LS 1 lecture Meaning and Symbolization I (Harry van der Hulst)

Readings: Burrows, Barrow, Dean

1. I will situate the study of human language (Linguistics) within the other sciences. Linguistics is subordinate to Semiotics (the study of sign systems; Pierce) and shares interests with:

1. (Cognitive) Psychology: knowledge of language forms a module of the mind. This knowledge is closely linked to mental processes involving thought, memory, categorization and association.
2. Neuroscience: this knowledge is physically located in the brain. Language processing involves physical processes. Damage to the brain influences the perception and production of language.
3. Biology: the innate predisposition to acquire language is part of our biological (genetic) make-up. It defines us as a species.
4. Sociology: language is an important tool for social interaction
5. Anthropology: language is closely linked to culture
6. Mathematics, Logic & Computer science: Language as a formal system can be compared to artificial languages, the properties of which have been extensively studied in sciences that operate with precisely defined formal languages.

1. As a science, Linguistics is in conflict with Creationism (a religion). I will briefly reflect on this point (to be worked out in more detail in my second evening lecture, Oct. 19th). Genesis offers an ‘explanation’ both for the origin of language (Genesis II, 19-20; p. 271 in the reader) and the diversification of languages (Genesis XI, 1-9). Note that there is an interesting parallel here with the biblical account of the origin of life and the diversification of the species. We don’t know how language emerged (like we don’t know how life came about) but the best scientific theories on this are obviously in conflict with Genesis. With respect to the issue of diversification, we are in a better position. Like Darwin explained the diversification of life, linguists in the 19th century explained the diversification of languages. Therefore, the conflict between evolutionary biology and creationism is highly parallel to the (potential) conflict between (evolutionary or historical) linguistics and creationism.
2. I will briefly discuss the biological basis of language, reviewing the Chomskyan claim that our species is endowed with an innate capacity for acquiring languages; this view contrasts with views on acquisition (such as Skinner’s) that does not postulate a specific ability. I will make a reference here to the notion of ‘modularity’ and ‘multiple intelligences’ (Gardner). The innate capacity represents ‘nature’. The process of language acquisition shows that ‘nurture’ plays an important role too. There is a parallel here with what the students have heard on the acquisition of culture.
3. I then turn to the critical features that Burrows describes for human language. I will make a point of getting the students to understand what these points are (rather than simply asking them to memorize the list of four terms). In my presentation, I will group the four criteria into two subgroups: Symbolic & Arbitrariness, Order & Productivity.

1. Symbolic. I will focus on the term ‘represents’ and raise the question of what it is that the symbols (i.e. words) of language represent (mental categories as opposed to ‘things’ in the real world).
2. Arbitrariness. Here I will introduce the Piercian typology of signs: symbol, index and icon. (I find Burrows description of the difference between ‘sign’ and ‘symbol’ unfortunate). I’ll explain that language, like most other types of symbolic systems use all three types. The inverse of Arbitrariness is Iconicity. (Spoken) language mostly uses symbols (i.e. signs with an arbitrary form-meaning relationship), with a small degree of sound symbolism (onomatopoeia) and indexing (pronouns and reflexives). This leads to Dual Patterning. I will spend some time on this notion, because students find this a difficult concept. I’ll point to sign languages which have a higher degree of iconicity.
3. Order. What Burrows should have said is: Hierarchical Structure. Such structure results from the Particulate Principle: deriving an infinite set of expressions using a finite set of basic units and a set of rules for combining these; cf. Von Humboldt: making infinite use of finite means. I will draw attention to the fact that the Particulate Principle also accounts for structure of matter in physics, as well as the design of the genetic code.
4. Productivity. Productivity follows from the Particulate Principle. Often Productivity is equated with Creativity. This may be what Burrows included in his term productivity. I will make a distinction between productivity and creativity and will discuss Creative expression as a separate critical feature of human language.

My list of criteria, then, is:

1. Dual patterning (Symbolic system; Arbitrariness)
2. Following the Particulate Principle (leading to hierarchical structure and linear order & productivity)
3. Creative expression (New)
4. Ambiguity and multiple expressiveness (New)

5. It is important to understand these criteria if we wish to use them as a yardstick for determining whether other types of symbolic systems are to be regarded as languages. I will emphasize, though, that we should not get involved in terminological arguments. Rather, we wish to determine the defining properties of other systems and then see which ones are shared with human language. Also, if other system than human language meet these criteria, it is still very likely that human language has further defining properties that these other systems miss, and vice versa. In that sense, Burrows’ critera (as well as my somewhat changed list) are still very crude.

I will briefly discuss traffic signs, mathematical language, the language of the bees, the (sign) language of Apes (as taught to them by humans) and, finally sign languages (as used by deaf people).

6. I will conclude with a video clip of some Deaf Poetry, making the point that sign language has this artistic creative potential, and also as a transition to the next lecture.