EUROPÄISCHER STANDARD LEBENSLAUF

Sincronía Fall 2011

Words as Cultural Things : Contrastive Studies of English Meanings for the Concept Speech and its Representation in Different Languages Families as a Linguistic Communication Approach by Contrastive Rhetoric determinated by Cultural Elements of Writing

Fee-Alexandra Haase

– Abstract –

In this article we present research focusing on contrastive rhetorical studies in historical linguistics regarding the origin of the concept SPEECH as presented in the roots of various language families. We compare the realization of the concept SPEECH in roots of various language families demonstrating that our understanding of human speech must reflect that this idea or concept, namely SPEECH, is actually a multiple-aspect implementing and inhomogeneous idea or concept; this position is backed up with the contrastive analysis of the actual findings of our research that show the highly differentiated meanings of speech in various cultures with and without language contact-situations existed. Culminating with our discourse in the ‘things (res) and words (verba)’-debate we can formulate the following statement: The words representing the concept SPPECH are representations of their cultural development and can in this regards and in this perspective described as ‘things of a culture’ and manifestations of their cultural development.

1. Introduction:
State of Research and Methodology of Contrastive Rhetoric and Linguistics

Traditionally this young discipline refers to language learning processes and developed especially from the background of English language learning. Even though be discuss here the fundamentals of this discipline, we consider contrastive rhetoric as a field of study not limited to a special languages and referring to the process of comparison of structures describable with rhetorical means. While the traditional idea of contrastive rhetoric is interested in writing and developed from the background of rhetoric as composition training in U.S.-American universities, the idea is actually broader and focuses on more aspects. We are here interested in the genuine aspect of speech as representation of rhetoric. Different speech types can be compared and refer so to our understanding of ‘contrastive rhetoric’. Such a contrastive rhetoric of cultures can be understood as a part of language contact studies.

The early beginnings of contrastive rhetoric focus not on speaking, but on writing; recent research on speech from a theoretical perspective tends to consider speech as a fundamental element in communication. Gasparov’s claim in Speech, Memory, and Meaning. Intertextuality in Everyday Language is that all new facts of language are grounded in the speakers' memory of previous experiences of the use of language. Gasparov’s model offers a way to describe the meaning of language as an open process without an end depending on the configuration of the basic units of his models called ‘Communicative Fragment’ (CF). Gasparov’s basic unit of his intertextual model is the ‘Communicative Fragment’. A CF is a fraction of speech of any shape, meaning, and stylistic provenance. A CF can be combined with other CFs in various ways. The speakers has the memory and recognition of thus unit, which is handled as a whole unit. Features of this CF are its ‘prefabricated shape’, ‘integral meaning’, and ‘communicative texture’ organized by speech genre, speech situation, and speaker’s and addressee’s qualities. (Gasparov) Lynea wrote in Speech Acts in a Semiotic Frame: “The performance of speech acts requires interpretive conditions that are best conceived within a semiotic frame. Three variables within these interpretive conditions are considered: (1) the options permitted or suggested by the structure of the discourse, (2) the degree to which illocutionary force is made explicit, and (3) the definition of the situation. Each of these suggests promising lines of confluence for the speech‐acts perspective and the rhetorical tradition, both of which focus on the pragmatic uses of codes.” (Lynea 1981: 202) Linell wrote in The Written Language Bias in Linguistics that “in any society, but particularly so in a modern industrialized society with a lot of professional specialization, there is a great deal of linguistic variation. First of all, there are of course the overall differences between written and spoken language. In addition, however, there are many kinds of variations within the range of written language and, in particular, within the range of spoken varieties. The written language bias in linguistics has several kinds of repercussions on the linguists' ways of handling this variation.” (Linell) Linell wrote about the linguistic variation: “Linguists have most often worked with made-up linguistic examples (usually written word forms and sentences) applying their linguistic intuition for grammaticality etc to them.” (Linell) Linell wrote that “one common attitude among linguists is, or was until recently, to regard the linguistic variation in speech as more or less chaotic and devoid of any interesting and "linguistically significant" regularities. After all, language was conceived of as the system of underlying context-independent invariants, and the norms underlying invariants are based mainly on written language.” (Linell)

Sapir in Language. An Introduction to the Study of Speech mentioned in the Introductory Chapter: Language Defined that language is “a cultural, not a biologically inherited, function. Futility exists regarding interjectional and sound-imitative theories of the origin of speech. Sapir mentions the universality of language”. In the chapter Language, Race and Culture Sapir considers it a ‘naïve tendency’ to consider linguistic, racial, and cultural groupings as congruent, since race and language need not correspond. (Sapir) According to Derrida’s thoughts expressed in Of Grammatology, the relationship between speech and writing is controlled in theory and practice: “On the one hand, true to the Western tradition that controls not only in theory, but in practice (in the principle of its practice) the relationships between speech and writing, Saussure does not recognize in the latter more than a narrow and derivative function. Narrow because it is nothing but one modality among others, a modality of the events which can befall a language whose essence, as the facts seem to show, can remain forever uncontaminated by writing. “Language does have an oral tradition that is independent of writing” (Cours de Linguistique Générale).” (Derrida) According to Derrida (Of Grammatology), “it is clear that the concepts of stability, permanence, and duration, which here assist thinking the relationships between speech and writing, are too lax and open to every uncritical investiture.” (Derrida) Barthes writes in Elements of Semiology about speech as parole: “Speech (parole): In contrast to the language, which is both institution and system, speech is essentially an individual act of selection and actualisation; it is made in the first place of the 'combination thanks to which the speaking subject can use the code of the language with a view to expressing his personal thought' (this extended speech could be called discourse), - and secondly by the 'psycho-physical mechanisms which allow him to exteriorise these combinations.'” (Barthes) Chomsky wrote about the relation between ‘mind’ and ‘language’ in Language and Mind: “Still, in many respects, we have not made the first approach to a real answer to the classical problems. For example, the central problems relating to the creative aspect of language use remain as inaccessible as they have always been.” (Chomsky) Chomsky wrote about the relation between ‘mind’ and ‘language’ in Language and Mind: “And the study of universal semantics, surely crucial to the full investigation of language structure, has barely advanced since the medieval period. Many other critical areas might be mentioned where progress has been slow or nonexistent.” (Chomsky)

2. Intercultural Communication Approach of Contrastive Rhetoric

Approaching our linguistic studies from a semiotic / semantic perspective we must be aware of the fact that the meta-language of our discourse is a working language with its own cultural tradition. This is a methodological requirement for the studies regarding the impact of languages on our research. In our case this meta-language is English. The field of ‘contrastive rhetoric’ from a perspective of language acquisition has offered some attempts to make comparative studies. Even though ‘contrastive rhetoric’ is limited to the language acquisition process of foreign languages (and especially EFL learning), the awareness of impacts of a meta-language like English are here discussed. Robert Kaplan’s fundamental works in the 60ies about contrastive rhetoric had a high impact of foreign language learning studies. Especially English as a Second Language (ESL) and English as a Foreign Language (EFL) are fields of applied linguistics that rely on the results of studies in contrastive rhetoric. All studies in contrastive rhetoric observe that the way English is written by a non-native is influence by the culture of his/her first language. Kennedy wrote Comparative Rhetoric: An Historical and Crosscultural Introduction as one of the fundamental works in cultural comparative rhetoric. Connor published the book Contrastive Rhetoric: Cross-cultural Aspects of Second-language Writing in 1996 and Contrastive Rhetoric: Development and Challenges in Studia Anglica Posnaniensia: International Review of English Studies using the term ‘contrastive rhetoric’ (1998: 105). In New Directions in Contrastive Rhetoric Connor write that “contrastive rhetoric examines differences and similarities in ESL and EFL writing across languages and cultures as well as across such different contexts as education and commerce. Hence, it considers texts not merely as static products but as functional parts of dynamic cultural contexts.” (Connor 2002: 494). Kubota and Lehner wrote in Toward Critical Contrastive Rhetoric: “A traditional approach to contrastive rhetoric has emphasized cultural difference in rhetorical patterns among various languages. Despite its laudable pedagogical intentions to raise teachers' and students' cultural and rhetorical awareness in second language writing, traditional contrastive rhetoric has perpetuated static binaries between English and other languages and viewed students as culturally lacking. Various criticisms that have challenged assumptions behind traditional contrastive rhetoric as well as a critical scrutiny of pedagogical issues, including the politics of explicit teaching of linguistic forms, indicate a need for establishing alternative conceptual frameworks. Such frameworks seek to critically understand politics of cultural difference and explore situated pedagogy that challenges essentialism.” (Kubota; Lehner 2004: 7) Yunxia wrote in Revisiting Relevant Approaches for the Study of Language and Intercultural Communication: “In sum, we need an all-round approach to study language and intercultural communication. Therefore we should always be aware of the limitations of our research findings and evaluate them in the light of appropriate models such as employed by the current study. Furthermore, other perspectives such as intercultural persuasion and sociocultural cognition can also be incorporated into the approach in future language and intercultural studies.” (Yunxia) Schröder (2010) discussed in Speech Styles and Functions of Speech from a Cross-cultural Perspective functions of speech. In Speech Functions for Sociolinguistics Thompson listed the following modes of speech for conveying information and expressing social relationships as 1. expressive, 2. directive, 3. referential, 4. metalinguistic, 5. poetic, and 6. phatic. (Thompson)

Langue, language as a linguistic system, communicates at least itself (and so the linguistic features of language), while applications of language like parole and speech communicate in the first case (parole) something in the spoken mode as application; in the second case (speech) the object speech is applied language for communication and the tool or medium speech is applied language. We have to make a distinction between speech and language as meta-linguistic systems of studies. In our case we use the English language, a natural language with a historical development, as conveying language of meanings, L2, that are implemented in the words of the first language L1. This language is considered to function as langue is communicative actions of research besides other features (documentation). But the English language as parole and as at every state of development as language is communicatively employed and also involves a steady change of its meanings and other linguistic features. Applied speech is a communicative action of a speaker. Also rhetoric is the art of good speaking in the classical Roman understanding of this art is an elementary element of any speech activity or use of language. Speech is traditionally considered to be orally communicated, but we also find speech in media other than spoken language. The etymological history of speech as an English word derived from the tree of the Germanic languages supports this basic definition of speech with language. Speech requires the linguistic features of language (langue) in order to be successfully applied.

3. Historical and Contemporary Functions and Meanings in the English Language

for the Concept Speech in Different Cultures

3.1. Speech as a Meta-Concept or Speech as a Concept besides Other Concepts

First, we have to discuss if it is possible to consider speech as a meta-concept. We assume that concepts are absolute and universal entities. So it would not be possible to divide them into other concepts that are actually identical in structure and function. But when we look at the etymological development in language families, or within a group of related families, we see changes from one concept to another representative of a concept. The meta-language family called Borean language family of the Russian linguist Starostin consists of several languages that share a common etymology. This family is discussed in Starostin’s The Tower of Babel Project. Taking this meta-family, we can demonstrate meanings referring to the concept SPEECH of various language families. One example is the Borean Proto-root WVKV, which has the meanings 'say' and 'call'. Related are the Eurasiatic root *wVḳV, the Afro-Asiatic Semitic root *wVkH- for 'clamour' and 'boast', and Sino-Caucasian root *=V́xq̇V, and the Amerind root *koʔe with the meaning 'say'. The Borean Proto-root WVKV represents the concepts SAY ('say') and CALL ('call'). Related are the Eurasiatic root *wVḳV, the Afro-Asiatic Semitic root *wVkH- for the concepts CLAMOUR ('clamour') and BOAST ('boast'). The Sino-Caucasian root *=V́xq̇V and the Amerind root *koʔe with the meaning 'say' represent the concept SAY. Assuming that SAY, CALL, CLAMOUR, and BOAST represent autonomous concepts, the meanings of the roots of the words in the different language trees are linguistic and semiotic representatives of the concepts. Considering SPEECH as a meta-concept, we can say that this meta-concept is represented in the sub-concepts SAY, CALL, CLAMOUR, and BOAST. Details were discussed by Haase in Where Does Speech Come From? A Historical Linguistic Answer. (Haase: 2011) We favor the assumption that the hypothetical Borean Proto-root WVKV is the hypothetical processor of the roots of the different language trees.

Borean Proto-root WVKV

representing the concepts SAY ('say') and CALL ('call')

▼ ▼ ▼

Afro-Asiatic Semitic root *wVkH- for the concepts CLAMOUR ('clamour') and BOAST ('boast')

Sino-Caucasian root *=V́xq̇V

Amerind root *koʔe with the meaning 'say' represent the concept SAY

Illustration Hypothetical Borean Proto-root WVKV

as the Hypothetical Processor of the Roots of the Different Language Trees

3.2. The Cases of Language Contact and Etymology across Language Families:

The Roots of Indo-European Words with English Meanings

related to the Concept SPEECH and their Relation to the Borean Language Family

Starosin discovered that similarities transcending the traditional groups of languages in language families exist. This meta-language family Starosin called Borean language family. We discuss the cases relevant to the concept SPEECH here in the part. The Proto-Indo-European root *werdh- has the meaning 'word'. Related are Eurasiatic *wVḳV, Afro-Asiatic Semitic *wVkH- for 'clamour' and 'boast', Chadic *wVg- for 'call', Sino-Caucasian *=V́xq̇V, Amerind *koʔe for 'say' (or to KVWV); *yaq 'say'; *wok 'bark', 'cry', and 'howl'. Borean MVKV has the meanings 'word' and 'name'. Related are Afro-Asiatic *magaʕ-, Sino-Caucasian NC *maGwV̄ for 'word', 'sound', and 'song' and *miǝ̄k for 'examine' and 'think'. Eurasiatic *[s]abV has the meanings 'sign' and 'word'. Related are Altaic *sāba and Uralic *sawV. Proto-Altaic *sāba has the meaning 'sign'. Related are Turkic *sāb-, Mongolian *saɣam, Tungus-Manchu *sab(i)-, and Japanese *sàmpàk. Proto-Indo-European *werdh- has the meaning 'word'. Related are Baltic *war̃d-a- and *wir̃d-a-, Germanic *wurd-a, Latin verbum for 'word'. The Eurasiatic root *ṭVlV has the meanings 'say' and 'tell'. Related are Indo-European *tAlk- and Altaic *tēluŋu for 'narrating' and 'tale'. Kartvelian Svan has -ṭūl- with the meanings 'call', 'say', and 'shout'. Eurasiatic *wVḳV has also the meanings 'say' and 'call'. Related are Indo-European *wekʷ-, Altaic *oki, Uralic *wakV for 'call' and Eskimo-Aleut *uqa-. Eurasiatic *watV has the meaning 'speak'. Related are Indo-European *wed-, Altaic *ót`e, Uralic *wa[t]V for 'word', and att3 for 'say' as well as Dravidian *vadar- and Eskimo-Aleut *atǝʁ and *atRiʁ-. Related to the Eurasiatic root *Ḳä[lH]ä with the meanings 'tongue' and ‘speak' are Indo-European *kel- for 'call' and 'shout', Altaic *k`i̯ali, Uralic *kele (kēle), Kartvelian Georgian ḳel- for 'start screaming', Dravidian *kil-, and Eskimo-Aleut *qilaɣa-. Proto-Eskimo *qanǝʁ has the meanings 'mouth' and 'speak'. Related is Proto-Yupik *qanǝʁ(-) and Proto-Inupik *qanǝ-ʁ. Proto-Eskimo *ukǝʁ- and *ukʁǝ- have the meaning 'approaching to speaker'. Proto-Eskimo *uqa- has the meanings 'tongue' and ‘speak'. Proto-Eskimo *qitǝv- has the meaning 'speak a foreign language'. Related is Proto-Yupik *qitǝv-. Eurasiatic *soŕwV has the meaning 'speak'. Related are Indo-European *s(w)er-, Altaic *si̯uŕe, and Chukchee-Kamchatkan *cɨrvɨt. Eurasiatic *sVjwV has the meanings 'speak' and 'shout'. Related are Indo-European *su̯ei, Altaic *sa[jb]o, Uralic *śoje, and Kartvelian *c̣w-. Eurasiatic *ḥVwV has the meaning 'speak'. Related are Indo-European *heu- and Chukchee-Kamchatkan *iv-. Sound is a concept attributed to the Eurasiatic root *jVnV. Eurasiatic *jVnV has the meanings 'speak' and 'sound'. Related are Altaic *i̯ùjŋula, Uralic *äne, and Dravidian *jan-. Eurasiatic *ṭVrV has the meanings 'speak', 'curse', and 'fight'. Related are Indo-European *ter-, Altaic *t`i̯ăru, Uralic *torV, and Dravidian *toṛ-. Another Eurasiatic root, *ʔVpV, has the meanings 'mouth' and 'speak'. Altaic *ip`I, Uralic *apta- ('bark'), and Dravidian *ēv- are related to this root. Eurasiatic *čVwV has the meanings 'say' and 'sound'. Related are Indo-European *stewǝ-, Altaic *č`ā́bu, and Kartvelian *c̣aw-. Proto-Altaic *ĕju (~-o) has the meanings 'speak', 'cry', and 'sound'. Related are Turkic *ạj-ɨt-, Mongolian *aji-, Tungus-Manchu *ejē-, and Korean *òi'ó-. Proto-Altaic *k`ēro has the meanings ‘shout' and 'speak'. Related are Turkic *kạrga-, Mongolian *kara/ija-, Tungus-Manchu *xērī-, and Japanese *kátár-. Proto-Altaic *ǯṓǯe has the meanings ‘quarrel' and 'speak badly'. Related are Turkic *jōj, Mongolian *ǯüǯig, Tungus-Manchu *ǯuǯa-, Korean *čɨ̀čh-, and Japanese *dǝjǝ-. Proto-Altaic *ĕju has the meanings 'speak', 'cry', and 'sound'. Related are Turkic *ạj-ɨt-, Mongolian *aji-, Tungus-Manchu *ejē-, and Korean *òi'ó. Proto-Altaic *k`ēro has the meanings 'shout' and 'speak'. Related are Turkic *Kạrga-, Mongolian *kara/ija-, Tungus-Manchu *xērī-, and Japanese *kátár-. Proto-Turkic *sāb has the meanings 'word' and 'speech'. Related are Old Turkic sab (Orkh.) and sav (OUygh.), Karakhanid sav, Turkish sav, Middle Turkic sav, Turkmen sāv-čɨ 'matchmaker', Oyrat sabɨr (bičig), and Chuvash sъʷvъʷ for 'verse' and 'poem'. Proto-Turkic *söŕ has the meanings 'word' and 'speech'. Related are Old Turkic söz, Karakhanid söz, Turkish söz, Tatar süz, Middle Turkic söz, Uzbek söz, Uighur söz, Sary-Yughur söz, Azerbaidzhan söz, Turkmen söz, Khakassian sös, Shor sös, Oyrat sös, Halaj sez, söz, Yakut ös, Dolgan ös, Tuva sös, Kirghiz söz, Kazakh söz, Noghai söz, Bashkir hüδ, Balkar söz, Gagauz söz, Karaim söz, Karakalpak söz, Salar söz, and Kumyk söz. (The Tower of Babel)

3.3. The Case of the English Meanings of the Semitics roots of the Concept SPEECH

In the Dictionary Entry Lookup Tool of the Perseus Project the main meanings of contemporary Arabic and English are written down. The expressions أَخْطَل بَرْطَم, and خَطِل- َ mean 'talk nonsense'. حَدِيث means 'discussion', 'talk', and 'interview'. The term غَلْبَة means 'victory' and 'idle talk'. هَذْر means 'prattle' and 'idle talk'. The termهِتْر means 'drivel', 'childish talk', and 'falsehood'. هُراء means 'prattle' and 'idle talk'. The term جَهْوَر means 'talk out loud'. كَلام means 'speech', 'statement', 'remark', 'talk', and 'saying'. The term لَتّ means 'prattle' and 'idle talk'. The term مُحادَثَة means 'discussion', 'talk', and 'negotiation'. The term مُباحَثَة means 'discussion', 'talk', and 'negotiation'. The term مُناجاة means 'confidential talk' and 'intimate discourse'. The term نَجْوَى means 'confidential talk' and 'soliloquy.' The term نَقُورَة means 'prattle' and 'idle talk'. قالَة means 'speech' and 'talk'. قَوّال means 'loquacious' and 'talkative'. رَطَن-ُ means 'talk gibberish' and 'speak unintelligibly'. تَكَلَّم means 'speak', 'talk', and 'discuss'. The term ثَرّ-ُِ means 'rain hard' and 'talk a lot'. The term خَطَل means 'prattle' and 'idle talk'. (Perseus Project Dictionary Entry Lookup Tool) The term صَدَق-ُ means 'be sincere', 'tell the truth', and 'be correct'. The term قَصّ-ُ means 'narrate' and 'tell'. The term رَوَى-ِ means 'tell', 'report', 'relate', and 'narrate'. The term تَنادَر means 'tell stories' and 'tell jokes'. (Perseus Project Lookup Tool) The term مَقُول means 'utterance' and 'saying'. The term قائِل means 'saying'. The term رَتَم-ِ means 'utter' and 'say'. (Perseus Project Lookup Tool) Proto-Semitic *ḳVwVl- has the meanings 'voice', 'say', 'speak', 'saying', 'speech', and 'word'. Related are Ugaritic ḳl, Phoenician ḳl, Hebrew ḳōl, Syrian Aramaic ḳāl-, Mandaic Aramaic ḳala, Arabic ḳwl, Epigraphic South Arabian ḳwl for 'speaker', Tigre ḳal, Tigrai (Tigriñña) ḳal, Amharic ḳal, and Gurage ḳal. (The Tower of Babel) In Arabic كلمة is speech. English rhetoric is in modern Arabic الخطابات. Communication in Arabic is إتِّصال. In Arabic مواصل is communication. The term شافه means 'communicate verbally'. The termخبرلإاث means to notify and communicate. The term بلغ is to communicate and convey. The term فضائ is a communication in form of an announcement. The term مراسل is a correspondence as communication. تصال is a contact as form of communication. The term نتقال is used for a transfer as communication. The term موافا is arrival as communication. The term مذياع is used for a transmitter. The term رسال represents a letter, communication, or dissertation. The term اِتِّصال is a reciprocal communication. (Indexed Arabic Newspapers Archive Resource)

3.4. The Case of the English Meanings of the Chinese Roots

for the Realization of the Concept SPEECH in Historical Linguistics

In this part of the study we will discuss the representations of the concept SPEECH in Chinese and Proto-Sino-Caucasian roots. Proto-Sino-Caucasian *h[ć̣]wālōL has the meanings ‘speak' and ‘sound'. Related are North Caucasian *hć̣wālō and Sino-Tibetan *ć(h)er. Proto-Sino-Caucasian *[ṗ]VrV has the meanings ‘speak' and ‘pray'. Related are Sino-Tibetan *p(r)ɨ̄wH, Yenisseian *baŕ-, and Burushaski *bar. Proto-Sino-Caucasian *HarχÚ has the meanings 'speak' and 'shout'. Related are North Caucasian *HarχU, Sino-Tibetan *χʷV, Yenisseian *huxV-, Burushaski *ha-n- and Basque *er̄an. Proto-Sino-Caucasian *VŋV has the meaning 'speak'. Related are Sino-Tibetan *ŋăH and *ŋăk and Yenisseian *b-/*-ŋ- for 'speak'. Proto-Sino-Caucasian *ēmcŪ́ has the meanings 'say' and 'tell'. Related are roots in North Caucasian (*[ī]mcŪ), Sino-Tibetan (*cho), Yenisseian (*ʔas-, *ʔēs-), Burushaski *-́s- and *sen, and Basque (*üse-n). Proto-Sino-Caucasian *HíŁV̆ has the meaning 'say'. Related are North Caucasian *HiŁ_V, Sino-Tibetan *lǝ̆, Yenisseian *ʔV(ʔ)ĺ-, and Burushaski *lte-. Proto-Sino-Caucasian means *h[ć̣]wālōL has the meanings 'speak' and 'sound'. Related are North Caucasian *hć̣wālō and Sino-Tibetan *ć(h)er. Proto-Sino-Caucasian *[ṗ]VrV has the meanings 'speak' and 'pray'. Related are Sino-Tibetan *p(r)ɨ̄wH, Yenisseian *baŕ-, and Burushaski *bar. Proto-Sino-Caucasian *HarẋÚ has the meanings 'speak' and 'shout'. Related are North Caucasian *HarẋU, Sino-Tibetan *ẋʷV, Yenisseian *huxV-, Burushaski *ha-n-, and Basque *er̄an. Proto-Sino-Caucasian *VŋV has the meaning 'speak'. Sino-Tibetan *ŋăH / *ŋăk and Yenisseian *b- / *-ŋ- for 'speak' are related. Proto-Sino-Caucasian *h[ć̣]wālōL has the meanings 'speak' and 'sound'. Related are North Caucasian *hć̣wālō and Sino-Tibetan *ć(h)er . Proto-Sino-Caucasian *[ṗ]VrV has the meaning 'speak' and 'pray'. Related are Sino-Tibetan *p(r)ɨ̄wH, Yenisseian *baŕ, and Burushaski *bar. Proto-Sino-Caucasian *harχÚ has the meanings 'speak' and ‘shout'. Related are North Caucasian *harχU, Sino-Tibetan *χʷV, Yenisseian *huxV-, Burushaski *ha-n-, and Basque *er̄an. Proto-Sino-Caucasian *=VŋV has the meaning 'speak'. Related are Sino-Tibetan *ŋăH and *ŋăk, as well as Yenisseian *b- and *-ŋ- for 'speak'. In Sino-Caucasian etymology Proto-Sino-Caucasian *h[ć̣]wālōL has the meanings ‘speak' and 'sound'. Related are North Caucasian *hć̣wālō and Sino-Tibetan *ć(h)er . Proto-Sino-Caucasian *[ṗ]VrV has the meaning ‘speak' and ‘pray'. Related are Sino-Tibetan *p(r)ɨ̄wH, Yenisseian *baŕ-, and Burushaski *bar. Proto-Sino-Caucasian *harχÚ has the meanings 'speak' and 'shout'. Related are North Caucasian *harχU, Sino-Tibetan *χʷV, Yenisseian *huxV-, Burushaski *ha-n-, and Basque *er̄an. Proto-Sino-Caucasian *VŋV has the meaning 'speak'. Related are Sino-Tibetan *ŋăH and *ŋăk, as well as Yenisseian *b- and *-ŋ- for 'speak'. Proto-Sino-Caucasian *V́xq̇V has the meaning 'word'. Related are North Caucasian WC *q̇́Ia-, Sino-Tibetan *k(h)a, Yenisseian *qäʔ. Proto-Sino-Caucasian *lVhwV has the meaning 'word'. Related are North Caucasian *lĕHwV, Basque *eɫhe, Borean WVKV has the meanings 'say' and 'call'. Proto-Sino-Caucasian *[ṗ]VrV has the meanings 'speak' and 'pray'. Related are Sino-Tibetan *p(r)ɨ̄wH, Yenisseian *baŕ-, Burushaski *bar, Borean PVRV has the meanings 'ask' and 'pray', Related are Eurasiatic *ṗVrXV, Sino-Caucasian *[ṗ]VrV, Proto-Sino-Caucasian *HarχÚ has the meanings 'speak' and 'shout'. Realated are North Caucasian *HarχU, Sino-Tibetan *χʷV, Yenisseian *huxV-, Burushaski *ha-n-, Basque *er̄an, Proto-Sino-Caucasian *VŋV has the meaning 'speak’. Related are Sino-Tibetan *ŋăH and *ŋăk, Yenisseian *b- and/ *-ŋ- 'speak'. Borean HVNV has the meaning 'say'. Related is Sino-Caucasian *VŋV. (The Tower of Babel Project) Proto-Sino-Caucasian *V́xq̇V has the meaning 'word'. Related are North Caucasian WC *q̇́Ia-, Sino-Tibetan *k(h)a, Yenisseian *qäʔG, Proto-Sino-Caucasian *lVhwV has the meaning 'word'. Related are North Caucasian *lĕHwV, Basque *eɫhe, Borean (approx.) WVKV has the meanings 'say' and 'call'. Related are Eurasiatic *wVḳV, the Afro-Asiatic Semitic root *wVkH- 'clamour' and 'boast', Chadic *wVg- 'call', Sino-Caucasian *V́xq̇V, and Amerind (misc.) *koʔe for 'say'. Borean (approx.) MVKV has the meanings 'word' and 'name'. Related are Afro-Asiatic *magaʕ-, Sino-Caucasian NC *maGwV̄ 'word', 'sound', and 'song'. Borean HVNV has the meaning 'say', Related are Sino-Caucasian *VŋV, and Austric PAN *beŋa for 'say' and 'tell'. Proto-Sino-Caucasian *V́xq̇V has the meaning 'word'. Related are North Caucasian WC *q̇́Ia-, Sino-Tibetan *k(h)a, and Yenisseian *qäʔG. Proto-Sino-Caucasian *lVhwV has the meaning 'word'. Related are North Caucasian *lĕHwV and Basque *eɫhe. Borean WVKV has the meanings 'say' and 'call'. Related are Eurasiatic *wVḳV, Afro-Asiatic Semitic *wVkH- 'clamour', 'boast', Chadic *wVg- 'call', Sino-Caucasian *V́xq̇V, and Amerind *koʔe for 'say'. Borean MVKV has the meanings 'word' and 'name'. Related are Afro-Asiatic *magaʕ- and Sino-Caucasian *maGwV̄ for 'word', 'sound', and 'song'. (The Tower of Babel Project)

3.5. The Concept SPEECH as Described by the Borean Language Family

Related to the Borean language family are Eurasiatic, Afro-Asiatic, Sino-Caucasian, Austric, and Amerind roots that form the basic languages for the Borean language family. The etymological roots of language families and the Borean super family are united as the representatives of the concept, in our case the concept SPEECH. The phonetic transcriptions from the project Tower of Babel were here slightly simplified using the Latin alphabet. In a part of the cases described above the hypothetical root has the meaning ‘say', while the roots of the language families have meanings of specific speech activities or meanings of different concepts other that the concept SPEECH. There are cases of the words of the activity of saying, which developed from a former word in an older language representing another concrete activity (SHOW to SAY). Completely stable is the following Borean root WVTV, which has the meaning 'speak'. Related are Eurasiatic *watV and Afro-Asiatic *wat-. Borean KVLV has the meanings 'tongue' and 'speak'. Related are Eurasiatic *Ḳä[lH]ä and Afro-Asiatic *ḳa(wa)l-. Sino-Caucasian *alg[w]Ăn means 'speak'. Now we look at a root with two different meanings: Borean CVWV has the two meanings ‘speak' and ‘shout'. Related is Semitic *c̣wy for 'order' and 'command'. Also the following Borean roots and meanings in related languages show no homogeneity as one concept SPEECH: Borean HVWV means 'speak'. Related are Eurasiatic *ḥVwV, Afro-Asiatic *hay-, Sino-Caucasian *iʔwV, Amerind *yauʔ for 'mouth' and 'say' and *ya for 'name'. Semitic *hwy means 'speak'. Borean HVPV has the meaning 'mouth' and 'speak'. Related are Eurasiatic *ʔVpV and Afro-Asiatic *ʔap-. Austric *bVʔ means 'mouth' and Amerind *pai means 'call'. Obviously to the Borean (hypothetical) root JVNV belong the Euroasiatic roots with the meaning 'say' and the Sino-Caucasian and Amerind *wuni for 'cry'. Borean JVNV (WVNV) has the meanings 'speak', 'say', and 'sound'. Eurasiatic *jVnV and Afro-Asiatic *yVn- have the meaning 'say'. Related are Sino-Caucasian *ʔwēnɨ and Amerind *wuni 'cry'. Borean HVLV has the meanings 'say' and 'speak'. Related are Sino-Caucasian *HíŁV̆ and Austric *lVw. Borean MVHRV has the meanings 'speak' and 'sound'. Related are Eurasiatic *muɣrV, Afro-Asiatic Semitic *ʔmr and *ʕmr, and Sino-Caucasian *mVrHV. Borean WVKV has the meanings 'say' and 'call'. Related are Eurasiatic *wVḳV, Afro-Asiatic Semitic *wVkH for 'clamour' and 'boast', and Sino-Caucasian *=V́xq̇V, and Amerind *koʔe with the meaning 'say'. Borean JVNV (WVNV) has the meanings 'speak', 'say', and 'sound'. Related are Eurasiatic *jVnV, Afro-Asiatic *yVn- 'say' and Sino-Caucasian *ʔwēnɨ and Amerind *wuni for 'cry'. Borean HVNV has the meaning 'say'. Related are Sino-Caucasian *=VŋV, Austric *beŋa for 'say' and 'tell'. Borean CVWV has the meanings 'say' and 'sound'. Related are Eurasiatic *čVwV and Afro-Asiatic *cVway/H-. Borean MVLV has the meanings 'say' and 'pray'. Related are Eurasiatic *mVlV, Afro-Asiatic *mVl- with the meaning 'think' in the Cushitic and Semitic languages, and Amerind *mali for 'talk'. Borean TVHV has the meaning 'say'. Related are Eurasiatic *tVHV, Afro-Asiatic *taʔ-, and Amerind *ti for 'say'. Borean HVLV has the meaning 'say' and 'speak'. Related language families are the Sino-Caucasian with the root *HíŁV̆ and Austric with *lVw. Eurasiatic *tVHV has the meaning 'say'. Related are Indo-European *dē-, Altaic *tḗ, Kartvelian *txow-, and Dravidian *tev- for 'beg'. (Tower of Babel)

Among the roots of the Borean language group we find etymologically related, but semiotically and semantically different roots of languages. We let the question unanswered if we have here a ‘genetic’ path of the development of meanings for concepts like SPEECH with the etymology of the words referring to the concept in different languages. But with the example of the concept SPEECH spreading within language contacts beyond the traditional language families we can show that the semantic / semiotic development of the concept SPEECH developed in close relationship to other meanings from different concept. Approaching the history of language from a perspective of language contact studies enables us to show new relationships between languages beyond the traditional language families.

4. Works Cited

Barthes, Roland. Elements of Semiology. Marxist Philosophy Archive. August 23, 2011.

<http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/barthes.htm>.

Chomsky, Noam. Language and Mind. Linguistic Contributions to the Study of Mind (Future). Marxist Philosophy Archive. August 23, 2011.

<http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/chomsky.htm>.

Connor, Ulla. “Contrastive Rhetoric: Development and Challenges”. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia: International Review of English Studies 1998: 105-122.

Connor, Ulla. Contrastive Rhetoric: Cross-cultural Aspects of Second-language Writing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Connor, Ulla. ”Intercultural Rhetoric Research: Beyond Texts”. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 3 (2004): 291-304.

“Contrastive Rhetoric: Reaching to Intercultural Rhetoric”. Ed. Ulla Connor, Ed Nagelhout, William Rozycki, and Will Baker. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 18.3 (2008): 299-316.

Connor, Ulla. Contrastive Rhetoric: Cross-cultural Aspects of Second-language Writing. Stuttgart: Klett, 2002.

Derrida, Jacques. Of Grammatology. Marxist Philosophy Archive. August 23, 2011.

<http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/derrida.htm>.

Gasparov, Boris. Speech, Memory, and Meaning. Intertextuality in Everyday Language. Berlin: DeGruyter, 2010.

Haase, Fee-Alexandra. "Where Does Speech Come From? A Historical Linguistic Answer." In: Trames. Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences 15.4 (2011/2012).

<http://www.kirj.ee/trames/>

Indexed Arabic Newspapers Archive Resource. New Mexico State University. January 5, 2011.

<Http://crl.nmsu.edu/~ahmed/test/news/index1.html>.

Kennedy, George Alexander. Comparative Rhetoric: An Historical and Crosscultural Introduction. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1998.

Kubota, Ryuko; Lehner, Al. “Toward Critical Contrastive Rhetoric”. Journal of Second Language Writing 13.1 (2004): 7-27.

Linell, Per. The Written Language Bias in Linguistics. Language and Linguistics E-Server. December 23, 2011.

<http://langs.eserver.org/linell/chapter11.html>.

Lynea, John R. “Speech Acts in a Semiotic Frame.” Communication Quarterly 29.3 (1981): 202-208.

DOI:10.1080/01463378109369406

Perseus Project Lookup Tool. Perseus Project. Tufts University. April 23, 2011.

<http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/>.

Sapir, Edward. Language. An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1921. Bartleby.com. June 23, 2011.

<http://www.bartleby.com/186/>.

Schröder, Ulrike. “Speech Styles and Functions of Speech from a Cross-cultural Perspective”. Journal of Pragmatics 42.2 (2010): 466-476.

DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.06.014

The Tower of Babel. Evolution of Human Language Project. Starling Database Project. Initiated by Sergej Starostin. Starling. January 25, 2012.

<http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/main.cgi>.

Thompson, Roger M. “Speech Functions for Sociolinguistics”. University of Florida. June 24, 2011.

<http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/rthompso/speechfunctions.html>.

Yunxia, Zhu. “Revisiting Relevant Approaches for the Study of Language and Intercultural Communication.” Intercultural Communication 6 (2003-2004). October 23, 2011.

<http://www.immi.se/intercultural/nr6/zhu.htm>.

Sincronía Fall 2011