49
62
Part 1: God’s Involvement with Language
will show you that he can break it. He says, “Large cats three the.” “周ere,” he says,
“I have broken the rule about the order of words within a noun phrase.” Rebel Bob
can also break rules of social behavior, if he so chooses. (But there may be painful
consequences, if he commits a crime or betrays a trust.) 周e point to notice is not
that the rules are unbreakable, but that, in the obvious cases, everyone is aware
of the breakage. 周e rules are norms that specify what people normally do, and
they also imply that deviations will stand out.
5
So a deviation or breakage itself
serves to confirm the reality of the rule, the norm.
I should also add a technical qualification. Linguists have learned to distinguish
descriptive linguistics from prescriptive grammar. In English, traditional school
grammar taught earlier generations of students to say, “He and I are going to play
ball,” with “he” and “I” in the so-called “nominative case.” 周is sentence was said
to be “grammatically correct.” 周e teacher formulated a prescriptive rule about
how good speakers of English should talk. But on the playground, beyond the ear
of the English teacher, you might hear some student say, “Me and him are going
to play ball.” 周e descriptive linguist would include the la瑴er u瑴erance within his
data about how people actually talk, especially in colloquial English among the
unle瑴ered. He would also continue the analysis in order to discover rules for
when the playground boy uses “me” and when he uses “I.” 周ere are such rules,
descriptive grammatical rules. But they differ from the rules of the prescriptive
grammar in the English teacher’s classroom.
周e rules of prescriptive grammar are genuine and real, but they are more like
cultural rules prescribing cultural expectations for behavior in educated circles
and in formal discourse, rather than being merely straightforward language rules.
Educated people o晴en notice when prescriptive rules are violated, but the viola-
tion is somewhat different from the breakage of a rule of descriptive grammar.
周e example with “me and him” also shows that there can be dialectical dif-
ferences between different speakers of English. 周ere can be Boston English,
Southern English, black English, Sco瑴ish English, and differences between un-
educated and educated speakers in the same geographical location.
6
Linguists
delight to study these differences, and formulate rules with respect to them. We
could say that we have rules to describe the variations in rules among different
dialects. Rules, rules, rules.
周e more thorough the investigation, the more rules we find, and the more
we find rules for accounting for the variations in the rules and the apparent and
5. On the possibility of deliberately “flouting” rules, see especially Mary Louise Pra瑴, Toward
a Speech Act 周eory of Literary Discourse (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1977).
6. Linguists have also spoken about an “idiolect,” the special differences that belong to a
single person’s use of his language. An idiolect is a dialect specialized to one person. I grew up in
central California, but I was influenced by my mother’s Boston accent. So my own accent is not
completely identical with the generic “California accent.”
PoythressLanguageBook.indd 62
5/14/09 4:46:09 PM
42
63
Chapter 8: 周e Rules of Language
sometimes real breakage of an individual rule. We cannot escape the rules except
by escaping into another language and another culture with its own set of rules,
or else escaping into insanity. And of course psychopathology investigates regular
pa瑴erns (rules) found in insanity!
Many linguists also recognize that the rules may “fade gradually” when we enter
gray areas that are difficult to classify as either fully rule-obeying or overtly rule-
disobeying. We may talk about some sentences being grammatical, and others being
ungrammatical, that is, breaking the rules of grammar. But in between are some sen-
tences that are doubtful. Native speakers may sometimes disagree with one another
as to whether a particular sentence is grammatically acceptable. And sometimes it
may depend on the context. Consider the following lines from a hymn:
Lord, our Lord, thy glorious name
all thy wondrous works proclaim;
in the heav’ns with radiant signs
evermore thy glory shines.
Infant lips thou dost ordain
wrath and vengeance to restrain;
weakest means fulfil thy will,
mighty enemies to still.
7
As classic English hymnic poetry this is perfectly acceptable, but if similar gram-
matical constructions appeared in prose they would be awkward at best and some-
times grammatically unacceptable, because some of the word order is unusual,
and the use of the words “thy” and “dost” is archaic.
周is kind of situation regularly occurs in natural languages, and we can
begin to formulate rules to describe it. So it should be seen as one aspect of
the way that rules actually function in language rather than a failure of lan-
guage to conform to rules. It all depends on how we conceive of the rules. If
we formulate a simple rule about grammar, we may sometimes find excep-
tions, and the exceptions are “violations” of the rule. But the problem is that
our formulation fails fully to capture the complexity of actual language. 周e
actual rules are more complex than our formulation, and so of course we are
going to be disappointed.
God’s Hand
God’s hand is in the rules. By providing rules for each language, he gives a stable
basis for communication.
7. “Lord, Our Lord, 周y Glorious Name,” in Trinity Hymnal (Philadelphia: Great Commis-
sion, 1990), hymn 114; from Psalm 8, 周e Psalter, 1912.
PoythressLanguageBook.indd 63
5/14/09 4:46:10 PM
35
64
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
9
-
God’s Rule
For his invisible a瑴ributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature,
have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,
in the things that have been made.
—Romans 1:20
L
et us now focus on the character of the rules of language. 周ey reveal God
in some striking ways.
Omnipresence
First, the rules for English hold wherever English is spoken. For example, consider
the rule that “moved” is the past tense of “move.” 周at holds true for English
everywhere. It holds not only where English is spoken but wherever English
could be spoken, or else it would not be English.
1
周at much seems undeniable.
But then the rule about “moved” is truly universal; it is present everywhere. 周at
1. General linguistics at times tries to formulate fairly general rules that would hold with
respect to any human language whatsoever (so-called “universal grammar”). But in the nature of
the case we cannot be quite sure that there could never be an exception in some remote human
language, or in a now-extinct language. 周at is, we cannot say that the human formulations of the
rules completely capture the actual rules. In fact, that is also true for human formulations with
respect to the rules of English. It is easier, in any case, to think of the particular rules of some
particular language such as English. One of the rules of general linguistics would be that each
PoythressLanguageBook.indd 64
5/14/09 4:46:10 PM
41
65
Chapter 9: God’s Rule
is, it is omnipresent. Spoken English, and human knowledge of English, are not
omnipresent. But the rules are.
Eternality
周e presence of a rule at different places extends easily to embrace its presence
at different times. 周e rule about “moved” applies whenever English is spoken,
either past or future.
But now we must make a qualification. English or any other human language
changes over time. In middle English the word “move” was “moven,” which in
turn comes from middle French, “movoir,” which comes from Latin “movēre.”
We can see differences when we compare modern English with Shakespearian
English or Chaucerian English. 周ere are subtle and sometimes major changes
in the meaning of some particular words. 周ere are changes in pronunciation,
and changes in grammar. 周ere are changes in the surrounding cultures within
which the use of language makes sense. So the rules change.
But we might just as well say that the changed rules to which we point are
rules with respect to a somewhat different form of English, or a different dia-
lect of English. If we are talking not about the whole history of English (how
far back would we go?) but about contemporary English, we come back down
to earth. Even here we must talk about a variety of dialects for English. But
that variety, properly understood, is part of the rules, rules describing dialects
and their differences. What is essential is that we not simply confuse our own
English with Chaucerian English or older Anglo-Saxon, because if we did, we
would make everything unclear. 周ere is no lingual communication without
a stable language within the bounds of which to communicate. If the rules we
are talking about are merely the rules for any language whatsoever, that is li瑴le
help. We must have particular rules for a particular language at a particular stage.
周ese rules are applicable wherever that particular language is the medium of
communication.
And so, yes, “moved” would be the past tense of “move” if, thirty centuries from
now, some group of learned scholars of English were to revive English as a living
language. More likely, they would create a language like our English but also subtly
different, and so the rules for them would differ from ours at some points.
周e rules are always to be understood as the rules for a particular language.
周ose rules hold anytime that particular language is used. And so the rules, though
not the living use of the language, are eternal.
particular language has particular rules, partly unique to itself, concerning grammar, sounds,
and meanings.
PoythressLanguageBook.indd 65
5/14/09 4:46:10 PM
38
66
Part 1: God’s Involvement with Language
It may seem strange to talk about the rules of a language being eternal, since
languages themselves change. But a similar principle holds with respect to any
truth about the world. 周e world changes. But the truths about events in the
world always hold, once we make the qualification that they are truths about an
event at a particular time and place. Christ was crucified under Pontius Pilate.
周at truth concerning a particular event can be affirmed now, or in the future,
just as much as at the time it happened.
2
Immutability
It follows also that the rules are immutable. 周e rule about “moved” does not
change (with respect to English as it now exists), and indeed it cannot change,
because a new rule would hold with respect to a new state of development of a
historical language, rather than holding with respect to English as it now exists.
We should also say that there are rules to describe language change. Intro-
ductions of new meanings, or introductions of new pronunciations, take place
in various regular ways. Regularities like this can be captured to some extent by
rules.
周e Role of God
We have already spoken about the rules of language as omnipresent, eternal, and
immutable. It is not an accident that we are seeing here some of the a瑴ributes of
God. According to the Bible, God by his word governs the whole of the world:
And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light (Gen. 1:3).
By the word of the Lord the heavens were made,
and by the breath of his mouth all their host (Ps. 33:6).
Who has spoken and it came to pass, unless the Lord has commanded it?
Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and bad come?
(Lam. 3:37–38).
In particular, God governs the physical and biological world through his word.
Scientists in studying scientific law are actually looking into the word of God
that governs the world. A similar situation holds when linguists study rules about
language.
We can summarize the situation with respect to scientific law as follows:
2. See the discussion about the divine a瑴ributes of truth in Vern S. Poythress, Redeeming
Science: A God-Centered Approach (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2006), chapter 14.
PoythressLanguageBook.indd 66
5/14/09 4:46:10 PM
41
67
Chapter 9: God’s Rule
According to the Bible, he [God] is involved in those areas where science does
best, namely areas involving regular and predictable events, repeating pa瑴erns, and
sometimes exact mathematical descriptions. In Genesis 8:22 God promises,
While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer
and winter, day and night, shall not cease.
周is general promise concerning earthly regularities is supplemented by many
particular examples:
You make darkness, and it is night,
when all the beasts of the forest creep about (Ps. 104:20).
You cause the grass to grow for the livestock
and plants for man to cultivate,
that he may bring forth food from the earth (Ps. 104:14).
He sends out his command to the earth;
his word runs swi晴ly.
He gives snow like wool;
he sca瑴ers hoarfrost like ashes.
He hurls down his crystals of ice like crumbs;
who can stand before his cold?
He sends out his word, and melts them;
he makes his wind blow and the waters flow (Ps. 147:15–18).
周e regularities that scientists describe are the regularities of God’s own commit-
ments and his actions. By his word to Noah, he commits himself to govern the sea-
sons. By his word he governs snow, frost, and hail. Scientists describe the regularities
in God’s word governing the world. So-called natural law is really the law of God or
word of God, imperfectly and approximately described by human investigators.
Now, the work of science depends constantly on the fact that there are regulari-
ties in the world. Without the regularities, there would ultimately be nothing to
study. Scientists depend not only on regularities with which they are already famil-
iar, such as the regular behavior of measuring apparatus, but also on the postulate
that still more regularities are to be found in the areas that they will investigate.
Scientists must maintain hope of finding further regularities, or they would give
up their newest explorations.
3
Similar observations hold when it comes to considering human beings. God in
governing the world of human beings governs language as well. 周e rule about
“moved” is a rule from God himself, as he acts in governing language.
3. Poythress, Redeeming Science, 14–15.
PoythressLanguageBook.indd 67
5/14/09 4:46:10 PM
47
68
Part 1: God’s Involvement with Language
We need to add a further complexity. God’s laws or rules with respect to the
physical world are never violated or broken. Miracles are surprising to us, because
they “violate” our expectations concerning laws, but they are in conformity with
God’s plan and his word, which is the real law. On the other hand, God’s rules
with respect to a particular language, like English, can be broken. 周ey are broken
when we make an ungrammatical expression like “large cats three the.” In that
respect the rules of language are more like God’s moral law.
God says, “Do not steal.” Rebel Bob can go ahead and steal, if he wants, just to
show that he can break God’s law. He does indeed break God’s law. But God’s law,
as a moral standard, remains unchanged. Rebel Bob does not succeed in changing
it, but only in violating it. And his violation also fits within God’s rules, in several
senses. For one thing, his acts are still within the scope of God’s decrees, God’s
words that specify the whole course of the history of the world.
4
For another,
Bob is accountable for his violation. 周ere are consequences, both on earth and
a晴er death. God’s rules also specify these consequences.
Now let us return to consider the breaking of a grammatical rule. A viola-
tion of a grammatical rule is not the same as a moral violation. Within a social
context where we are discussing the nature of language, we can playfully break
a grammatical rule, if we want, and sometimes achieve a morally positive goal.
But rules concerning the interpretation of language and rules concerning social
interaction govern such unusual moves in language as well as the more usual
ones that faithfully observe grammatical rules. So this is not an exception that
takes us away from rules. Moreover, even if we break a rule, we need the rule
to remain stable and unchanged in order effectively to break it.
With this understanding, let us proceed to explore further, and to ask whether
the rules of language display other a瑴ributes of God. For convenience, I will follow
the order of discussion I used in the book Redeeming Science to discuss scientific
law.
5
Many of the observations remain the same when we focus on laws (rules)
concerning language.
Invisibility
Rules concerning language are at bo瑴om ideational in character. We do not literally
see the rule that “moved” is the past tense of “move.” We see and hear only the effects
of the rule on our use of language. 周e rule is essentially immaterial and invisible, but
is known through its effects, like the occurrence of the word “moved.” Likewise, God
is essentially immaterial and invisible, but is known through his acts in the world.
4. On God’s decrees, see the discussion in Poythress, Redeeming Science; and discussion of
God’s decrees within Reformed theology, e.g., John M. Frame, 周e Doctrine of God (Phillipsburg,
NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 2002), 313–339.
5. Poythress, Redeeming Science, chapter 1.
PoythressLanguageBook.indd 68
5/14/09 4:46:10 PM
44
69
Chapter 9: God’s Rule
Truthfulness
Real rules, as opposed to linguists’ approximations of them, are also absolutely,
infallibly true. Truthfulness is also an a瑴ribute of God.
周e Power of Rules
Next consider the a瑴ribute of power. Linguists formulate rules as descriptions of
regularities that they observe. 周ey say that “moved” is the past tense of “move.”
But that was already true before the rule about it was formulated. 周e label “past
tense” was invented by students of language. But the thing they described with
the label was already there. 周e human scientific formulation follows the facts,
and is dependent on them. A law or regularity must already hold for “moved.” 周e
linguist cannot force the issue by inventing a rule that the past tense of “move”
will be “mowd” and then making the language to conform to it. Language rather
conforms to rules already there, rules that are discovered rather than invented.
周e rules must already be there, and they must actually hold. 周ey must “have
teeth.” Even if Rebel Bob deliberately breaks the rule by saying “mowd,” the rule
remains what it was and remains true. No language event escapes the “hold” or
dominion of the rules. Even Rebel Bob, when he breaks the rule, is still subject
to the rule in the sense that everyone can see that he is breaking the rule. 周e
power of these real laws is absolute—in fact, infinite. In classical language, a rule
of language is omnipotent (“all powerful”).
If the rule about “moved” is omnipotent and universal, there are truly no excep-
tions. Do we, then, conclude that violations of grammar are impossible, because
they are violations of a rule? No, our example with Rebel Bob shows that the
universality of a rule for language is of a different kind than with physical laws
like the law of gravity. 周e rule remains in place as a standard, a norm, to which
Rebel Bob is subject, even when he breaks it. In addition, the violations of a rule
are within the purpose of God for language. 周ey take place in accordance with
his predictive and decretive word. So the power of any one rule about “moved”
is to be understood in the context of other rules, including rules describing the
possibility of breaking the one rule.
Initially, a linguist may have formulated a rule in a very simple manner in order
to describe a regularity that he has observed. But the real rules of God encompass
not only the ordinary regularity that the linguist has observed but also the irregulari-
ties that he has not yet accounted for. God’s rule, as distinct from the linguist’s rule,
encompasses the very possibility of breaking the linguist’s rule. Similarly the Ten
Commandments, as given by God, include within their context indications from
God that he knows that the Israelites may violate them. 周at is one of the reasons
he issues the commandments in the first place. 周e violations do not take God by
surprise, but are in fact encompassed by the commandments, some of which include
consequences for disobedience as well as blessings for obedience (Ex. 20:5–7).
PoythressLanguageBook.indd 69
5/14/09 4:46:10 PM
43
70
Part 1: God’s Involvement with Language
Transcendence and Immanence
周e rules are both transcendent and immanent. 周e rule about “moved” transcends
particular instances of “moved,” and it transcends particular human beings by ex-
ercising power over them, conforming them to its dictates. 周e rule is immanent
in that it touches and holds in its dominion the particular occurrences of “move”
in the past tense.
6
Transcendence and immanence are characteristics of God.
Are the Rules Personal or Impersonal?
Many agnostics and atheists by this time will be looking for a way of escape. It
seems that the key concept of rules of language is beginning to look suspiciously
like the biblical idea of God. 周e most obvious escape, and the one that has rescued
many from spiritual discomfort, is to deny that rules of language are personal.
周ey are just there as an impersonal something. It just “happens to be the case”
that “moved” is the past tense of “move.”
周roughout the ages people have tried such routes. 周ey have constructed
idols, substitutes for God. In ancient times, the idols o晴en had the form of stat-
ues representing a god—Poseidon, the god of the sea; or Mars, the god of war.
Nowadays in the Western world we are more sophisticated. Idols now take the
form of mental constructions of a god or a God-substitute. Money and pleasure
can become idols. So can “humanity” or “nature” when it receives a person’s
ultimate allegiance. “Scientific law,” when viewed as impersonal, becomes an-
other God-substitute. But in both ancient times and today, idols conform to the
imagination of the person who makes them. Idols have enough similarities to the
true God to be plausible, but differ so as to allow us comfort and the satisfaction
of manipulating the substitutes that we construct.
Rule-giving, Rationality, and Language-like Character
In fact, a close look at rules of language shows that this escape route is not really
plausible. Rules imply a rule-giver. What gives power to the rule about “moved”?
Someone must think the rule and enforce it, if it is to be effective. But if some
people resist this direct move to personality, we may proceed more indirectly.
Linguists in practice believe passionately in the rationality of the rules of lan-
guage. We are not dealing with irrationality, totally unaccountable and unanalyz-
able, but with lawfulness that in some sense is accessible to human understanding.
Rationality is a sine qua non for scientific investigation of any kind, including the
social-scientific investigation undertaken by linguists. Moreover, the ordinary
6. On the biblical view of transcendence and immanence, see John M. Frame, 周e Doctrine
of the Knowledge of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1987), especially 13–15;
and Doctrine of God, especially 107–115.
PoythressLanguageBook.indd 70
5/14/09 4:46:11 PM
Documents you may be interested
Documents you may be interested
