3 ms·

Back in the 90s I took a linguistics class and wanted my semester paper to be a review of the literature on this topic. I started my research and found nothing.

Back in the 90s I took a linguistics class and wanted my semester paper to be a review of the literature on this topic. I started my research and found nothing. I figured it was my research skills falling short and I didn't know the right terminology and places to look. So I asked my professor. He suggested talking to other faculty. I did. They gave me some terminology suggestions buuuut.... also told me that they didn't think there was much out there on the topic. In fact, one of them told me I almost certainly wouldn't find anything. And he was right (then, having burned half the semester chasing down a dead end and facing the choice between doing original research in two months vs changing topic, I picked human usage of computer language, which got me a C+ because the prof was adamant computer languages aren't human languages). Anyway, I was astounded that this aspect of acquisition wasn't well-studied, and I'm glad to see it has been since. Edit: I never meant to contend that computer languages are human languages in the sense that the former can function in every way the later can -- so I wasn't suggesting that anyone should say "C is a language just as Spanish is a language." But I did argue that programming languages come by their name honestly, are meant to communicate between humans, and most importantly find their way into language colloquially, and as such deserve attention from linguists. My prof seemed to have engaged with the paper as if I were making the "C is like Spanish!" argument, whether that's because (a) I wasn't clear enough in my writing (b) he wasn't paying close attention or (c) there's something else that eluded me is left as an exercise for... well, me, and apparently hacker news participants who want to take it up as a matter of discussion. :)

thaumasiotes 9y ago
> I picked human usage of computer language, which got me a C+ because the prof was adamant computer languages aren't human languages It's not like he was wrong about this?
- fao_ 9y ago
  Computer languages are human languages, because the purpose is to communicate to humans what you're doing. Unless you want to write raw bytecode?
  - taejo 9y ago
    The same is true of the diagrams in IKEA instructions, but that doesn't mean that the human brain works with them in the same way as it works with human languages.
    - marci 9y ago
      And now, so many more questions. I wonder: - how the brain "reads" an Ikea instruction? - is it similar to non-verbal communication? - do you vocalize an interpretation of the instructions? - 3D projection in your head? - What are the differences between seeing an object, hearing a word that represent it, reading the word? (Now thinking about sign-language, braille...) I just picked an Instruction set to see, but realised I was already biased with the expectation I had of how I would decipher it.
  - kazinator 9y ago
    That's just equivocating on the definition of the term "human language"; that's not what a linguist means by human language. I.e. your argument isn't really that Javascript or C are human languages as defined by the linguistics professor but that he or she ought to augment or alter his or her definition of "human language" to include them.
    - fao_ 9y ago
      That didn't stop Larry Wall getting a degree in "Natural and Artificial languages" :)
      - kazinator 9y ago
        Rather, it stopped him from getting a degree in natural and artificial languages which was called "Natural Languages".
  - frandroid 9y ago
    Programming languages don't have the grammatical complexity of languages we use to communicate with each other.
kazinator 9y ago
> which got me a C+ because the prof was adamant computer languages aren't human languages I'd have argued exactly the same thing, because it's basically true, but given you a C++.
- wwweston 9y ago
  That would have been beautiful. :)
jmkirby 9y ago
EWD 667 Dijkstra's "On the foolishness if natural language programming" "... the last decades have shown a sharp decline of people's mastery of their own language." I have immediately to mind, despite it's not by far the most eloquent of EWDs letters on language. A moment of your search engine of choice, reading the results of his letters found by the qualification of "+ poetry" I enthusiastically propose to you despite I vaguely recall losing my argument with my English language tutor for my assertion that the"interactive reference" to a broad body is valid argument if proposed by requirement prior to reading my essay. The man first to be described as computer programmer or scientist of computer languages challenges me not to pursue the subject of his renown, but to learn Dutch so to learn instead of computing the tremendous subtlety of humanity which I have found overwhelming whenever I come across his expositions. The Victorian era I believe saw this distinction between man and nature which found exegesis and celebration in formal gardens and arguably even though the assiduous endeavour of naturalists and explorers in this age of classification, of delineation: Human Above Cruel Raw Nature. Nature seen as the result of forces and devoid of innate intelligence or even intrinsic logic possessed by itself and not discoverable by the obsessions of man's inquisition. Nature was about to give up its its all. Then Man would stand supreme, as if asked to defend the thesis by a passing hurricane. Are we not learning glyphic or visual narrative speech at considerable pace of adoption, right now in the west? Was the SMS messaging apotheosis the acceptance of conducting transactions in practical life circumstances entirely via emotional expression in a exceptionally complicated indirect tense and at times by suggestion and inferences avoiding noun and verb entirely? I'm not a linguist nor even familiar enough with the formalities so very helpful if not essential to discuss this subject which I find increasingly fascinating, if you can forgive me my inclination to attempt my expression in certain expectation of some technical error. But I hope my impression conveyed, at least, that I am sure that as a species the result of the communication explosion since the internet, must be a renaissance in language development and expression. I am unsure if I can articulate what's been a nagging feeling I'm yet to have attempted expressing to any audience, but if you take the extinction of historical languages to be accelerated by the isolation from urbanisation and other factors, if isolation from other speakers or potential new speakers is the past language killer, then talking to grandchildren over Skype might enable at least colloquialisms and dialects still extant or somehow developing to persist in the future?

thaumasiotes 9y ago

> I picked human usage of computer language, which got me a C+ because the prof was adamant computer languages aren't human languages It's not like he was wrong about this?

fao_ 9y ago
Computer languages are human languages, because the purpose is to communicate to humans what you're doing. Unless you want to write raw bytecode?
- taejo 9y ago
  The same is true of the diagrams in IKEA instructions, but that doesn't mean that the human brain works with them in the same way as it works with human languages.
  - marci 9y ago
    And now, so many more questions. I wonder: - how the brain "reads" an Ikea instruction? - is it similar to non-verbal communication? - do you vocalize an interpretation of the instructions? - 3D projection in your head? - What are the differences between seeing an object, hearing a word that represent it, reading the word? (Now thinking about sign-language, braille...) I just picked an Instruction set to see, but realised I was already biased with the expectation I had of how I would decipher it.
- kazinator 9y ago
  That's just equivocating on the definition of the term "human language"; that's not what a linguist means by human language. I.e. your argument isn't really that Javascript or C are human languages as defined by the linguistics professor but that he or she ought to augment or alter his or her definition of "human language" to include them.
  - fao_ 9y ago
    That didn't stop Larry Wall getting a degree in "Natural and Artificial languages" :)
    - kazinator 9y ago
      Rather, it stopped him from getting a degree in natural and artificial languages which was called "Natural Languages".
- frandroid 9y ago
  Programming languages don't have the grammatical complexity of languages we use to communicate with each other.

kazinator 9y ago

> which got me a C+ because the prof was adamant computer languages aren't human languages I'd have argued exactly the same thing, because it's basically true, but given you a C++.

wwweston 9y ago
That would have been beautiful. :)

jmkirby 9y ago

EWD 667 Dijkstra's "On the foolishness if natural language programming" "... the last decades have shown a sharp decline of people's mastery of their own language." I have immediately to mind, despite it's not by far the most eloquent of EWDs letters on language. A moment of your search engine of choice, reading the results of his letters found by the qualification of "+ poetry" I enthusiastically propose to you despite I vaguely recall losing my argument with my English language tutor for my assertion that the"interactive reference" to a broad body is valid argument if proposed by requirement prior to reading my essay. The man first to be described as computer programmer or scientist of computer languages challenges me not to pursue the subject of his renown, but to learn Dutch so to learn instead of computing the tremendous subtlety of humanity which I have found overwhelming whenever I come across his expositions. The Victorian era I believe saw this distinction between man and nature which found exegesis and celebration in formal gardens and arguably even though the assiduous endeavour of naturalists and explorers in this age of classification, of delineation: Human Above Cruel Raw Nature. Nature seen as the result of forces and devoid of innate intelligence or even intrinsic logic possessed by itself and not discoverable by the obsessions of man's inquisition. Nature was about to give up its its all. Then Man would stand supreme, as if asked to defend the thesis by a passing hurricane. Are we not learning glyphic or visual narrative speech at considerable pace of adoption, right now in the west? Was the SMS messaging apotheosis the acceptance of conducting transactions in practical life circumstances entirely via emotional expression in a exceptionally complicated indirect tense and at times by suggestion and inferences avoiding noun and verb entirely? I'm not a linguist nor even familiar enough with the formalities so very helpful if not essential to discuss this subject which I find increasingly fascinating, if you can forgive me my inclination to attempt my expression in certain expectation of some technical error. But I hope my impression conveyed, at least, that I am sure that as a species the result of the communication explosion since the internet, must be a renaissance in language development and expression. I am unsure if I can articulate what's been a nagging feeling I'm yet to have attempted expressing to any audience, but if you take the extinction of historical languages to be accelerated by the isolation from urbanisation and other factors, if isolation from other speakers or potential new speakers is the past language killer, then talking to grandchildren over Skype might enable at least colloquialisms and dialects still extant or somehow developing to persist in the future?