Language in Its Cultural Embedding: Explorations in the Relativity of Signs and Sign Systems [Reprint 2011 ed.] 9783110867541, 9783110120868

Citation preview

Language in Its Cultural Embedding

Studies in Anthropological Linguistics 4

Editors

Florian Coulmas Jacob L. Mey

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York

Language in Its Cultural Embedding Explorations in the Relativity of Signs and Sign Systems

by

Harald Haarmann

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York

1990

Mouton de Gruyter (formerly Mouton, The Hague) is a Division of Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin

© Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication

Data

Haarmann, Harald, Language in its cultural embedding : explorations in the relativity of signs and sign systems / Harald Haarmann, p. cm. — (Studies in anthropological linguistics ; 4) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-89925-583-3 (acid-free paper) 1. Culture — Semiotics models. 2. Language and culture. 3. Signs and symbols. 4. Anthropological linguistics. I. Title. II. Series, GN357.H33 1990 306'.4-dc20 90-13442 CIP

Deutsche Bibliothek Cataloging in Publication

Data

Haarmann, Harald: Language in its cultural embedding : explorations in the relativity of signs and sign systems / Harald Haarmann. — Berlin ; New York : Mouton de Gruyter, 1990 (Studies in anthropological linguistics ; 4) ISBN 3-11-012086-0 NE: GT

© Copyright 1990 by Walter de Gruyter & Co., D-1000 Berlin 30. All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Typesetting: Asian Research Service, Hong Kong. Printing: Gerike G m b H , Berlin. Binding: Dieter Mikolai, Berlin. Printed in Germany.

To my source of motivation

Preface In the long history of reasoning about language and its role in human relation, with a tradition of scholarly concern which leads back into antiquity, man has been curious and interested to find out how exactly words can "depict" the things of the real world, and how flexible language is to represent abstract ideas. The crucial problem of what words have to do with things was a subject of philosophical reasoning in the work of Heraclitus of Ephesus (ca. 536 — 470 B.C.), and this as well as other seminal approaches to the theory of the linguistic sign which emerged in the classical Greek period have given impulses for the formation of modern ideas in the field of sign theory (see Coseriu 1975:21 ff. for the historical background). With good reason, one can say that many ideas of antiquity as regards crucial relations of language have been preserved in modern semiotics and, seemingly, the theoretician of today can hardly do without the sum of wisdom which has been accumulated through the ages. The long tradition of theoretical ideas about the linguistic sign is indeed impressive. There is one facet in this history of European thought which is equally impressive, and this is the negligence with which, on the one hand, the cultural embedding of the linguistic sign and, on the other hand, the environmental settings of the denoted things have been treated. The history of approaches to sign theory is, at the same time, a history of the failure to assign cultural settings a significant role in a theoretical framework. The relation between linguistic signs and things, the proper functioning of language in communication and the sophisticated interplay of language and other sign systems in human relations cannot be adequately specified unless one includes cultural relations in a sign theory. There can be no arguing about the basics of theory-making which require that any theory rely on a degree of abstraction so as to allow for an appropriate description of a variety of settings,

viii

Preface

regardless of the individual features which distinguish one setting from another. This principle of analogy in theory-making has often been subject to misconceptions since many theoreticians try to raise the level of their reasoning at the cost of essential variables which are neglected. In modern semiotics an abundance of studies has been produced in which the problematic relation between linguistic signs and reality is discussed. Many theoreticians of today seem to agree that language is a specific model of reality, a notion which is a simplification of the role which language really plays in human relations. Language is not itself a model of reality, it is rather a sigmatic fixative of a model of reality which any individual carries in his/her mind. Since every individual is a member in a given speech community, it follows that the model of reality differs according to the cultural conditions in individual communities. A natural language may be compared with a matrix which serves a collectivity of individuals to fixate items of knowledge according to the cultural patterns which are valid in their community and which provide the essence of their world-view as adopted in the course of socialization. For the sake of theory-making in semiotics, it is not adequate to separate the "semiotic" from the "extrasemiotic" aspect of meaning whereby the "extrasemiotic aspect of meaning is rooted in the culture of people who speak a given language" (Shaumyan 1987:12). If a semiotic theory of language excludes the cultural context from its considerations, then it is subject to all the short-comings which are typical of many formal linguistic approaches to language. Language is not a technical mechanism to convey a message from a robot sender to a robot receiver. As a system of signs it is a cultural vehicle where the collective experience of speakers in their surroundings is reflected and where the community's patterns of social values crystallize. Theoreticians, too often in fact, find their challenge in the attempt to replace one theory of grammar by another. A general theory of language is not equal to a theory of grammar because the latter can only be a component of the former. In other words, a general theory of language has to be more comprehensive than a partial theory about the functioning of grammar as an encoding — decoding mechanism of signs. The real challenge of theory-making lies in an approach to language which aims at making transparent

Preface

ix

the principles in the organization of linguistic structures and in the effective use of language as a system of signs in human interaction. The latter is definitely embedded in cultural settings, and the reflection of cultural variables in linguistic structures is, therefore, an essential ingredient in any linguistic theory. Once a comprehensive theory of language has been elaborated in which the interplay of innerlinguistic and extralinguistic (e.g. cultural) variables has been synthesized, the way opens for the elaboration of a satisfactory theoretical construct of grammar. As it seems, attempts in that direction gain an ever increasing attention. The theory of integration between internal linguistics and external linguistics on which Haarmann works could represent the theoretical complement to the studies which he has so far accomplished, and the starting-point for a new kind of reflection in the domains of linguistic research. (Marietta 1987:267)

A theory of the linguistic sign and of the cultural embedding of language as a sign system is a cornerstone in such a comprehensive theory. As a matter of fact, a culture-related semiotic theory provides the necessary clues for an understanding and appreciation of the fact that zoosemiotics and the semiotics of human communication are very different in their nature, despite some general properties of sign systems among animals and human beings. It is the cultural dimension of sign systems, whether they are language-related or not, which makes human communication unique. The present study is dedicated to this challenging goal, namely to investigate the cultural dimension of sign systems and their roles in processes of interaction among humans. Although language is the subject of greatest concern, other sign systems will also be analyzed here. Especially in connection with the evolution of writing systems, the role of picture-based symbols and their correlation with linguistic signs have to be specified. The conveying of information through writing, that is the fixation of information in a written text, is a cultural variable of eminent importance which has to be integrated into a theory of the linguistic sign. In the course of the elaboration of a culture-related sign theory traditional concepts of the sign prove to be of little use. This is true, among others, for the notion of the bilateral sign with the two levels of the signifiant and the signifie as it has been coined

χ

Preface

by Saussure. As a matter of fact, despite an increasing amount of criticism as regards the bilateral sign which has been put forward by semiologists in recent years, arguably, no substantive alternative to the Saussurean notion has been presented so far which would incorporate the elementary criterion of the cultural variability of the linguistic sign. Any specification of the linguistic sign has to be based on an inspection of the process of signification which provides the clue for an understanding of the relation between language and reality. In this study the very general term "reality" has been conceptually differentiated into the categories "experienced reality", "imagined reality" and "evaluated reality". What is terminologically differentiated here as imagined reality (as referring to the image of reality) and evaluated reality (as referring to the evaluation of items and happenings in reality) is sometimes, unspecifically, subsumed under psychological reality. In the formation of sign systems these three forces as well as the concrete impression of reality as the real setting of events participate. Consequently, the process of signification requires an appropriate conceptual refinement. A subdivision is proposed in the following way. The process of signification is considered a phenomenon which consists of two inter-dependent processes. The one is conceptualization which indicates a relation between a concept and a linguistic sign. The other is contextualization which refers to the individual speaker's capacity to put a linguistic sign into a proper context, that is to produce speech which is meaningful in a cultural context. Since the mechanism of signification yields different results under the conditions of varying cultural settings, the formation of sign systems, their use and effectiveness may vary considerably in individual communities. In the investigation the fundamental relevance of an underlying principle is revealed, that of semiotic relativity, by which sign systems are organized. In this work the working of the principle of semiotic relativity is broadly documented, and an analysis of differential semiotic structures within the framework of a semiotic interpretation of ancient and modern cultures is presented. Helsinki, February 1989

Harald Haarmann

Contents Prcfacc

vii

Chapter 1 Reality, models of reality and sign systems: Interaction in a culturc-rclatcd context Chapter 2 The microstructure of the linguistic sign and its relation to cultural settings: A componcntial analysis of the process of signification 1. The structure of the linguistic sign in onomatopoctic expressions (including interjections) 2. Variations of the linguistic sign involving concrete concepts 3. Variations of the linguistic sign involving abstract concepts 4. Variations of the linguistic sign involving names Chapter 3 Language as a sigmatic fixative of reality: Parameters of scmiotic relativity 1. The scmiotic nomenclature of demonstrative relations (including directional relations) 1.1 1.2. 1.3. 1.4. 1.5. 1.6. 1.7.

The marking of horizontal distance in systems of demonstrative relations The marking of vertical distance in systems of demonstrative relations The marking of space relations in demonstrative systems The marking of motion in systems of demonstrative relations The marking of the range of vision in systems of demonstrative relations The marking of time relations in demonstrative systems The marking of indefiniteness in systems of demonstrative relations

1

35

52 56 67 77

89

94

94 96 98 99 100 103 105

xii

Contents

1.8. The marking of determinative relations in demonstrative systems 1.9. The marking of politeness in systems of demonstrative relations 1.10. The marking of emphatic connotations in systems of demonstrative relations 2. The semiotic nomenclature in relations of politeness and deference 2.1. The marking pronouns 2.2. The marking pronouns 2.3. The marking pronouns 2.4. The marking 2.5. The marking 2.6. The marking

106 107 109

117

of politeness in the system of personal 118 of politeness in the system of possessive 120 of politeness in the system of demonstrative of politeness in the verbal system of politeness in the nominal system of politeness in lexical structures

3. The semitotic nomenclature in emotional and rational relations as a facet of mentality Chater 4 Language as a semiotic seismograph of acculturation: The problem of variability in sign systems 1. 2. 3. 4.

Borrowings in the lexical field of parts of the body Borrowings in the system of numerals Borrowings in the lexical field of color terminology Borrowed expressions for natural phenomena as well as living things 5. Borrowed expressions for basic activities and qualities 6. Borrowings in the pronominal system

Chapter 5 The world of signs and applied semiotics: An interpretative approach to ancient and modern cultures 1. The fixation and mnemotechnical recording of information on the basis of pictures, and without the participation of language

120 121 122 125

132

147 152 164 168 171 176 181

195

198

Contents 2. The fixation and mnemotechnical recording of information based on a diffuse correlation of pictorial symbols and linguistic signs 2.1. The catchword principle in writing and the Cretan hieroglyphs 2.2. The iconic materials of the hieroglyphs in relation to items and figurative motives of Minoan culture 2.3. The role of hieroglyphic writing as a sacred script in Minoan civilization 2.4. The reconstruction of a sacred text the contents of which is related to a funeral ritual 2.5. The ceremonial character of the Minoan funeral ritual as a communication with the ancestors 2.6. The archaeological evidence for the Minoan funeral ritual from Agia Triadha 3. The fixation and mnemotechnical recording of information based on pictures and on the written language as two independent semiotic systems

xiii

211 220 223 230 234 238 245

249

Bibliography

265

Subject index

271

Index of names

275

Chapter 1 Reality, models of reality and sign systems: Interaction in a culture-related context

Nowadays, everybody seems to be aware of the impact of signs, symbols and of their processing on the functioning of human relations, and semiotics has long been explored as a field of studies within both the humanities and the natural sciences (e.g. in biology). And yet, although many views have been presented so far on semiotic subjects, there is no better way to describe the fundamental importance of signs than by quoting a pertinent statement which was made half a century ago: Human civilization is dependent upon signs and systems of signs, and the human mind is inseparable from the functioning of signs - if indeed mentality is not to be identified with such functioning. (Morris 1938:1)

Morris' classical approach is essentially behavioral, and what has made his categorizations and schematizations so attractive is his own claim that each aspect of the semiotic web can be empirically investigated. Hopefully, the theoretical scheme of the present study will also prove to be valid when put to the test, although I concentrate here on the discussion of theoretical subjects. It has to be admitted, however, that in the vast field of semiotics there are targets of theoretical reasoning which are difficult to investigate in terms of applied linguistics, pragmatics, empirical sociology or experimental psychology. Concentrating on human relations, it seems to me that the most crucial procedure in the formation of signs and sign systems is the relation between signs or symbols and reality, that is, reality in terms of both people's living conditions and social and cultural relations, as well as all the behavioral patterns which are involved. In order to understand the processing of iconic material, that is, of linguistic and non-linguistic signs, one has to be aware of some

2

Reality, models of reality and sign systems

basic conditions in semiotic networks which make signs and their use meaningful. In this regard, I would like to emphasize the following: a) Signs are meaningful to the extent that they, together with other elements, form part of an iconic system. As a matter of fact, all signs which are produced by human beings and are intended for interaction among human beings are relational. The element X in whatever sign system is meaningful in its relation to elements such as Μ, Ο, V, Y or others. A traffic sign can be understood as a specific signal because there are other signals which also serve the purpose of signalling in traffic. Thus, for example, the red traffic light which signals "wait" is meaningful in its relation to the green light as a symbol for "go". A phallus symbolizing male fertility in prehistoric art makes sense to the extent that there are symbols of female fertility (i.e. carvings of the vulva, female idols with broad hips). Relational aspects of linguistic signs are, without any doubt, among the most complex which are found in human sign systems. The linguistic sign "daughter-in-law", for instance, is meaningful in its relation to other signs in the same (that is, English) language system, such as "mother-in-law", "husband", "ancestor", "generation", "adult", "marriage" etc. The validity of the above statement can be easily put to the test. I would like to present here, for this purpose, a piece of iconic material without giving any information about its potential relations to other signs (see Figure 1). Most probably, only very few readers of this book have ever seen this picture before. So it is left to their imagination, associational fantasy or speculation to figure out what it might represent. Among a number of possible interpretations, some may be more suggestive than others. The picture in Figure 1 could be interpreted as featuring (1) a man with a hairdress, (2) a tribal hunter, (3) an Indian warrior or (4) a punk. Without any additional information, the presented interpretations and others, too - are equally reasonable, with the one given first being the most general of all. The picture under discussion is almost 4,000 years old, and it is part of a European cultural context. These pieces of information definitely exclude the inter-

Reality, models of reality and. sign systems

3

pretations mentioned under (3) and (4), but leave open the interpretations under (1) and (2). As a matter of fact, nobody is certain of the meaning of this and the other symbols which are the object of an interpretational approach in chapter 5.

Figure 1. A specimen of iconic material b) Signs are meaningful to the extent that they are used in accordance with the conventions of the sign system to which they belong. Any sign the use of which is meaningful in human relations is embedded in a network of conventions and/or behavioral rules which constitute the basis of any iconic system. Although this aspect of signs and the dependence of their use on the conventions in a given system is different from the relational aspect discussed under a), both conditions are intrinsically interrelated. From the standpoint of the one who produces a sign, it is necessary to follow the conventions in order to guarantee a proper reception of his/her signal or message. For the one who receives a sign, it is necessary to identify it as belonging to a specific system and to understand its meaning on the basis of the knowledge of conventions which he/she shares with the producer of the received sign. The sharing of conventions is the most crucial precondition for a meaningful interaction between the producer and the receiver of signs. A simple example to illustrate this is the knowledge of what the following sign means: Everybody who can read this book is capable of understanding the conventional use of this sign. As an orthographic symbol it

4

Reality,

models

of reality

and sign

systems

indicates the end of a sentence, of a paragraph or of a text (cf. English full stop, German Punkt). The sign (.) is related to other symbols in the same system, for example, to the comma (.), the colon (;), the question mark (?) and others, and it distinguishes itself from these by its specific function. The knowledge of orthographic conventions is a basic requirement of literacy, and every literate member of a speech community shares such conventions with other literate persons. However, the sign (.) as an orthographic symbol means nothing to an illiterate because he/she does not share conventions of literacy with literate people. In the realm of linguistic signs the perception of language "barriers" is a clear indication of boundaries between shared and non-shared conventions. Someone who docs not know English, that is, is not familiar with the grammatical rules governing this language, does not share the conventions of signs and their use in this semiotic system with those who have a command of it. Learning a foreign language means, in this regard, making an effort to share the conventions in the use of an unknown sign system with those who are familiar with it. As far as linguistic signs are concerned, the interdependence of the aspect mentioned under a) and of the one under b) becomes especially clear. There is no natural language which functions without grammar. The use of linguistic signs is only meaningful if there are conventional rules which are shared by the users of an individual language. Grammatical conventions are like the plaster which is essential for the binding of linguistic signs as semiotic bricks in the construction of a speech event. c) Signs are meaningful to the extent that they function in a proper domain. Every sign system has a domain - or several delimited domains where the use of its signs or symbols is meaningful. Outside the domain(s) for which a sign system has been created its signs have no meaning. For instance, traffic signs are intended to regulate outdoor traffic, and their use would be meaningless where there are no streets, roads or paths (i.e. in the middle of a forest, on top of a mountain or inside buildings). The domains where the use of traffic signs and signals makes sense are fairly restricted.

Reality, models of reality and sign systems

5

Comparatively wider is the range of domains where the use of money as a system of monetary signs and symbols is meaningful. Although selling and buying is the original proper domain of using money, many human relations depend - at least in modern times - to a great deal on having or not having money. However, the use of monetary symbols is senseless, for example, in the case of hospitality because one cannot offer money to friends for the kindness of having offered an invitation to visit their homes. In addition, there are restrictions as to the use of national currencies. Except for international banking relations or services catering to tourists, where foreign currency is accepted, one can use means of payment only in the country for whose financial relations the individual monetary system has been created. There are cases of signs which in the same appcarance may belong to different sign systems. Given the fact that they are used in different domains, their meaning might vary considerably in varying contexts. One such example is the sign (.) whose function as a full stop in the orthographic system has been mentioned under b). The same sign can be used as a relational element in other sign systems. In Finland, for instance, a dot ranges among the traditional marks of individual property and, together with other signs, it belongs to a semiotic system which has been taken into consideration in Finnish jurisdiction. If put under a contract, its juridical value is equal to that of a party's signature (see Aarnio 1969:46ff. for juridical implications). A dot may function as a sign in a numerical system, and this is true for writing conventions in a number of speech communities. Among Aztecs and Mayans - in the pre-Columbian era, in particular - a dot was used to render the concept "one". So, · means 'one', · · 'two', · · · 'three', etc. In the Ancient Cretan civilization, the sign (.) had a function which differs from what is known from Mesoamerican cultures. In the tradition of the Linear A writing in the first half of the second millenium B.C. a dot had the meaning of 'ten'. Therefore, in the Ancient Minoan scripts · means 'ten', · · 'twenty', · · · "thirty', etc. A dot may also function as a symbol in geometry where it marks the end of a line or the point where two or more lines intersect. d) In human relations the functioning of signs and sign systems is meaningful in a specific cultural context.

6

Reality, models of reality and sign

systems

The implications of this condition in the processing of sign systems can be experienced by everybody. Without being an expert in language studies one can understand the boundary between one's native language and a foreign language as a dividing line which separates different cultures. A tourist who watches the presentation of ceremonial dances in Thailand or on the island of Bali will certainly be impressed by their exotic strangeness, but he/she cannot understand the movements of the dancers as symbols of the local cultural tradition. The symbolic value of the sign of the cross is present to Christians, but not to Muslims. On the other hand, the sacredness of the Arabic language and the Arabic alphabet as symbols of an Islamic world-view remains hidden to non-Muslims for whom the Koran is nothing but a book written in a strange script. To take another example, the sand pictures of the Navaho Indians doubtlessly have an impact on the aesthetic senses of nonIndians. But except for the exotic optical experience, an outsider cannot penetrate the symbolic network of signs which stands behind the alignment of motives in a ritual picture. Sign systems are created out of a specific cultural context for being used in a specific cultural context. The validity of this condition can be tested by experiencing the frustration vis-ä-vis unintelligible sign systems of ancient cultures. For instance, rock paintings and carvings have been found all over the world, and there is rich material for comparing figurative and pictorial conventions in different cultural areas. However, most of those pictures cannot be properly "read" because there is too little knowledge about the motivation which led stone-age people to create them. The famous cave of Lascaux in Southern France is an excellent site for the modern observer to penetrate into the artistic world of prehistoric man. And yet, the sense of the pictures where animals, human beings and abstract symbols are aligned remains mysterious. Often interpretations of the magical impact of prehistoric art and its relation to the spiritual life in the tribal communities of ancient hunters remain hypothetical. In the cave of Lascaux there are also dot signs which were obviously used as symbols, often appearing in a group of seven. Nobody yet knows anything about their meaning and their relation to other geometrical signs, hundreds have been found in the cave. More about rock carvings will be said in chapter 5 where I present a semiotic interpretation

Reality, models of reality and sign systems

7

of one of the most mysterious artistic ensembles of pictures to have been discovered in Europe. One could argue that international sign systems (e.g. traffic signs and signals) are not culturally specific. Such systems are indeed less culture-related than many other systems (e.g. religious symbols, natural languages), but only to the extent that there is an international agreement on most of their signs and conventional use. Nevertheless, there are facets in any so-called international sign system which indicate their relation to local cultures. In every country traffic regulations and laws which are related to traffic are written in the local administrative language(s), and it is in these languages that the local population is taught signs and symbols. In addition to the signs and conventions which have been internationally agreed upon there are local regulations (e.g. lefthand driving in Great Britain, Ireland, Malta or Japan). The use of traffic signs, too, may include "local" features. For instance, there is the sign which signals a warning that animals might cross the road (see Figure 2). In Central Europe the animal is symbolized by a leaping deer which is the most common large animal which might constitute a danger to moving vehicles. The deer is not so common in Scandinavia or Finland, and therefore an elk features in the traffic sign in those countries. In Norway, Sweden and Finland there is a special local variety of the traffic sign under discussion, and this is the depiction of a reindeer which is common in Lapland. To add an even more exotic example: in parts of Australia a leaping kangaroo is depicted on the sign.

A A A a) Leaping deer (e.g. in Germany)

b) Elk (e.g. in Sweden)

C)

Figure 2. Local varieties of a traffic sign

Reindeer (e.g. in Lapland)

d) Kangaroo (e.g. in Australia)

8

Reality, models of reality and sign

systems

e) In human relations the functioning 0f sign systems and the meaningful use of signs have to be learned (that is, have to be acquired through culture-related education). The knowledge of this condition can be considered commonplace in all language- and non-language-related fields of semiotic studies. And yet, there are several aspects in the acquisition of sign systems and their processing which have been neglected and need elaboration. Among the crucial problems involved is the acquisition of knowledge about both the real world and the relation of signs to objects. As regards linguistic signs, achieving knowledge and learning from experience is a matter of forming concepts in their relation to lexical structures. The aspects mentioned are intrinsically interwoven and have to be treated interrelatedly, with the relation between conceptual and lexical structures being the most problematic. As for the nature of knowledge, many scholars appear to agree on the distinction of three kinds of knowledge, as elaborated in the schema by Clark and Clark (1977, chapter 14:534 in particular): 1) Cultural knowledge (which is learned from other people); 2) Shared non-cultural knowledge (which is shared by people within the same community, but not learned from each other); 3) Non-shared non-cultural knowledge (which is limited or unique to the individual). Although the distinction between "cultural" and "non-cultural" knowledge seems pervasive at first sight, it implies a separation of cultural items from others - which might better be called "general" items - , a separation that proves to be highly problematic. It is misleading to speak in terms of an opposition "cultural versus non-cultural" because such a perspective enhances the idea that individual members in a speech community shape concepts about the real world by dividing their experience according to what is linked to their community and what not. Such a division does not exist in an individual's practical experience, and language is linked in the same way to each type of knowledge. One can argue that the experience of what is 'vertical' and what 'horizontal' is non-cultural because an individual does not have

Reality, models of reality and sign systems

9

to learn these concepts from others. Anybody can experience this conceptual distinction by himself/herself, and this is true for any individual in any community. Thus, cultural mediation for the shaping of the corresponding concepts is not required. Although correct as a product of logical reasoning, the interpretation of 'vertical' and 'horizontal' as items which are non-cultural and shared by people without having to be learned from each other fails to inspect the reality of how the image of the world is shaped by an individual, and how the real world is related to the grid of lexical structures. Although the concept 'vertical' as such may be an item of general knowledge, individuals, in their interaction, must necessarily denote the basic notion (i.e. 'vertical') as well as the more specific associated concepts (e.g. 'high', 'deep') by the means provided in their speech community, that is, by the expressions and techniques which are available in their native language. For example, in Latin there is the same expression used for 'high' and 'deep', and the meaning of altus is only specific in a specific context; e.g. mons altus 'a high mountain' versus mare altum 'a deep sea'. It is obvious that for anyone who was brought up with Latin - as long as it was used as a spoken language - , the conceptual difference between 'high' and 'deep' was clearly conceived although, in communication, the lexical usage of Latin did not reflect such a distinction. In many other languages the conceptual distinction correlates with a distinction of lexical items (e.g. English high versus deep, French haut versus profond, Finnish korkea versus syvä). An item of knowledge may be as general as, for instance, the concept 'vertical' (and associated notions), but it is, nevertheless given a "label" (i.e. denomination) which is an element of a culturally specific (macro)pattern, namely a given language in a given speech community. All concepts which an individual learns from other persons or which are items of knowledge resulting from independent personal experience are subject to the criteria of categorization which are reflected in the structures and techniques of the language that serves as the vehicle of the community's culture. Distinctions as regards items of general knowledge on the conceptual level find their equivalents on the level of linguistic structures only to the extent that corresponding differentiations are considered as relevant in a given speech community. In other

10

Reality, models of reality and. sign

systems

words, the reflection of conceptual distinctions on the lexical level is a function of the collective experiences among the members in a speech community, of experiences resulting from longterm interaction which have been conventionalized in terms of linguistic structures and norms of language usage. These implications will be illustrated by some further examples. It is clear to anybody, regardless of the culture that is surrounding him/her, that an 'arm' is a concept which is different from a 'hand', and it is obvious to every individual that there is a distinction between a section 'upper arm' and 'lower arm'. This fourfold conceptual distinction is a cluster of items of general knowledge which is as basic as the corresponding differentiation of 'leg', 'foot', 'thigh' and 'shank'. It is not necessary to learn about such divisions of the human body from others because they can be perceived by one's own experience. And yet, the mentioned, seemingly general, conceptual distinctions are reflected quite differently in natural languages. For example, any Finn can conceptually distinguish the items in both clusters. However, in the lexical structures of the Finnish language there is no convergent differentiation. There is a general term käsi which, according to varying contexts, can mean 'hand', 'arm', 'upper arm' and 'lower arm'. When somebody tells another person "Minun käteni on poikki" {käte- is the stem of käsi), this can mean "My arm/upper arm/lower arm/hand is broken". In certain contexts a kind of secondary term, käsivarsi 'arm/upper arm/lower arm' (lit. 'stem of the hand'), is used to distinguish between 'hand' and 'arm'. As regards the other cluster of concepts (i.e. items referring to the leg and its divisions), there is the general term Finnish jalka which means 'leg' and 'foot', and other terms denote 'thigh' (Finnish reisi, a loanword of Baltic origin) and 'shank' (Finnish sääri). There are generalizing terms for parts of the body also in other languages, for example in Russian (e.g. ruka 'hand; arm', noga 'foot; leg'). For reasons that might always remain hidden in Finnish ethnicity, the lexical division of parts of the body, in this particular case of comparison, goes far astray from general conceptual distinctions which only find a fragmentary representation on the level of linguistic structures. All Finns brought up in a Finnishspeaking environment adapt to the lexical conventions of their

Reality,

models of reality and sign systems

11

native tongue, no matter how general the distinction is between 'hand' and 'arm', and 'foot' and 'leg', respectively. What has been said here about the Finnish and the Russian languages is true for many cultural vehicles throughout the world, and the problem of polysemy, although tentatively treated by Andersen (1978:353ff.), needs and deserves a broad comparative investigation. There is a special facet in this basic problem of conceptual - lexical divergence, and this is related to language acquisition. Although, theoretically speaking, items of general knowledge do not have to be learned from other persons, they nevertheless enter the individual's range of experience during the process öf language acquisition and are transferred to the individual's mind in close association with lexical items. Thus, practically speaking, a Finnish child, before it might become independently aware of conceptual distinctions such as 'hand', 'arm' and others, will most probably have already been told by its mother or some other person how to use the Finnish term käsi. Divisions of parts of the body are items of general knowledge, and this means that the involved concepts are not necessarily learned from others. The shared conceptual knowledge, however, is embedded in the moulds of a community's language whose lexical structures cover the grid of concepts that are formed. Most probably, the lexical items will be the most decisive for an individual's orientation in his/her surroundings, simply because they are the bricks from which daily interaction is constructed, in addition to being the elements in which the individual's image of the world (preconceived by the collective experience of his/her speech community) concretely crystallizes. In every speech community in the world all items of general knowledge are given "cultural labels", that is, they are denominated by lexical items which are components in a specific cultural macropattern (i.e. in the language of an ethnically specific community). In the lexicon of any language lexical items for general concepts (e.g. 'you', 'woman', 'tree', 'head', 'drink', 'water', 'mountain', 'cold', 'name') intermingle with lexical items for cultural concepts (e.g. 'bride', 'widow', 'cornfield', 'moustache', 'dinner', 'wine', 'town', 'central heating', 'professional title') to form semantic fields which associate cultural patterns in the speech community. The hypothetical distinction between items of "cultural" and

12

Reality, models of reality and sign

systems

"non-cultural" knowledge distorts the reality of a state of symbiotic interplay of lexical elements in the cultural framework of everyday communication, and it ignores the fact that the denominations for both cultural and general concepts are equally the results of the process of language acquisition. No individual can step out of the speech community into which he/she is born in order to form an independent image of the world, and every child has to adopt items of cultural and general knowledge in a way prescribed by the lexical conventions in a given speech community. The hypothetical distinction between "cultural" and "noncultural" items is a misconception, but even the terminologically neutral opposition between cultural and general concepts is awkward and cannot serve the needs of a refined argumentation. Since all the concepts which are associated with the lexical items of a language are organized in the community's collective image about the world, they constitute elementary units in the mosaic of domains making up the patterns of community life. There are domains where social features predominate (e.g. kinship relations), others where cultural traditions are reflected (e.g. religious beliefs, education), and still others where environmental orientation becomes apparent (e.g. activities such as hunting, fishing, cattle breeding). Language covers the conceptual framework which is involved to the extent that it has been considered relevant in the course of a community's collective experience which is transferred - together with the language - from one generation to the other. f) In human relations signs may be multifunctional, and semiotic systems may be multidimensional. The intellectual capacity of the human brain enables individuals to use - that is, to produce and receive - signs of the utmost simplicity as well as symbols of the greatest complexity. The human mind is highly flexible in creating signs for the most different interactional needs and purposes. Let me take, as an example, the use of the red color and its functioning as a sign or symbol. In traffic lights the red light is a conventional sign meaning "Stop!" or, to be more exact, "Stop and wait as long as the red light is switched on!". This functioning of'the red light as a traffic signal is based on a simple stimulus - response

Reality, models of reality and sign systems

13

mechanism. The meaning of the sign is unambiguous, simply to guarantee a maximum degree of safety for participants in traffic. On the other hand, the red color may be highly multi-functional in its symbolic values. For many people, red symbolizes anger or rage (cf. idiomatic expressions such as English to see red or German rot sehen). In other contexts the red color is the symbol of love, passion or sexual desire (cf. symbolic values of shades of the color red as related to women's underwear, to flowers such as roses or camelias, or to the lights of a brothel). There is also the well-known symbolic value of the red color in the political context of communism and socialism. No wonder that red is the dominant color in the national flags and other emblems of the socialist countries. Evidently, the symbolic values of the red color in human relations have little to do with the simple stimulus response mechanism that holds for the functioning of traffic lights. In chapter 5 more details are discussed about symbolic values of signs and their impact on the human mind. As regards the character of a sign system as multidimensional, it is not adequate to assume this quality for any semiotic system which has been created by human beings for the purpose of interaction among humans. For instance, traffic signs and regulations represent a network whose symbols are intended to convey one-dimensional impulses and to trigger unambiguous responses in human beings. In many contexts, however, the use of languageand/or non-language-related signs is multifunctional (see the example of the red color), and this is an indication of the fact that the semiotic network in which they function as symbols is multidimensional. In human relations it seems that the combination of pictures (as non-language-related signs) with linguistic signs is the most typical manifestation of the multidimensional character of semiotic systems. The use of many - if not most - linguistic signs is multifunctional and language, the most flexible of all sign systems in use among human beings, is multidimensional in order to serve the needs of expressing the most complex ideas in a vast range of interactional domains (see below for explanations as regards a model of interaction). Since the aspect of multidimensionality in semiotic systems will be a prominent subject of discussion throughout this book, the foregoing remarks may suffice as an introduction.

14

Reality, models of reality and sign systems

In my view the famous so-called Calendar Stone of the Aztecs is an excellent specimen for illustrating the multifunctional use of signs in a multidimensional semiotic system (see Figure 3). The name given to the object - a sculptured porphyry stone plate which is 13 feet in diameter and weighs more than 20 tons - indicates that the stone with its carvings once served the practical purposes of measuring time in terms of a calendar. In the pre-Columbian Aztec civilization the year was divided into 18 months, each being subdivided into 20 days. Five days were added every year in order to make the calendar conform with the annual solar cycle. There is the picture of the sun which dominates the center of the plate. The symbols representing the 20 days and their denominations are arranged in one of the concentric circles. In figurative terms the day signs constitute the outer fringe of the sun. From the fringe spring wedge-shaped arrow points symbolizing the rays of the sun.

Figure 3. The Aztec Calendar Stone

Reality, models of reality and sign systems

15

Around the central symbol featuring the Sun God are arranged the components of the sign Four Motion, with each component incorporating the symbol of a preceding era. The era symbols represent phenomena which caused the destruction of the world: water, jaguar (mythical being), fire, storm. According to Aztec beliefs, the old world is destroyed and a new world (that is, era of life) is bom every 52 years. The era symbols and the day signs are accompanied by the glyphs for the turquoise and for jade. Their use has to be understood in an abstract way, namely expressing the qualities "precious" and the color of the heavens. The outer band of the Calendar Stone consists of two fire snakes. They are divine symbols which, in this context, signify "time". A reconstruction model in the Mexican National Nuseum suggests how the Calendar Stone which was found in 1790 in the ruins of the great temple pyramid in Mexico City was once placed on a platform. The ensemble of platform and Calendar Stone, called "National Stone", has to be understood as a network of symbols for the purpose of representing the Sacred War, the fundamental conflict of the contending and opposing forces of nature. For an observer living in the modern world, it is difficult to get a full grasp of the semiotic impact of the Aztec Calendar Stone. Some are inclined to give priority to the functions of a calendar which reflects a comparatively high degree of astronomic accuracy, in pre-Columbian America only surpassed by the Mayan calendar. Other observers understand the plate and its carved surface as a depiction of the Sun God whose picture is accompanied by astronomic symbols. It seems more appropriate, however, to interpret the semiotic network as multidimensional. There is the dimension of measuring time in the exact terms of a calendar. The astonishing knowledge of astronomy among Aztecs and, in particular, the Mayas only makes sense when relating it to the religious beliefs in the pre-Columbian civilizations of Mesoamerica. The minute calendar system was needed for the precise determination of the eras of the world and annual festivities as well as for the exact schedule of divine rituals and sacrifices. So one can say that the whole network of calendar signs has a deeper symbolism which is rooted in the Aztec religion. The religious background is, so to speak, a semiotic dimension which is included in or firmly associated with the calendar system.

16

Reality, models of reality and sign

systems

And yet, there is a still deeper layer of semiotic values present in the Calendar Stone, and this is its overall mythical symbolism. The ideas of a Sacred War among the forces of nature and of the sun as a dominating power which effected a strong formalism of Aztec religious rites are mythical in origin. From such a point of view, the ensemble of platform and Calendar Stone could be interpreted as representing the essence of mythological symbolism in the Aztec civilization. The three dimensions (i.e. astronomic, religious, mythological) which have been attributed to the semiotic network of the Calendar Stone can be illustrated even for individual symbols and glyphs. For instance, one of the days of the Aztec calendar is represented, in hieroglyphic writing, by the pictograph of an eagle's head which is read as cuauhtli ('eagle'). The eagle is among the animals which were worshipped by the Aztecs and belonged to the Aztec pantheon. The eagle was the Flayed One, the God of Seedtime. In Aztec figurative art the eagle is often depicted, and it appears in both religious and profane contexts. In popular use it featured as a design on stamps made of burnt clay or stone which were used for dyeing the skin, an alternative technique to tattooing (see Figure 4 for specimens of the eagle motive in Aztec decorative art and as a hieroglyph). The eagle played a role in Aztec mythology. As a mythical bird, it showed the wandering tribes the way to the fertile valley of Mexico. A three-dimensional semiotic impact as in the case of the eagle motive is true for all other signs and symbols which feature on the Calendar Stone. The multifunctional use of signs is a human universal in the sense that in any community, be it on the simple organizational level of a tribal formation or in modern industrialized society, human beings display their intellectual capabilities by using signs in potentially multilayered semiotic networks. This capacity is among the prominent features by which human beings distinguish themselves from the realm of animal communication where sign systems function exclusively on the basis of a one-dimensional stimulus - response mechanism (see Sebeok 1972 for foundations of zoosemiotics). Another example will be mentioned here in order to illustrate that the multi-dimensional character of human sign systems is a timeless phenomenon which is not related to a specific cultural tradition. Let me refer here to one of the most frequently used sign systems in modern society, namely money. In any

Reality, models of reality and sign systems

Figure 4.

The eagle motive in Aztec decorative art and as a symbol Aztec pictography

a) Specimens of the eagle motive on Aztec pottery

18

Reality, models of reality and sign systems

b) The depiction of the eagle as a mythological bird in a pictorial account of the foundation of Tenochtitlan, the capital of the Aztec state

Reality, models of reality and sign systems

19

c) The pictorial symbol of an eagle's head which served as a glyph in Aztec writing to denote the 15th day of the month in the Aztec calendar (see Table 8 for religious implications)

monetary system of a modern state coins and banknotes display a multidimensional semiotic network. There are signs related to the numerical system and to the numerals which are valid in a given speech community. In addition, symbols are used which are associated with a country's national and political history. The understanding of what is essential to a state's image and, therefore, what is considered valuable to feature on coins and banknotes as symbols of the national culture differs considerably from one society to another. In 1986 a new series of banknotes was introduced in Finland, the design of which differs refreshingly from the older, internationally widespread custom of printing soberlooking statesmen and solemn emblems in association with the symbols of monetary value. For instance, the famous composer Jean Sibelius (1865 - 1957) is featured on one banknote, the wellknown architect Alvar Aalto (1898 - 1976) on another. The modern shift of favoring representatives of Finnish culture instead of politics creates a new image. The new banknotes are no longer a means of communication which is clearly marked by symbols of the state power. The fact that the whole image of banknotes can change when the design is changed is an indication of the semiotic impact of pictures and emblems which have nothing to do with the monetary value. A closer inspection of the specimens of Finnish banknotes which are presented in Figure 5, in terms of semiotic entities, clearly reveals at least three semiotic dimension. In the first place there are signs related to the monetary value (i.e. 50 - viisikymmentä markkaalfemtio mark; 100 - sata markkaa/hundra mark) which constitute the most important semiotic network for the use of money. The cultural dimension is represented by Aalto's portrait on the front side of the 50-mark banknote, accompanied by the silhouette of one of his best-known pieces of architecture,

20

Reality, models of reality and sign systems

Figure 5. Specimens of new Finnish banknotes

Reality, models of reality and sign systems

21

22

Reality, models of reality and sign systems

the Finlandia building in Helsinki, on the reverse side. Sibelius features on the 100-mark banknote, with symbols of Finnish flora and fauna associated with his compositions (i.e. wild swans, fir-trees, lakes). A third dimension in the semiotic network is revealed in the use of language. The two official languages used in Finland, Finnish and Swedish, are both used on the reverse side of the banknotes. On the front side only Finnish is used. This can be understood as symbolizing the fact that Finnish ranks first and Swedish second in governmental and administrative affairs. The phenomena discussed under a) - f) in the foregoing are among the most basic conditions of semiotic networks which guarantee an orderly processing of sign systems and a meaningful functioning of their elements (i.e. signs, signals, symbols). So far, little has been said about the settings where sign systems are applied. For a comprehensive view on semiotic systems, it is necessary to find an answer to the question "why are signs and sign systems used?". This question may seem simple, but it is by no means simplistic and, as is the case with so many simple questions related to human relations, it takes some effort to give a proper answer. Any approach which aims at the explanation of why signs and sign systems are of eminent important in human communities leads into the direction of communication and interaction. The use of signs is essential for communication among humans, on the one hand, and it requires a sophisticated capacity of the human brain, on the other. In the following I would like to clarify fundamental aspects in the functioning of communication. Once processes of communication have been made transparent, the answer to the question "why?" is easy to give. For this purpose, I make reference to a model of communicative competence here which comprises an abstraction of the human capacity to interact in terms of a theoretical construct (see Figure 6). The model presented below was first introduced and elaborated in Haarmann (1989b: 162f.). As a methodological tool it might be of help in the field of semiotic studies. It is important to view the innate capacity of man to interact as a social being in terms of a dual mental capability. The duality of a specific social and cultural competence (see component AA in the model) and of a specific behavioral competence (see component AB in the model) - which must not be misunderstood as an

Reality, models of reality and sign systems

23

Figure 6. A theoretical construct of communicative competence 4 Note: The alphabetical code reads as follows: AA - Social and cultural competence AAa - The range of social and cultural knowledge (including a con-ceptual framework which enables the individual to orientate himself/herself in a community and to behave according to social and cultural conventions) AAaa - Social knowledge (incorporating concepts which refer to items as well as relations of social life) AAab - Culture knowledge (incorporating concepts which refer to items as well as relations in a community's cultural patterns) AAac - Environmental knowledge (incorporating concepts which are related to the individual's orientation in his/her environment) AAb - The value system AAba - Culturally (i.e. ethnically) specific values A Abb - General values AAbc - Individual values AAc - The range of emotions and intentions AAca - The emotional disposition AAcb - The intentions to communicate AB - Behavioral competence AB a - Means of verbal communication ABaa - The register selection mechanism ABab - The language processing mechanism (incorporating the capacity to encode/decode a message as well as to use language for contextualizing) ABb - Means of non-verbal communication ABba - The coordination center for non-verbal communication ABbb - The system of non-verbal means of communication (incorporating gestures and poses) * A draft version of this model was used in a cooperation project together with Prof. Sachiko Ide (Japan Women's University, Tokyo)

24

Reality, models of reality and sign systems

opposition - make up the concept of communicative competence. Each range of competence is subdivided into several subcomponents which each have a specific function in the processing of means of communication. Items of knowledge (see subcomponent AAa) interrelate with items of the value system (see AAb) and with elements in the individual's communicative disposition (see AAc). The functioning of these three sub-components constitutes the range of social and cultural competence. Behavioral competence is made up of the subcomponents "means of verbal communication" (see ABa) and "means of non-verbal communication" (see ABb). Verbal and non-verbal means of communication are usually closely linked in interaction, and their association in face-to-face interaction, that is using language and gestures in speech events, is a universal feature of all speech communities. In the process of communication items of knowledge which constitute the conceptual basis of ideas and strings of ideas pass through the "filter" of the individual's value system and his/her matrix of communicative intentions before they are encoded in a string of linguistic signs to form a message. The decoding of a message works in the reverse way. The items of knowledge which are involved in a message pass through the "filter" of emotions and values before they are matched to the listener's own knowledge. In Figure 6 communicative competence is illustrated for the speaker (see the indication of the processing leading from AAa via AAb and AAc to the subcomponents of AB), not for the listener. In the communicative competence of the listener the processing proceeds in the reverse direction, that is from component AB to AA, and from AAc via AAb to AAa, respectively. Naturally, the process of interaction is more comprehensive than the functioning of communicative competence among the individuals who are involved. In a wider perspective communicative competence can be assigned the role of a central processing unit in an overall framework of interaction. Interaction involves at least two individuals who, in turn, take over the roles of speaker and listener. The processing of communicative competence happens "in the interacting individuals' heads". In addition, interaction incorporates a number of outer or observable factors whose participation is illustrated in Figure 7. This differential model of interaction has been elaborated in Haarmann

Reality, models of reality and sign systems

25

(1989b: 170f.), and - in terms of a theoretical construct - illustrates the transfer process of a message from the speaker to the listener in the concrete setting of a speech event. In every interaction among human beings there is the manifestation of behavior in terms of produced/received speech (see subcomponent Ba) in association with the use of contextualizing non-verbal means of communication (see Bb). Any behavior is situated, that is, set in a specific situational context. The situational setting (or the context of situation) of a speech event is an elementary criterion because every interaction takes place somewhere at a certain time (see subcomponent D). At the same time, every interaction is embedded in a wider context. This is the range of ecological variables which cause variations in the working together of all the factors in the components (A - D). Thus, the network of ecological conditions of a community (see component E) constitutes the outer framework of orientation for human beings in their environment. In Haarmann (1986:7ff.) a network of basic ecological variables has been specified. Among human beings there is no alternative to the functioning of interaction as it has been illustrated in the presented model. No matter whether the sign system used is language- or nonlanguage-related, interaction follows the principles which have been outlined in the foregoing. The communicative competence as the central processing unit is of special interest in this regard because its functioning guarantees the association of conceptual items and linguistic signs as well as the formation of strings of ideas and their association to patterns of linguistic structures. The answer to the basic question "why are signs and sign systems essential for human relations?" can be formulated against the background of explanations about communicative competence and interaction in the following way. The exchange of signs which are organized in systems is the only mode of communication among human beings (and among all creatures). The use of signs is the only practical way to support a meaningful interaction, and at the same time - it is the most effective technique of communication which has been developed in the course of evolution. Doubtlessly language is the most sophisticated of all sign systems. Nevertheless, its use does not reflect a stage of development that might be theoretically assumed as the optimum for the

Reality, models of reality and sign systems

27

Figure 7. A differential model of interaction Note: The alphabetical code reads as follows: A

- Communicative competence In the model a distinction is made between the communicative competence of the speaker (A 1 ) and the communicative competence of the listener (A 2 ). The Subcomponents are as spccificd in the theoretical construct of communicative competence.

Β

-

Behavior As there are two basic sets of communicational means (sec ABa and ABb in communicative competence), behavior may be subdivided into the following correlating components:

Ba

-

Communicative performance Produced: received speech. A verbal utterance is always ambivalent. It is produced speech from the standpoint of the speaker, and received speech from that of the listener.

Bb

-

Contextualizing behavior Elements of non-verbal production of speech.

behavior

which

accompanies

the

C

-

Individual conditions of interaction There is a multitude of differential features which shape the pattern of individual personalities and their conduct (C1 Conditions of the speaker, C 2 - Conditions of the listener). Such features may be related to sex, age, status, education, tenor, intention to interact etc.

D

-

Situational setting The situational setting includes all specific conditions which are shared by the speaker and the listener (i.e. place, time, circumstances).

Ε

-

Ecological conditions of the community The general ecological conditions of the community incorporate a variety of environmental factors which influence the living conditions of its members. These factors include ethnodemographic, ethnosociological, ethnopolitical, ethnocultural, ethnopsychological and other variables.

28

Reality, models of reality and. sign systems

effectiveness of interaction. This would be telepathy as a mode of communication on the highest organizational level, and it would function without signs or symbols. The human brain possesses the capacities which arc required for communication without signs. In every individual's mind there is an image about the world he/she lives in, comprising all items of knowledge which are considered necessary for the formation of a conceptual framework. In telepathic communication a direct interaction among individuals would be guaranteed by the exclusive func-tioning of social and cultural compctence (see component AA in Figure 6), without the participation of the component (AB). Man is an underdeveloped species in the sense that human beings lack a mental apparatus to send or receive telepathic messages. Although there arc some extraordinary cases of communicational "coincidence" which are claimed to reflect telepathy by parapsychologists, this technique of interaction is of no practical use for interaction among human beings. As things are, communication will always depend on signs and their organization in systems and thus will always have to rely on the somewhat "clumsy" mechanism of communicative competence as well as on the complex processing of. interaction under various conditions of situational settings. Since prehistoric times, man has managed to create ever new sign systems and networks of symbols, and he has succeeded in elaborating more and more variations of linguistic structures in terms of social subsystems (i.e. dialects, regional varieties, sociolccts, standard languages, technical varieties, sacral and secret languages) to serve the needs of communication in view of a constantly increasing social, cultural and technological specialization of human communities. This evolutionary "push" in the elaboration of sign systems has been of vital importance for human relations because the means of communication have always had to keep up with the level of collective experience in a given community. It is well known that language is a highly flexible instrument in this regard. Lexical structures might become specialized on a high organizational level if the cultural environment requires it. For instance, the vocabulary of the best-known ancient languages is rich in synonyms for expressions related to animal sacrifices and libation rituals for the dead (i.e. Sumerian, Egyptian, Ancient Greek, Etruscan, Old Chinese). There are thousands of

Reality, models of reality and sign systems

29

specialized terms for hunting in arctic surroundings in the lexicon of languages such as Eskimo, Chukchee, Yurak or Lappish. The conditions of reindeer breeding, which has been an essential economic factor for many centuries among the Lapps in Northern Europe, have effected a large-scale extension of lexical structures into that field. It has been estimated that the total number of lexical items associated with reindeer breeding amounts to more than 30,000 terms in the Lappish dialects of Norway, Sweden, Finland and the Soviet Union. An example of specialization under the conditions of modern industrialized society is the rapid ramification of terminologies in computer technology. It has been emphasized that the associational links between real objects, items of knowledge and linguistic signs is one of the crucial relations in semiotic networks. What makes sign systems and their use among human beings complex is the fact that signs not only symbolize elements of material life but also cover the realm of abstract ideas as products of reasoning. What then is the relation between real objects, ideas and linguistic signs, between the real world, reasoning and language? It seems to me that the models of communicative competence (see Figure 6) and interaction (see Figure 7) provide clues to the clarification of the sigmatic problems under discussion. It is clear in the first place that there is no direct relation between any real object and any linguistic sign. Instead, there are bridging links between what can be perceived and its symbolic representation in signs. In the formation and use of signs the individual - in his/her roles as a speaker and a listener - plays the important part of an interpreter between reality and semiotic networks. How then are the interpreter's role and the effect of interpreting the world on the structure of sign systems to be described? The position of the human being as the interpreter of the world, and his relation to the environment in which he/she lives as well as to the language that he/she speaks, can be illustrated by selecting pertinent components from the models of communicative competence and interaction, and by aligning them in a sequence of associational elements (see Figure 8). The environment - that is, the world outside - is represented by the component "reality", which includes ecological factors and which corresponds to the component Ε in the model of interaction (see Figure 7). There is

30

Reality, models of reality and sign systems

c ο

•
bo W IQ c ο 03

Μ Β, χ

W

< υ t-c 3 .. l-i C ι 3 '-α Ξ 3 SÄ U 05 S 4>«Λ iυ t

-υ C c =>. Λ fl) o a rt l-i

Χ) « Q 00

Si CH £ On

toO Ο Q

Ο Μ a ο

00 Vi ca

u-, Ο

C

rt ε α

V

Ä - o σ3 • s S £ « hJ 3 !s .2 « ε 8 .ε s > ja ο ε ε

%

a ο Μ Β Vi

£υ •υ ο .1/3. 3 ^. X) Cd cd CS

m

The semiotic nomenclature in relations of politeness and deference

125

speech. Practically any noun can be prefixed by o- or go- to become a polite expression (cf. kuruma 'car': go-kuruma 'car/polite term'). According to the conventions of verbal behavior, the simple (unprefixed) form is used when, in humble speech, referring to one's own things, while using the prefixed form to speak about another person's things. Under such conditions of conventionalized usage the simple form kuruma connotates 'my car', and the prefixed form go-kuruma 'your car'. The semantic connotations of possessive relations which result from the use of nominal markers of politeness are a phenomenon that may partly explain the circumstance that possessive pronouns are less frequently used in Japanese than in other languages. More details about the marking of politeness in the nominal system of Japanese may be found in Table 17.

2.6. The marking of politeness in lexical structures In all languages where politeness is represented in linguistic structures nouns may be used to function as markers of politeness. English has terms such as Highness, Excellency or Majesty which are used as polite address forms. Honorific pronouns typically find their historical origin in older address forms of politeness, e.g. in Spanish Usted 'you' (originally Vuestra Merced 'your Lordship'), Rumanian dumneata 'you' (originally Domnia ta 'your Highness') or Dutch U 'you' (originally Uwe Edelheid 'your Nobility'). In societies with an advanced division of labor and authority, and particularly in modern industrialized society, there is a flood of polite address forms including nominal elements such as titles, terms for professional ranks, designations of honor etc. Such elements are integrated into the lexical structures of a given language, and their specific connotations depend on the conventions of verbal interaction among members of the speech community. The marking of politeness is more extensive and specific in those languages where it can be observed that lexical structures are organized according to the distinction of humble and polite expressions. Once again, I make reference to Japanese, a language

126

Language as a sigmatic fixative of reality

Table 16. The marking of politeness in the lexical structures of Japanese kinship terminology humble e.g. watashi no ~ my ~

honorific e.g. anata no ~ your ~

meaning

chichi haha ryöshin shujin, otto kanai, tsuma ani ane otöto imöto kyödai musuko musume sofu sobo oji oba oi mei itoko shinseki, shinrui kazoku

otösan okäsan go-ryöshin go-shujin okusan oniisan onesan otötosan imötosan go-kyödai musuko san musumesan ojiisan obasan oji san obasan oigosan meigosan itoko no kata go-shinseki, go-shinrui go-kazoku

father mother parents husband wife elder brother elder sister younger brother younger sister brother and sister son daughter grandfather grandmother uncle aunt nephew niece cousin relative family

Note: Besides its relevance for the context of the semiotic discussion in this study, the overview presented in the table is illustrative of how specifically the cultural pattern of kinship relations is reflected in the lexical structures of Japanese kinship terminology.

The semiotic nomenclature in relations of politeness

and deference

127

Table 17. Markers of politeness in the structures of the Japanese language a) Honorification of nominal elements Names with titles e.g. Satö-sama Satö-san Professional ranks e.g. Tanaka-sensei Ito-sensei Suzuki-butyö Ide-shatyö

'Mr. Sato' (very polite) 'Mr. Sato' (polite)

'Prof. Tanaka' 'Dr. Ito (physical doctor)' "'Mr. Suzuki (division chief of a company)' 'Mr. Ide (president of a company)

Nouns with honorific prefixes e.g. hon 'book' : go-hon 'book (polite form)' kane 'money' : o-kane 'money (polite form)' (go- marks the polite form in case of Sino-Japanese expressions, that is Japanese words of Chinese origin; the prefix o- fulfills this function in Japanese words and non-Chinese loan-words) e.g. subject honorifics Anata no o-niwa ga ulsukushi desu 'your garden (o-niwa) is beautiful' e.g. object honorifics Watashi wa Satö-sensei no o-shashin ο mimashita Ί saw Prof. Sato's photo (o-shashin)' Nouns with specific polite forms e.g. chichi 'father (humble)' : otösan 'father (polite form)' kanai '(my) wife (humble)' : okusan '(your) wife (polite form)'

(To be Cont'd)

128

Language

as a sigmatic fixative

of reality

(Table 17 Cont'd) b) Honorification of pronominal elements Personal pronouns

Men's language

women's language

1st person

boku watashi

(humble) (polite)

watashi atakushi

(humble) (polite)

2nd person

kimi anata

(humble) (polite)

anta anata

(humble) (polite)

3rd person

kare m. kanojo f .

(neutral)

kare m. kanojo f .

(neutral)

3rd person

ano hito 'that person'(humble) ano kata 'that person'(polite)

ano hito 'that person' ano kata 'that person'

(humble) (polite)

c) Honorification of predicative elements Verbs with specific polite forms e.g. kuru 'to come' : irassharu 'to come (polite form)' morau'to receive' : itadaku 'to receive (polite form)' yaru'to give' : ageru 'to give (polite form)' Inflectional forms of the verb e.g. Present tense taberu tabemasu yomu yomimasu past tense

tabeta tabemashita yonda yomimashita

'(I) eat (humble)' '(you) eat (polite)' '(I) read (humble)' '(you) read (polite)' '(I) ate (humble)' '(you) ate (polite)' '(I) read (humble)' '(you) read (polite)'

(To be Cont'd)

The semiotic nomenclature in relations of politeness and deference

129

Adjectives with honorific prefixes e.g. isogashi 'busy' : o-isogashi 'busy (polite form)' Natsuko wa isogashi da 'Natsuko (woman's name) is busy' Ide-sensei wa o-isogashi desu 'Prof. Ide is busy (o-isogashi and desu 'is' are polite forms) Note: The above outline on politeness markers in the Japanese language is partly based on Ide (1982) and Coulmas (1987). with a lexicon abounding in parallel terms to be used in either humble or polite speech. Among the lexical fields which are especially sensitive toward the marking of politeness is kinship terminology. As may be seen from the overview of selected Japanese kinship terms in Table 16, there is a strict differentiation between humble and polite lexical items. It has to be emphasized that the overview presents the terminology of reference in the domain of kinship relations and not a system of address forms for which the duality of intimate and normal expression is quite widespread (e.g. English daddy versus father, German Mama versus Mutter 'mother', Finnish isi versus isä 'father'). In the inventory of Japanese kinship terminology, there is no neutral expression of reference for 'mother', 'wife' or 'daughter'. Specific terms have to be selected for fitting into a specific context of verbal conduct. The differentiation between humble and honorific expressions for kinship relations is based on the following three different techniques for structurally representing the semiotic relation of politeness: a) The use of expressions with different (that is, etymologically different) origins (e.g. chichi: otösan 'father', ane: onesan 'elder sister', sobo: obäsan 'grandmother'); b) The use of the honorific prefixes o- and go- for characterising honorific expressions (e.g. ryöshin: go-ryöshin 'parents', shujin: go-shujin 'husband', kyödai: go-kyödai 'brother and sister'); c) The use of the honorific forms -san and no kata (lit. 'Mr. Mrs., Miss'); e.g. otöto: otötosan 'younger brother', oba: obasan 'aunt', itoko: itoko no kata 'cousin'.

130

Language

as a sigmatic fixative

of reality

The foregoing outline on the diversity of politeness phenomena and their varied representation in linguistic structures may serve to emphasize that semiotic relations of politeness and deference differ in nature from demonstrative relations (see under 1.). While demonstrative-directional relations are relevant to human beings because of the need to orient one's self to the environment and thus find one's place in the real world, semiotic relations of politeness rely on differentiations in social structures which human beings have themselves created. Categories of politeness in linguistic structures do not emerge simply because differences of social status exist in a community, but rather because they have been collectively evaluated by the speech community as being relevant for symbolizing levels of respect in the individual's verbal conduct. Expressing politeness depends on categories about social relations which form part of the community's image of the world and which have been measured against the value system of its members. As regards politeness, evidently the evaluation of reality (that is, of social relations) participates, as a factor in cognitive processes, predominantly in the creation and formation of an image of the world (see the component (EvR) in Figure 19). Giving priority to the factor "evaluation of reality" does not mean that the experience of reality would be negligible as a factor in semiotic relations of politeness. The concrete experience of social relations through the channel of daily interaction is an important correlate to monitor the validity of honorific categories in the individual's speech behavior. Nevertheless, the evaluation of social relations is the central and dominant force for the processing of politeness in verbal conduct. Although the marking of politeness in linguistic structures is not a universal feature in the world's languages, it nevertheless plays an important part in many of them. In the previous discussion of politeness phenomena frequent reference is made to the Japanese language, and for good reason. Most of the structural features which have been described under (2.1. - 2.6.). are represented in the linguistic structures of Japanese. In a broad comparative view the marking of politeness in Japanese has created a network of semiotic-grammatical relations which proves to be the most complex in any natural language. Table 17 presents an overview of the language techniques essential for

The semiotic nomenclature in relations of politeness and deference

131

the representation of politeness in the structures of Japanese. Politeness is marked in the nominal, pronominal and verbal systems, and the lexicon is extensively differentiated in terms of the dichotomy of humble and polite expressions. While in many speech communities the marking of politeness in an individual's verbal conduct is a matter of a facultative choice of style, in Japanese society it is a matter of following compulsory conventions of speech behavior which is strictly formalized according to social rules. It is noteworthy that in the complex network of Japanese politeness markers, not all features are represented which occur in natural languages. This is true for the system of demonstrative pronouns where the marking of politeness is relevant in a language such as Amharic (see 2.3.), but not in Japanese, the demonstrative terms of which kono, sono and ano, are neutral as to the distinction of humble and polite speech. Therefore, although the Japanese network of politeness markers appears to be the most comprehensive among the world's languages, it does not exploit all the potential structural variations which can be identified in a comparative analysis. There is a parallel to what has been said about the complexity of demonstrative relations in Eskimo (see the conclusions to 1.). This language also offers the most comprehensive network of marking demonstrative-directional connotations to have been found in a natural language (see Figure 21, A). And yet, the linguistic structures of Eskimo do not represent all the potential features which can be identified for these semiotic relations in the world's languages. Both Eskimo and Japanese, the one as regards demonstrativedirectional relations, the other with respect to relations of politeness, fall within the boundaries of the semiotic-grammatical correlations which can be theoretically assumed. Comparing the two languages in their status, it turns out that the working of the principle of semiotic relativity has a highly differing effect when it comes to the experience of reality or the evaluation of reality in the speech community. Linguistic structures are highly diversified in Eskimo as far as the representation of demonstrative-directional relations is concerned, while in this regard Japanese offers no more than the features necessary for a basic orientation. The proportions are reversed when the semiotic relations of politeness are taken into consideration. Here, the Japanese language is highly sensitive

132

Language as a sigmatic fixative of reality

toward the representation of politeness in its structures, while in Eskimo this semiotic relation does not cause linguistic variation. Politeness has a zero marking in the structures of Eskimo, evidently because social conduct in the speech community does not require the observation of levels of politeness.

3. The semiotic nomenclature in emotional and rational relations as a facet of mentality An elementary semiotic relation in human beings' orientation is the interpretation of interactional processes in terms of their guidance by emotional reactions or rational activities. In the formation of an image of reality, attitudes toward emotions and mental activities play an important part inasmuch as these relations are assigned certain values in the social network of a given community. Everybody has to cope with the duality of an emotional life (e.g. reactions such as feeling comfort, fear or anger) and of mental activities, such as decision making, learning from experience or calculating. The emotional disposition of an individual is, as a variable in interaction, as essential for the development of social relations as are mental activities. It is a truism that emotional and rational relations are not only present in everyday interaction, but they are often in conflict as well. No wonder therefore that every speech community of the world has a semiotic nomenclature to cover notions and ideas from the two ranges of human relations. This means in concrete terms that there are lexical structures in any language to express abstract ideas and values associated both with human emotional life and with mental activities. The lexical items concerned have semantic connotations and positions in the network of lexical structures which form an individual pattern in each language matching the structures of cultural patterns in the speech community which are associated with or built upon the conceptual framework of emotional and rational relations (e.g. ethics, religious beliefs, philosophy).

The semiotic nomenclature in emotional and rational relations

133

The analysis of lexical structures covering the ranges of emotions, sensuality, mental processes and activities is a challenging task for the sociolinguist or anthropologist. It might even be of still greater concern to semiologists who study processes of signification under the auspices of the assumption that language is a sigmatic fixative of reality. The semiotic nomenclature under discussion provides many clues to the analyst as to how this duality of emotional and rational relations is conceived in speech communities having differing cultural patterns to participate in the formation of an image of reality, of a culturally specific world view. In the western world, and particularly in the European tradition of ethical and philosophical reasoning, people have long been accustomed to treating the phenomenal duality of feelings and thinking in terms of a dichotomy. The view of pathos 'feelings, sensuality' and logos 'rational thinking' as opposed forces in human beings is strongly reflected in Classical Greek philosophy and, since antiquity, logos has been given priority over pathos as the most essential factor in promoting cultural development and social advance in civilized communities. The ethical principles of the Christian religion are deeply rooted in such pre-Christian traditions, and the antagonism of emotional reactions as opposed to the activities of the human brain and spirit is, in Christian ethics, branded as the conflict between higher and lower qualities of the human being. Therefore, logos relations are favored as a mechanism for controlling emotions and keeping social conduct within the boundaries of moral restrictions. It is well known that sexual desire, for instance, is assigned a role at a very low level of emotional reactions, a desire which has to be strictly controlled by the individual's will as a mental force. According to the principles of Christian ethics, sexuality is acknowledged as an emotional reaction in its own right only in connection with procreation in the family, a standpoint which is still shared by Catholic fundamentalists. It seems that, in the European tradition, the idea of antagonism or conflict between pathos and logos has always remained a basic orientation. Sometimes Jean-Jacques Rousseau is attributed the merit of having transcended the traditional antagonistic thinking in his philosophical reasoning about the "noble savage".

134

Language as a sigmatic fixative of reality

Actually, Rousseau was also caught in the same tradition, and his attempt to reverse the priority by branding logos relations as the source of all evil in civilization, while assigning pathos relations, the role of a dominant factor in the organization of a harmonious life in natural surroundings must be regarded as little short of sensational. Voltaire's sharp and ironic criticism of Rousseau's ideas as nostalgic and Utopian humbug found a strong echo in the French tradition of rationalism and enlightenment. In ethical and philosophical reasoning logos relations have retained their favored priority in the image of the world among Europeans, and Rousseau's ideas may have survived in the canon of cultural education and learning mainly because they deviated so strongly from patterns of reasoning then current. The basic idea of antagonism and the different moral weight attributed to pathos relations, on the one hand, and logos relations, on the other, may have persisted to the present because in European languages there is a clear-cut distinction in the semiotic nomenclature which refers to each range of relations. A terminological distinction is typical of both the basic expressions, as well as of all the derived terms which can be readily understood to form an opposition in the process of signification. So, the terminological difference between the Greek expressions pathos and logos finds its equivalent in other European languages (e.g. Latin sensum: ratio, French emotion: raison, German Gefühl: Vernunft). As a pattern contrasting to the European tradition of interpreting emotions and mental activities as opposing forces - a view which has spread throughout the world, especially as a feature of Anglo-Saxon civilization - I would like to introduce here a Far Eastern cultural pattern which has shaped people's mentality and ways of thinking no less than the divergent pattern just discussed has among Europeans. In the tradition of Chinese civilization a terminological-conceptual distinction such as the one between Greek pathos and logos is unknown. This is mainly due to the fact that the emergence and processing of the forces involved are interpreted in a specifically Chinese way. I will try here to illustrate the interpretation of the duality of emotional reactions and rational activities which has a long tradition in the Chinese cultural sphere by presenting the evidence of the corresponding semiotic nomenclature. The key terms are listed in Table 18, and

The semiotic nomenclature in emotional and rational relations

135

Table 18. The pathos-logos conjunction in the Sino-Japanese tradition of forming ideas a) The pathos relation Structure of the linguistic sign Written equivalent

'Ll·

Sound structure

Conceptual basis

shin1 (on-reading)

heart core marrow vitality

kokoro1 (£an-reading)

heart, feeling wholeheartedness, sincerity, sympathy taste mood

b) The logos relation Structure of the linguistic sign Written equivalent

Sound structure

Conceptual basis

shin2 (on-reading)

mind, spirit motive, sense (of duty) padding

kokoro2 Ofcwn-reading)

mind, spirit mentality idea, thought attention interest, care will intention true meaning (of a poem) thought

Note: The on-use refers to the reading of a written sign according to the Chinese way, whereas the kun-reading represents the Japanese pronunciation.

136

Language as a sigmatic fixative of reality

the most striking impression is that there is no formal distinction between the term(s) for pathos and logos, neither as regards the written equivalent nor with respect to the sound structure of the linguistic sign(s). The Chinese term xin, the Japanese reading of which is shin, has a broad conceptual basis, covering the ranges of both emotional and mental reactions. In the table reference is made to the Japanese cultural settings in order to emphasize that the impact of Chinese culture on Japanese ways of thinking had already reached a high level at an early stage of continental influence in Japan, so much so that the indigenous Japanese interpretation of distinguishing between pathos and logos was transformed to fit the pattern of Chinese terminology. The Japanese term kokoro, which serves as a synonym for the Chinesederived shin, connotates, in a similar way, a reference to emotional as well as mental processes. Thus, shin covers the meaning of both pathos and logos, as does the expression kokoro. The differences in the use of either shin or kokoro are of contextual relevance, and they result from the reading conventions of Chinese characters at varying stylistic levels. Although there are two readings, shin and kokoro, they are both associated with the same written symbol. This Chinese character, or to be exact: its iconic motivation, provides a clue to the specifically Chinese way of interpreting emotional and rational relations. The origin of the Chinese character is the pictograph of the muscle of the heart:

^

>

In its original form the pictograph symbolized the activity of the heart and, eventually, referred to the heart as such. By writing conventions the pictograph developed into a stylized picture which served as an ideogram for symbolizing the dynamics of forces which work inside the human being. Obviously, the role of the heart muscle to pump the blood, and that of the heart to maintain bodily functions, had been known in China before pictographic writing was introduced in the fourteenth century B.C. Since the activities of the human brain are hidden from observation, and knowledge about mental processes cannot be obtained by dissecting the body - as is the case with the heart and its functioning it is easy to understand that, at the dawn

The semiotic nomenclature in emotional and rational relations

137

of Chinese history, analogy was used to gain understanding. It was assumed that the functioning of the brain relies on a force similar to the one responsible for the activities of the heart. Thus, by analogy, the stylized picture of the heart muscle came to symbolize the second force in the brain. As a matter of fact, the conceptual basis broadened even further. The ideogram not only designates material basis of the two activities (i.e. 'heart' and 'mind') but it also connotes processes which are effected and reactions which result from or are closely associated with the working of the interior forces in the two centers of the human being (e.g. emotions such as affection or desire, mental activities such as thinking or will). More details of this specifically Chinese way of interpreting pathos and logos relations become transparent when one inspects the occurrence of the ideographic symbol, that is the stylized picture of the heart muscle, as a component in complex Chinese characters. Tables 19 and 20 present a selection of symbols for a wide range of emotionally and mentally motivated concepts. The examples in Table 19 illustrate the structure of terms within the range of pathos relations, those in Table 20 present concepts in the range of logos relations. In the written equivalent of all the expressions listed the symbol of the heart muscle plays a key role. The decomposition of the complex characters into individual componential units offers more than a purely structural analysis. To a semiologist at least, such a componential analysis amounts to a detailed vivisection of the Far Eastern mentality, the roots of which are older than the traditions of Confucianism or Buddhism. It can only be speculated about how far people in the Chinese cultural sphere - which is more or less identical with the boundaries of cultural settings where the Chinese script is in use (i.e. the two Chinas, Japan and Korea) - are aware of the above implications. In any case, my personal experience resulting from contacts with Japanese, Chinese and Korean people leads me to the conclusion that, at least among academics, there is an awareness of how closely pathos and logos relations are associated in the Chinese tradition of writing linguistic signs. It is challenging to think of empirical research in this problem area which could be carried out as a fieldwork project investigating susceptibility to the iconic impact of Chinese characters, and

138

Language as a sigmatic fixative of reality

G O < υ ε Ό ο Ο bß

Ο ω α. ο ο ω ιΌ C α Β

00

a

3-4 4 Q. ω O C 00 °

U

'S Ο

a X)

4 >1 1 — 3

00

εο ο v w (μ

D > Ο

CS

c 0 4 υ-1 ι*-1 CH

s -β ι «•is ο ο ? > μ οa

SΜ c)

b ΒO 'Ό « Ο

Ό β «ω ·ϋa «ω γ« V -ν c · ? § ο

'3 3

εο ο ο

bß Β •3 CS

Ο ä υ C _ο 4 — 1 .2 3 C < υ 4 — ° -5 4 -11 Λ > Λϊ C bß Ν ν.ω Β «Ö C >; 'S u rt g ωο ο Ο10ir1 ο

00

ο

Χι Ο Ε—

bß

Τ3 3

ee 3 W O, Jü 3 =« w 3 O-

A\

•α C3 ο J5 w.

c o e ο

c & to ε O oo υ c ο Ο ο ω

c

c !ο Λc U Ο α.

4

''J ^

ο υ Μ. . Τ b ο C t: tu U Ο Ο ο υ χ:

£ a ΙΛ bO C s

α.

Β Ο

υ

CS ο Ι Η

03 β

•a

bo

« -c Η-1 Ο

ο c •ο

α

.£

•α £

£

Ο, *

Ο

a M