Entry #4: Semantics: The Meaning of 'meaning'

What does it mean for a word to "mean" something? How does the human brain associate the phonetic string /pudəlz/ with small fluffy dogs? How concrete is that association? Does the phonetic string have any instrinsic value? The answers to these questions, and more, in today's post.

We will start with my favorite Meaning Man, Paul Grice. He felt that "meaning" had two possible definitions. 1) Cause and Effect, e.g. Smoke means fire. 2)Communication, which is much more complicated and, er, meaningful. Grice called (1) Natural Meaning, and (2) Non-natural meaning.

Grice felt that Non-natural meaning is governed by four conversational maxims, the details of which I will not go into here. He felt that utterances hold no meaning unless the utterer is has an audience, and he is trying to convey something to that audience. (Later, people will debate what constitutes an 'audience'; some argue that one's audience can be one's self.)

This seems intuitive and true - that words hold no meaning unless someone tries to use them to say something. For example, the word "poodle" means absolutely nothing if no one uses the word. Words cannot sit on a shelf, gathering dust; they need humans in order to have value.

So, now we know how words get "meaning," but what is this thing called "meaning?" How does our brain connect /pudəlz/ with little furry dogs? Perhaps the phonetic strings link to things, objects in the real world. This would explain the poodle example, but what about words that describe things we've never seen - such as Love or Peace or Balance or Unicorns or Lions? I've never seen any of those things, yet the words surely have meaning.

Maybe the phonetic strings link to images in our heads; not necessarily real things, but anything we can conceive of. I've seen pictures of Unicorns, and movies of lions. But where did the words come from in the first place? If no one has ever seen a unicorn (yes, this is debateable, but that is an equine of a tangential hue), then what does the word "mean?" Also, how does this explain Love, Peace, and Balance? Many words denote abstract concepts, so how can a theory of images explain their meaning?

...and where is all this stored? In our brains, probably, but how? Do we have small men with dictionaries up there, furiously working to find the entry for each word we hear?

This post has already gotten away from me. More on this subject next time.

The Wait is Over

Yes, you read that title correctly. The Wait for a new post here at the Mad Rant is over; new posts will be forthcoming. I apologize for the delay, but different issues steamrolled, and time management is not my forte.

Please check back soon for more Fun with Linguistics!

Entry #3: Phonology, or The Sounds of Silence

While Phonetics (and phoneticians) seeks to describe the physical sounds of language, Phonology (and phonologists) seeks to categorize and explain the sound patterns of a language. What sounds is the human vocal tract capable of producing? Why do some languages use certain sounds but not others? How concrete is the sound inventory of a language? How does a language use its inventory to convey differences in meaning? The phonologist, through data collection and analysis, seeks to answer these questions.

Let us take English as an example. While a phonetician would study the way a speaker produces a /ŋ/, like the average length, organs used, airflow, etc, a phonologist would study why and where this sound is produced. Why is it only found at the ends of syllables, such as in "hang" or "string?" Is it only found at the end of syllables? Do some dialects/speakers pronounce it elsewhere? Yes and No, respectively. Mountains of data confirm this. The more interesting (and more studied) question is, why is this so?

How can we reconcile this fact with the fact that Kabiye, a Niger-Congo language spoken in West Africa, easily places this sound at the beginning, middle, and end of syllables? Clearly, the restriction in English does not arise from a physiological standpoint: the human vocal tract is quite capable of pronouncing this sound in many different environments. Kabiye is not alone; many languages have this feature.

The solution lies in parameters, or DNA-encoded instructions for how one is to speak. There is a little switch in our heads (in fact, there are many) that get flipped when we first hear language around us, usually 0-2 years old. A child listening to English would never hear /ŋ/ at the beginning of syllables; a certain switch is flipped to "no," and thereafter it is very hard to change that. Sometimes, even trained phoneticians have trouble pronouncing non-native sounds. A baby growing up where Kabiye is the most frequently spoken language, however, would have their switch flipped to "yes." Countless numbers of these switches can account for the tremendous amount of linguistic diversity found on earth.

Entry #2: "read read lead lead" or /rid rɛd lid lɛd/

As early as the 20th century, linguists decided that they needed a uniform code with which to transcribe the world's languages. English spelling didn't work, because it is not uniform or patterned in any way. In order to have a cooperative, uniform, scientific process, some particularly inventive phoneticians came up with the International Phonetic Alphabet.

The IPA, as it is known, is a written code made up of mostly Latin characters, with a few Greek ones thrown in for kicks. Each symbol represents a sound. Each transcription is written with slashes or brackets around it, to differentiate the transcription from other written communication. For example, the English sentence "my name is Linguo, hear me roar" is transcribed as /maɪ nejm ɪz lɪŋgwow hir mi rɔr/. Notice a few points of interest: 1. each sound has its own symbol; 2. in this example, the number of characters needed does not differ terribly from English, but this is not always the case. "knowledge" is /nalɪʤ/; 3. phonetic transcription looks English-like, but is definitely not English.

Transcribing utterances (meaningful speech sounds) with a uniform alphabet is a fundamental part of Linguistics. In an effort to describe the world's languages as closely as possible, it is probably foremost important that we see which languages have which sounds, and which do not. For example, the sound /ɸ/ is absent from English, but not Spanish (it begins the words vaca:cow and vez:iteration). As you can see, if we used a nonuniform system, these two sounds would be identically written, and thus treated the same.

There are disadvantages to phonetic transcription, however. It represents speech as disparate, like a sequence of independent sounds. Analysis using computer programs (like Praat) has shown us that speech is a continuous, flowing phenomenon; there is no silence when one speaks (other than deliberate pauses). Transcription ignores this fact, and abstracts to an approximation of the different sounds heard. Indeed, hearing is the operative word: ought we to transcribe what I hear, what you hear, or what the speaker thinks he is saying? Even with sophisticated computer programs, experienced phoneticians still disagree about just what sound they heard.

Resources:

1. A clickable audio representation of all the IPA sounds http://www.ling.hf.ntnu.no/ipa/full/ipachart_cons_pulm_fbmp3.html

2. official IPA website:
http://www2.arts.gla.ac.uk/IPA/ipa.html

3. a full-size chart of the sounds of the world's languages:

Special Entry: R.I.P

The pioneer of modern Phonetics, Peter Ladefoged, died earlier this week. He was 80.

Ladefoged will be remembered not for his massive and incredibly insightful contributions to Linguistics (securing Phonetics' place as a hard science), but for his laughable manner and oddly Anglo-American sense of humor.

For more information, please visit his official site (linked at the right), or this Wikipedia article.

Rest in peace, Peter Ladefoged, and thanks.

Entry #1: Prescription vs. Description

In regards to how one ought to catalog language, there are two main schools of thought: the prescriptivists and the descriptivists. The former seek to preserve what they believe is the superior form of their language, while the latter view language as a natural phenomenon, and seek only to document and explain its behavior.

Linguistics, generally, began prescriptively (if we go back far enough, this means attempting to force Latin grammatical rules over English frames; this results in the multitude of style manuals and usage guides seen in any bookstore). Remember Rex Harrison in My Fair Lady (or, more accurately, Professor Henry Higgins in G.B. Shaw's Pygmalion)? A stodgy old British fellow, Higgins was obsessed with purifying the English language. The very first song Harrison (as Higgins) sings is "Why Can't the English...?," an hysterical rant on the state of speech in the UK, and how it is deplorable and deficient. In Higgins' mind, there is some such thing as Proper English, and those who don't speak it are wrong and stupid. This is the philosophy of a prescriptivist; one must prescribe how to speak, and those who don't follow these prescriptions are making mistakes, mistakes which must be corrected.

Descriptivism began (more or less) with Edward Sapir, an early 20th century scholar. His attempts to catalog various languages (which he had no previous familiarity with, unlike French or Spanish, etc) jumpstarted modern Linguistics. (I do not laud Sapir blindly, however. The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, a.k.a. Linguistic Determinism, lacks evidentiary and theoretical support). A drive to transcribe what the speaker speaks, rather than correct him. An directive to explain the behavior of all speech, rather than choose one mode as "proper." This overarching philosophy has guided the field up to this day, and debates still rage over it. David Foster Wallace's article "Authority and American Usage," (available as part of his collection Consider the Lobster, in stores now) is a well-written but ultimately misguided summary of the current state of affairs.

So, dear readers, how do you feel? Should language be preserved, kept as it is, or described as closely as possible, with minimal interference? You've probably guessed my take on the whole situation, but I'd love to hear from you. Remember, intelligent debate, not name-calling and fighting. Happy commenting!

Intro...Why Language?

Language is the faculty by which human beings communicate with each other. Every single human on earth will learn to speak (although not all will learn to read or write). Our ability to convey our ideas to one another is unique - no other species (that we know of) can do so with the same accuracy, lucidity, and variety.
For these reasons (among many, many others), I have created this blog as a forum for discussion and education. I will post articles, thoughts, rants, whatever, and would appreciate any feedback any intelligent person has to offer. Very often, I will pose a question that has no simple or direct answer. Indeed, the key to understanding is often the path, not the destination. All I hope to accomplish is to offer my view on just where the path begins.