On the meaning of "Language"

The term "language" means different things to different people. This seemingly trite observation is often overlooked in discussions of all things language. There are many well-intending people (especially linguists) on quests to correct "misconceptions" about "language" or otherwise spread their views about the true nature of "language". As it turns out, there is little consensus among language researchers at large about what "language" is. Furthermore, when specialists do agree on some definition, it tends to lie far from laypeople's intuitions. For instance, (generative) linguists may talk about "'Language' with a Capital 'L'" to distinguish the human capacity to use particular languages from the particulars of "languages" themselves (whatever those are)

I find it useful to think of "language" as any form of conventionalized communication. Under such a broad definition, "language" include things like gestures and body language, symbols and signs, and other forms of "non-verbal communication". By my very loose definition here, language is not unique to humans and interspecies communication happens between you and your pet dog. Another place my definition of language here leads to is the fact that some languages are more complex than others. While this statement may not seem at-face controversial to the unindoctrinated, it has become a point of pontificating for "social justice" concerned academics tied to various forms of egalitarian ethics.

Steer away from discussions about "language" (or "society", or "the economy") with those who are not willing to define their terms yet maintain strong positions. Observe first, describe next, theorize last. And then, only if you must, then teach.