The Physical Foundation of Language: Exploration of a Hypothesis

By Robin Allott

There is no available information at this time.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Xlibris UK
• Release date: Feb 3, 2012
• ISBN: 9781469158990

Book preview

Copyright © 2012 by Robin Allott.

ISBN:          Softcover                                 978-1-4691-5898-3

                   Ebook                                      978-1-4691-5899-0

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

This book was printed in the United States of America.

First published

in two volumes

1973

To order additional copies of this book, contact:

Xlibris Corporation

0-800-644-6988

www.xlibrispublishing.co.uk

[e-mail]

303365

Contents

Part I

PRESENTATION

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER I

Hypothesis of Phonological/Semantic Equivalence

CHAPTER II

Parallelism of speech and gesture

CHAPTER III

Relation of speech-sound elements

and gesture elements

Part II

VERIFICATION

CHAPTER IV

The observed relation of sound and meaning

CHAPTER V

Evidence from other languages

CONCLUSION

REFERENCES

Part I

PRESENTATION

INTRODUCTION

It is perhaps appropriate to begin a study under the title The Physical Foundation of Language by recalling Section 2 of the statutes of the Societé de Linguistique which was founded in Paris in 1866:

La Société n’admet aucune communication concernant, soit l’origine du langage, soit la création d’une langage universelle.

The Société was expressing a weariness with speculation about the historical (or rather pre-historical) origins of language and with repeated attempts over many centuries to show, for example, that all languages are descended from Hebrew. This study is not concerned with history or pre-history but with the present. The line of exploration is close to that in the work of De Brosses in the eighteenth century, in his Traité de la Formation Méchanique des Langues et des Principes Physiques de l’Etymologie: Toutes les observations çi-dessus prouvent qu’il y a des figures des mots, des caractéristiques de sons, liés à l’existence des sensations intérieures, qu’il y en a de liés à l’existence des objets extérieurs ou du moins à l’effet qu’elles produisent sur le sensorium.

This is not far removed from the hypothesis presented for exploration in the present study which is of the physical, or more precisely physiological foundation of language within the individual human being, the continuing bodily organisation subserving the linguistic capacity in man. The field of enquiry is related to some more modern work, particularly Lenneberg’s Biological Foundations of Language which was published in 1967, the extensive work under way in the search for language universals and the revival of interest recently in the subject of phonetic symbolism.

The manner in which words can properly be formed into sentences (the problem of generative grammar essentially), the problems involved in the meaning of groups of words (semantics), the classification of words into functional categories and hierarchies (the traditional problems of grammar), the identification and comparison of the underlying structures of languages (comparative linguistics in a broad sense) are not matters directly tackled in this study which is concerned with individual words as meaningful sounds, the foundation on which they are constructed. Foundation is used in a literal sense. What the study looks for is the way meaning is injected into, emerges from or becomes associated with the patterning of sound which forms a word—to find out how fitness to represent the external world (or our own psychological structure and states) emerges from a complicated combination of vibrations in the air or in the mechanisms of the ear or from the related patterning in the brain.

The ambition can be stated, perhaps in rather combative terms, as to contest the view of language which became rigid orthodoxy for the most part in this century and of which De Saussure was posthumously the most influential exponent, that it is a social and essentially arbitrary construct. It is true that Chomsky has moved opinion about syntactic structure back towards earlier concepts of the innate character of language. The present study explores a hypothesis which attempts to show that what has become plausible for grammar in the wide sense used by Chomsky is also plausible for vocabulary, that there is evidence of a naturalness and perhaps even a considerable degree of inevitability about the specific words we find ourselves presented with to express our perception of the external world. The hope is that eventually we may reasonably look for a physiological and biological understanding of the unities of human languages, going beyond what has up to now in reality been a metaphorical concept of the descent and genetic relationship of individual languages.

Clearly these are large hopes. One cannot treat lightly the views of linguisticians such as De Saussure, Bloomfield, Whitney, Sapir and Jakobson—though there are some great names also on the other side of the argument, Humboldt, Jespersen, and the still surprisingly relevant speculations of Plato in the Cratylus. As an illustration of the view that language is only social convention, one can quote De Saussure in the Cours de Linguistique Générale:

No one has proved that speech, as it manifests itself when we speak, is entirely natural i.e. that our vocal apparatus is designed for speaking just as our legs were designed for walking… . Language is a convention and the nature of the sign agreed upon does not matter… . The vocal organs are as external to language as are the electrical devices used in transmitting the Morse Code to the code itself; and phonation i.e. the execution of sound images in no way affects the system itself… . How would a speaker take it upon himself to associate the idea with a word-image if he had not first come across the association in an act of speaking? . . . Language exists in the form of a sum of impressions deposited in the brain of each member of a community, almost like a dictionary of which identical copies have been distributed to each individual… The bond between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary… I can simply say: the linguistic sign is arbitrary… i.e. unmotivated in that it actually has no natural connection with the signified.

De Saussure presented no evidence for saying that the dictionary deposited in each person’s brain (which is how he conceives the possession of language) is unrelated to the functioning of the vocal organs—which after all are controlled by the same brain that contains the store of words. Nor is it clear how he escapes the familiar chicken and egg conundrum involved in assuming that language is learnt from others. If, as he says, but for the associations formed in the act of speaking, no one would associate a word-sound with a particular idea, where is the origin of the convention that has crystallised into the collection of words used in a particular language? His argument has not much progressed beyond Plato’s criticism of very similar theory in making Socrates say that whenever we cannot think of a plausible or possible etymology for particular words (in Greek), we should assume that they have been borrowed at a remote date from the barbarians—who presumably can find their own explanations for the form of their words.

Nevertheless there seems little point in embarking at this stage on any purely theoretical argumentation against the views of De Saussure. The question is rather whether any more plausible, and in practice more useful, explanation can be found for the character of words and their relation to their meanings. This traditionally is the field of philology. Great efforts have been made by philologists to trace the true original form of each word in the main world languages, its relation to other words and the evolution of the meaning associated with each word. Philology has proceeded by constructing a system, a framework within which each individual word is to be fitted, the system of comparative linguistics, and this has been coupled with exhaustive documentation of the history of the individual word as evidenced by surviving records of use and of the whole history of the particular language in which it occurs. The philologists no doubt would say that there is no need for any new theory of the relation of the sound and meaning of particular words—the results of scientific investigation are already contained in the etymological dictionaries for the major languages and in the vast system of inter-relationships of words between languages which these manifest.

However, despite the achievements of philology, one cannot say that the science is in a wholly satisfactory state. Though the mockery of etymologists which Voltaire and others thought justified is no longer appropriate given the advances which have been made (particularly in the nineteenth century), modern etymology is still not as scientific and reliable as is often assumed; it has not been as successful in solving the problem of the origin of specific words as might have been hoped. In recent years professional linguisticians have turned away from philology to other problems. Surprisingly little modern critical assessment of the achievements and shortcomings of the etymologists exists. There is need for a comprehensive and scientific survey and analysis of what has been done not only for English but also for French and German. Outside the Indo-European group, there is still an immense field where etymological principles have not been applied or have had an even less successful application than for the main European languages

Whilst there is no intention of attempting here any study of etymology on the scale required, examination of the practical results of current etymological techniques suggests that there is much to be done before one can say confidently that etymology has completed satisfactorily the task it set for itself. There is still a great deal that is strained and unconvincing about the etymologies of individual words appearing even in authoritative dictionaries. As an example, one can quote from the Oxford Dictionary of Etymology the entry for a common English word BOY:

"BOY Middle English variation of the vowel suggests an Old French original with UI and aphetic alteration from Anglo-Norman ABUIE EMBUIE (hypothetical)~ past participles of Old French ENBUIER—to fetter. Normal development from Latin IMBOIARE (hypothetical) from IN-IM-BOIA, chiefly found as plural BOIAE-fetters equals Greek BOEIAI-oxhides from BOOS-ox, cow The primary meaning of BOY would thus be ‘man in fetters’, hence ‘slave’, ‘serf’

Both the evolution of the sound and of the meaning of the word seem unlikely The resemblance of sound between the Modern English BOY and the Latin and Greek BOIAE and BOEIAI is apparent but the links in the development of the word form can only be described as shaky depending as they do on four hypothetical word-forms in French and Latin. The etymology has the appearance of an arbitrary construct which may have started from the sound-resemblance of otherwise unrelated words plus an aspect of meaning-resemblance (not referred to expressly): the fact that in British colonies native servants were once addressed as BOY. The truth of this etymology cannot be demonstrated but it seems improbable and certainly does not convey the degree of conviction needed to conclude that no problem of the sound/meaning relationship for the word BOY now remains.

The above is an example of a connected etymology. However, in looking at any etymological dictionary, what is striking is not over-elaborate schemes for individual words but the extent to which the etymological problem for many words has been left completely unsolved. Whilst etymologies are adequate for the compound words which form such a high proportion of English vocabulary, a very large proportion of the simpler and more basic English words are quite inadequately treated. So, for example, about 100 of the simple words beginning with the letter B (half or more of the simple words beginning with this letter in English) are either left totally unexplained with the note ‘origin obscure’—as for BADGE BAG BAR BAT BAY BEG BET BIG BITCH BLOB BLUR BLUSH BRASS BROAD BUD BUSY BUY and many others—or speculation is offered. For example, for the word BAD one dictionary suggests:

Perhaps represents Old English BAEDDEL-hermaphrodite with loss of L as in MUCH (E) from Old English MYCEL.

This is clearly not very satisfactory nor is the absence of an etymology for other straightforward words such as: CUT HIT KICK LAD LASS TICK HURL.

The third main theme about which it may be useful to say something in this introduction, since it is of importance for the argument between the ‘language as convention’ and ‘language as nature’ schools is that of phonetic symbolism—or more simply the tendency for words to have meanings which in some way match their sounds. De Saussure briefly referred to this: Onomatopoeic formations and interjections are of secondary importance and their symbolic origin is open to dispute. However, there has been a modern growth of interest in phonetic symbolism (represented by Sapir and Roger Brown particularly in the United States, by Peterfalvi in France and by Garcia de Diego in Spain) which goes beyond onomatopoeia in the traditional sense. Carefully conducted experiment has led to the conclusion on the part of most of those tackling the subject that there are universal principles of phonetic symbolism—that is universal tendencies for particular sounds to be associated with particular meanings throughout the world’s languages—or at the very least that there are general principles of phonetic symbolism applying in particular languages or language-groups which cannot be explained as purely cultural in origin but seem to reflect some deeper-lying physiological link between sound and meaning.

To give some impression of what is involved, the following selection of words can be presented. The approach in this way concentrates not on the historical appearance or relation of single words but on a collective—almost zoological—approach to the aggregate of words which currently constitutes the English vocabulary. In much the same way as zoology initially was concerned with grouping animals in terms of their more obvious resemblances and differences, so one can follow in relation to the population of words an inductive method without presuppositions; if words appear similar, then their similarity is a legitimate matter for explanation as is equally the precise form of the difference between words which are otherwise broadly similar. One can list the following as of interest:

If one reads these words, particularly if one speaks them, it is hard to avoid the feeling that parallel to the relation of spelling between them, there is an accompanying interrelation of meaning which to some extent moves in step with the variation in spelling. Each group gives the impression of variation on an underlying theme—and at the same time there are inter-relations between the form and meaning of the words listed in the different groups. So the first group conveys a general impression of ‘holding together’, grasping, pressing together; the second group an underlying meaning not far removed from this but perhaps with a stronger sense of ‘bending things together’; the third group also has an underlying meaning close to but slightly different from the other two groups. There are of course many observations that can be made of particular parallelisms such as the CLIP/ CLASP GRIP/GRASP couples which have some sort of equivalence to the CRUSH/CRUNCH couple.

The problem of phonetic symbolism (the sound/meaning relation) as applied to words (it has also been applied to individual vowels and consonants) is how far the appropriateness which in some way groups of words like these seem to display can be explained by the nature of the sounds themselves—the structure of the sound-sequences—and how far the appropriateness is an illusion or an artefact, a cultural formation for a particular linguistic group which has come to feel that the sound associated with a particular meaning is appropriate even though no factual basis has been demonstrated for judging that in any real way the sound is appropriate.

The examples of words are taken from fuller lists provided later in this study. The explanation and analysis can be developed more fully. However, the phenomenon is not one observed for the first time in the modern era—it forms part of a historically extensive discussion of phonetic symbolism. Even proponents of the ‘language as convention’ view, such as Bloomfield, have commented—a little awkwardly perhaps—on these rather striking groupings of words in English. There clearly seems something to be explained about sound symbolism; it is hardly satisfactory to leave it completely unexplained that there should be collections of words which resemble each other in sound and meaning in an apparently ordered way (without there being, for the most part, any adequate etymological explanation for the resemblances). The contention in this study is that the resemblances should not be treated purely as a curiosity (De Saussure’s attitude) any more than (to use a rather demanding analogy) the attractive properties of amber or the lodestone which were for thousands of years left unexplained but eventually found their place in the integrated structure of electromagnetic theory.

The hope is that the hypothesis presented in succeeding chapters will make possible some explanation of the phenomenon of phonetic symbolism, not only in English but in other languages, and will, beyond this, open the way for understanding a much wider range of uniformities in language.

CHAPTER I

Hypothesis of Phonological/Semantic Equivalence

The hypothesis relates speech, gesture and perception. It treats phonetic symbolism as a manifestation of the natural foundation of language in the functioning of the human brain and body. The hypothesis is first presented as a series of assertions. This is followed by explanation of some of the terms used. Detailed development of one aspect of the hypothesis in the form of a systematic schema of the relation between speech-elements and gesture-elements is reserved for a separate chapter. Discussion is also reserved to a later chapter of some of the objections and difficulties that may occur to the reader since these can be considered more satisfactorily when both the broad outline and the detailed content of the hypothesis have been set out.

MAIN PROPOSITIONS

The main propositions which form the hypothesis are listed below. The underlining of some phrases refers forward to the explanation which follows later for the particular terms:

A. Associated with the speaking of every word is a specific invariant pattern of brain organisation. This is the pattern subserving the form and timing of the articulatory processes involved in the speaking of the word;

B. The pattern thus associated with the speaking of a word is not simply derived from the articulatory process. It is prior to the articulatory process and has a special relationship to the meaning of the word.

C. This special relationship between the pattern for a word and its meaning can have different forms depending on the category of word involved:

— the simplest case is for words referring to the human body, to parts of it or to actions referable to the human body. In this case, the pattern underlying the word is typically the product of the state of brain organisation that accompanies movement of the part of the body involved, indication of that part e.g. by pointing or more generally that accompanies awareness of that part of the body or of a specific body feeling;

— in this most straightforward case, the relation between the articulatory pattern for the word and the pattern of brain organisation for movement of the part of the body referred to exists because the brain is a single organ which operates integrally. A movement of a part of the body modifies the set of the rest of the body, including the articulatory organs and muscles;

— there is similarly usually a specific, non-arbitrary relation between words referring to acts of perception (hearing, seeing) and the particular percept which is the meaning of a particular word. So the hearing of a sound produces a pattern of brain organisation which is transposed into an articulatory process producing a word naming the particular sound;

— the relation of the word for a seen object and the character of the object is less clear (because a seen object may have a number of distinctive features) but there is normally a specific relation similar to that for the relation between a word and a sound to which it refers.

It is posited that the seeing of a particular object produces a specific brain pattern characteristic of the object (the pattern involved in recognition of the object) and that this pattern of visual perception in turn leads to a specific word—a specific articulatory sequence. The brain pattern associated with the particular perceived object takes the form of a modification of the optic component of the body-image: the body-image being a stable, general, internally-perceived pattern by which the individual locates and demarcates himself, internally and externally in the environment. It could be said that the specific word linked to a specific seen object is constituted by a modulation of the pattern in the brain constituting the body-image;

D. In any single language there must be broad consistency between the words forming the language i.e. there must be compatibility and sufficient distinctness between the words, This need for coherence between words in a language stems again from the integral operation of the brain—words modify and demarcate each other;

E. On the other hand, the hypothesis does not lead to the view that there should be a universally appropriate word for every distinct object or referent:

— the perceived object varies to a considerable extent according to time and place

— and in a given context the distinctive feature of a particular object may be different from the distinctive feature in another context;

— there is a non-negligible variation in physical make-up and specifically in the organs of articulation from race to race, Even small physical variations in the organs of articulation (or general physical structure) will involve differences in the associated motor patterns in the brain and so differences in the articulatory sequences associated with particular brain patterns i.e. a different word will result;

— where for the reasons given words for particular percepts differ from one language to another, there will necessarily be changes in other words because the brain operates integrally and changes are required in other words to maintain the overall compatibility and distinctness of the aggregate of words in a particular language;

— so differences in vocabulary between languages result partly from a process of ‘seeding’ (as in crystallisation). The patterns in the brain and in the articulatory process associated with a number of elementary words go towards determining the complete character of a language and lead to extensive divergence between words in different languages for the same objects, perceptions, actions, feelings;

F. Nevertheless different languages have the same natural foundation in the relation between the brain pattern subserving the speaking of a word and the pattern associated with a particular object, or action. Words in other languages associated with particular objects, perceptions, actions, feelings can be readily associated with those objects &c by speakers of a different language The ability to learn a foreign language is a result of this shared natural foundation and the observed phenomena of cross-linguistic phonetic symbolism find their explanation in this way;

G. Where resemblances are observed between vocabulary in different languages, these are not necessarily an indication that the languages are related by descent or have a similar vocabulary as a result of diffusion. The resemblances may be the result of a natural appearance of similar words for similar perceptions by physically similar people in similar circumstances;

H. Between what are taken to be related languages, the picture of lexical relationships is a complex one. Divergences can develop from an originally common language as a result of the use of a few different words which lead to widespread compensatory modifications of the individual descendant languages in order to maintain the coherence and compatibility of the total vocabulary. Scattered or chance modifications at one or other point in the language, particularly for common objects or actions, will tend to lead to systematically related changes elsewhere in the language i.e. changes of the type observed in the Indo-European sound-shifts. Systematic differences between descendant languages are another manifestation of the integral functioning of the brain in the production of language;

I. The learning of words by a child is a natural process which is ‘seeded’ by the form of the elementary words that it first hears. The child is naturally programmed to develop a consistent language of some kind but the environment determines which language this should be. The child is essentially given clues as to the kind of language it should develop and the language is not simply learnt but unfolds in the child;

J. The final step in the hypothesis is that, if each word is the product of a specific patterning of the brain and has a relation to the whole bodily set reflected in the brain, then the speaking of the word involves a reflection of the specific patterning in every aspect of the state and activity of the body at the time the word is spoken. Facial expression, muscular tensions, bodily movement accompanying a word—and specifically the characteristic bodily movement observed as gesture—express the patterning inherent in the word;

— So natural gesture accompanying a word is homologous with the word spoken. The movement of the hands and arms in natural gesture is coherent with and derives from the patterning of the brain which constitutes the word and which is transformed into speech-sound through gesture of the vocal organs;

— Observation of natural gesture is thus a route for exploration of the brain patterning associated with individual words and for examination of the inter-relation of patterning between words which resemble each other in meaning or in sound;

— The speech-sound and the natural gesture are parallel expressions of a central brain-pattern associated with the meaning of a word.

Though often natural gesture is abbreviated or vestigial, in certain circumstances e.g. in emotional tension fully-developed gestures are observed and their structure can be related to the structure of individual words.

The following is a fuller explanation of some of the terms used above:

(i) SPECIFIC INVARIANT PATTERN OF BRAIN ORGANISATION

Every time we speak a word, the sound of the word is produced by a particular configuration and change over a specific time-interval of the articulatory organs—that is movements of the tongue, the vocal cords, the lips,