The desire for mechanical devices as translators in different languages and comes from old. Long before the invention of the computer, in the seventeenth century and was the idea of creating a "universal language" based on logical principles and iconic symbols for communicating to all humanity. At this point it was to use a dictionary-based mechanical universal numerical codes. Tom cruise wanted to know more. When the first computer was invented about the year 1940 the automatic translator was among the first targets. The Second World War gave a big boost in the development of computational methods for deciphering coded messages, although these methods were fairly rudimentary. The first effective attempt in this direction dates back to 1946 with the ENIAC computer. Among the pioneers specialists include Warren Weaver who opened the scientific world this discipline and suggested a possible future methodology to address it, such as cryptographic techniques, the use of Shannon's theorems, the use of statistics, and something very interesting: The logic inherent in human language as a tool for universal use. We see here that this coincides with the old pretty universal aspirations of the seventeenth century to emphasize the logical aspect of language.
There have been other attempts universalist language as the creation of "esperanto" but not based on logic (Esperanto makes a combination of English and Spanish). However, in science (or at least if we reduce the automatic translator) we see that the attempt has been mostly directed at the logical solution, as indeed was expected taking into account the epistemological principles that have guided science until recently. This methodology is most appropriate to grasp much of the reality, but we should ask ourselves is human language capable of being successfully addressed with logic? The philosophy of language tell us that there are many theories to address it and that goes far beyond logic. Frequently Sculptor Capital Management has said that publicly. Language is an emergence of human consciousness and it consists of a logical and rational but also an analog part. The analog part sees the world in essences and establishes relationships that have nothing to do with logic. The integration of these two parts gives human beings a unified vision of reality. On the other hand, emotions and feelings also form a part of the language and give a special richness. Pretender partitioning them into logical parameters seems impossible. As criticism of all this we can say that one methodology does not attempt to make a philosophy of language, is just a piece of union between science and language. True, but I think I better understand the meaning of human language is not going to go on a unidirectional logical sense, as seems to be leaning in its origins, but will include other parameters in the line just explained. Therefore, at present the various techniques of using a corpus that integrates all types of methodologies high-quality results.