Do any church fathers directly connect "speaking in tongues" with anything other than existing human languages? One of the arguments made by those who believe that the gift of speaking in tongues has ceased (cessationists) is that the "tongues" spoken of in both Acts and 1 Corinthians 12–14 are "real" human languages.  For example, C. Norman Sellers, in Biblical Tongues, writes:


  The New Testament references to tongues require that we understand them as referring to real languages [...] There is sufficient scriptural evidence to prove that the tongues in 1 Corinthians are the same as those in Acts chapter 2 and refer to real languages.


Charismatics will generally reject this analysis; J. Rodman Williams, for example, argues that "it would have been pointless to speak foreign languages" at Caesarea (Acts 10:45–46) and Ephesus (Acts 19:6) in Renewal Theology (II, p214).

In light of this disagreement, I wonder – did any church fathers clearly and specifically indicate that the "speaking in tongues" of either Acts or 1 Corinthians was not a "real" human language?  Here are some clarifying parameters:


I'm interested in church fathers as typically defined – those who followed the apostles up to John of Damascus.  I'm fine with including Tertullian and Origen in this group.


From my reading I don't think any pre-Augustine authors clearly make this connection, so I'm asking about church fathers more broadly.  But writings of the early fathers would be particularly interesting.  

By "clearly and specifically," I mean that the writer goes beyond the biblical text and indicates that the "tongues" were not human languages.


Charismatics might argue that the biblical text itself is clear on this point, and that therefore if a church father merely quotes the biblical text, it  indicates that he believes that "tongues" were not exclusively human language.  I want more than that.
To my knowledge, no Church Father ever connected "Speaking in Tongues" - Glossolalia - with anything other than existing human languages.

Dr. Nathan Busenitz wrote a very detailed paper comparing what the Church Fathers believed and wrote regarding glossolalia with contemporary Pentecostal beliefs.  His conclusion was that there was no evidence that any Church Fathers ever held that glossolalia involved anything other than real human language. 

One of the key "proof texts" that has been cited for use of unintelligible languages while speaking in tongues is 1 Corinthians 14:14-15:


  For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is
  unfruitful.What am I to do? I will pray with the spirit and I will
  pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing
  with the mind also.


Church Father John Chrysostom (4th cent.) clearly understood that even here, Paul was speaking of real language:


  Ask accordingly not to have the gift of tongues only, but also of
  interpretation, that thou mayest become useful unto all, and not shut
  up thy gift in thyself alone. “For if I pray in a tongue,” saith he,
  “my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.” Seest thou
  how by degrees bringing his argument to a point, he signifies that not
  to others only is such an one useless, but also to himself; if at
  least “his understanding is unfruitful?” For if a man should speak
  only in the Persian, or any other foreign tongue, and not understand
  what he saith, then of course to himself also will he be thenceforth a
  barbarian, not to another only, from not knowing the meaning of the
  sound. For there were of old many who had also a gift of prayer,
  together with a tongue; and they prayed, and the tongue spake, praying
  either in the Persian or Latin language, but their understanding knew
  not what was spoken. Wherefore also he said, “I’ll pray in a tongue,
  my spirit prayeth,” i.e., the gift which is given me and which moves
  my tongue, “but my understanding is unfruitful.”
  
  What then may that be which is best in itself, and doth good? And how
  ought one to act, or what request of God? To pray, “both with the
  spirit,” i.e., the gift, and “with the understanding.” Wherefore also
  he said, “I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the
  understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with
  the understanding also.” He signifieth the same thing here also, that
  both the tongue may speak, and the understanding may not be ignorant
  of the things spoken (Homilies on First Corinthians, XXXV)


Within the contemporary Orthodox Church, two prevailing beliefs regarding glossolalia are:


Glossolalia appeared at the beginning of the Church, because it was
intended as a gift to help the Apostles build the Church quickly
from disparate nationalities.  As Christianity spread throughout the
word, the need for the gift declined, and so became less prevalent
and seems to have disappeared today.
Those who utter
incomprehensible sounds and believe themselves to be "speaking in
tongues", inspired by the Holy Spirit, are victims of demonic
delusion.


"Far from being given freely and spontaneously, without man's interference - as are the true gifts of the Holy Spirit - speaking in tongues can be caused to occur quite predictably," wrote the American monk Seraphim Rose,


  ... by a regular technique of concentrated group "prayer" accompanied by
  psychologically suggestive Protestant hymns ("He comes! He comes!"),
  culminating in a "laying on of hands," and sometimes involving such
  purely physical efforts as repeating a given phrase over and over
  again, or just making sounds with the mouth. One person
  admits that, like many others, after speaking in tongues, "I often did
  mouth nonsense syllables in an effort to start the flow of
  prayer-in-tongues"; and such efforts, far from
  being discouraged, are actually advocated by Pentecostals. "Making
  sounds with the mouth is not 'speaking-in-tongues,' but it may signify
  an honest act of faith, which the Holy Spirit will honor by giving
  that person the power to speak in another language".
  Another Protestant pastor says: "The initial hurdle to speaking in
  tongues, it seems, is simply the realization that you must 'speak
  forth'...The first syllables and words may sound strange to your
  ear... They may be halting and inarticulate. You may have the thought
  that you are just making it up. But as you continue to speak in
  faith... the Spirit will shape for you a language of prayer and
  praise". A Jesuit "theologian" tells how he put
  such advice into practice: "After breakfast I felt almost physically
  drawn to the chapel where I sat down to pray. Following Jim's
  description of his own reception of the gift of tongues, I began to
  say quietly to myself "la, la, la, la." To my immense consternation
  there ensued a rapid movement of tongue and lips accompanied by a
  tremendous feeling of inner devotion".
  
  Hieromonk Seraphim Rose of Platina, "Charismatic Revival As a Sign of the Times"