Language in relation to a unified theory of the structure of human behavior (Janua Linguarum. Series Maior)

768 Pages·1967·65.82 MB·

by  Kenneth L. Pike

LANGUAGE IN RELATION TO A UNIFIED THEORY
OF THE STRUCTURE OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR
JANUA LINGUARUM
STUDIA MEMORIAE
NICOLAI VAN WIJK DEDICATA
edenda curat
C. H. VAN SCHOONEVELD
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
SERIES MAIOR
XXIV
1967
MOUTON & CO.
THE HAGUE · PARIS
LANGUAGE IN RELATION
TO A UNIFIED THEORY
OF THE STRUCTURE OF
HUMAN BEHAVIOR
by
KENNETH L. PIKE
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
Second, Revised Edition
1967
MOUTON & CO.
THE HAGUE · PARIS
© Copyright 1967, Mouton & Co., Publishers, The Hague, The Netherlands.
No part of this book may be translated or reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm,
or any other means, without written permission from the publishers.
DEDICATED TO THE MEMORY OF
PROFESSOR EDWARD SAPIR (1834-1939)
Photo taken by the author in the summer of 1937, at Ann Arbor, Michigan
TRAIL BLAZER IN THE STUDY OF SOUNDS
WITH REFERENCE TO "THE INNER CONFIGURATION
OF THE SOUND SYSTEM OF A LANGUAGE, THE INTUITIVE 'PLACING'
OF THE SOUNDS WITH REFERENCE TO ONE ANOTHER",
AND PIONEER IN THE STATING OF THE RELATION OF LANGUAGE
TO OTHER CULTURAL PATTERNS OF MAN

PREFACE TO THE PRELIMINARY EDITION
The theoretical phases of the conceptual framework which we set out to provide some
years ago for showing the relationship between the structure of verbal and nonverbal
behavior is finished, in preliminary form, with Part ΠΙ (chapters 11-17) of this work.
Pedagogical material for teaching tagmemic methodology, not included here, is
being prepared by Pickett, Elson, and Longacre.
The total work arose from a struggle to describe empirical data, especially the
Mixtee and Mazatec languages of Mexico. Attention to hierarchical structure stems
from an article on Taxemes and Immediate Constituents (1943b), a theoretical article
written after unsuccessful attempts to find in the current literature a satisfactory basis
for Mixtee grammatical analysis. Emphasis upon position (slot function) as over
against construction reflects a positive attempt to describe some of the resistant
problems of Mixtee grammatical analysis (1944). In the last article I first struggled
with the extensive disconformities which occur there in reference to borders and
units of the phonological versus grammatical hierarchies. The attempt to find internal
organization of high-level phonological units was the result of an attempt to describe
(with Eunice Pike) the immediate constituents of Mazatec syllables (1947). Constant
reference to substitution frames as theoretically relevant was expanded from analytical
techniques developed to determine the number of tones in tone languages (1938,
1948), while my study of the interplay of intonation, stress, quantity, and voice
quality developed from publications in 1942, 1945.
In 1948, weary of studying phonology, I decided to turn attention to grammar —
and to see if some correlate of the phoneme (other than the morpheme) might be
found for grammar. I tentatively labelled such a unit 'grameme' (for unit of gram-
mar) and started to search. I reasoned that as the phoneme was reflected in practical
orthographical work for millennia before being "found" by the scientists (whose
"X-ray eyes" could find cells but not faces), so some unit of grammar might be present
in the work and thought of practical language teachers which was not adequately
reflected in current theory of linguistic structure. Various kinds of subjects, predi-
cates, and modifiers seemed to meet the specifications. Extensive, deep-seated changes
in language theory were necessary before these units could be worked into a con-
ceptual framework which would (a) allow them to fit a place in theory analogous to
that of the phoneme, (b) fit the etic-emic requirements of our view, and (c) be subject
6 PREFACE TO THE PRELIMINARY EDITION
to treatment in pedagogical materials for analysis of language structures and for
preparation of language-learning texts.
In the process, it proved necessary to make certain generalizations which were of
such a high level of abstraction that it became clear that — if useful at all in linguistics
— they must in theory be applicable also to some phases of nonlanguage behavior.
It was at this point that the theoretical view broadened to set up an approach of a
scope wider than linguistics. Thus Chapters 3-5 included the structuring of the
behavior at church services, football games, and breakfast scenes. Now in Chapter
17 the implications are seen as including the structuring of the acting groups them-
selves in addition to their behavior.
The essentials of the linguistic tagmemic unit were largely in view by 1949, when I
began to write this material. (The term grameme, meanwhile, 1958a, has been
replaced with 'tagmeme' for etymological reasons — and see discussion, § 11.74).
Extension of the framework to include nonlanguage material and to tidy up the
general trimodal framework brought delays until the academic year of 1952-53.
During that year, aided by a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation which allowed
me to devote time to writing, all three parts were drafted. Revision of the material,
however, took several years longer than I had hoped — so that the chapters have
appeared in separate volumes rather than as a single unit.
In the meantime, on the basis of the first parts, various studies have been testing
the linguistic concepts with field work. Note, in the bibliography, grammatical
items by Cox, Shell, Mayers, Hart, Waterhouse, Pickett, Longacre; and phonological
items by Pike (1957c) and Crawford. Various other works by Peeke, Wise, Delgaty,
Ellis, and others are in manuscript and should appear in due season. The ethnological
implications have yet to be tested in field situations.
I am quite aware that our attempt is an ambitious one — to revise the conceptual
framework for language study into etic versus emic views (§ 2) with a grammatical
tagmeme unit added to phonological phoneme and lexical morpheme units (§§ 7,11),
with a trimodal set of interlocking hierarchies (§§ 3, 15), with approaches via particle,
wave, and field overlapping and supplementing one another (§12.1, and 1959). I am
also aware of the dangers of leaving one's own discipline and attempting to build a
bridge across to another, as I have tried to show analogies between linguistic structure
and the structure of society (§ 17) and of nonverbal behavior (§§ 1-5).
Nevertheless I have ventured, because some of us need to explore this trail. We
should profit if we can find in theoretical structure some components which will
contribute toward binding us into departmental unity — linguists, archeologists,
ethnologists, physical anthropologists, sociologists, and students of personality
structure. The fact that we all study man is no longer enough to satisfy all of us —
or some of our students.
In principle, the attempt might equally well have been made by someone coming
from the opposite direction, building on ethnological theory and seeking analogies
in linguistics. In practice, however, the recent formal studies in the linguistic
PREFACE TO THE PRELIMINARY EDITION 7
area seem to have provided a base which at the moment is easier to build on.
Of course, serious errors can be made — undoubtedly have been here — in such
an endeavor. In my opinion, however, the excitement of the chase is worth it. One
may at least aim at avoiding the epitaph written on a recent book by its reviewer
(Orlans, 19S8): 'His claims are modest, his subject is narrow, and the presentation
brief ; failure is thereby precluded but success is slight.'
Readers of Part ΠΙ who have not studied the earlier parts might prefer to by-pass
the argument in the early sections of Chapter 11. If so, they may find it possible to
read immediately the commentary on Tables 1-3.» Chapter 12 on Models and Chapters
16 and 17 on Meaning and on Society are somewhat independent of the others and
can in large measure be read without extensive study of earlier sections.
I am indebted to Miss Ruth Brend for helping in the many details of preparation
and proofing of the manuscript of this third part.
Ann Arbor, Michigan KENNETH L. PIKE
November, 1959
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION
Ten years full of linguistic development have passed since the first part (1954, Chapters
1-7) of the Preliminary Edition appeared, setting up the basic form of tagmemic
theory, and nine since the phonological data were published (1955, Chapters 8-9).
In the United States, transformational attention to generative grammar, and in
Britain a development of prosodie views into wider categorical concepts have changed
the context into which any book now fits.
The basic difference between the first and second editions of this book represents
an attempt to show how tagmemic theory relates to these and other recent views.
The original biliographical sections (retained here for historical orientation) seem to
read as if coming out of another age, so fast have battle grounds shifted. I have added
to these sections, however, several hundreds of references to the newer materials of
the decade.1 Dr. Ruth Brend has been responsible for trying to catch my inaccuracies
in these and the earlier references.
The attention which tagmemic theory earlier directed to the nature of units-in-
general, however, seems even more needed now than in 1954. The explicit conven-
tional phoneme has in many areas disappeared from view; the morpheme — though
few sense it yet — is similarly threatened; grammatical units such as 'subject' are
politely and helpfully introduced as labels — only to be brusquely bowed out as
theory.2 The tagmemic theory of this book, on the contrary, has tried to specify
characteristics of units (contrast, variation, distribution — cf. feature mode, mani-
festation mode, distribution mode) as related to a three-way hierarchical relationship
1 Yet even before this manuscript can get into print, scores of relevant articles and books are ap-
pearing which cannot be listed; one must, after all, stop somewhere on the continuum. Three biblio-
graphical items, however, are of special interest:
Hymes (1964) includes not only many reprints of articles on language in culture, and an extensive
general bibliography, but dozens of special sub-bibliographies (index on his page 760).
For tagmemics and its related developments in.matrix theory, an annotated bibliography, including
references which reached me after the completion of this revised manuscript, will be included in
Current Trends in Linguistics: American Linguistics (T. A. Sebeok, Ed., to appear).
For a full listing of the reviews of the three volumes of the first edition of this work (1954, 1955,
1960) see Bibliography of the Summer Institute of Linguistics (Santa Ana, Calif., 1964).
2 The sentence remains temporarily immune from attack only because it is taken (in a regularized
form) as an axiomatic starting point. When its broader setting is allowed to come into focus, the
deep problem of identity of unit-against-ground will assert itself here, also.