International Encyclopedia of Systems and Cybernetics

(Language being a very intricated concept, various definitions are given, all synthetized from numerous different sources)

1. A set of elements (pulses, gestures, signs, words, symbols, etc… ) that can be combined through syntactical rules in order to form significant associations.

2. The subset of all the possible meaningful combinations that can be formed from a set of signs.

3. A set of signs with more or less commonly admitted, or coded values that can be used for the comunication of messages between senders and receivers.

L.A. ZADEH, in turn, gives an equivalent but more formal definition: "A language L may be viewed as a correspondance between a set of terms T and a universe of discourse U' (1973b, p.33).

Any language must be a set, generally of quite numerous signs, given communicative value by coherent combinatory rules, shared by the communicators. As such, it can be considered a very general, extended and open, i.e. evolving code. E.von GLASERSFELD specifies that "These signs must be symbols, i.e. linked to representations (Symbolicity). Therefore they can be sent without reference to perceptual instances of the items they designate, and received without "triggering" a behavioral response in the receiver. As symbols they merely activate the connected representation" (1988, p.58). The word "tiger" does not normally induce an escape reaction, except in some quite specific contexts.

As to the rules, if they are to be generative, they must however introduce limitations, i.e. constraints to such combinatorics, otherwise it would not be possible to construct any specifically meaningful combinations.

The rules must define the syntactic, logical and semantic constraints of the language.

If these ordered elements are to be useful for any type of communication, they must be perceived and understood, in order to permit communicable descriptions. (H. PATTEE, 1977, p.262). This is obtained through the coordination of all rules within a code including their complete specifications.

P.Y. RACCAH thus describes the conditions for the understanding of which is transmitted:

"The first hypothesis postulates that the meaning of a sentence (or other expression of a natural language) can be described as a set of instructions for the possible interpreters, which state how they are supposed to build the significances of the possible utterances of that sentence, using their belief, knowledge and points of view about the situation of utterance. According to the second hypothesis, these instructions are concerned at least partially, with the point of view required in order to be able to interpret the possible utterances of that sentence. The third hypothesis postulates that these points of view can be described using gradual fields (topical fields), monotonic relations between those fields (topoi) and constraints of those fields and relations (topical constraints). Finally, according to the fourth hypothesis, the words of a natural language are conventionally associated to topical fields, and/or topical constraints; these associations are claimed to be responsible for the fact that the use of such or such word reflects an ideology, a belief or, simply, a particular competence" (1993, p.1245).

As to perception, it depends on the physiological characteristics of senders and receivers. For example, human beings do not perceive infra-red or supersonic waves, at least in a direct way, and thus cannot use them as elements of a language.

As to common understanding, it is based on the knowledge by receivers as well as senders of a shared code that must be learned: a message, correctly sent in Russian cannot be understood by someone who does not know Russian. This is the meaning of "meaningful".

The codes are the syntactic rules alluded to. They are needed to introduce constraints within the set of elements: it is obvious that not every element should be allowed to interconnect with every other in any random way, as such an undefined arrangement would be totally meaningless and could not carry any information. This is also the reason why the second definition considers the language as a subset. For example, with the latin alphabet, it is perfectly possible to construct different languages, by selecting different rules.

It should be taken in account, however that the rules may vary in time, as for example from Latin to Spanish, Italian or French.

On the other hand, as no language is a saturated set of interconnections, rules can be used as an algorithm for creating new combinations, corresponding to new situations and necessities.

In R.M. SNOW words: "Language cannot stand alone. It can only be understood in terms of a complex relationship with action" (1993, p.146).

Moreover, any element becomes context dependent within the language, because it can be used in quite a number of different contexts and, just as an atom within a molecule, acquire a positional value.

Ch. HENRY states it in the following way: "…Ianguage… is an aggregate of systems that taken together create an illusive, polysemous context. Truth cannot be fixed in such an aggregate" (1992, p.696).

As to the social character of language as a communication means, R. ACKOFF and F. EMERY (1972) describe it as: "A set of signs as well as instructions for their use such that (1) the signs can be produced by purposeful individuals; (2) the signs are semantically and pragmatically efficient for a significant portion of those who use them, (3) the signs are environmentally and socially general in the semantic and pragmatic sense and, (4) the instructions signify ways of permuting and combining signs in the set to form sign complexes that also satisfy conditions (2) and (3)".

Thus, any language implies a previous consensual process and transmission by a teaching- learning process. Unfortunately, non-formalized languages – even common languages controlled by academies and other similar institutions – may easily be distorted by ideologic manipulations or prejudices.

Systemists should thus take a clear conscience of the frequent lack of transparency of languages.

PRIGOGINE made the interesting suggestion that language as a cooperative device between groups may be considered as a tool for communication in the same sense as, for example chemotaxis in amoebas and social insects.

As to D. BOHM and F.D. PEAT, they describe language as "… an enfolded order". Cultures and epistemic communities produce and reproduce the meanings which are "… enfolded in the structure of the language" and "… unfold into thought, feeling and all the activities…" (1987, p.185).