【Abstract】Though unremitting efforts have been made by linguistics and philologists， giving an accurate but concise definition of language has been difficult for them. Instead， linguistics choose to talk about views of language， including structural view， functional view and interactional view. This article will give an analysis towards the definitions and views of language.

【Key words】definitions of language; views of language; structural view; functional view; interactional view

【作者簡介】洪雅玲（1997-），女，浙江杭州人，西安外國語大學(xué)英語教育學(xué)院，本科在讀。

Ι. A Holistic View of Definitions of Language

Each research of a subject starts from giving it a clear definition. However， in the past centuries， no authoritative definition has been given to language. Here are some definitions of language found in dictionaries and linguistic books：

“l(fā)anguage is a system of arbitrary， vocal symbols which permit all people in a given culture， or other people who have learned the system of the culture， to communicate or to interact.”

“Language is any set or system of linguistic symbols used in a more or less uniform fashion by a number of people who are thus enabled to communicate intelligibly with one another.”

“Language is a system of arbitrary vocal symbols as used for human communication.”

“Language is a systematic means of communicating ideas or feelings by the use of conventionalized signs， sounds， gestures， or marks having understood meanings.”

“Language is a system of communication consisting of a set of small parts and a set of rules which decide the ways in which these parts can be combined to produce messages that have meaning.”

Through the analysis of those definitions of language mentioned above， it is not hard to find that linguistics more or less use words including “communication” “interact” “symbol” “arbitrary” “system”. Nonetheless， those definitions still fail to come to consensus.

Ⅱ. Possible Reasons Why No Authoritative Definitions of Language Has Been Given

language is too complicated to be entirely figured out by linguistics. There is therefore a necessary need for further theoretical inquiry and empirical research alike to better integrate the whole scale of language.

Language is complicated firstly because it is arbitrary. Its arbitrariness means that the object itself and what it has been named or called in language have no relationships. For example， the dog， can be called “dog” in English and “gou” in Chinese， but no one can tell the logical relationship between the object and “dog” or “gou”. In other words， any person can define the object dog， and give it a new name. Further， people can randomly choose to say whatever they want to say and the way they say it. When you communicate with others， the language comes out of your mouth is determined by social conventions， at most times， but also your personality， your background， your mood， your instinct thought at that time， the environment you are in， the person you are confronted and so on. In addition， when we look at this problem from the perspective of history， it is not hard to find that language changes and develops with time passing by， which means that one same object contains different names in different periods of time. In a word， the arbitrariness of language increases its uncertainties， making one of the reasons why it is hard to give a concise definition.

Moreover， there are too many kinds of languages in the world， including spoken language， written language， body language and so on. For spoken language， different people speak differently. It differs between countries， regions， nations and cultures. Even for people who live close geographically， have the same skin color or share similar parentages， they may speak different languages. This is convincingly demonstrated by the researches of dialects and accents. On the other hand， written language can also be presented in varying forms. For example， lyrics， poems， proses， letters and essays are different forms of written languages. Besides， sign languages and body languages， such as eye contact and gestures， give rise to heated discussion on whether they should be included as language or not. If they do， as a kind of language， they will add its complexity， because they have different meanings in different countries and regions. Therefore， there are so many possibilities and various forms of language which make it more difficult to define language.

In addition， though unremitting efforts are made， linguistics and philologists still fail to solve all the questions they held with language， remaining the world a colossal amount of unknowns about language. There are numerous questions out there for linguistics and philologists to answer. The study of language is the study of human beings. Maybe when they solve all these puzzles and straighten up all the unknown rules of language， giving a concise definition of language will not be difficult any more.

Ⅲ. An Analysis of Three Views of Language from the Perspective of Foreign Language Pedagogy

Language is a grand science， and language acquisition covers all aspects of human beings and human society. Here， I analyse three views of language， including the structural view， functional view and interactional view from the perspective of foreign language teaching method.

The structural view of language sees language as “a linguistic system made up of various subsystems” ： the sound system （phonology）; the discrete unit of meaning produced by sound combinations （morphology）， and the system of combining units of meaning for communication （syntax）. In this view， language is regarded as “a system of structurally related elements for the transmission of meaning”. To learn a foreign language， therefore， means to learn these subsystems so as to be able to understand and produce language. Combined with the stimulus-response principles of behaviouristic psychology， the Audio-lingual Method in foreign language teaching and learning came up. Other than that， Total Physical Response and the Silent Way also reflect this view of language. During the process of teaching a foreign language， teachers give priority to listening and speaking， rather than written words. New knowledge is presented with the form of dialogues. Students practice a lot through imitation， repetition and memorization. Mistakes should be found and corrected immediately. This view of language is too limited. Although it helps students to have a good command of the sentence pattern， it fails to provide a context， which leads to the communication incompetence of students in their real life.

The functional view of language sees language as a system of categories based on the communicative needs of the learner. It not only regards language as a linguistic system but also a means for doing things. Communicative Approach and the Natural Approach are reflections of this view. The Communicative Approach focuses on the development of the communicative competence of students. Students should bu put in the real scene， using foreign language to communicate. It clearly attaches great importance to the needs of students. Nevertheless， students will be lack of the basic rules of the language， which will hinder their development of communicative competence.

The interactional view of language considers language as a communicative tool， whose main purpose is to build up and maintain social relationships between people. Consequently， students are not only required to understand the grammar and vocabulary， but also be aware of their using rules in communicative context. Task-based Language Teaching is a vivid reflection of this view of language. Task-based Language Teaching emphasizes learning by doing. By doing tasks， students perceive， understand and use language. Meanwhile， they will be trained to be able to think independently and creatively and learn to work with other. Students interests will be stimulated. As a result， they will have more motivation of learning. However， the difficulty is that it is rather demanding for teachers， because they have to design appropriate tasks for students， and students mistakes are not easy to be found and corrected immediately.

References：

[1]Finocchiaro M B ， 黒田， 巍. English as a second language ： from theory to practice[M].English as a second/foreign language ：.

[2]Stein. Random House dictionary of the English language[M]// The Random House dictionary of the English language /. Random House， 1967.

[3]Wardhaugh， Ronald. Introduction to Linguistics.[M].An introduction to linguistics. 1977.

[4]Gove P B . Websters third new international dictionary of the English language， unabridged; a Merriam-Webster[J]. 1981.

[5]Benson M . Cambridge International Dictionary of English[J]. System， 1996， 24（4）：552-555.

[6]Larsenfreeman D ， Long M . An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research[J]. 1991.