The Study of Language 3rd Edition PDF

This page intentionally left blank The Study of Language Designed for beginners, this best-selling textbook provides a lively introduction to the study of language. Starting from the basics, it provides a solid foundation in all of the essential topics, and introduces the analysis of the key elements of language – sounds, words, structures and meanings. A wide range of fascinating questions are explored, such as how conversation works, how children learn language, why women and men speak differently, and how language varies between regions and social groups. This third edition has been extensively revised to include new sections on important contemporary issues in language study, including language and culture, African American English, gestures and slang. A comprehensive glossary provides useful explanations of technical terms, and each chapter contains a range of new study questions and research tasks, with suggested answers. Unrivalled in its popularity, The Study of Language is quite simply the best introduction to the field available today.          has taught Linguistics at the Universities of Edinburgh, Hawai’i, Louisiana State and Minnesota. He is the author of Discourse Analysis (with Gillian Brown, 1983), Teaching the Spoken Language (with Gillian Brown, 1983), Pragmatics (1996) and Explaining English Grammar (1998). The Study of Language THIRD EDITION GEORGE YULE cambridge university press Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo Cambridge University Press The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge cb2 2ru, UK Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521835572 © George Yule 2006 This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provision of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published in print format 2005 isbn-13 978-0-511-13493-7 eBook (EBL) isbn-10 0-511-13493-2 eBook (EBL) isbn-13 978-0-521-83557-2 hardback isbn-10 0-521-83557-7 hardback isbn-13 978-0-521-54320-0 paperback isbn-10 0-521-54320-7 paperback Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of urls for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate. Contents Preface page ix The origins of language 1 The divine source; The natural sound source; The physical adaptation source; Teeth, lips, mouth, larynx and pharynx; The human brain; The genetic source; Study questions; Research tasks; Discussion topics/projects; Further reading Animals and human language 8 Communicative and informative signals; Displacement; Arbitrariness; Productivity; Cultural transmission; Duality; Talking to animals; Chimpanzees and language; Washoe; Sarah and Lana; The controversy; Kanzi; The barest rudiments of language; Study questions; Research tasks; Discussion topics/projects; Further reading The development of writing 20 Pictograms and ideograms; Logograms; Rebus writing; Syllabic writing; Alphabetic writing; Written English; Study questions; Research tasks; Discussion topics/projects; Further reading The sounds of language 29 Phonetics; Voiced and voiceless sounds; Place of articulation; Bilabials; Labiodentals; Dentals; Alveolars; Palatals; Velars; Glottals; Charting consonant sounds; Limitations of the chart; Manner of articulation; Stops; Fricatives; Affricates; Nasals; Liquids; Glides; The glottal stop and the flap; Vowels; Diphthongs; Subtle individual variation; Study questions; Research tasks; Discussion topics/projects; Further reading The sound patterns of language 43 Phonology; Phonemes; Phones and allophones; Minimal pairs and sets; Phonotactics; Syllables and clusters; Co-articulation effects; Assimilation; Elision; Normal speech; Study questions;  Contents Research tasks; Discussion topics/projects; Bob Belviso translated; Further reading Words and word-formation processes 52 Etymology; Coinage; Borrowing; Compounding; Blending; Clipping; Backformation; Conversion; Acronyms; Derivation; Prefixes and suffixes; Infixes; Multiple processes; Study questions; Research tasks; Discussion topics/projects; Further reading Morphology 62 Morphology; Morphemes; Free and bound morphemes; Lexical and functional morphemes; Derivational and inflectional morphemes; Morphological description; Problems in morphological description; Morphs and allomorphs; Other languages; Kanuri; Ganda; Ilocano; Tagalog; Study questions; Research tasks; Discussion topics/projects; Further reading Phrases and sentences: grammar 73 Grammar; Traditional grammar; The parts of speech; Agreement; Grammatical gender; Traditional analysis; The prescriptive approach; Captain Kirk’s infinitive; The descriptive approach; Structural analysis; Immediate constituent analysis; Labeled and bracketed sentences; A Gaelic sentence; Study questions; Research tasks; Discussion topics/projects; Further reading Syntax 86 Generative grammar; Syntactic structures; Deep and surface structure; Structural ambiguity; Recursion; Symbols used in syntactic description; Tree diagrams; Phrase structure rules; Lexical rules; Back to recursion; Complement phrases; Transformational rules; Study questions; Research tasks; Discussion topics/projects; Further reading Semantics 100 Conceptual and associative meaning; Semantic features; Semantic roles; Agent and theme; Instrument and experiencer; Location, source and goal; Lexical relations; Synonymy; Antonymy; Hyponymy; Prototypes; Homophones and homonyms; Polysemy; Word play; Metonymy; Collocation; Study questions; Research tasks; Discussion topics/projects; Further reading Contents  Pragmatics 112 Invisible meaning; Context; Deixis; Reference; Inference; Anaphora; Presupposition; Speech acts; Direct and indirect speech acts; Politeness; Negative and positive face; Study questions; Research tasks; Discussion topics/projects; Further reading Discourse analysis 124 Interpreting discourse; Cohesion; Coherence; Speech events; Conversation analysis; Turn-taking; The co-operative principle; Hedges; Implicatures; Background knowledge; Schemas and scripts; Study questions; Research tasks; Discussion topics/projects; Further reading Language and the brain 137 Neurolinguistics; Parts of the brain; Broca’s area; Wernicke’s area; The motor cortex and the arcuate fasciculus; The localization view; The tip of the tongue phenomenon; Slips of the tongue; Slips of the ear; Aphasia; Broca’s aphasia; Wernicke’s aphasia; Conduction aphasia; Dichotic listening; The critical period; Genie; Study questions; Research tasks; Discussion topics/projects; Further reading First language acquisition 149 Basic requirements; The acquisition schedule; Caregiver speech; Cooing and babbling; The one-word stage; The two-word stage; Telegraphic speech; The acquisition process; Developing morphology; Developing syntax; Forming questions; Forming negatives; Developing semantics; Study questions; Research tasks; Discussion topics/projects; Further reading Second language acquisition/learning 162 Second language learning; Acquisition and learning; Acquisition barriers; Affective factors; Focus on method; The grammar–translation method; The audiolingual method; Communicative approaches; Focus on the learner; Transfer; Interlanguage; Motivation; Input and output; Communicative competence; Applied linguistics; Study questions; Research tasks; Discussion topics/projects; Further reading Gestures and sign languages 172 Gestures; Types of gestures; Types of sign languages; Oralism; Signed English; Origins of ASL; The structure of signs; Shape  Contents and orientation; Location and movement; Primes, faces and finger-spelling; The meaning of signs; Representing signs; ASL as a natural language; Study questions; Research tasks; Discussion topics/projects; Further reading Language history and change 182 Family trees; Family connections; Cognates; Comparative reconstruction; Sound reconstruction; Word reconstruction; Language change; Old English; Middle English; Sound changes; Syntactic changes; Semantic changes; Diachronic and synchronic variation; Study questions; Research tasks; Discussion topics/projects; Further reading Language and regional variation 194 The standard language; Accent and dialect; Dialectology; Regional dialects; Isoglosses and dialect boundaries; The dialect continuum; Bilingualism and diglossia; Language planning; Pidgins and creoles; The post-creole continuum; Study questions; Research tasks; Discussion topics/projects; Further reading Language and social variation 205 Sociolinguistics; Social dialects; Education and occupation; Social markers; Speech style and style-shifting; Prestige; Speech accommodation; Register and jargon; Slang; Social barriers; Vernacular language; The sounds of a vernacular; The grammar of a vernacular; Study questions; Research tasks; Discussion topics/projects; Further reading Language and culture 216 Culture; Categories; Linguistic relativity; The Sapir–Whorf hypothesis; Eskimos and snow; Cognitive categories; Classifiers; Social categories; Address terms; Gender; Gendered words; Gendered speech; Gendered interaction; Study questions; Research tasks; Discussion topics/projects; Further reading Appendix: Suggested answers to study questions 228 Glossary 236 References 253 Index 265 Preface In preparing the third edition of this book, I have tried to present an updated survey of what is known about language and also of the methods used by linguists in arriving at that knowledge. There have been many interesting devel- opments in the study of language over the past two decades, but it is still a fact that any individual speaker of a language has a more comprehensive ‘uncon- scious’ knowledge of how language works than any linguist has yet been able to describe. Consequently, as you read the following chapters, take a critical view of the effectiveness of the descriptions, the analyses and the generalizations by measuring them against your own intuitions about how your language works. By the end of the book, you should feel that you do know quite a lot about both the internal structure of language (its form) and the varied uses of language in human life (its function), and also that you are ready to ask more of the kinds of questions that professional linguists ask when they conduct their research. To help you find out more about the issues covered in this book, each chap- ter ends with a set of Further Readings which will lead you to more detailed treatments than are possible in this introduction. Each chapter also has Study Questions, Research Tasks and Discussion Topics/Projects. The Study Ques- tions are presented simply as a way for you to check that you have under- stood some of the main points or important terms introduced in that chap- ter. They should be answered without too much difficulty and an appendix of suggested answers is provided near the end of the book. The set of Research Tasks is designed to give you an opportunity to explore related concepts and types of analysis that go beyond the material presented in the chapter. To help you in these tasks, selected readings are provided on the book’s website at http://www.cambridge.org/0521543207. The set of Discussion Topics/Projects provides an opportunity to consider some of the larger issues in the study of language, to think about some of the controversies that arise with certain topics and to try to focus your own opinions on different language-related issues. The origins of this book can be traced to introductory courses on language taught at the University of Edinburgh, the University of Minnesota and Louisiana State University, and to the suggestions and criticisms of hundreds of students who forced me to present what I had to say in a way they could understand. An early version of the written material was developed for Independent Study students at the University of Minnesota. Later versions have had the benefit of expert advice from a lot of teachers working with diverse groups in different  Preface situations. I am particularly indebted to Professor Hugh Buckingham, Louisiana State University, for sharing his expertise and enthusiasm over many years as a colleague and friend. For help in creating the first and second editions, I would like to acknowledge my debt to Gill Brown, Keith Brown, Penny Carter, Feride Erkü, Diana Fritz, Kathleen Houlihan, Tom McArthur, Jim Miller, Rocky Miranda, Eric Nelson, Sandra Pinkerton, Rich Reardon, Gerald Sanders, Elaine Tarone and Michele Trufant. For feedback and advice in the preparation of this third edition, I would like to thank the following: Jean Aitchison (University of Oxford) Linda Blanton (University of New Orleans) Mary Anna Dimitrakopoulos (Indiana Univer- sity, South Bend) Thomas Field (University of Maryland, Baltimore) Anthony Fox (University of Leeds) Luisa Garro (New York University) Gordon Gibson (University of Paisley) Katinka Hammerich (University of Hawai’i) Raymond Hickey (Essen University) Richard Hirsch (Linköping University) Fiona Joseph (University of Wolverhampton) Eliza Kitis (Aristotle University) Jens Reinke (Christian Albrechts Universität zu Kiel) Philip Riley (Université de Nancy 2) Rick Santos (Fresno City College) Joanne Scheibman (Old Dominion Univer- sity) Royal Skousen (Brigham Young University) Michael Stubbs (Universität Trier) Mary Talbot (University of Sunderland) Sherman Wilcox (University of New Mexico). For my own introductory course, I remain indebted to Willie and Annie Yule, and, for my continuing enlightenment, to Maryann Overstreet. 1 The origins of language Chewing, licking and sucking are extremely widespread mammalian activities, which, in terms of casual observation, have obvious similarities with speech. MacNeilage (1998) We don’t usually think of speaking as similar to chewing, licking and sucking, but, like speaking, all of these actions involve movements of the mouth, tongue and lips in some kind of controlled way. So, perhaps this connection is not as improbable as it first sounds. It is an example of the type of observation that can lead to interesting speculations about the origins of spoken language. They remain, however, speculations, not facts. We simply don’t know how language originated. We suspect that some type of spoken language developed between 100,000 and 50,000 years ago, well before written language (about 5,000 years ago). Yet, among the traces of earlier periods of life on earth, we never find any direct evidence or artifacts relating to the speech of our distant ancestors that might tell us how language was back in the early stages. Perhaps because of this absence of direct physical evidence, there has been no shortage of speculation about the origins of human speech. In this chapter, we will consider the merits of some of those speculations. The divine source In the biblical tradition, God created Adam and “whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof”. Alternatively, following a Hindu tradition, language came from Sarasvati, wife of Brahma, creator of the universe. In most religions, there appears to be a divine source who provides humans with language. In an attempt to rediscover this original divine language, a few experiments have been carried out, with rather conflicting results. The basic hypothesis seems to have been that, if human infants were allowed to grow up without hearing any language around them, then they would spontaneously begin using the original God-given language. An Egyptian pharaoh named Psammetichus tried the experiment with two newborn babies more than 2,500 years ago. After two years in the company of goats and a mute shepherd, the children were reported to have spontaneously uttered, not an Egyptian word, but something that was identified as the Phrygian word bekos, meaning ‘bread’. The pharaoh concluded that Phrygian, an older  The Study of Language language spoken in a part of what is modern Turkey, must be the original language. That seems very unlikely. The children may not have picked up this ‘word’ from any human source, but as several commentators have pointed out, they must have heard what the goats were saying. (First remove the -kos ending, which was added in the Greek version of the story, then pronounce be- as you would the English word bed without -d at the end. Can you hear a goat?) King James the Fourth of Scotland carried out a similar experiment around the year 1500 and the children were reported to have started speaking Hebrew. It is unfortunate that all other cases of children who have been discovered living in isolation, without coming into contact with human speech, tend not to confirm the results of these types of ‘divine-source’ experiments. Very young children living without access to human language in their early years grow up with no language at all. (We will consider the case of one such child later in chapter 13.) If human language did emanate from a divine source, we have no way of reconstructing that original language, especially given the events in a city called Babel, “because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth”, as described in the book of Genesis (11: 9). The natural sound source A quite different view of the beginnings of language is based on the concept of natural sounds. The suggestion is that primitive words could have been imi- tations of the natural sounds which early men and women heard around them. When an object flew by, making a - sound, the early human tried to imitate the sound and used it to refer to the thing associated with the sound. And when another flying creature made a - sound, that natural sound was adopted to refer to that kind of object. The fact that all modern languages have some words with pronunciations that seem to echo naturally occurring sounds could be used to support this theory. In English, in addition to cuckoo, we have splash, bang, boom, rattle, buzz, hiss, screech, and forms such as bow-wow. In fact, this type of view has been called the ‘bow-wow’ theory of language ori- gin. While it is true that a number of words in any language are onomatopoeic (echoing natural sounds), it is hard to see how most of the soundless as well as abstract things in our world could have been referred to in a language that simply echoed natural sounds. We might also be rather skeptical about a view that seems to assume that a language is only a set of words used as ‘names’ for things. It has also been suggested that the original sounds of language may have come from natural cries of emotion such as pain, anger and joy. By this route, presumably, Ouch! came to have its painful connotations. But Ouch! and other interjections such as Ah!, Ooh!, Wow! or Yuck!, are usually produced with sudden intakes of breath, which is the opposite of ordinary talk. We normally produce spoken language on exhaled breath. Basically, the expressive noises people make The origins of language  in emotional reactions contain sounds that are not otherwise used in speech production and consequently would seem to be rather unlikely candidates as source sounds for language. One other natural sound proposal has come to be known as the ‘yo-he-ho’ theory. The idea is that the sounds of a person involved in physical effort could be the source of our language, especially when that physical effort involved several people and had to be coordinated. So, a group of early humans might develop a set of grunts, groans and curses that were used when they were lifting and carrying large bits of trees or lifeless hairy mammoths. The appeal of this theory is that it places the development of human language in some social context. Human sounds, however they were produced, must have had some principled use within the social life of early human groups. This is an important idea that may relate to the uses of humanly produced sounds. It does not, however, answer our question regarding the origins of the sounds produced. Apes and other primates have grunts and social calls, but they do not seem to have developed the capacity for speech. The physical adaptation source Instead of looking at types of sounds as the source of human speech, we can look at the types of physical features humans possess, especially those that are distinct from other creatures, which may have been able to support speech production. We can start with the observation that, at some early stage, our ancestors made a very significant transition to an upright posture, with bi-pedal (on two feet) locomotion, and a revised role for the front limbs. Some effects of this type of change can be seen in physical differences between the skull of a gorilla and that of a Neanderthal man from around 60,000 years ago. The reconstructed vocal tract of a Neanderthal suggests that some consonant- like sound distinctions would have been possible. We have to wait until about 35,000 years ago for features in reconstructions of fossilized skeletal structures that begin to resemble those of modern humans. In the study of evolutionary development, there are certain physical features, best thought of as partial adap- tations, which appear to be relevant for speech. They are streamlined versions of features found in other primates. By themselves, such features would not necessarily lead to speech production, but they are good clues that a creature possessing such features probably has the capacity for speech. Teeth, lips, mouth, larynx and pharynx Human teeth are upright, not slanting outwards like those of apes, and they are roughly even in height. Such characteristics are not very useful for ripping or tearing food and seem better adapted for grinding and chewing. They are also very helpful in making sounds such as f or v. Human lips have much more  The Study of Language intricate muscle interlacing than is found in other primates and their resulting flexibility certainly helps in making sounds like p or b. The human mouth is relatively small compared to other primates, can be opened and closed rapidly, and contains a smaller, thicker and more muscular tongue which can be used to shape a wide variety of sounds inside the oral cavity. The overall effect of these small differences taken together is a face with more intricate muscle interlacing in the lips and mouth, capable of a wider range of shapes and a more rapid delivery of sounds produced through these different shapes. The human larynx or ‘voice box’ (containing the vocal cords) differs signif- icantly in position from the larynx of other primates such as monkeys. In the course of human physical development, the assumption of an upright posture moved the head more directly above the spinal column and the larynx dropped to a lower position. This created a longer cavity called the pharynx, above the vocal cords, which acts as a resonator for increased range and clarity of the sounds produced via the larynx. One unfortunate consequence of this develop- ment is that the lower position of the human larynx makes it much more possible for the human to choke on pieces of food. Monkeys may not be able to use their larynx to produce speech sounds, but they do not suffer from the problem of getting food stuck in their windpipe. In evolutionary terms, there must have been a big advantage in getting this extra vocal power (i.e. a larger range of sound distinctions) to outweigh the potential disadvantage from an increased risk of choking to death. The human brain In control of organizing all these more complex physical parts potentially avail- able for sound production is the human brain, which is unusually large relative to human body size. The human brain is lateralized, that is, it has specialized functions in each of the two hemispheres. Those functions that control motor movements involved in things like speaking and object manipulation (mak- ing or using tools) are largely confined to the left hemisphere of the brain for most humans. It may be that there is an evolutionary connection between the language-using and tool-using abilities of humans and that both are involved in the development of the speaking brain. Most of the other approaches to the origins of speech have humans producing single noises to indicate objects in their environment. This activity may indeed have been a crucial stage in the development of language, but what it lacks is any structural organization. All languages, including sign language, require the organizing and combining of sounds or signs in specific arrangements. We seem to have developed a part of our brain that specializes in making these arrangements. If we think in terms of the most basic process involved in tool-making, it is not enough to be able to grasp one rock (make one sound); the human must also The origins of language  be able to bring another rock (other sounds) into proper contact with the first in order to develop a tool. In terms of language structure, the human may have first developed a naming ability by producing a specific and consistent noise (e.g. bEEr) for a specific object. The crucial additional step was to bring another specific noise (e.g. gOOd) into combination with the first to build a complex message (bEEr gOOd). Several thousand years of evolution later, humans have honed this message-building capacity to a point where, on Saturdays, watching a football game, they can drink a sustaining beverage and proclaim This beer is good. As far as we know, other primates are not doing this. The genetic source We can think of the human baby in its first few years as a living example of some of these physical changes taking place. At birth, the baby’s brain is only a quarter of its eventual weight and the larynx is much higher in the throat, allowing babies, like chimpanzees, to breathe and drink at the same time. In a relatively short period of time, the larynx descends, the brain develops, the child assumes an upright posture and starts walking and talking. This almost automatic set of developments and the complexity of the young child’s language have led some scholars to look for something more powerful than small physical adaptations of the species over time as the source of lan- guage. Even children who are born deaf (and do not develop speech) become fluent sign language users, given appropriate circumstances, very early in life. This seems to indicate that human offspring are born with a special capacity for language. It is innate, no other creature seems to have it, and it isn’t tied to a specific variety of language. Is it possible that this language capacity is genetically hard-wired in the newborn human? As a solution to the puzzle of the origins of language, this innateness hypoth- esis would seem to point to something in human genetics, possibly a crucial mutation, as the source. This would not have been a gradual change, but some- thing that happened rather quickly. We are not sure when this proposed genetic change might have taken place or how it might relate to the physical adaptations described earlier. However, as we consider this hypothesis, we find our specu- lations about the origins of language moving away from fossil evidence or the physical source of basic human sounds toward analogies with how computers work (e.g. being pre-programmed or hard-wired) and concepts taken from the study of genetics. The investigation of the origins of language then turns into a search for the special ‘language gene’ that only humans possess. If we are indeed the only creatures with this special capacity for language, then will it be completely impossible for any other creature to produce or understand language? We’ll try to answer that question in chapter 2.  The Study of Language Study questions 1 With which of the four types of ‘sources’ would you associate the quotation from MacNeilage at the beginning of the chapter? 2 What is the basic idea behind the ‘bow-wow’ theory of language origin? 3 Why are interjections such as Ouch! considered to be unlikely sources of human speech sounds? 4 What special features of human teeth make them useful in the production of speech sounds? 5 Where is the pharynx and how did it become an important part of human sound production? 6 Why do you think that young deaf children who become fluent in sign language would be cited in support of the innateness hypothesis? Research tasks A What is the connection between the Heimlich maneuver and the development of human speech? B What exactly happened at Babel and why is it used in explanations of language origins? C The idea that “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” was first proposed by Ernst Haeckel in 1866 and is still frequently used in discussions of language origins. Can you find a simpler or less technical way to express this idea? D What is the connection between the innateness hypothesis, as described in this chapter, and the idea of a Universal Grammar? Discussion topics/projects I A connection is sometimes proposed between language, tool-using and right-handedness in the majority of humans. Is it possible that freedom to use the hands, after assuming an upright bipedal posture, resulted in certain skills that led to the development of language? Why did we assume an upright posture? What kind of changes must have taken place in our hands? (For background reading, see chapter 5 of Beaken, 1996.) II In this chapter we didn’t address the issue of whether language has developed as part of our general cognitive abilities or whether it has evolved as a separate component that can exist independently (and is unrelated to intelligence, for example). What kind of evidence do you think would be needed to resolve this question? (For background reading, see chapter 4 of Aitchison, 2000.) Further reading Two introductions to the study of language origins are Aitchison (2000) and Beaken (1996). The funny names (e.g. ‘bow-wow’ theory) for some of the The origins of language  earlier ideas come from Jespersen (1922). On ‘natural cries’, see Salus (1969), on the connection between tool-use and language, see Gibson & Ingold (1993), on the innateness hypothesis, see Pinker (1994), and for arguments against it, see Sampson (1997). Haeckel’s ideas are explored in Gould (1977). Other interesting approaches to language origins are presented in Bickerton (1990), Corballis (1991), Deacon (1997), Dunbar (1996), Jablonski & Aiello (1998) and Lieberman (1991, 1998). 2 Animals and human language One evening in the mid-1980s my wife and I were returning from an evening cruise around Boston Harbor and decided to take a waterfront stroll. We were passing in front of the Boston Aquarium when a gravelly voice yelled out, “Hey! Hey! Get outa there!” Thinking we had mistakenly wandered somewhere we were not allowed, we stopped and looked around for a security guard or some other official, but saw no one, and no warning signs. Again the voice boomed, “Hey! Hey you!” As we tracked the voice we found ourselves approaching a large, glass-fenced pool in front of the aquarium where four harbor seals were lounging on display. Incredulous, I traced the source of the command to a large seal reclining vertically in the water, with his head extended back and up, his mouth slightly open, rotating slowly. A seal was talking, not to me, but to the air, and incidentally to anyone within earshot who cared to listen. Deacon (1997) There are a lot of stories about creatures that can talk. We usually assume that they are fantasy or fiction or that they involve birds or animals simply imitating something they have heard humans say (as Deacon discovered was the case with the loud seal in Boston Aquarium). Yet we know that creatures are capable of communicating, certainly with other members of their own species. Is it possible that a creature could learn to communicate with humans using language? Or does human language have properties that make it so unique that it is quite unlike any other communication system and hence unlearnable by any other creature? To answer these questions, we will first consider some special properties of human language, then review a number of experiments in communication involving humans and animals. Communicative and informative signals We should first distinguish between specifically communicative signals and those which may be unintentionally informative signals. Someone listening to you may become informed about you through a number of signals that you have not intentionally sent. She may note that you have a cold (you sneezed), that you aren’t at ease (you shifted around in your seat), that you are disorganized (non-matching socks) and that you are from some other part of the country (you Animals and human language  have a strange accent). However, when you use language to tell this person, I’d like to apply for the vacant position of senior brain surgeon at the hospital, you are normally considered to be intentionally communicating something. Similarly, the blackbird is not normally taken to be communicating anything by having black feathers, sitting on a branch and looking down at the ground, but is considered to be sending a communicative signal with the loud squawking produced when a cat appears on the scene. So, when we talk about distinctions between human language and animal communication, we are considering both in terms of their potential as a means of intentional communication. Displacement When your pet cat comes home and stands at your feet calling meow, you are likely to understand this message as relating to that immediate time and place. If you ask your cat where it has been and what it was up to, you’ll probably get the same meow response. Animal communication seems to be designed exclusively for this moment, here and now. It cannot effectively be used to relate events that are far removed in time and place. When your dog says GRRR, it means GRRR, right now, because dogs don’t seem to be capable of communicating GRRR, last night, over in the park. In contrast, human language users are normally capable of producing messages equivalent to GRRR, last night, over in the park, and then going on to say In fact, I’ll be going back tomorrow for some more. Humans can refer to past and future time. This property of human language is called displacement. It allows language users to talk about things and events not present in the immediate environment. Indeed, displacement allows us to talk about things and places (e.g. angels, fairies, Santa Claus, Superman, heaven, hell) whose existence we cannot even be sure of. Animal communication is generally considered to lack this property. It has been proposed that bee communication may have the property of dis- placement. For example, when a worker bee finds a source of nectar and returns to the beehive, it can perform a complex dance routine to communicate to the other bees the location of this nectar. Depending on the type of dance (round dance for nearby and tail-wagging dance, with variable tempo, for further away and how far), the other bees can work out where this newly discovered feast can be found. Doesn’t this ability of the bee to indicate a location some distance away mean that bee communication has at least some degree of displacement as a feature? The crucial consideration involved, of course, is that of degree. Bee communication has displacement in an extremely limited form. Certainly, the bee can direct other bees to a food source. However, it must be the most recent food source. It cannot be that delicious rose bush on the other side of town that we visited last weekend, nor can it be, as far as we know, possible future nectar in bee heaven.  The Study of Language Arbitrariness It is generally the case that there is no ‘natural’ connection between a linguistic form and its meaning. The connection is quite arbitrary. We can’t just look at the Arabic word and, from its shape, for example, determine that it has a natural and obvious meaning any more than we can with its English translation form dog. The linguistic form has no natural or ‘iconic’ relationship with that hairy four-legged barking object out in the world. This aspect of the relationship between linguistic signs and objects in the world is described as arbitrariness. Of course, you can play a game with words to make them appear to ‘fit’ the idea or activity they indicate, as shown in the words below from a child’s game. However, this type of game only emphasizes the arbitrariness of the connection that normally exists between a word and its meaning. There are some words in language with sounds that seem to ‘echo’ the sounds of objects or activities and hence seem to have a less arbitrary connection. English examples are cuckoo, CRASH, slurp, squelch or whirr. However, these onomatopoeic words are relatively rare in human language. For the majority of animal signals, there does appear to be a clear connection between the conveyed message and the signal used to convey it. This impression we have of the non-arbitrariness of animal signaling may be closely connected to the fact that, for any animal, the set of signals used in communication is finite. That is, each variety of animal communication consists of a fixed and limited set of vocal or gestural forms. Many of these forms are only used in specific situations (e.g. establishing territory) and at particular times (e.g. during the mating season). Productivity Humans are continually creating new expressions and novel utterances by manipulating their linguistic resources to describe new objects and situations. This property is described as productivity (or ‘creativity’ or ‘open-endedness’) and it is linked to the fact that the potential number of utterances in any human language is infinite. The communication systems of other creatures do not appear to have this type of flexibility. Cicadas have four signals to choose from and vervet monkeys have thirty-six vocal calls. Nor does it seem possible for creatures to produce new signals to communicate novel experiences or events. The worker bee, normally Animals and human language  able to communicate the location of a nectar source to other bees, will fail to do so if the location is really ‘new’. In one experiment, a hive of bees was placed at the foot of a radio tower and a food source placed at the top. Ten bees were taken to the top, shown the food source, and sent off to tell the rest of the hive about their find. The message was conveyed via a bee dance and the whole gang buzzed off to get the free food. They flew around in all directions, but couldn’t locate the food. (It’s probably one way to make bees really mad.) The problem seems to be that bee communication has a fixed set of signals for communicating location and they all relate to horizontal distance. The bee cannot manipulate its communication system to create a ‘new’ message indicating vertical distance. According to Karl von Frisch, who conducted the experiment, “the bees have no word for up in their language” and they can’t invent one. This limiting feature of animal communication is described in terms of fixed reference. Each signal in the system is fixed as relating to a particular object or occasion. Among the vervet monkey’s repertoire, there is one danger signal CHUTTER, which is used when a snake is around, and another RRAUP, used when an eagle is spotted nearby. These signals are fixed in terms of their refer- ence and cannot be manipulated. What might count as evidence of productivity in the monkey’s communication system would be an utterance of something like CHUTT-RRAUP when a flying creature that looked like a snake came by. Despite a lot of experiments involving snakes suddenly appearing in the air above them (among other unusual and terrifying experiences), the vervet monkeys didn’t produce a new danger signal. The human, given similar cir- cumstances, is quite capable of creating a ‘new’ signal, after initial surprise perhaps, by saying something never said before, as in Hey! Watch out for that flying snake! Cultural transmission While we may inherit physical features such as brown eyes and dark hair from our parents, we do not inherit their language. We acquire a language in a culture with other speakers and not from parental genes. An infant born to Korean parents in Korea, but adopted and brought up from birth by English speakers in the United States, will have physical characteristics inherited from his or her natural parents, but will inevitably speak English. A kitten, given comparable early experiences, will produce meow regardless. This process whereby a language is passed on from one generation to the next is described as cultural transmission. It is clear that humans are born with some kind of predisposition to acquire language in a general sense. However, we are not born with the ability to produce utterances in a specific language such as English. We acquire our first language as children in a culture. The general pattern in animal communication is that creatures are born with a set of specific signals that are produced instinctively. There is some evidence from studies of birds as they develop their songs that instinct has to combine with  The Study of Language learning (or exposure) in order for the right song to be produced. If those birds spend their first seven weeks without hearing other birds, they will instinctively produce songs or calls, but those songs will be abnormal in some way. Human infants, growing up in isolation, produce no ‘instinctive’ language. Cultural transmission of a specific language is crucial in the human acquisition process. Duality Human language is organized at two levels or layers simultaneously. This prop- erty is called duality (or ‘double articulation’). In speech production, we have a physical level at which we can produce individual sounds, like n, b and i. As individual sounds, none of these discrete forms has any intrinsic meaning. In a particular combination such as bin, we have another level producing a meaning that is different from the meaning of the combination in nib. So, at one level, we have distinct sounds, and, at another level, we have distinct meanings. This dual- ity of levels is, in fact, one of the most economical features of human language because, with a limited set of discrete sounds, we are capable of producing a very large number of sound combinations (e.g. words) which are distinct in meaning. Among other creatures, each communicative signal appears to be a single fixed form that cannot be broken down into separate parts. Although your dog may be able to produce woof (‘I’m happy to see you’), it does not seem to do so on the basis of a distinct level of production combining the separate elements of w + oo + f. If the dog was operating with the double level (i.e. duality), then we might expect to hear different combinations with different meanings, such as oowf (‘I’m hungry’) and foow (‘I’m really bored’). Talking to animals If these five properties of human language make it such a unique communication system, quite different from the communication systems of other creatures, then it would seem extremely unlikely that other creatures would be able to understand it. Some humans, however, do not behave as if this is the case. There is, after all, a lot of spoken language directed by humans to animals, apparently under the impression that the animal follows what is being said. Riders can say Whoa to horses and they stop (or so it seems), we can say Heel to dogs and they will follow at heel (well, sometimes), and a variety of circus animals go Up, Down and Roll over in response to spoken commands. Should we treat these examples as evidence that non-humans can understand human language? Probably not. The standard explanation is that the animal produces a particular behavior in response to a particular sound-stimulus or ‘noise’, but does not actually ‘understand’ what the words in the noise mean. If it seems difficult to conceive of animals understanding human language, then it appears to be even less likely that an animal would be capable of producing Animals and human language  human language. After all, we do not generally observe animals of one species learning to produce the signals of another species. You could keep your horse in a field of cows for years, but it still won’t say Moo. And, in some homes, a new baby and a puppy may arrive at the same time. Baby and puppy grow up in the same environment, hearing mostly the same things, but about two years later, the baby is making lots of human speech sounds and the puppy is not. But perhaps a puppy is a poor example. Wouldn’t it be better to work with a closer relative such as a chimpanzee? Chimpanzees and language The idea of raising a chimp and a child together may seem like a nightmare, but this is basically what was done in an early attempt to teach a chimpanzee to use human language. In the 1930s, two scientists (Luella and Winthrop Kellogg) reported on their experience of raising an infant chimpanzee together with their baby son. The chimpanzee, called Gua, was reported to be able to understand about a hundred words, but did not ‘say’ any of them. In the 1940s, a chimpanzee named Viki was reared by another scientist couple (Catherine and Keith Hayes) in their own home, exactly as if she was a human child. These foster parents spent five years attempting to get Viki to ‘say’ English words by trying to shape her mouth as she produced sounds. Viki eventually managed to produce some words, rather poorly articulated versions of mama, papa and cup. In retrospect, this was a remarkable achievement since it has become clear that non-human primates do not actually have a physically structured vocal tract which is suitable for articulating the sounds used in speech. Apes and gorillas can, like chimpanzees, communicate with a wide range of vocal calls, but they just can’t make human speech sounds. Washoe Recognizing that a chimpanzee was a poor candidate for spoken language learn- ing, another scientist couple (Beatrix and Allen Gardner) set out to teach a female chimpanzee called Washoe to use a version of American Sign Language. As described later in chapter 16, this sign language has all the essential properties of human language and is learned by many congenitally deaf children as their natural first language. From the beginning, the Gardners and their research assistants raised Washoe like a human child in a comfortable domestic environment. Sign language was always used when Washoe was around and she was encouraged to use signs, even her own incomplete ‘baby-versions’ of the signs used by adults. In a period of three and a half years, Washoe came to use signs for more than a hundred words, ranging from airplane, baby and banana through to window, woman and you. Even more impressive was Washoe’s ability to take these forms and combine them to produce ‘sentences’ of the type gimme tickle, more fruit and  The Study of Language open food drink (to get someone to open the refrigerator). Some of the forms appear to have been inventions by Washoe, as in her novel sign for bib and in the combination water bird (referring to a swan), which would seem to indicate that her communication system had the potential for productivity. Washoe also demonstrated understanding of a much larger number of signs than she produced and was capable of holding rudimentary conversations, mainly in the form of question–answer sequences. A similar conversational ability with sign language was reported (by Francine Patterson) for a gorilla named Koko not long after. Sarah and Lana At the same time as Washoe was learning sign language, another chimpanzee named Sarah was being taught (by Ann and David Premack) to use a set of plas- tic shapes for the purpose of communicating with humans. These plastic shapes represented ‘words’ that could be arranged in sequence to build ‘sentences’ (Sarah preferred a vertical order). The basic approach was quite different from that of the Gardners. Sarah was systematically trained to associate these shapes with objects or actions. She remained an animal in a cage, being trained with food rewards to manipulate a set of symbols. Once she had learned to use a large number of these plastic shapes, Sarah was capable of getting an apple by selecting the correct plastic shape (a blue triangle) from a large array. Notice that this symbol is arbitrary since it would be hard to argue for any ‘natural’ connection between an apple and a blue plastic triangle. Sarah was also capa- ble of producing ‘sentences’ such as Mary give chocolate Sarah and had the impressive capacity to understand complex structures such as If Sarah put red on green, Mary give Sarah chocolate. Sarah got the chocolate. A similar training technique with another artificial language was used (by Duane Rumbaugh) to train a chimpanzee called Lana. The language she learned Animals and human language  was called Yerkish and consisted of a set of symbols on a large keyboard linked to a computer. When Lana wanted some water, she had to press four sym- bols, in the correct sequence, to produce the message please machine give water. Both Sarah and Lana demonstrated an ability to use what look like word sym- bols and basic structures in ways that superficially resemble the use of language. There is, however, a lot of skepticism regarding these apparent linguistic skills. It has been pointed out that when Lana used the symbol for ‘please’, she did not have to understand the meaning of the English word please. The symbol for ‘please’ on the computer keyboard might simply be the equivalent of a button on a vending machine and, so the argument goes, we could learn to operate vending machines without necessarily knowing language. This is only one of the many arguments that have been presented against the idea that the use of signs and symbols by these chimpanzees is similar to the use of language. The controversy On the basis of his work with another chimpanzee called Nim, the psychologist Herbert Terrace has argued that chimpanzees simply produce signs in response to the demands of people and tend to repeat signs those people use, yet they are treated (by naive researchers) as if they are taking part in a ‘conversation’. As in many critical studies of animal learning, the chimpanzees’ behavior is viewed as a type of conditioned response to cues provided (often unwittingly) by human trainers. Herbert’s conclusion was that chimpanzees are clever creatures who learn to produce a certain type of behavior (signing or symbol selection) in order to get rewards and are essentially performing sophisticated ‘tricks’. In response, the Gardners argued that they were not animal trainers, nor were they inculcating and then eliciting conditioned responses from Washoe. In complex experiments, designed to eliminate any possible provision of cues by humans, they showed that in the absence of any human, Washoe could pro- duce correct signs to identify objects in pictures. They also emphasize a major difference between the experiences of Washoe and Nim. While Nim was kept in a bare windowless cell as a research animal and had to deal with a series of research assistants who were often not fluent in American Sign Language, Washoe lived in a domestic environment with a lot of opportunity for imagina- tive play and interaction with fluent signers who were also using sign language with each other. They also report that a group of younger chimpanzees not only  The Study of Language learned sign language, but used it with each other and with Washoe, even when there were no humans present. Kanzi In a more recent study by Sue Savage-Rumbaugh, an interesting development relevant to this controversy came about almost by accident. While Savage- Rumbaugh was attempting to train a bonobo (a pygmy chimpanzee) called Matata how to use the symbols of Yerkish, Matata’s adopted baby, Kanzi, was always with her. Although Matata did not do very well, her son Kanzi sponta- neously started using the symbol system with great ease. He had learned not by being taught, but by being exposed to, and observing, a kind of language in use at a very early age. Kanzi eventually developed a large symbol vocabu- lary (over 250 forms). By the age of eight, he was reported to be able, through the association of symbols with spoken words, to demonstrate understanding of spoken English at a level comparable to a two-and-a-half-year-old human child. There was also evidence that he was using a consistently distinct set of ‘gentle noises’ as words to refer to things such as bananas, grapes and juice. He had also become capable of using his symbol system to ask to watch his favorite movies, Quest for Fire (about primitive humans) and Greystoke (about the Tarzan legend). The barest rudiments of language Important lessons have been learned from attempts to teach chimpanzees how to use forms of language. We have answered some questions. Were Washoe and Kanzi capable of taking part in interaction by using a symbol system chosen by humans and not chimpanzees? The answer is clearly “Yes”. Did Washoe and Kanzi perform linguistically on a level comparable to a human child of the same age? The answer is just as clearly “No”. In addition, one of the most important lessons for those who study the nature of language is the realization that, although we can describe some key properties of language, we clearly do not have a totally objective and non-controversial definition of what counts as ‘using language’. We assume that when young human children make language-like noises we are witnessing language development, but when young chimpanzees produce language-like signs in interaction with humans, many scientists are very unwilling to classify this as language-use. Yet, the criteria we use in each case do not seem to be the same. This problem remains, as does the controversy among different psycholo- gists and linguists over the reported abilities of chimpanzees to use language. However, given the mass of evidence from these studies, we might suggest that the linguist Noam Chomsky (1972) should revise his claim that “acquisition Animals and human language  of even the barest rudiments of language is quite beyond the capacities of an otherwise intelligent ape”. We may not have had reports on the chimpanzee view of linguistic theory, but on their obvious capacity to cope with “the barest rudiments of language” we certainly have. Study questions 1 What kind of evidence is used to support the idea that language is culturally transmitted? 2 What is the difference between a communication system with productivity and one with fixed reference? 3 Which property of language enables people to talk about ‘the future’? 4 How did the Gardners try to show that Washoe was not simply repeating signs made by interacting humans? 5 If Sarah could use a gray plastic shape to convey the meaning of the word red, which property does her ‘language’ seem to have? 6 What was considered to be the key element in Kanzi’s language learning? Research tasks A What is meant by ‘sound symbolism’ and how does it relate to the property of arbitrariness? B In studies of communication involving animals and humans, there is sometimes a reference to ‘the Clever Hans phenomenon’. Who or what was Clever Hans, why was he/she/it famous and what exactly is the ‘phenomenon’? C What was the significance of the name given to the chimpanzee in the research conducted by the psychologist Herbert Terrace? D What exactly are bonobos and why might they be better at language learning than chimpanzees? Discussion topics/projects I Listed below are six other properties (or ‘design features’) which are often discussed when human language is compared to other communication systems. use of the vocal-auditory channel (language signals are sent using the vocal organs and received by the ears) specialization (language signals do not serve any other type of purpose such as breathing or feeding) non-directionality (language signals have no inherent direction and can be picked up by anyone within hearing, even unseen) rapid fade (language signals are produced and disappear quickly) reciprocity (any sender of a language signal can also be a receiver)  The Study of Language prevarication (language signals can be false or used to lie or deceive) (i) Are these properties found in all forms of human communication via language? (ii) Are these special properties of human language or can they be found in the communication systems of other creatures? (For background reading, see chapter 17 of O’Grady et al., 2005.) II The most persistent criticism of the chimpanzee language-learning projects is that the chimpanzees are simply making responses like trained animals for rewards and are consequently not using language to express anything. Read over the following reports and try to decide how the different behaviors of these chimpanzees (Dar, Washoe and Moja) should be characterized. Signs are represented by words in capital letters. After her nap, Washoe signed OUT. I was hoping for Washoe to potty herself and did not comply. Then Washoe took my hands and put them together to make OUT and then signed OUT with her own hands to show me how. Greg was hooting and making other sounds, to prevent Dar from falling asleep. Dar put his fist to Greg’s lips and made kissing sounds. Greg asked WHAT WANT? and Dar replied QUIET, placing the sign on Greg’s lips. Moja signed DOG on Ron and me and looked at our faces, waiting for us to “woof”. After several rounds I made a “meeow” instead. Moja signed DOG again, I repeated “meeow” again, and Moja slapped my leg harder. This went on. Finally I woofed and Moja leapt on me and hugged me. Moja stares longingly at Dairy Queen as we drive by. Then for a minute or more signs NO ICE CREAM many times, by shaking her head while holding fist to mouth, index edge up. (For background reading, see Rimpau et al., 1989, which is the source of these examples.) Further reading Introductory treatments of the properties of language and a discussion of other communication systems can be found in chapter 12 of Hudson (2000) or chapter 17 of O’Grady et al. (2005). Some of the original ideas regarding properties of language are in Hockett (1960). For different perspectives on the nature of communication, see Mellor (1990) or Rogers & Kaplan (2000). For more on vervet monkeys, see Cheney & Seyfarth (1990) and, on dancing bees, see von Frisch (1993). On human versus animal communication, see Aitchison (1998). Overviews of the research with chimpanzees are presented in Linden (1987) or Premack (1986), which are generally favorable, and Anderson (2004) or Animals and human language  Wallman (1992), which are critical. More specifically, life with Gua is described in Kellogg & Kellogg (1933) and life with Viki in Hayes (1951). For more on Washoe, see Gardner et al. (1989), on Koko, see Patterson & Linden (1981), on Sarah, see Premack & Premack (1991), on Lana, see Rumbaugh (1977), on Nim, see Terrace (1979), and on Kanzi, see Savage-Rumbaugh & Lewin (1994) or Savage-Rumbaugh et al. (1998). For more on bonobos, see Boesch et al. (2002). 3 The development of writing Every once in a while my eight-year-old daughter comes up to me when I’m working and puts her arm around me in a transparently insincere display of affection, then walks away giggling. As soon as she’s gone, I pat my hand around on my back to find a Post-it that says something like “I’m a knucklehead.” You’d think that pronoun I wouldn’t mean anything if I didn’t put it there myself, but somehow I’m implicit in the utterance. She has visited a small indignity on me, and we both know it. This is about the most powerful magic you can work with writing, putting a first-person pronoun into somebody else’s mouth. It was probably no more than a couple of weeks after the invention of cuneiform in Sumer five millennia ago that some scribe had the idea of pressing the characters for “Kick me” into a clay tablet and fastening it to the back of the robes of a passing priest. Nunberg (2001) It is important, when we consider the development of writing, to keep in mind that a large number of the languages in the world today are used only in the spoken form. They do not have a written form. For those languages that have writing systems, the development of writing, as we know it, is a relatively recent phenomenon. We may be able to trace human attempts to represent informa- tion visually back to cave drawings made at least 20,000 years ago, or to clay tokens from about 10,000 years ago, which appear to have been an early attempt at bookkeeping, but these artifacts are best described as ancient precursors of writing. The earliest writing for which we have clear evidence is the kind that Geoffrey Nunberg is referring to as ‘cuneiform’ marked on clay tablets about 5,000 years ago. An ancient script that has a more obvious connection to writ- ing systems in use today can be identified in inscriptions dated around 3,000 years ago. Much of the evidence used in the reconstruction of ancient writing systems comes from inscriptions on stone or tablets. If those ancients were using other elaborate scripts on wood, leather or other perishable materials, we have lost them. But working from the inscriptions we do have, we can trace the develop- ment of one writing tradition, lasting a few thousand years, with which humans have sought to create a more permanent record of what was going on. The development of writing  Pictograms and ideograms Cave drawings may serve to record some event (e.g. Humans 3, Buffaloes 1), but they are not usually thought of as any type of specifically linguistic message. They are usually treated as part of a tradition of pictorial art. When some of the ‘pictures’ came to represent particular images in a consistent way, we can begin to describe the product as a form of picture-writing, or pictograms. In this way, a form such as might come to be used for the sun. An essential part of this use of a representative symbol is that everyone should use a similar form to convey a roughly similar meaning. That is, a conventional relationship must exist between the symbol and its interpretation. In time, this picture might develop into a more fixed symbolic form, such as , and come to be used for ‘heat’ and ‘daytime’, as well as for ‘sun’. Note that as the symbol extends from ‘sun’ to ‘heat’, it is moving from something visible to something conceptual (and no longer a picture). This type of symbol is then considered to be part of a system of idea-writing, or ideograms. The distinction between pictograms and ideograms is essentially a difference in the relationship between the symbol and the entity it represents. The more ‘picture-like’ forms are pictograms and the more abstract derived forms are ideograms. A key property of both pictograms and ideograms is that they do not represent words or sounds in a particular language. Modern pictograms, such as those represented in the accompanying illustration, are language- independent and can be understood with much the same basic conventional meaning in a lot of different places where a number of different languages are spoken. It is generally thought that there were pictographic or ideographic origins for a large number of symbols that turn up in later writing systems. For example, in Egyptian hieroglyphics, the symbol was used to refer to a house and derived from the diagrammatic representation of the floor-plan of a house. In Chinese writing, the character was used for a river, and had its origins in the pictorial representation of a stream flowing between two banks. However, it is important to note that neither the Egyptian nor the Chinese written symbols are actually ‘pictures’ of a house or a river. They are more abstract. When we create symbols in a writing system, there is always an abstraction away from the physical world. When the relationship between the symbol and the entity or idea becomes sufficiently abstract, we can be more confident that the symbol is probably being used to represent words in a language. In early Egyptian writing, the ideogram for water was. Much later, the derived symbol came to be used for the actual word meaning ‘water’. When symbols are used to repre- sent words in a language, they are described as examples of word-writing, or ‘logograms’.  The Study of Language Logograms A good example of logographic writing is the system used by the Sumerians, in the southern part of modern Iraq, around 5,000 years ago. Because of the particular shapes used in their symbols, these inscriptions are more generally described as cuneiform writing. The term cuneiform means ‘wedge-shaped’ and the inscriptions used by the Sumerians were produced by pressing a wedge- shaped implement into soft clay tablets, resulting in forms such as. The form of this symbol really gives no clue to what type of entity is being referred to. The relationship between the written form and the object it rep- resents has become arbitrary and we have a clear example of word-writing or a logogram. The cuneiform symbol above can be compared to a typical pic- tographic representation of the same fishy entity:. We can also compare the ideogram for the sun, presented earlier as , with the logogram used to refer to the same entity found in cuneiform writing:. A modern writing system that is based, to a certain extent, on the use of logograms can be found in China. Many Chinese written symbols, or characters, are used as representations of the meaning of words, or parts of words, and not of the sounds of spoken language. One of the advantages of such a system is that two speakers of very different dialects of Chinese, who might have great difficulty understanding each other’s spoken forms, can both read the same written text. Chinese writing, with the longest continuous history of use as a writing system (i.e. 3,000 years), clearly has many other advantages for its users. One major disadvantage is that quite a large number of different written sym- bols are required within this type of writing system, although the official list of modern Chinese characters for everyday use is limited to 2,500 characters. (Other lists contain up to 50,000 characters.) Remembering large numbers of different composite word symbols, however, does seem to present a substantial memory load, and the history of most other writing systems illustrates a devel- opment away from logographic writing. To accomplish this, some principled method is needed to go from symbols representing words (i.e. a logographic system) to a set of symbols that represent sounds (i.e. a phonographic system). Rebus writing One way of using existing symbols to represent the sounds of language is through a process known as rebus writing. In this process, the symbol for one entity is taken over as the symbol for the sound of the spoken word used to refer to the entity. That symbol then comes to be used whenever that sound occurs in any words. We can create an example, working with the sound of the English word eye. We can imagine how the pictogram could have developed into the logogram. This logogram is pronounced as eye and, with the rebus principle at work, you could then refer to yourself as (“I”), to one of your friends as The development of writing  (“Crosseye”), combine the form with the logogram for ‘deaf’ to produce “defy”, with the logogram for ‘boat’ to produce “bow-tie”, and so on. Let’s take another, non-English, example, in which the ideogram becomes the logogram , for the word pronounced ba (meaning ‘boat’). We can then produce a symbol for the word pronounced baba (meaning ‘father’) which would be. One symbol can thus be used in many different ways, with a range of meanings. What this process accomplishes is a sizeable reduction in the number of symbols needed in a writing system. Syllabic writing In the last example, the symbol that is used for the pronunciation of parts of a word represents a combination (ba) of a consonant sound (b) and a vowel sound (a). This combination is one type of syllable. When a writing system employs a set of symbols each one representing the pronunciation of a syllable, it is described as syllabic writing. There are no purely syllabic writing systems in use today, but modern Japanese can be written with a set of single symbols representing spoken syllables and is consequently often described as having a (partially) syllabic writing system, or a syllabary. In the early nineteenth century, a Cherokee named Sequoyah, living in North Carolina, invented a syllabic writing system that was widely used within the Cherokee community to create written messages from the spoken language. In these Cherokee examples, (ho), (sa) and (ge), we can see that the written symbol in each case does not correspond to a single consonant (C) or a vowel (V), but to a syllable (CV). Both the ancient Egyptian and the Sumerian writing systems evolved to the point where some of the earlier logographic symbols were used to represent spo- ken syllables. However, it is not until the time of the Phoenicians, inhabiting what is modern Lebanon between 3,000 and 4,000 years ago, that we find the full use of a syllabic writing system. Many of the symbols that the Phoenicians used were taken from earlier Egyptian writing. The Egyptian form (meaning ‘house’) was adopted in a slightly reoriented form as. After being used logographi- cally for the word pronounced beth (still meaning ‘house’), the symbol came to represent other syllables beginning with a b sound. Similarly, the Egyptian form (meaning ‘water’) turns up as and is used for syllables beginning with an m sound. So, a word that might be pronounced as muba could be written as , and the pronunciation bima could be written as. Note that the direc- tion of writing is from right to left. By about 3,000 years ago, the Phoenicians had stopped using logograms and had a fully developed syllabic writing system. Alphabetic writing If you have a set of symbols being used to represent syllables beginning with, for example, a b sound or an m sound, then you are actually very close to a  The Study of Language situation in which the symbols can be used to represent single sound types in a language. This is, in effect, the basis of alphabetic writing. An alphabet is essentially a set of written symbols, each one representing a single type of sound. The situation just described is generally what seems to have occurred in the development of the writing systems of Semitic languages such as Arabic and Hebrew. Words written in these languages, in everyday use, largely consist of symbols for the consonant sounds in the word, with the appropriate vowel sounds being supplied by the reader (or rdr). This type of writing system is sometimes called a consonantal alphabet. The early version of Semitic alphabetic script, originating in the writing system of the Phoenicians, is the basic source of most other alphabets to be found in the world. Modified versions can be traced to the East into Iranian, Indian and South-East Asian writing systems and to the West through Greek. The early Greeks took the alphabetizing process a stage further by also using separate symbols to represent the vowel sounds as distinct entities, and so created a remodeled system that included vowels. This change produced a distinct symbol for a vowel sound such as a (called ‘alpha’) to go with existing symbols for consonant sounds such as b (called ‘beta’), giving us single-sound writing or an ‘alphabet’. In fact, for some writers on the origins of the modern alphabet, it is the Greeks who should be given credit for tak- ing the inherently syllabic system from the Phoenicians and creating a writing system in which the single-symbol to single-sound correspondence was fully realized. From the Greeks, this revised alphabet passed to the rest of Western Europe through the Romans and, along the way, underwent several modifications to fit the requirements of the spoken languages encountered. As a result, we talk about the Roman alphabet as the writing system used for English. Another line of development took the same basic Greek writing system into Eastern Europe where Slavic languages were spoken. The modified version, called the Cyrillic alphabet (after St. Cyril, a ninth-century Christian missionary), is the basis of the writing system used in Russia today. The actual form of a number of letters in modern European alphabets can be traced, as in the illustration, from their origins in Egyptian hierogly- phics. Egyptian Phoenician Early Greek Roman The development of writing  Written English If indeed the origins of the alphabetic writing system were based on a corre- spondence between a single symbol and a single sound type, then one might reasonably ask why there is such a frequent mismatch between the forms of written English (you know) and the sounds of spoken English (yu no). The answer to that question must be sought in a number of historical influences on the form of written English. The spelling of written English was largely fixed in the form that was used when printing was introduced into fifteenth-century England. At that time, there were a number of conventions regarding the written representation of words that had been derived from forms used in writing other languages, notably Latin and French. Moreover, many of the early printers were native Dutch speakers and could not make consistently accurate decisions about English pronunciations. Perhaps more important is the fact that, since the fifteenth century, the pro- nunciation of spoken English has undergone substantial changes. For example, although we no longer pronounce the initial k sound or the internal ch sound, we still include letters indicating the older pronunciation in our contemporary spelling of the word knight. So, even if there had been a good written-letter to speech-sound correspondence at that time, and the printers had got it right, there would still be major discrepancies for the present-day speakers of English. If we then add in the fact that a large number of older written English words were actually ‘recreated’ by sixteenth-century spelling reformers to bring their written forms more into line with what were supposed, sometimes erroneously, to be their Latin origins (e.g. dette became debt, iland became island), then the sources of the mismatch between written and spoken forms begin to become clear. Even when the revolutionary American spelling reformer Noah Webster was successful (in the USA) in revising a form such as British English honour, he only managed to go as far as honor (and not onor). His proposed revisions of giv (for give) and laf (for laugh) were in line with the alphabetic principle, but have obviously not been generally accepted. How we go about describing the sounds of English words in a consistent way, when the written forms provide such unreliable clues, is a problem we try to solve in chapter 4. Study questions 1 What is the basic difference between pictograms and ideograms? 2 What is the basic difference between a logographic writing system and a phonographic writing system? 3 What happens in the process known as rebus writing? 4 Which modern language has a (partially) syllabic writing system? 5 What is the name given to the writing system used for Russian? 6 Where will you find the writing system with the longest history of continuous use?  The Study of Language Research tasks A What is boustrophedon writing and when was it used? B What kind of writing system is Hangul, where is it used and how are words written on the page? C The majority of symbols (QWERTY) on a keyboard used with a computer or typewriter belong to an alphabetic system. What about other symbols on the keyboard such as @, %, &, 5, ∗ , +? Are they alphabetic, syllabic, logographic or ideographic? How would you describe other special symbols such as ✄, ☞, ✎, ♥, C, , or :-)? D In the accompanying illustration there is a copy of a letter described in Jensen (1969). The letter is from a young woman of the Yukagirs who live in northern Siberia. The woman (c) is sending the letter to her departing sweetheart (b). What do you think the letter is communicating? Who are the other figures? What kind of ‘writing’ is this? The development of writing  Discussion topics/projects I According to Florian Coulmas, “the present distribution of scripts testifies to the close link between writing systems and religion” (2003: 201). Do you think that the spread of different religions (more than anything else) accounts for the different forms of writing used in the world today? What kind of evidence would you use to argue for or against this idea? (For background reading, see chapter 10 of Coulmas, 2003.) II Pictograms may be language-independent, but they do not seem to be culture-independent. In order to interpret many pictographic and ideographic representations, we have to be familiar with cultural assumptions about what the symbols ‘mean’. (i) As a simple exercise, show the twelve symbols illustrated below to some friends and ask them if they know what each one means. (People may say they have never seen them before, but they should be encouraged to guess.) (ii) Next, provide them with the following list of ‘official meanings’ and ask them to decide which symbol goes with which meaning. (a) agitate (g) registration (b) blood donors (h) telegrams (c) dry, heat (i) open door or lid (d) keep frozen (j) press, interview room (e) lock (k) protection and safety equipment (f) lost child (l) turning basin maneuvring (boats) (iii) Can you describe what kinds of cultural assumptions are involved in the interpretation of these symbols? (The symbols are from Ur, 1988.)  The Study of Language Further reading Introductory accounts of the development of writing can be found in chapter 12 of Fromkin et al. (2003) or chapter 16 of O’Grady et al. (2005). More com- plete descriptions of writing systems are in Campbell (1997), Coulmas (2003), Sampson (1985) and in the encyclopedic volume by Daniels & Bright (1996). Classic volumes on the subject are Gelb (1963) and Jensen (1969). Illustrations of a wide range of contemporary scripts can be found in part 3 of Comrie et al. (1997) or Nakanishi (1990). For more information on ancient languages, see Woodard (2003) and, on the role of clay tokens as precursors of writing, see Schmandt-Besserat (1996). There are detailed studies of boustrophedon writing in Jeffery (1990) and, of Hangul, in Kim-Renaud (1997). For more information on the alphabet, see Man (2000) or Sacks (2003). For more on English spelling, see Carney (1997). 4 The sounds of language I take it you already know Of tough and bough and cough and dough? Others may stumble but not you On hiccough, thorough, lough and through. Well done! And now you wish, perhaps, To learn of less familiar traps? Beware of heard, a dreadful word, That looks like beard and sounds like bird. And dead: it’s said like bed, not bead – For goodness sake don’t call it ‘deed’! Watch out for meat and great and threat (They rhyme with suite and straight and debt). T. S. W. quoted in Mackay (1970) Imagine the manager of a small restaurant, a man who has always had trouble with the spelling of unusual words, writing out a sign which he puts in the front window, advertising that they have a new . You see the sign and you decide to ask what kind of new thing this is. When you hear the pronunciation, you recognize the word usually written as chef. How did he arrive at that other spelling? Well, it’s very simple, he says. Take the first sound of the word sure, the middle sound of the word dead, and the final sound of the word laugh. Isn’t that a seagh? This tale, however unlikely, may serve as a reminder that the sounds of spo- ken English do not match up, a lot of the time, with letters of written English. If we cannot use the letters of the alphabet in a consistent way to represent the sounds we make, how do we go about describing the sounds of a language like English? One solution is to produce a separate alphabet with symbols that represent sounds. Such a set of symbols does exist and is called the pho- netic alphabet. In this chapter, we will look at how these symbols are used to represent both the consonant and vowel sounds of English words and what physical aspects of the human vocal tract are involved in the production of those sounds.  The Study of Language Phonetics The general study of the characteristics of speech sounds is called phonetics. Our main interest will be in articulatory phonetics, which is the study of how speech sounds are made, or ‘articulated’. Other areas of study are acoustic phonetics, which deals with the physical properties of speech as sound waves in the air, and auditory phonetics (or perceptual phonetics) which deals with the perception, via the ear, of speech sounds. Voiced and voiceless sounds In articulatory phonetics, we investigate how speech sounds are produced using the fairly complex oral equipment we have. We start with the air pushed out by the lungs up through the trachea (or ‘windpipe’) to the larynx. Inside the larynx are your vocal cords, which take two basic positions. 1 When the vocal cords are spread apart, the air from the lungs passes between them unimpeded. Sounds produced in this way are described as voiceless. 2 When the vocal cords are drawn together, the air from the lungs repeatedly pushes them apart as it passes through, creating a vibration effect. Sounds produced in this way are described as voiced. The distinction can be felt physically if you place a fingertip gently on the top of your ‘Adam’s apple’ (i.e. that part of your larynx you can feel in your neck below your chin), then produce sounds such as Z-Z-Z-Z or V-V-V-V. Because these are voiced sounds, you should be able to feel some vibration. Keeping your fingertip in the same position, now make the sounds S-S-S-S or F-F-F-F. Because these are voiceless sounds, there should be no vibration. Another trick is to put a finger in each ear, not too far, and produce the voiced sounds (e.g. Z-Z-Z-Z) to hear and feel some vibration, whereas no vibration will be heard or felt if you make voiceless sounds (e.g. S-S-S-S) in the same way. Place of articulation Once the air has passed through the larynx, it comes up and out through the mouth and/or the nose. Most consonant sounds are produced by using the tongue and other parts of the mouth to constrict, in some way, the shape of the oral cavity through which the air is passing. The terms used to describe many sounds are those which denote the place of articulation of the sound: that is, the location inside the mouth at which the constriction takes place. What we need is a slice of head. If you crack a head right down the middle, you will be able to see which parts of the oral cavity are crucially involved in speech production. To describe the place of articulation of most consonant The sounds of language  sounds, we can start at the front of the mouth and work back. We can also keep the voiced–voiceless distinction in mind and begin using the symbols of the phonetic alphabet for specific sounds. These symbols will be enclosed within square brackets [ ]. Bilabials These are sounds formed using both (= bi) upper and lower lips (= labia). The initial sounds in the words pat, bat and mat are all bilabials. They are represented by the symbols [p], which is voiceless, and [b] and [m], which are voiced. We can also describe the [w] sound found at the beginning of way, walk and world as a bilabial. Labiodentals These are sounds formed with the upper teeth and the lower lip. The initial sounds of the words fat and vat and the final sounds in the words safe and save are labiodentals. They are represented by the symbols [f], which is voiceless, and [v], which is voiced. Notice that the final sound in the word cough, and the initial sound in photo, despite the spelling differences, are both pronounced as [f].  The Study of Language Dentals These sounds are formed with the tongue tip behind the upper front teeth. The initial sound of thin and the final sound of bath are both voiceless dentals. The symbol used for this sound is [θ ], usually referred to as ‘theta’. It is the symbol you would use for the first and last sounds in the phrase three teeth. The voiced dental is represented by the symbol [ð], usually called ‘eth’. This sound is found in the pronunciation of the initial sound of common words like the, there, then and thus. It is also the middle consonant sound in feather and the final sound of bathe. The term ‘interdentals’ is sometimes used for these consonants when they are pronounced with the tongue tip between (= inter) the upper and lower teeth. Alveolars These are sounds formed with the front part of the tongue on the alveolar ridge, which is the rough, bony ridge immediately behind and above the upper teeth. The initial sounds in top, dip, sit, zoo and nut are all alveolars. The symbols for these sounds are easy to remember – [t], [d], [s], [z], [n]. Of these, [t] and [s] are voiceless whereas [d], [z] and [n] are voiced. It may be clear that the final sounds of the words bus and buzz have to be [s] and [z] respectively, but what about the final sound of the word raise? The spelling is misleading because the final sound in this word is voiced and so must be represented by [z]. Notice also that despite the different spelling of knot and not, both of these words are pronounced with [n] as the initial sound. Other alveolars are the [l] sound found at the beginning of words such as lap and lit, and the [r] sound at the beginning of right and write. Palatals If you feel back behind the alveolar ridge, you should find a hard part in the roof of your mouth. This is called the hard palate or just the palate. Sounds which are produced with the tongue and the palate are called palatals (or alveo- palatals). Examples of palatals are the initial sounds in the words shout and child, which are both voiceless. The sh sound is represented as [ʃ] and the ch sound is represented as [tʃ]. So, the word shoe-brush begins and ends with the voiceless palatal sound [ʃ] and the word church begins and ends with the other voiceless palatal sound [tʃ]. One of the voiced palatals, represented by the symbol [ ], is not very common in English, but can be found as the middle consonant sound in words like treasure and pleasure, or the final sound in rouge. The other voiced palatal is [d ], which is the initial sound in words like joke and gem. The word judge and the name The sounds of language  George both begin and end with the sound [d ] despite the obvious differences in spelling. One other voiced palatal is the [j] sound used at the beginning of words like you and yet. Velars Even further back in the roof of the mouth, beyond the hard palate, you will find a soft area, which is called the soft palate, or the velum. Sounds produced with the back of the tongue against the velum are called velars. There is a voiceless velar sound, represented by the symbol [k], which occurs not only in kid and kill, but is also the initial sound in car and cold. Despite the variety in spelling, this [k] sound is both the initial and final sound in the words cook, kick and coke. The voiced velar sound heard at the beginning of words like go, gun and give is represented by [g]. This is also the final sound in words like bag, mug and, despite the spelling, plague. The velum can be lowered to allow air to flow through the nasal cavity and thereby produce another voiced velar which is represented by the symbol [ŋ], typically referred to as ‘angma’. In written English, this sound is normally spelled as the two letters ‘ng’. So, the [ŋ] sound is at the end of sing, sang and despite the spelling, tongue. It occurs twice in the form ringing. Be careful not to be misled by the spelling of a word like bang – it ends with the [ŋ] sound only. There is no [g] sound in this word. Glottals There is one sound that is produced without the active use of the tongue and other parts of the mouth. It is the sound [h] which occurs at the beginning of have and house and, for most speakers, as the first sound in who and whose. This sound is usually described as a voiceless glottal. The ‘glottis’ is the space between the vocal cords in the larynx. When the glottis is open, as in the production of other voiceless sounds, and there is no manipulation of the air passing out of the mouth, the sound produced is that represented by [h]. Charting consonant sounds Having described in some detail the place of articulation of English consonant sounds, we can summarize the basic information in the accompanying chart. Along the top of the chart are the different labels for places of articulation and, under each, the labels −V (= voiceless) and +V (= voiced). Also included in this chart, on the left-hand side, is a set of terms used to describe ‘manner of articulation’ which we will discuss in the following section. Bilabial Labiodental Dental Alveolar Palatal Velar Glottal −V +V −V +V −V +V −V +V −V +V −V +V −V +V Stops p b t d k g Fricatives f v θ ð s z ʃ Affricates tʃ d Nasals m n ŋ Liquids l,r Glides w j h The sounds of language  Limitations of the chart This chart is far from complete. It contains the majority of consonant sounds used in the basic description of English pronunciation. There are, however, several differences between this basic set of symbols and the much more com- prehensive chart produced by the International Phonetic Association (IPA). The most obvious difference is in the range of sounds covered. We would go to an IPA chart for a description of the sounds of all languages. It includes, for example, symbols for the velar fricative sound you may have heard in the German pronunciation of the ch part of Bach or Achtung. It also includes sounds made with the back of the tongue and the uvula (at the end of the velum) which represents the r parts of the French pronunciation of rouge and lettre. Uvular sounds also occur in many native languages of north and south America. Other non-English sounds such as pharyngeals (produced in the pharynx) occur in languages such as Arabic. There are many other consonant sounds in the languages of the world. Another way in which the chart is incomplete is the single entry cover- ing r sounds in English. There can be a lot of variation among speakers in the pronunciation of the initial sound in raw and red, the medial sound in very, and the final sound in hour and air. Different symbols (e.g. [ɹ ], [ ]) may be encountered in transcriptions where the different r sounds are distinguished. Finally, in some phonetic descriptions, there are different symbols for a few of the sounds represented here. These alternatives are [š] for [ʃ], [ž] for [ ], [č] for [tʃ],

The Study of Language 3rd Edition PDF

Document Details

Tags

Related

Summary

Full Transcript