Alternative model presuppositions An alternative model of communication

222 5. Developing an Alternative creates a state of constant variation—often subtle, but nevertheless constant. The result of this constant variation is the continued evolution of individual history of use collages, so that no two collages ever match exactly. Accordingly, the patterns of use within the communicative network are always in a subtle state of imbalance and change. In applying the model, it is important to slightly differentiate monologue and dialogue. For ease of discussion, figure 5.2 characterizes a monologic situation. In representing dialogue, however, the model may be slightly recast, as is presented in figure 5.3 . In this representation, the intention is to emphasize dialogue as a corporately produced artifact. In dialogue interlocutors jointly contribute to creation of a dialogic artifact. The dialogue itself is an artifact, rather than dialogue being composed simply of sequential monologic events. Figure 5.3. The alternative model of communication, as applied to dialogue

5.4.2. Alternative model presuppositions

As a means of discussing the distinctive qualities of this alternative model as related to the code model, it is helpful to first recap the axioms of code model linguistics. The alternative then can be more easily contrasted with the code model. As discussed in section 3.4 , these axioms are: • Natural languages are codes defining the correspondence between sound and meaning. • Languages i.e., codes are systematic, distinctive, and have an existence independent of any given speaker or hearer. • Speaker and hearer must share a code in order for successful communication to proceed. • The text conveys meaning. • The speakerauthor of the text encoded a message when he produced the text. • Those receiving the text decode the message when they hearread the text. • Communication is successful when the message received is the same as that sent. 5. Developing an Alternative 223 • Communication may be inhibited by noise. • The speaker and hearer are connected via the channel of communication. • Communication requires intention by the speaker and response by the hearer. • The linguists’ problem lies primarily in defining the code and secondarily in defining the processes of transmission and reception. Following the order of the axioms as presented, the discussion presents alternative assumptions in response. Each code model premise is provided as a heading for its alternative-perspective counterpart. • Natural languages are codes defining the correspondence between sound and meaning. In the alternative model, there is no objective correspondence between sound and meaning as expressed in the traditional code model sense. Rather than having meaning, words and structures have a history of use. 107 The history of use collage catalogues historic uses of various patterns, organizing them into various prototypes. Since no two interlocutors’ collages or prototype assemblies will be identical, and since history of use is constantly evolving, the relationship between usage and structure cannot be accurately considered a code. • Languages i.e., codes are systematic, distinctive, and have an existence independent of any given speaker or hearer. As radical as it may at first sound, under the alternative model, it would be argued that languages, per se, do not exist see Harris 1990 :49–50. 108 Similarly, dialects do not exist. Patterned usage is all there is. The individual language users maintain respective history of use collages. The collages maintained by individuals in a communicative network may be very similar, but never identical. Furthermore, they are embodied in the user and cannot logically be described as existing independently of the user. The artifacts produced by those users exist independently of the respective histories of use, but the histories of use cannot be disembodied. All speakers have the ability to employ different patterns of usage in different socio-temporal contexts in order to adjust their usage to accommodate, or exclude as the case may be, communicative partners. Hearers may more easily match concepts to their collage when the artifacts observed are created by speakers with similar collages. The linguist may speak of “language x” and the “rules of language 107 Harris 1990 :49 similarly dispenses with the traditional concept of meaning, suggesting instead the term communi- cational function, stating: “… the communicational function of a sign is always contextually determined and derives from the network of integrational relations which obtain in a particular situation.” 108 See Harris 1980 :29f. for a discussion of the historical development of the notion of “a language.” Harris opens that discussion with the statement: “Unequivocal insistence on the priority of the concept of ‘a language’ over that of ‘language’ is first found in the work of Saussure, although the point has perhaps been obscured for his English readers by the vagaries of translators” Harris 1980 :29. 224 5. Developing an Alternative x,” but only with the understanding that this expression refers to an academic abstraction created by the linguist in order to facilitate discussion. 109 In the alternative model, no speaker has ever learned a language. Speakers simply assemble collages of usage patterns, and these collages are in a constant state of evolution. • Speaker and hearer must share a code in order for successful communication to proceed. In the alternative view, speaker and hearer only need to be normal, healthy humans in order for successful communication to proceed. Kenneth L. Pike has demonstrated this fact for years with his monolingual demonstration exercise see Makkai 1993 :165–168; Pike 1979 . 110 Expressed in traditional terminology, the alternative model would insist that cross- linguistic communication occurs any time any two people communicate. This is so between two people who are speaking the same “language” as much as between two people who speak different “languages.” Distinctions are only a matter of degree. 109 In the alternative account, the notion of patterned usage attempts to cover much of the same area previously covered by the notion of rules. In the alternative account, however, usage is acknowledged as being variable, without strict regard for what may or may not be considered “grammatical” by any particular speaker. It is a fact that supposedly ungrammatical usage is produced every day by nearly every speaker. Correspondingly, that supposedly ungrammat- ical usage is generally understood by hearers. The code model of communication simply cannot account for these facts. Part of the problem here is the notion that a grammar accounts for some consistent, underlying set of rules held by the language community. The historical and contemporary influence of prescriptive grammarians has undoubtedly influenced this view. Joseph Epstein recounts an interesting episode which helps to distinguish the problem of usage and comprehension from that of prescription and expectations. Epstein gives his students—would-be novelists, essayists, and poets—the following two sentences that between them contain five errors: “Hopefully, the professor will not be altogether disinterested in the work on which I am presently engaged, which I believe is rather unique. But then everyone has their hopes.” He recounts that his students have a tough time finding the errors. Many find several errors that aren’t there. Others identify errors, but cannot explain why they are errors. Concerning the conclusion to the exercise, Epstein writes: After putting the students through this little torture, the first effect of which seems to be to discourage them about their own high valuation of themselves as users of the English language, I ask what difference any of it makes. The problem, certainly, isn’t one of clarity, for the meaning of the two sentences, even with their five errors, is perfectly clear. The problem, I assert, is that of offending the educated—of looking a fool in the eyes of those who know better. Epstein 1997 :30 110 Pike 1979 is a film documentary of Kenneth L. Pike lecturing on the monolingual elicitation exercise and giving a demonstration of the same. Makkai 1993 :165–168 provides a concise but detailed written description of the exer- cise. Briefly described, the monolingual exercise involves Pike or a trained linguist meeting with an informant with whom he is unacquainted, and with whom he shares no language and about whose language he knows nothing, not even what it is called. Beginning with only gestures and a few props stones, leaves of various size, twigs, and so forth, Pike begins to elicit data from the informant. When he has elicited a few words and simple clause and sentence patterns, he then begins to use the language just elicited as a research language. By the end of the half-hour exercise, Pike is able to carry on simple conversation with the informant using the words and patterns just learned. Pike calls the demonstration a monolingual exercise because the entire procedure is conducted monolingually. That is, Pike does not speak any language other than that of the speaker during the entire process. 5. Developing an Alternative 225 • The text conveys meaning. In contrast, under the alternative model, it would be argued that texts, whether oral or written, do not convey meaning. The notion of conveying meaning suggests that the text somehow contains or carries meaning. While understood as being metaphorical, the metaphor is considered counterproductive and therefore best avoided during technical discussions. Text cannot convey meaning. Rather, texts are created with intention in mind. As such, the text may be used in a “meaningful” way. However, one must be very careful in employing the term “meaning.” In the alternative view, words dark marks, sound waves are artifacts. They are used with intention, but are not objectively attached to semantic meaning. In the alternative view, the notion of meaning is supplanted by the idea of history of use. • The speakerauthor of the text encoded a message when he produced the text. In the alternative view, it would be argued that the speaker did not encode anything. He created an artifact. The text is not an encoding of the author’s thoughts. The idea of a code suggests a one-to-one correspondence between concept and signal. Sometimes humans do think in what may be called words, but thought also includes images, shapes, emotions, and so forth. Humans can experience these things, assemble them, rearrange them, and mentally create them. Furthermore, humans can discuss these things, even though it is impossible to match the concepts to words. Rather than encoding thoughts, the author interprets his own thoughts and creates an artifact in response to that interpretation. The text he creates is a response to his inter- pretation. The term “response” is intentionally contrasted to the idea of correspondence, such as the code-model promotes. “Correspondence” and “code” imply a one-to-one relationship. In the alternative view, “language” is not thought to involve a fixed that is, one-to-one or unchanging relationship of “meaning” and sound. In contrast to the code model, the alternative model suggests that all communicative media are employed in a similar manner. While media are distinguished for practical exploration and discussion, in theory at least, the model would not assume an a priori segregation of grammar from pragmatics, discourse, or kinesics or for that matter, “language” from art, music, or other media of expression. Whereas code-model linguistics attempts to demarcate various forms of media as distinct aspects or forms of communication, the alternative model recognizes the unified, “symphonic” effect of such “media.” Within the creation and interpretation of any particular artifact, they are viewed as unified and interdependent. 111 111 While such a broad concept of communication may exceed the interests of linguists, a model of communication, if it is to approach adequacy, should be able to account for the breadth of human communicative experience. 226 5. Developing an Alternative • Those receiving the text decode the message when they hearread the text. In the alternative view, it would be argued that the hearer interprets the artifact and assembles a concept. He does not decode a message. The assembly of the concept is progressive. By ‘progressive’, it is meant that the concept is modified and developed as new interpretation comes in. If at some point the interlocutor considers the developed concept to be incompatible with the newly incoming interpretation, then either the concept or the interpretation must be modified, or the artifact abandoned. Such progressive development is possible because of hermeneutic helices. Note, however, that the hearer’s helix does not connect the hearer to the speaker; the helix only addresses the artifact. • Communication is successful when the message received is the same as that sent. In the alternative view, the “message” received is never the same as that “sent.” Communication is considered successful when the respective interlocutors are satisfied with their conceptions. If they have not reached satisfaction, then they may negotiate by modifying the artifact on the possibility that the newly shaped artifact will more readily match recognized history of use patterns. If satisfaction is not attained in what one or the other considers a reasonable span of time, the communicative effort may be discontinued. If the interlocutors are determined, however, then they may continue adjusting and modifying the artifact, in effect creating multiple, related artifacts indefinitely. In so doing, they may find that their history of use collage is adjusted by the collective exposure to the new patterns, giving way to new understanding. • Communication may be inhibited by noise. In the code model view, it is generally presumed that noise may be eliminated or factored out, thereby yielding a pure transmission. In the alternative view, what has been called ‘noise’ is not isolated, for noise is a part of context and it is impossible to isolate intentional elements of the artifact from its context. Rather, intention and context are combined within a broad notion of artifact. The artifact does not exist as pure creation or abstraction, but rather, as an alteration of an already existent environment. As such, it cannot be isolated from that environment. The pattern of sound waves that impact the ear drum are not isolated in space into categories of ‘signal’ and ‘noise’ prior to their contact with that organ. Accordingly, it would be inappropriate to isolate them so in the model. This is not to deny the existence of “the cocktail party phenomenon,” but rather to accept noise as an essential part of every communicative event. 112 112 Crystal defines the cocktail party phenomenon as follows: “An everyday effect studied scientifically in PSYCHO - LINGUISTICS as part of a theory of SPEECH PERCEPTION . It refers to the process of SELECTIVE LISTENING , whereby people listening to several conversations at once are able to attend consciously to one of them, and to ignore the others” Crystal 2003 :78. 5. Developing an Alternative 227 • The speaker and hearer are connected via the channel of communication. In the alternative view, the speaker and hearer are not connected in any manner what- soever. Their efforts at communication place them in a communicative network, but that is a social network, not a “linkage” or “connection.” While such terms are understood to be metaphorical, they have too readily been applied as literal. It is important to under- stand that the speaker creates an artifact, which then exists autonomously. Similarly, the hearer only has access to the artifact, and not to the speaker. It should be clear that this sense of “access” is in reference to the speaker’s or hearer’s mental processes, and not to the physical body. • Communication requires intention by the speaker and response by the hearer. In the alternative view, humans are constantly shaping their environment. In the process, they create artifacts. At times the artifacts are created with a high degree of purpose in mind, and at other times less so. And yet they are created none the less. Either way, the hearer is left to decide what shall be done with the artifact so created. He may become conscious of its existence and respond to it; he may choose to ignore it; he may miss it entirely. The hearer can only infer as to what is intentional and what is not. He may accept and interpret as communicative various artifacts that the speakerauthor never intended to be so. • The linguists’ problem lies primarily in defining the code and secondarily in defining the processes of transmission and reception. In the alternative view, there is no suggestion that linguistic inquiry should be limited to particular elements within the communication process. Communication is understood to be a complex phenomenon, and any and all aspects of that phenomenon are open to investigation. In this view, it is expected that linguists will investigate areas which were relatively neglected under the code model approach, such as the concerns typically covered under semantics and pragmatics, but it is also expected that linguists will continue to be interested in matters of syntactic structure and grammar, phonology, and phonetics. The alternative view does not change the nature of language and communi- cation; it simply suggests an integrated approach to their study. It is entirely expected that various methods and theories devised under the code model view might be “grafted” onto an alternative view approach, provided the metatheoretical concepts of those methods and theories could be “adjusted” accordingly. It is important to understand that the alternative view is not an objectivist view. It is, rather, a processual view. That is, it views both language and communication as process- es. It is also important to understand that the alternative view is incompatible with the synchronic enterprise as developed by Saussure. This is not to suggest that the alternative view is a diachronic approach; rather, it is to insist that synchronic linguistics was 228 5. Developing an Alternative developed under the pressure of a false dilemma see Harris 1990 :47. 113 By abandoning the synchronic approach, the discipline of linguistics may liberate itself from anomalies created and supported by the Saussurean paradigm.

5.5. “But that’s not linguistics”