you can nest linguistic structures (e.g. clauses)
• ⇒ but see the recent case of Pirahá, an Amazonian language
18

64. Relative universals: an example (WALS, ch 81)
19

65. Thank You for Your Kind Attention! Any Question?
Federico Gobbo (he/him)
University of Amsterdam
a f.gobbo@uva.nl
Ŵ uva.nl/profile/f.gobbo
Nj federicogobbo.name
Social media profiles
f linkedin.com/in/federicogobbo/
_ https://twitter.com/goberiko
İ facebook.com/federico.gobbo
q instagram.com/la.profesoro
§ slideshare.net/goberiko
Messanging apps
Ŷ ID Telegram goberiko
¦ ID WeChat goberiko
c b 4.0 Federico Gobbo