Why Do We Use Language?

The use of language is commonplace in the world today, and has been since the dawn of recorded time. We take our use of language for granted; it is something that occurs naturally to us. Or does it? Why do we use language? It the spoken word the only type of language that we as human use? And is language and communication limited to humans, or do animals use language as we human s do? An examination of these questions may help to dispel some of our ideas and conceptions of how we communicate with the world around us.

Why do we use language?

The why and the how of language use as been mulled over by linguists throughout the centuries. Jean Aitchison summarized that language is used to dispense information, give commands, express emotional feelings and responses, social conversing, word play and poetry, and to talk about language. (1996, 17) Aitchison added more uses could be added, but these seem to the primary uses. Charles Darwin suggested that language evolved from enabling of "thought" that transcended from the calls and cried of animals to the discovery of the ability to use on vocal organs as a means of conveying wants and needs and ideas as man's grasp of the world around him grew and made communication increasingly needed. (Origins, 1871)

The role of language can perhaps be summed up in three subheadings:

• Interpersonal communication: Can be classed as Verbal and non-verbal language, communication between a mother and her baby as well as other classifications. It can be affected by gender, emotional and geographic origins. Often defined as unintentional and intentional linguistics.
• Language within a person: This embodies such aspects of humanity as thought, rationalization, creativity, memory, self direction and expression and humor.
• Language and society: formed on the building blocks of the other subheadings, this is how we define our place in the world. Our culture and believe structures are directly formed and enhanced by language of ourselves and those around us.

What is clear is language can not be traced to any one event or person. There is no set or universally accepted definition of language. Nature has given most species the ability to communicate, and most of these abilities are unique to the given species. Smith and Miller contend that 'the purpose of communication is the preservation, growth, development of the species'. (1968:265) Information exchange is apparent in all species forms of communication. Smith and Miller assert that many species show and share some of the features that characterize human language. But most interesting there is one tantalizing morsel of information that most scholars tend to agree upon. The marked separation of human and non-human communication seems to hinge upon the behavioral system of the various species. It is agreed that animals react instinctively, whereas humans react voluntarily. It is generally taken as a given that only humans have language. Or do they?

All animals, including humans, engage in various forms of social communication. All species share in basic functions, not including the advantage that spoken language may provide humans. It is this supposed difference that separates us as humans from the "animals of the jungle". However, the example of the longevity of chimpanzees as a species would be able to 'speak in human terms' indicates the need for spoken language is not a criteria for survival in animals that are so similar to humans.

Determining the differences of human and animal communication and being able to describe how these forms of communication contrast have been a difficult endeavor. The noted linguist Charles Hockett designed and implemented a checklist highlighting the features that human communication possesses, and this format has been widely accepted (1967:574-580). Hockett's main components of this list are:

• Duality of pattern (the combinations of phonetics and grammar)
• Productivity (ability to create and understand the beginnings of speech)
• Arbitrariness (sign/symbols do not resemble what they represent)
• Interchangeability (to be able to give and get messages by exchanging roles)
• Specialization (only function is communication)
• Displacement (ability to refer to the past and to things not in the sight line)
• Cultural transmissions (ability to teach/learn by imitation)

Hockett theory would possibly lead us to the conclusion that animal and human communication is alike in numerous ways, and that these areas should be investigated to prove that human and non-human communication is similar, if not of the same ilk.

Ronald Wardhaugh has brought forward another argument into the arena. He states that the very influential Naom Chomsky had suggested a counter viewpoint to that of Hockett. Chomsky concluded that an element of the human mind is dedicated to language and is therefore in the genetic make-up of human beings. This element would make it possible to use a set of rules to build up countless structures of sentences, and could not be found in any other species. Chomsky believed that human communication and what makes it unique is far more worthy of investigation than concerning ones self with the similarities of human and animal communication. (1993:18-26 and 61-64).Chomsky may have fallen short with his conclusions, however. His viewpoint would directly stand in counterpoint to the theory of evolution. In and of itself, Chomsky' viewpoint would suggest a unilateral approach to this conundrum.

Are humans unique in this aspect?

This aforementioned question has sparked debate for many years in the scientific community and has coalesced into two different schools of thought. One school of thought aligns itself to Chomsky and others who share his view that language is segregated to the human's only venue. Another school suggests quite the opposite, that at least to some degree, some apes and chimps have demonstrated an ability to use language, although not a spoken human language. The primates have used American Sign Language (ASL) to communicate, and Koko the lowland gorilla has even invented her own language which her facilitators have called Gorilla Sign Language (GSL).

E. Sue Savage-Rumbaugh, a noted Georgia State University (USA) biology professor, in a keynote address at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, made reference to idea that conventional teachings had produced a negative connotation to study of simian communication and therefore approached any claims from this research with a biased eye. However, she added that modern studies were beginning to give credence to the simian research. The research that Savage-Rumbaugh and her colleagues have undertaken has shown that apes do seem to understand sign language. Observations noted that apes have no vocal tracks, so human speech is impossible. Savage-Rumbaugh made use if a keyboard with more than 400 symbols to communicate with her subjects. She contends that if you talk to the simians and point out the symbols, they will understand language just as if two humans were talking. (Savage-Rumbaugh, Rumbaugh and Boysen, 1980)

In Savage-Rumbaugh's studies, work with a chimp named Lana with showed that the chimp was able to learn language in a meaningful context. Later work with a bonono named Matata, lead to the accidental exposure of Matata's son Kanzi to the language. It was discovered that Kanzi was able to produce a limited amount of the language without training, and of his own accord. This led to the conclusion that 'bonono's possess rudimentary syntactical ability' and that 'their responses were not reflexsive'

Further evidence in support of the theory that humans are not unique to language can be taken from the study of Koko the lowland gorilla. Koko was taught American Sign Language and has, according to the Gorilla Foundation, a working vocabulary of 2000 signs. Interestingly, Koko has communicated with person's other than her keepers and has demonstrated to them communicative ability. Many years ago, personal observation of the gorilla noted that after the death of her kitten, Koko communicated an understanding of the concept of death and that her kitten was gone forever. She expressed grief and pain over the death, and was able to communicate her memory of the kitten in her day to day existence. Even more curiously, she was asked if she wanted a new kitten, and when she picked a new one out of a litter, Koko was able to make comparisons of her first kitten and the new addition. This observation alone would seem to refute the idea that only humans are capable of language, as Koko displayed the Displacement, which is one of the main points of Hockett's list of human communication processes.

Conclusion

We use language to communicate ideas and express feelings. We use it to describe the world around us and how we perceive it. We learn to communicate as our bodies mature. We learn many ways to say the same word, but to make it have many different meanings and contexts.

But to say that we as human beings are the only species to be able to communicate is absurd. Every species has the ability to communicate, and it is only human arrogance that has determined that ours is the only true language, simply based in what we have ascertained is cognitive thought. We are limited in our realization that we are only one of many species, and that perhaps it is safer to think that because we cant understand what an animal thinks, then there is no way that can be as smart as we think we are.