Skip to content

Asians and Natural Language Evolution

Are Indians Asian?

Asian

It’s been common discussion between me and my friends lately about whether or not Indians are Asians. I think we’ve been split about 50/50. I have been saying that Indians are indeed Asian because India is in the continent of Asia. From Wikipedia:

In the United States, Canada, and Australia, the term [Asian] refers most commonly to people of predominantly East Asian or Southeast Asian ancestry; however in the United Kingdom and Anglophone Africa, the term refers most commonly to South Asians. In other countries, the term is applied to all people from Asia in general. In the US, however, Middle Eastern and Central Asian people are usually not considered Asian peoples. Regardless of these regional definitions, some people insist that anyone from Asia is logically Asian.

Indian

It looks like I’m one of the people who “insist that anyone from Asia is logically Asian.” I think this is wrong now because I’m a firm believer that languages are meant to naturally evolve. If that means “Asian” refers to a race and not a person from the continent Asia, then so be it.

Natural Language Evolution

On top of this, the term “oriental” is commonly used in the States to refer to Asian (my newly realized meaning) textiles. From Wikipedia:

The “Orient” is a term traditionally used in Western culture to refer to the Middle East, and Egypt resp. the whole Arabian influenced North Africa. Today also the eastern and southeastern Asia is sometimes called “Orient”, except Russia, i.e. North Asia.

So both “Asian” and “Oriental” have shifted to mean Eastern Asia. To compare this with another example, I’ve been criticized for ending sentences in prepositions. I do this intentionally because again, I feel that American English, specifically Midwestern English, has evolved this way. It makes for a smoother read and that’s my goal. I’m no linguist but I think clarity and effectiveness are the most important functions of a language. So when new words take on new or slightly different meanings, or when grammar changes through natural use, I believe this is just as good as letting a child grow and develop into a unique person.

    None Found
  • While there are certainly rules for a language, nothing about a language is ever set in stone. Languages developed by people using them and that same process continues today. Perhaps for ultimate "clarity" you should follow the rules, because, arguably, by following the rules you eliminate as much room for interpretation as possible. Yet in practice, this really isn't the case. Language is a social abstraction. Because it is an abstraction, it can hold different meanings. Yet language only holds the meanings it does because people agree upon them, hence it is social. If everyone agrees to change the meaning, it changes. This is exactly why programming languages can't mirror natural languages. Computers currently don't have the capacity to grow in the same social way that language does.

    Perhaps I rambled a bit, but I think my meaning is clear.
  • Let me try to tease apart some of your ideas a bit. I think you are saying programming languages (PLs) and natural languages (NLs) can't mirror each other because natural language receives meaning from society. Society gradually change the meaning of language and therefore NLs evolve. PLs aren't social because computers don't have the capacity to grow in the same way NLs do and therefore PLs don't evolve. Evolution of language being the "unmirrored aspect."

    If this is not what you were trying to say then please, by all means, correct me. Otherwise, here's why I disagree:

    Language is bidirectional. There's a dichotomy between the ease of expression and the ease of interpretation.

    While using NL, humans are constantly tweaking the language to keep equilibrium between expression and interpretation as the greater social interpretation of the language gradually shifts. This is a form of natural language evolution. It's also paradoxical but we won't go there =).

    Programming languages, at first glance, may seem unidirectional because its used for humans to express ideas to machines. But this is not true because humans are trying to interpret the ideas they are expressing, even while expressing them (reading code as it's written). Also, it's common for other humans to read code written by another or even come back and read their own code after forgetting about it. This is clearly interpretation and therefore PLs are also bidirectional, but in a different form.

    In both NLs and PLs, humans are doing the expression and interpretation. But with PLs, there is also a third party: machines. Since machines are involved, PLs evolve incrementally because humans have to write new interpreters (here's another place humans must interpret the PL) for the machines as they find better language tweaks to keep close to the I/O equilibrium.

    PLs and NLs mirror each other because they both evolve based the user society. Q.E.D.


    http://www.xkcd.com/406/
  • Well, yes and no.

    I meant that PLs can't mirror NLs in the evolution in that machines, because they do not have social understanding, cannot evolve PL's in the same way that NL's evolve. While the code itself may change, the compiler or interpreter only knows one way to parse the code, hence the language does not evolve.

    If I as a programmer could decide that I wanted to write a new programming construct that I could then describe to the compiler, and then the compiler could remember that and use that construct in the future with out me having to make a change to the core language, then perhaps PLs would be just like NLs, for better or worse.

    As it is, you are correct: the interpretation of the code, by a humane, is a social construct, as it is language interpretation by two or more humans. However, again, for the machine, there is and can only be one way to interpret the code, until it is deliberately updated by a human.

    So that is the nuance behind what I was saying, although I didn't make that very clear in the first post, and hopefully it is more clear now.

    Short summary: Natural Language is very fluid; programming languages, due to several factors, are much more rigid.
  • mike3
    Actually I think the reasons they don't evolve are because computers simply lack the ability to fluidly change their programming, not because they do or do not have any sort of "social understanding".
  • I completely agree with you there.

    BTW I just realized the XKCD article I posted may suggest I'm replying to stupid comments in a long way. I don't mean that and instead was intending to poke fun at myself for my ridiculously long comment =) All in good fun.
  • FWIW, I'm Indian and I consider myself south asian (as opposed to east asian) but definitely asian.
  • For technical classification, I'll agree that Indians are Asians. When using or hearing the word "Asian", whether referring to people or food, I'll always think Eastern Asian.

    Nice article.
  • I think the most interesting part is that somehow "Asian" completely started having two meanings. Thanks for the input =)
blog comments powered by Disqus