Edward Sapir, a foundational figure in American linguistics and anthropology, offered a concise yet profoundly insightful definition of language as “a purely human and non-instinctive method of communicating ideas, emotions and desires.” This definition, articulated in his seminal work “Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech” (1921), encapsulates key distinctions that set human language apart from other forms of communication and highlight its unique place in human cognition and culture. Sapir’s perspective emerged during a period when linguistics was grappling with its scientific identity, seeking to establish systematic approaches to studying speech while acknowledging its intricate ties to anthropology and psychology.

Sapir’s definition serves as a cornerstone for understanding the fundamental properties and functions of human language. It challenges simplistic views of communication, demanding a deeper examination of what makes linguistic expression uniquely human and how it is acquired and utilized. By asserting its “purely human” nature, Sapir immediately draws a line between the complex, symbolic systems of human speech and the more limited, often genetically programmed, communication systems found in the animal kingdom. Furthermore, the characterization of language as “non-instinctive” emphasizes the learned, cultural, and adaptive aspects of language acquisition, contrasting it with hardwired, innate behaviors. Finally, specifying its purpose as “communicating ideas, emotions and desires” delineates the vast semantic and pragmatic scope of human linguistic interaction, covering cognitive, affective, and volitional dimensions of human experience.

The “Purely Human” Nature of Language

Sapir’s assertion that language is “purely human” is a cornerstone of his definition, distinguishing human communication from all other forms observed in the animal kingdom. While animals certainly communicate—through calls, gestures, chemical signals, or dances—their systems lack the intricate complexity, flexibility, and abstract capacity inherent in human language. This distinction is not merely one of degree but of fundamental kind, pointing to unique cognitive architectures and evolutionary pathways that underpin human linguistic abilities.

One of the most striking differences lies in the concept of displacement, a design feature articulated by Charles Hockett. Human language allows us to communicate about things not present in our immediate environment—events in the past or future, hypothetical situations, abstract concepts, or even non-existent entities (like unicorns). A dog’s bark might signal immediate danger, and a bee’s dance might indicate the direction and distance to a food source, but neither can recount the history of the hive or plan for future foraging trips with the same symbolic flexibility. This ability to refer to displaced referents is crucial for storytelling, planning, remembering, and theorizing, activities central to human culture and intellect.

Another critical feature is productivity or creativity. Human language is an open-ended system, meaning we can generate and understand an infinite number of novel sentences from a finite set of sounds and rules. We are not limited to a fixed repertoire of messages. We constantly create new phrases, sentences, and expressions, adapting our language to new situations and conveying unique thoughts. In contrast, animal communication systems are typically closed; a bird’s song repertoire might be fixed, or a primate’s set of alarm calls limited to specific threats. While some animals can learn new signals, their ability to combine them creatively into novel, meaningful structures is severely constrained compared to human linguistic capacity.

Arbitrariness is another distinguishing characteristic. There is generally no inherent, iconic connection between the form of a word (its sounds) and its meaning. The word “tree” in English sounds nothing like a tree, nor does it resemble the concept of a tree. The connection is arbitrary and conventional, established by social agreement within a language community. This arbitrariness allows for immense flexibility and semantic depth, as meanings can be assigned and re-assigned without being tied to a physical resemblance. While some animal signals might have an iconic element (e.g., a growl sounds like aggression), most human language is fundamentally arbitrary, facilitating symbolic representation on a scale unmatched by other species.

Furthermore, human language exhibits duality of patterning, meaning it is structured on two levels. At one level, there are meaningless sounds (phonemes, like /p/, /a/, /t/). At a higher level, these sounds are combined in specific ways to form meaningful units (morphemes, words like “pat,” “tap,” “apt”). These meaningful units are then combined according to grammatical rules to form sentences. This hierarchical structure provides an incredible economy of expression, allowing for a vast vocabulary from a relatively small set of sounds. Animal communication systems generally lack this dual layering; their signals are typically directly meaningful units without being composed of meaningless sub-units that can be recombined.

The biological and cognitive underpinnings of human language further underscore its “purely human” nature. The human brain possesses specialized areas, such as Broca’s area (associated with language production) and Wernicke’s area (associated with language comprehension), that are crucial for linguistic processing. The development of the vocal tract in humans, allowing for a wide range of speech sounds, also plays a vital role. Genetic research, particularly on genes like FOXP2, suggests a genetic predisposition for certain aspects of human speech and language, although the precise mechanisms are still being explored. While some attempts have been made to teach forms of human-like communication (e.g., sign language, lexigrams) to primates like chimpanzees (Washoe, Nim Chimpsky) or bonobos (Kanzi), their achievements, while remarkable, consistently demonstrate fundamental limitations in spontaneity, syntactic complexity, and productivity when compared to human children acquiring their native language. These animals typically struggle with grammar, rarely generate novel complex sentences, and often only communicate in response to prompts rather than spontaneously.

A “Non-Instinctive Method”

Sapir’s characterization of language as a “non-instinctive method” is equally crucial, particularly in light of contemporary debates about language acquisition and innateness. This phrase emphasizes that while humans possess an inherent capacity for language, the specific language they acquire—be it English, Mandarin, Swahili, or any other—is not genetically hardwired or instinctually pre-programmed. Instead, it is learned through interaction with a linguistic community, through cultural transmission, and through social engagement.

To understand “non-instinctive,” it’s helpful to distinguish it from “innate capacity.” Humans are born with a cognitive predisposition to acquire language, often referred to as an “innate language faculty” or “Universal Grammar” by Noam Chomsky and his followers. This innate capacity provides the basic architectural blueprint for language, enabling children to extract complex grammatical rules from the linguistic input they receive. However, this capacity does not dictate which language will be learned. A child born in Beijing will naturally acquire Mandarin if raised in that environment, just as a child born in Paris will acquire French. The specific phonemes, vocabulary, and syntactic rules of a language are absorbed from the environment, not pre-programmed in the genes.

Consider a bird’s song or a spider’s web-spinning. These are largely instinctive behaviors, largely determined by genetic code. While some environmental input might fine-tune the behavior, the core pattern is innate. If you raise a bird in isolation, it will still sing a recognizably species-specific song, even if somewhat impoverished. In contrast, a human child raised in isolation, without linguistic input, will not spontaneously develop a fully fledged language. Cases of “feral children” or children deprived of linguistic input during critical developmental periods highlight this point: while they may develop some rudimentary communication, they do not acquire the full complexity of human language, especially its grammatical structures.

The “non-instinctive” aspect underscores the vital role of the linguistic environment and social interaction in language acquisition. Children acquire language through exposure, imitation, reinforcement, and active construction of grammatical rules based on the patterns they observe. This process is remarkably robust and efficient, occurring largely implicitly without formal instruction, especially during the critical period of language acquisition (roughly from birth to puberty). This reliance on environmental input and social learning fundamentally differentiates language from truly instinctive behaviors. It is a product of culture, passed down from one generation to the next, constantly evolving through use.

Furthermore, the non-instinctive nature means that languages vary widely across cultures. Each language represents a unique system of sounds, words, and grammatical rules that has evolved within a specific community. This diversity would not exist if language were purely instinctive, as all humans would presumably share a single, universal, genetically determined language. The existence of thousands of distinct languages, each with its own intricacies, is a powerful testament to language’s learned, cultural, and adaptive nature.

Communicating “Ideas, Emotions and Desires”

The final part of Sapir’s definition focuses on the multifarious functions of language, describing it as a method for communicating “ideas, emotions and desires.” This tripartite categorization broadly covers the cognitive, affective, and conative (or volitional) dimensions of human communication, highlighting the rich and comprehensive scope of what language enables us to achieve.

The communication of “ideas” refers to language’s primary function in conveying information, facts, concepts, and knowledge. This is the referential or cognitive function, enabling us to describe the world, explain phenomena, articulate complex thoughts, and engage in abstract reasoning. When we discuss scientific theories, narrate historical events, share news, or simply state observations (“the sky is blue,” “the meeting is at 3 PM”), we are primarily communicating ideas. This function is fundamental to education, scientific advancement, legal systems, and indeed, any activity requiring the systematic transmission of information. Language provides the framework for structuring our thoughts, allowing us to categorize, analyze, and synthesize information, shaping our very perception of reality, as explored in the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (though its strong deterministic version is debated, the weaker version of linguistic relativity holds considerable sway).

The communication of “emotions” pertains to the expressive or emotive function of language. Language is a powerful vehicle for conveying feelings, attitudes, moods, and sentiments. This is achieved not just through the explicit mention of emotions (“I am happy,” “I feel sad”) but also through paralinguistic features like intonation, pitch, volume, and rhythm, as well as through lexical choices (e.g., interjections like “ouch!” or “wow!,” or emotionally charged vocabulary). Poetic language, exclamations, and even everyday conversational nuances (“Oh, really?”) are saturated with emotional content. Language allows us to express joy, anger, fear, surprise, love, and myriad other complex emotional states, fostering empathy, connection, and social bonding. This emotional dimension is vital for establishing rapport, expressing solidarity, or indeed, conveying disapproval or hostility, making language a crucial tool in social dynamics and interpersonal relationships.

Finally, the communication of “desires” encompasses the conative or directive function, where language is used to influence the actions or thoughts of others. This includes making requests, giving commands, expressing intentions, issuing warnings, or persuading. When we say “Please close the door,” “Could you pass the salt?,” “I want to go home,” or “You should study harder,” we are expressing desires or attempting to elicit a specific response or behavior from our interlocutor. This function is deeply intertwined with the pragmatic aspects of language, where utterances are seen as “speech acts” that perform actions in the world. This dimension of language is crucial for cooperation, social coordination, negotiation, and the exercise of power. It allows for the articulation of needs and wants, facilitating collective action and shaping social outcomes.

Beyond these three core functions identified by Sapir, other linguistic functions have been elaborated by linguists like Roman Jakobson. The phatic function, for instance, focuses on establishing and maintaining communication channels (“Hello?”, “Can you hear me?”), while the poetic function highlights the aesthetic and self-referential qualities of language (e.g., in literature, puns, or wordplay). The metalinguistic function refers to language’s ability to talk about language itself (“What does ‘ephemeral’ mean?”). While Sapir’s definition specifically names ideas, emotions, and desires, these broader functions can be seen as extensions or elaborations of the fundamental communicative goals he outlined, demonstrating the expansive utility and versatility of human language. Language, therefore, is not merely a tool for conveying information but a dynamic system that shapes our inner lives, our social interactions, and our collective realities.

Sapir’s definition of language as “a purely human and non-instinctive method of communicating ideas, emotions and desires” remains profoundly influential in linguistics and related fields. It precisely delineates human language from other communication systems by emphasizing its unique properties: its intricate symbolic nature, unmatched creative potential, and capacity for displacement, all fundamentally distinct from the instinct-driven communication of animals. This “purely human” characteristic points to the complex cognitive and biological architecture that underlies our linguistic abilities, which, while predisposing us to language, does not pre-determine the specific language we acquire.

The “non-instinctive” aspect of the definition underscores the crucial role of social learning, cultural transmission, and environmental input in language acquisition. It highlights that specific languages are learned, not genetically inherited, explaining the vast diversity of languages across the globe and the necessity of exposure to a linguistic community for full linguistic development. This contrasts sharply with fixed, genetically programmed behaviors, portraying language as a flexible, adaptive cultural artifact that evolves through communal use rather than a rigid, innate program.

Furthermore, by specifying the communication of “ideas, emotions and desires,” Sapir captures the comprehensive functional scope of language. It encompasses the referential capacity to convey objective information and abstract thought, the expressive power to articulate subjective feelings and attitudes, and the directive ability to influence actions and achieve goals. This triadic functionality underscores how language serves not only as a tool for information exchange but also as a fundamental medium for social interaction, emotional expression, and the coordination of human endeavors, shaping our individual thoughts and collective societal structures. Sapir’s articulation, therefore, offers a holistic understanding of language as a multifaceted, culturally embedded, and uniquely human phenomenon.