-1

Is language itself scientific? Can the way language is used/abused be scientifically evaluated like a Math problem? Can an English sentence be mathematical?

Are grammar constructs defined like (100% equal to?) math formulas?

Language and grammar seem to be regarded "like" math, however Math can be reproducably calculated, can the same be said of Language? Another side of language and wording though, is some form of Psychology, meaning Style, Order, and Form, tied to human functions like how we emit/hear/see/feel sound and can remember a paragraph versus a page at a time. Is Math not unique as a Science, for being able to be computed and not require a human being?

Is language and grammar so standardized and prescriptive, made by scientific methods wholly the same as Math follows? A computer can calculate math, but not an English sentence "yet", in terms of Scientific Methods, so how is language graded versus math and is it a fully equivalent determination?

Sympolics of math can be traced and reproduced, anyone can take a formula and make a (the exact) rocket. However, with language and linguicisms there is a nature of supposed mathematical certaintly and exactness, yet there is severe/warring difficulty in society in determining what words mean and how they're said.

We may not know who "invented" a word, any more than who "invented" some maths, but for some reason we all use the same universal Math, unlike language where we fight instead. Could it be related to the scientistic scientificness, these "language issues" (I do not hear "math issues" said with the same voice, except maybe in Astronomical Quantum Theory "issues", whereas for language it's always "issues" across the board)?

Even in medical science, there is a requirement for recognition of what we really can prove, blood tests and DNA, versus by-chance knowledge from singular and rare biological phenomena/disorders and problems which have theory but are not given credibility as worthy of funding a Scientific Experiment, because there are significant gaps in what can be proven.

That is not to say Linguistics has not tried to formulate why some mouth movement and hearing issue ties exactly to the written form, but is it Rocket Science?

Are rules, standards, repetitions and patterns of how we speak and right so well known enough to be science? Are we saying Science, like Rocket Science?

What efforts have been made to denote the parts of Language that are actually provable by Scientific Formulae and Controlled Experiments, instead of hearsay and references that are trusted as source of the Word. I know that we do not have contact with the universe at the stage of the Big Bang, but we are very careful to make claims about what we know as evidence. I expect to hear NASA say it does not know the Math for some scientific phenomen, yet from English leaders there is almost a confidence game of speaking, because there is not much admittal of what is not actually done by controlled experiment?

My research is having asked Are rules and standards (patterns and repetitions) of language and grammar sane, scientific, psychological, mentally healthy, good and/or reality-tested? as I study grammatology (asking how it is empirical and longitudinal a study, language effects being by certain rules). I apologize for my original edit version being somewhat abstract, and hope I can edit to make sense, err, make math...

When I hear "Science", I was taught to expect evidence and repeatability to a degree that is beyond doubt, which applies to Hard Sciences not Soft Sciences, so which one is Language applied for the average human being. Is a human being who gets/solves a math problem right, the "guaranteed" level, of a human being who gets a word problem correctly?

Should I trust word order like a computable math order?

Is deterministic math, an identical linguistic determination?

Or, is the question best asked as if the (English?) language is a Hard Science versus a Soft Science, is comparing/contrasting to Math a valid question/point?

~~Why has language change not had the same stories/experiences as paradigmical math changes?~~

~~Why is counting so important for math, yet not counting for in language? I mean, WordPerfect gives the pretense of Word/Letter Count having a place, but we do not learn that as a form of mathematical precision.~~

I realize there are not any (0) https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/math questions.

Linguistics is a science of language, now how is language a science? I mean, should I trust my English teacher as much as my Math teacher to be able to specify letter and word order to a T, with the same rigor and absoluteness that Math "guarantees"?

Improve this question
20
  • 3
    It's not clear from your question that you have a sound idea of what science is.
    – hippietrail
    Aug 3 '14 at 3:44
  • 5
    This question doesn't make sense. Language isn't science any more than matter is. But both of them can be studied scientifically.
    – curiousdannii ♦
    Aug 3 '14 at 7:12
  • 2
    Was the work of Aristotle science? Were geocentric theories of the universe science? Science is related to methodology within a given framework of understanding, and to the ways of evolving that framework. It is necessarily historical and academic, whatever the subject, as it can only be a cooperative endeavor in constant evolution. Regarding language, there are often two views: descriptive and prescritive. The former is science and the latter is politics. Science always start with gathering data and examples, then find rules to structure and condense that knowledge. In natural language too.
    – babou
    Aug 3 '14 at 8:57
  • 3
    The study of language—linguistics—is a scientific discipline, subject to the same constraints as other academic disciplines: coherence, consistency, rationality, descriptive adequacy, and conformity to the underlying data. But the actual languages which are the subject of that study are natural systems, evolved rather than consciously and rationally designed. They are indeed 'reality-tested', for they have evolved to meet the needs of their speakers to express themselves, to communicate and to lie effectively.
    – StoneyB on hiatus
    Aug 3 '14 at 12:17
  • 2
    The more you write the less clear it is what exactly you're trying to ask. Please try to explain simply what you want to know.
    – curiousdannii ♦
    Aug 4 '14 at 1:41
3

Was the work of Aristotle science? Were geocentric theories of the universe science? Science is related to methodology within a given framework of understanding, and to the ways of evolving that framework. It is necessarily historical and academic, whatever the subject, as it can only be a cooperative endeavor in constant evolution. Regarding language, there are often two views: descriptive and prescriptive. The former is science and the latter is politics. Science always start with gathering data and examples, then finding rules to structure and condense that knowledge. In natural language too.

In other words, the answer to your question in unequivocally yes. Linguistics, the study of natural languages, is scientific, even if some would-be contributors may not work scientifically ... as in all sciences. There are certainly fine points that are yet to be mastered, but the technological success of computational linguistics is enough to prove experimentally that phenomena are better and better understood.

Most of the literature on linguistics is equally convincing for someone with scientific maturity and experience. But, as in all sciences, there is still a frontier to be explored and settled.

Though the study of language may have had originally prescriptive aspects, that has probably been true of many other areas of knowledge, that were often contrued as dogma, often also for political and social reasons, pretty much like religion (not to mention an american law, still pending before a state Senate, stating that PI=3). Current works in linguistics is very open to confronting variuos theories of what language is and how it evolved.

Improve this answer
5
  • Very grounding starting point! If you may empathize asking, does it seem I am purely ignorant, to question if it is an "unequivocally" scientific language structure? I ask partly as a way to evolve examining social structure, to being as sensitive to sciences as it is dogmas.
    – prosody-Gabe Vereable Context
    Aug 3 '14 at 9:46
  • 1
    @prosodycontext: Yes, it does seem so. Otherwise you would not continue to ask whether something is "unequivocally scientific". As babou explained very patiently, the phrase means nothing, and can mean nothing, given what science is. I'm afraid that phrases which mean nothing are not infrequent in grammatology, which is neither science nor linguistics, but critical literary theory, pitched at the same level of clarity, coherence, and utility as Chomsky's theoretical works.
    – jlawler
    Aug 3 '14 at 14:27
  • I believe in science to a realistic degree, it is an evolving map. I also believe in scientific errors, to a realistic degree. Language is a map? Zillions of rules and calculations, and science churns through gradually with (careful!!!) examination. Language does not necessarily examine science? I empathize because I feel it helps language to examine science.
    – prosody-Gabe Vereable Context
    Aug 3 '14 at 16:15
  • 3
    @prosodycontext What are you questionning? Whether the study of language is scientific? Or whether language itself has the right properties, whatever those properties should be according to you. I tried to make sense of your question, and answer. But I fear that I failed.
    – babou
    Aug 3 '14 at 19:55
  • @babou I don't fear your questioning me about scientific methods. You help asking. Just letting us ask if language is scientific requires a lot of work! Science is still learning to analyze how to call things (and to agree!)!! I feel scientificness of language needs elaboration, and this answer helps examine and make sense of the historical timeline.
    – prosody-Gabe Vereable Context
    Aug 3 '14 at 21:37
-3

Language itself may try and work to be scientific, but while linguistics examines scientificness, language itself grew through many systems aside from science itself.

"Language itself is culture, not science. Grammar is a science because there are established rules and constructions; however, it is not an exact science as there are too many variables, and the rules even change at times." -mwestwood, college teacher, commenting about "Why do we regard the study of language as a science?" might be part of the answer?

Language scientificness is a worthy study, with linguistics ready to help analyze. In a sense, science is learning language, and language is learning science too.

Improve this answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.