51
261
Chapter 32: Subsystems of Language
Resources for a Medium of Communication (Sound)
周e second subsystem in language is the phonological subsystem or subsystem
for sound. 周e phonological subsystem is the system of pertinent sounds for a
particular language.
3
Many languages, but not all, have been supplemented by a
graphological system, usually in the form of an alphabet.
4
But we are concentrat-
ing on the oral form of language for the moment.
A language does not use all sounds in all combinations, but has particular
sounds, called phonemes, that make a difference in meaning. Consider, for example,
the following words in English: “bet,” “pet,” “vet,” “debt,” “set,” “let,” “met,” “net,”
“get,” “yet.” 周ey differ in sound only by the first consonant. So all the first con-
sonants are distinct from the standpoint of the native speaker, the insider. 周at
is, the sounds for “b,” “p,” “v,” “d,” “s,” “l,” “m,” “n,” “g,” “y” are distinct sound units.
We also know that the structure with consonant plus “e” plus “t” is regularly used
to form a complete syllable and even a complete word.
Now consider the following made-up sound sequences in English: “fet,” “ket,”
“slet,” “spet,” “spret,” “glet.” 周ese are not real words of English, but they could
be, because they conform to the rules for combining sounds to form a word.
5
Other sound sequences are not allowed at the beginning of a word: “pnet,” “pset,”
“kset,” “mnet,” “shlet.” But some of these sequences are allowed in other languages.
In Greek, for example, a word can begin with “pn” or “ps.” And in fact we have
some words in English inherited from Greek: “pneumonia” and “psychology.”
“Pneumonia” and “psychology” are both spelled in a manner that imitates Greek
spelling. But the pronunciation in English has dropped the initial “p” sound.
Orally we do not pronounce the initial “p.” 周e pronunciation has been forced
3. See Pike, Linguistic Concepts, 84–96. More specifically, phonology studies the distinct
minimal units of sound, the phonemes, which are perceived as distinct units from an insider’s point
of view. It can also include the study of higher “levels” or groupings of sound, like syllables and
stress groups, again from an insider’s point of view. On insiders and outsiders (“emic” and “etic”
viewpoints), see chapter 19.
4. Technically, the graphological subsystem contains not only the alphabet but also specifi-
cations for the ways in which alphabetic le瑴ers fit together to form wri瑴en words, and wri瑴en
words to form wri瑴en sentences with punctuation. English has many cases where wri瑴en spell-
ing does not match the sound. For example, the wri瑴en word “write” has an extra “w” that is not
pronounced orally. Multiple graphological systems are possible (wri瑴en communication in En-
glish can use shorthand, braille, and text messaging as well as the conventional Roman alphabetic
system; mathematics, chemistry, and computer science use distinct systems of technical notation).
Cultures with writing systems develop distinct wri瑴en genres and wri瑴en behavioremes, so that
the relation between oral and wri瑴en communication is complex rather than merely one-sided.
Jacques Derrida is undoubtedly right that Saussure’s methodological confinement to spoken lan-
guage constituted a reduction (Derrida, Of Grammatology [Baltimore/London: Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1976], 30–44).
5. 周e technical name for such rules is “phonological rules.”
PoythressLanguageBook.indd 261
5/14/09 4:46:39 PM
44
262
Part 5: Smaller Packages in Language: Sentences and Words
into conformity with the normal regularities for sound pa瑴erns in English. 周e
regularities in Greek are different.
Languages with writing systems have a subsystem for writing. In the case of
alphabetic systems, the writing system is closely related to sound. But syllabic
and pictographic systems (like wri瑴en Chinese) are also possible—showing that
the subsystem for writing is not necessarily just a reproduction of the subsystem
for sound.
Resources for Grammar
周e third subsystem of language is the grammatical subsystem. We can see the
grammatical subsystem in action if we look at a nonsense example from Lewis
Carroll’s poem, 周e Jabberwocky:
’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
“Beware the Jabberwock, my son! . . .”
6
周e grammar is identifiably normal English grammar. “’Twas” is a poetic contrac-
tion of “It was.” “Brillig” is an adjective. “周e slithy toves” is a noun phrase with
a plural noun “toves.” And so on. But it is nonsense.
Actually, it is not complete nonsense. “Brillig,” coming as it does a晴er “’Twas,”
describes some weather condition, probably related to the word “brilliant.” “Slithy”
evokes the meanings of “slithery,” “slimy,” “slippery.” “Gyre” is actually a word of
English, meaning “to move in a circle or a spiral.”
7
周ough many people might
not recognize this word, they would guess that it is associated with “gyration”
and “gyroscope,” and would associate it with circular motion. 周us a good many
of the words have some secondary meaning associations. But the whole is nearly
nonsense, and its nonsense would be virtually complete if we eliminated the
secondary associations in meaning.
Such nonsense indicates clearly that grammar is independent of content (ref-
erential load). We can have normal grammar without content, and we could even
have it without normal sounds, if we introduced some sounds or sound sequences
that are not normal to English. 周us, a grammatical subsystem does exist. And it
differs from language to language.
8
6. Lewis Carroll, 周rough the Looking Glass and What Alice Found 周ere (1871), chapter 1.
7. Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary.
8. Pike, Linguistic Concepts, 70–83; Poythress, “Framework.”
PoythressLanguageBook.indd 262
5/14/09 4:46:39 PM
47
263
Chapter 32: Subsystems of Language
Interlocking Subsystems
In actual language the three subsystems—for content, for grammar, and for
sound—interlock. 周ey all appear together. It takes special effort, like Lewis
Carroll’s nonsense, to make one appear without the presence of another. 周e three
subsystems are present at every point. If we take away all the sounds, nothing is
le晴. If we take away all the referential functions in a normal sentence, we must
take away all the words, and nothing is le晴. We can still invent a special nonnor-
mal sentence, a nonsense sentence like the first sentence in Jabberwocky. It has
made-up words like “toves,” but even these have a kind of pretended referential
function, namely, to refer to whatever in the fantasy world is a “tove.” If all refer-
ence disappears, so does language in its normal use. We could still have sounds,
but they would not be English or any other human language. Finally, suppose that
we take away all the grammar. We must take away all the words, each of which
has grammatical function, and again nothing is le晴. In one sense, any one of the
subsystems covers the whole of language.
At the same time, one piece of language—a particular sentence, let us say—
enjoys structuring that is related to all three subsystems. We can look at the same
piece from any of three perspectives—referential, phonological, and grammatical.
Moreover, the learning of any one subsystem by a child interacts with all three
subsystems at once, and with the larger human environment as well.
And all this is really a good thing, though it may be frustrating to an analyst
who is trying to separate cleanly one subsystem from another. 周e child, for the
sake of learning, must learn both meaning and sound. He must learn both the
meaning of the word “dog” and how the word sounds. How will he learn the
meaning of a particular word or sentence unless he can identify distinct sounds
that distinguish that word from all the other words and sentences with quite dif-
ferent meanings? 周e sound has to be there all the time to access meaning. And
conversely, the meaning has to be there for the sound to make any difference.
Otherwise it is just so much noise, noise that a child would eventually learn to
ignore in order to go on to something meaningful. Language consists in “form-
meaning composites.”
9
It is never pure meaning or pure sound. 周e sound (or a
9. See the discussion of form and meaning in Kenneth L. Pike, Language in Relation to a
Unified 周eory of the Structure of Human Behavior, 2nd ed. (周e Hague: Mouton, 1967), especially
62–63:
. . . in the present theory I am a瑴empting to develop a point of view within which
form and meaning must not be separated in theory; there are rather form-meaning
composites. . .
For convenience, one may on occasion discuss the form and meaning aspects as if
they were separate, while taking pains to indicate that such an expedient is a distor-
tion which must be corrected at proper intervals and in the relevant places in the
discussion. . . .
PoythressLanguageBook.indd 263
5/14/09 4:46:40 PM
44
264
Part 5: Smaller Packages in Language: Sentences and Words
writing system or a sign language) must identify the meanings. And the meanings
make the sounds significant.
周e interdependence of the three subsystems is like a coinherence. Does this
triadic structuring of language into three subsystems reflect the character of God?
Yes, it does. As usual, God as creator is unique and cannot be placed on the same
level as the world that he created. But we may find analogies.
Language Systems and U瑴erances
To see the analogies, let us first think about the systematic character of a whole
language like English. 周e systematic regularities of English are already there
when people start communicating. For example, suppose that Amy uses English
in a particular u瑴erance, “周is is my dog,” to communicate some information.
She uses words like “this,” “my,” and “dog” already available in English. 周e En-
glish language as a system supplies the resources.
10
周us we have three aspects to
Amy’s communication: Amy with her purposes, the particular u瑴erance “周is is
my dog,” and the system of English. (See fig. 32.1.)
周ese three aspects of language correspond roughly to three perspectives—the
particle, the wave, and the field perspectives.
11
Amy’s particular communicative
purposes are stable. We naturally focus on her when we use the particle perspec-
tive. 周e wave perspective naturally leads to focusing on the dynamics of commu-
nication: the specific u瑴erance “周is is my dog” travels out, dynamically produced
by Amy’s vocal apparatus and dynamically carried through sound waves. 周e field
perspective focuses on the systematic relations among different u瑴erances. 周at
10. Language as a system is close to what Saussure meant by langue (appendix E).
11. For an explanation of these perspectives, see chapter 7.
Using a Language System
F
igure
32.1
English
(as system)
communicative
purposes
the language
system
utterance
“dog”
PoythressLanguageBook.indd 264
5/14/09 4:46:40 PM
C# HTML5 Viewer: Deployment on ASP.NET MVC under Views according to config in picture above. RasterEdge.XDoc.PDF.HTML5Editor. dll. Open RasterEdge_MVC3 DemoProject, copy following content to your project:
copy picture from pdf; how to copy picture from pdf file
46
265
Chapter 32: Subsystems of Language
leads to awareness of the English language system, that is, the systematic pa瑴erns of
relations among various u瑴erances and speakers. 周e system of English includes
pa瑴erns like the pa瑴erns for use of English tenses, or the pa瑴erns for sounds in
English words, such as we saw earlier in this chapter.
Since man is made in the image of God, his speaking ability images God’s
speaking ability. When God speaks, there are three aspects similar to those with
Amy: (1) God has his purposes, (2) he speaks a specific u瑴erance, and (3) he
has a system against the background of which he speaks.
Consider the example where God says, “Let there be light” (Gen. 1:3). “Let
there be light” is the specific u瑴erance. God’s purpose is the creation of light.
What language did he use? Later he had the u瑴erance recorded in Hebrew (Gen.
1:3). But at the initial point at which he created light, God was not speaking to
any human being, so the u瑴erance would not necessarily be in any known human
language. If God spoke in a particular human language, he would use the resources
of that particular language system (a system that he himself fully controls). 周e
system offers possibilities for many distinct u瑴erances. But what God said still
contrasts with many other things that he might have said. 周e deeper “system”
behind all human languages is the system of God’s wisdom, which he uses in
creating the world (Prov. 8:22–31). He knows all the possibilities for what he
might have created, and all the possibilities for what he might have said. 周us we
have three aspects to God’s speech: his purposes, his u瑴erance, and the system
of his wisdom. (See fig. 32.2.)
God Speaking
F
igure
32.2
wisdom of God
plan of God
systematic
wisdom
utterance
light
God said,
“Let there
be light.”
God’s activity in speaking has its ultimate foundation in his Trinitarian charac-
ter. 周e plan of God is the plan preeminently of the Father. 周e systematic wisdom
of God is found in the Son: “in whom [Christ] are hidden all the treasures of
wisdom and knowledge” (Col. 2:3; see 1 Cor. 1:30). And the Holy Spirit is like
the breath of God that empowers his specific u瑴erances. (See fig. 32.3.)
周us the u瑴erances of human beings display an image of the Trinitarian char-
acter of God.
PoythressLanguageBook.indd 265
5/14/09 4:46:41 PM
51
266
Part 5: Smaller Packages in Language: Sentences and Words
周ree Subsystems
Now let us return to the situation of Amy saying, “周is is my dog,” using En-
glish. English as a system must have resources for enabling Amy to carry out her
purposes through specific u瑴erances.
In order to fulfill Amy’s purposes, language has resources for talking about
the world: for making statements, for issuing commands and requests, and for
carrying out innumerable human purposes. 周ese resources for talking about
the world are the referential subsystem.
All languages also have resources for producing u瑴erances using a medium of
communication. Usually this medium is sound. 周e stable resources for this purpose
are the system of sounds, that is, the phonological subsystem. Finally, languages offer
resources for regular ways for building structures that combine both sounds and
referential resources together in an internally consistent way. 周is internal structuring
takes the form of the grammatical subsystem. (See figs. 32.4 and 32.5.)
Not all linguists have chosen to organize the thinking about these resources
in exactly the same way.
12
周ere are different linguistic theories, partly because
linguists may have differing interests and differing purposes.
13
But virtually all
linguists would acknowledge at some point that human languages show struc-
tured organization in sound and in grammar, and that the languages are used in
communication to accomplish tasks in the larger world.
12. My own approach is a variation on tagmemic theory. I use this particular theory partly
because it has tended to be “antireductionistic,” in comparison with other theories that have
at times sacrificed something of the fullness of language for the sake of rigor (see appendix E).
Tagmemic theory has also been “trimodal.” Kenneth L. Pike, its main architect, suspected that
the interlocking of three aspects dimly reflects the trimodal coinherence of persons of the Trinity
(see Pike, Language; Pike, Linguistic Concepts). See also Poythress, “Framework,” and Poythress,
“Hierarchy,” which expound the difference between referential, grammatical, and phonological
aspects by speaking of subsystems. Standard tagmemic theory has preferred to talk in terms of
three hierarchies. But hierarchy (wave perspective) and system (field perspective) interlock.
13. As an example, we may refer to the three perspectives—particle, wave, and field—all
of which can be used by linguists. For a survey of structural linguistics, see appendix E and the
literature cited there.
God in Trinity
F
igure
32.3
from the Father
from the Spirit
from the Son
plan of God
systematic
wisdom
utterance
PoythressLanguageBook.indd 266
5/14/09 4:46:41 PM
47
267
Chapter 32: Subsystems of Language
Human Dependence
周e three subsystems of language have their ultimate foundation in God’s Trini-
tarian nature. Human purposes using the referential subsystem imitate God’s
purposes, and more specifically the purposes of God the Father. Human speaking
with sound imitates God’s u瑴erances, which he u瑴ers through the power and
“breath” of the Holy Spirit. Human speaking uses a language system, in imita-
tion of God who uses the systematic wisdom of God the Son. 周e interlock-
ing among reference, sound, and grammar reflects the coinherence among the
Needed Resources
F
igure
32.4
English
(as system)
communicative
purposes
referring to a
world
internal
structure
using a
medium
the language
system
utterance
“dog”
F
igure
32.5
Subsystems
Phonological
subsystem
Grammatical
subsystem
Referential
subsystem
Subsystems
internal
structure
sound
as medium
referring
to a world
PoythressLanguageBook.indd 267
5/14/09 4:46:41 PM
38
268
Part 5: Smaller Packages in Language: Sentences and Words
persons of the Trinity. Human beings must rely on all three subsystems and on
their interlocking whenever they use language. 周ey are using a gi晴 from the
Trinitarian God.
An Illustration
We can illustrate the interlocking of subsystems with the familiar sample sentence,
“I am going to the store to get more bananas.” Each word has a meaning, a content.
And the sentence as a whole has a meaning, in which it says that I am going out
for a particular purpose. So I am using the referential subsystem. When I do that,
I am thinking and expressing myself in imitation of God the Father, who thinks
and expresses his thoughts.
Second, the sentence has a grammatical structure. Each word can be classified
as a noun, or a verb, or a preposition, and so on. 周e words fit together into a gram-
matical construction to make a whole sentence. I express myself with structure,
in conformity with grammatical rules. In doing so, I imitate God, whose Son is
the systematic wisdom of God.
周ird, the sentence goes out from my mouth as a series of sounds. It has the
force of my breath. I am using the phonological subsystem. In doing so, I imitate
the Spirit, who breathes out the speech of God.
周e thinking and speech of a human being do not create anything absolutely
new. God knows all our thoughts beforehand (Ps. 139:4–6, 16). Human thinking
means thinking God’s thoughts and God’s meanings a晴er him. It means imitat-
ing the thinking of the Father. Human speaking is articulate speaking, relying on
grammar. It relies on the systematic regularity specified by God’s rules, which are
the rules of the Word, the Son of God. And human speaking usually uses human
breath, which is empowered by the breath of the Holy Spirit. Human speaking
thus relies on the Trinitarian God, both his meanings, his power, and his presence
in empowering human breath.
Writing
In drawing the analogy with the Trinity we have focused on oral language, pro-
duced using human breath. But we could arrive at a similar conclusion with wri瑴en
language as our starting point. 周e Ten Commandments were wri瑴en on two
tablets of stone, “wri瑴en with the finger of God” (Ex. 31:18). According to 2
Corinthians 3, this Old Testament writing is analogous to the writing of the law
on the heart “with the Spirit of the living God”:
PoythressLanguageBook.indd 268
5/14/09 4:46:42 PM
27
269
Chapter 32: Subsystems of Language
And you show that you are a le瑴er from Christ delivered by us, wri瑴en not with
ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of
human hearts (2 Cor. 3:3).
Now if the ministry of death, carved in le瑴ers on stone, came with such glory that
the Israelites could not gaze at Moses’ face because of its glory, which was being
brought to an end, will not the ministry of the Spirit have even more glory? (2 Cor.
3:7–8).
周e expression “finger of God” in Exodus 31:18 indicates the activity of God’s
power, and is closely associated with the Spirit of God. We can also compare Luke
11:20 with Ma瑴hew 12:28:
“But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God
has come upon you” (Luke 11:20).
“But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God
has come upon you” (Ma瑴. 12:28).
周e two passages together show that the Spirit is the ultimate “finger” of God.
God’s word in both oral and wri瑴en form goes forth by the power of the Spirit,
who is thus the archetypal source for both speaking and writing. When human
speakers speak, they use breath, and by doing so they imitate the Holy Spirit, who
is the “breath” of God. When human writers write, they use fingers, and by doing
so they imitate the Holy Spirit, who functions as the “finger” of God.
Non-Christians rely on this gi晴 of language, and on the wisdom of the Trini-
tarian God who gave it, even though they do not give thanks to him. “周ey did
not honor him as God or give thanks to him” (Rom. 1:21).
PoythressLanguageBook.indd 269
5/14/09 4:46:42 PM
35
270
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
33
-
Words and 周eir Meanings
. . . and the name by which he is called is 周e Word of God.
—Revelation 19:13
W
hat are words? We all know, because we use them all the time. A word
is something like “dog” or “banana” or “going.” For native speakers
of a language, a large amount of this knowledge is tacit. We know how to use
words, but seldom concentrate on them explicitly. When linguists do undertake
to analyze words in detail, they find startling complexity.
Multidimensional Relationships for Words
Words interact with all three of the subsystems of language that we examined in
the previous chapter. First, words have referential relations, relations to meaning
content. A word may have several distinct senses. For example, the word “dog” is
used to designate the domestic dog (Canis familiaris). But “dog” is also used as a
verb, as when we say that “John dogged his steps.” And the word “dog” has another
quite distinct sense, in which it designates an andiron or a mechanical device for
gripping. It has still another meaning in the fixed expression “hot dog.”
Let us focus on the most common sense of the word “dog,” in which it desig-
nates the domestic dog. 周e word “dog” has multiple relationships. First, it is used
to refer to dogs in the real world or imaginary worlds. 周e word has a relation
to dogs in the world. Children typically learn the word “dog” by seeing it used
either in connection with real dogs, or pictures of dogs. And the pictures of dogs
have meaning in relation to dogs.
PoythressLanguageBook.indd 270
5/14/09 4:46:42 PM
Documents you may be interested
Documents you may be interested
