“The way a society senses is the way it understand” (Classen, 1993)
This week end, I was reading an article from GEO France (1994), about the Aboriginal Line Songs entitled 'Australie, Au coeur de la démesure'. I took some interest in the subject, because as Paul came back from a trip from Groote Island in an Aboriginal community to do some IT/environmental research, he told me something singular:
'You know, the aboriginal people there do not think at all like we do. All they are concerned about is Death and Line Songs'
I asked him what line songs were, and he explained they were songs which would take the soul of a dead person back to the land of its ancestors. These songs would describe a mythological path, and these songs were sacred. Only your mob or family would know about them, so it was important these people would be around you when you die as they would sing the songs. He was not 100% sure he had fully understood because the communication had been through a facilitator (that is how they call interpreters there, probably because of the huge part that the cultural translation takes in the translation process).
I was intrigued.
Now months later, as I come across this article written in French in Geo, I find something very interesting about the Line Songs.
It says that the Lizard Song for example, can travel 1000 kilometres from Port Augusta to Kaitij country, being sung in different aboriginal languages, but still, this song would give a clear message to all about a path or map (= how to go from A to B).
How can that be if the song is sung in a different language from the original song?
How?
Well, well, that is what is fascinating: through its melodic structure !!!!!!
Some phrases, some musical combinations describe the movement of an ancestor's feet. One musical phrase could refer to a salt lake, a riverbed, spinefex, dune, cliff, etc... An experimented singer could make your hear and COUNT the number of rivers the hero had to cross, the number of mountains he had to climb, and he could tell where this ancestor was. He could tell: it is in Middle Bore or it is in Oodnadatta that the ancestor accomplished such and such deed.
The music was a databank for cartographic reference points. The land is sung to find your way, or to understand someone's path.
Well, this, to me, is interesting because, maybe, this means that in order to cross the different languages spoken to very numerous tribes across 1000 kms, an adaptation took place for something very important that required big efforts (finding your ancestors' path): they used musical patterns to transcend word.
In other words, it is the musical pattern, not the words which convey the message across languages.
How grand!
This leads me to the etymologist of the word KNOW.
Some serious people have tried to understand where the word 'Know' comes from, and they found out that there was a strong evidence it was coming from 'See' through various bridging processes in many common Indo-European languages
BUT
an Australian Study by Nicolas Evans, a Melbourne Pr of Linguistics working on Australian languages & David Wilkins from the Institute of Psycho-linguistics published in the Journal Languages, 76:3 546-592, in 2000 a paper entitled: In the Mind's Ear that disputes this assumption. They claim that the word 'KNOW' comes from 'LISTEN' in Australian Aboriginal languages.
So now, I may understand better the link. In many aboriginal languages, you know because you are sung, or told a path. Your knowledge is linked to listening.
In 2006, I was studying Sociolinguistics at the University of Qld and I chose to present that paper in a tutorial.
Here is a summary of what they say for anyone who might be interested in Linguistics -
In the Mind’s Ear: Pr Nicholas Evans & David Wilkins in Languages (2000)
Subject:
They both endeavoured to test the concept of universality about the patterns of sensory verbs like hear, smell,.. and their extension into the domain of cognition.
Patterns of polysemy* (*words with common denominator but different meaning like bank as a financial institution and bank as you can bank on me, a polysemic pattern which commonality is security) and semantic extension* (*extension of word meaning like Maverick: an unbranded cow, extending in Maverick: a person who does not conform to conventions) have been studied by various academic fields of research like Typology, Cognitive linguistics, and Anthropology.
This paper is testing the validity of earlier studies findings and looks at universal constraints of sensory verbs and their influence in the conceptualization process of knowledge.
I will only concentrate here on two sensory verbs 'hearing' vs 'seeing' and their extension into 'know'.
Cognitive linguistic approach:
Sweester claims that vision has primacy as the source of semantic shifts towards high cognition verbs like ‘know’. This stems out of cognitive linguistic studies universalizing proposals about the primacy of vision as the sense mostly used for metaphors of knowledge and thoughts.
Sweetser Cognitive linguistic approach: “The objective, intellectual side of our mental life seems to be regularly linked with the sense of vision, although other senses…occasionally take on intellectual meanings as well. There are major similarities in our general linguistic treatment of vision and intellection (Sweetser 1900:37)
For her, vision mostly is used for metaphors of knowledge and thoughts patterns. She is looking at the neurological “treatment” of information but her study is limited to Indo-European languages. It seems therefore pertinent to test the findings against an Australian perspective (deep cultural variation).
Anthropology
NEW FINDINGS
The Australian study findings refute Sweetser’s: the relation between cognition and perception is more relativistic than previously thought. More particularly, “see” is not the universal preferred source for metaphorical extension to ‘think’ and ‘know’.
The Australian study is taking a different perspective and is studying a different sample of population. The methodology involved (1) checking the etymology of ‘see’ and hear’ (2) looking at “bridging contexts” (3) Checking that the two concepts are understood separately (4) Cross checking: semantic extensions of body parts
The difference of mapping of “see” and “hear” onto “know” is reflected in different etymologies between the two families.
Etymological development of the perception verb “See”
Greek: eidon (see), perf. oida (know) - Eng. idea
Dutch: weten (know), German: wissen (know)
Russia videt (see)
English: wise, wit
Latin: video (see), Italian: vedere (see)
Irish: fios (knowledge)
In Indo-european languages weid- ‘see’ extends to meanings associated with knowledge (‘know’) in Greek, Dutch, German and Irish.
In Australian languages, NHaa- ‘see’ extends to ‘find’ rather than ‘know’ except for one language (Kaurna in extremeSouth Australia
Yidiny: nyaki (look at, see)
Guugu Yimithirr: nhaamaa (see), look, hear, THINK
Gugu Yalantji: nyajil (perceive, hear, see)
Warlpiri: nyangu (see, watch, perceive, determine, find out
Warumungu: nya (to see, loook at, look for, search for'
Kaurna: Nakkondi (to see, look); to KNOW
etc.
Etymology of the perception verb “Hear”
In Indo-european languages, k^leu- ‘Hear’ never develops into ‘know’ or ‘think’ meanings, but it can develop into ‘obey’ (Danish) or ‘attend to’ (Swedish’). In Australian languages, pina ‘ear’ it clearly develops into “think’ and ‘know’ (high cognition verbs).
This etymological approach suggests that different patterns in polysemy and etymology would reflect differences in cultures. Also these findings are representative of a larger Australia-wide study.
Looking at “bridging contexts” : Why does ‘hearing’ rather than “seeing’ give rise to cognitive verbs in Australian languages?
A bridging context is conductive to some pragmatic extensions, should the bridging context occur with sufficient frequency. Example: ‘knowing’ a place and its location means having ‘heard’ the relevant songs and stories for that place.
We go from ‘hear the name of the place’ to ‘hear the place’. This is called a metonymy. These bridging contexts need to be reconstructed in focusing on text and context in order to understand what happened.
The purpose of the approach is to seek whether the main driver of semantic shift is culture-specific or universal or both. We need to look at the bridging contexts and what cultural specific/environmental influences may operate there. Cultural factors from ethnographic data have been identified in this paper:
The research study also verified that we are effectively dealing with a clear distinction between perceptual and cognitive senses in the Australian languages. We have to construct special sentences which clearly show that the concepts are distinct:
Ka tjaka lirungku nguurpa kulira ngunti kulilpai tjulpu kulunypa wangka-nya-ngka palku
= Typical snake snoring hear wrongly think bird young talk mistake
= Translation: 'And as one might expect, the snake, hearing the snoring, wrongly thought it was baby birds making sounds.'
This is an extract of Pitjantjatjara language and we are looking at the polysemy of kuluni meaning ‘listening’ and ‘thinking’. In this example, kuluni is used in the same sentence to express two distinct meanings (one with an auditory/hearing and one with a cognitive sense/thought).
The Australian study shows that the meanings of ‘hear’ are well conceptualised and separate from ‘think’.
Cross checking: semantic extensions of body parts
The study also looked at the social, cognitive, and emotional extension of body parts like ‘ear’ and ‘eye’ into cognitive experiences. There again, the findings show that ‘eye’ is taken as a faculty of vision, whereas ‘ear’ is both ‘hearing’ and ‘understanding’ and this is widespread in Australian languages.
Conclusion
Australia-wide, the ear is the organ of intellection as well as hearing. Although we may attribute this occurrence to verbal recollection (as opposed to read/visualised recollection), the extensions apply to all sorts of mental constructions like remembering or knowing faces, etc..
‘Hearing’ is the only perception verb that maps into ‘know’ (often once the verb has already extended to ‘understand’), thus presenting a very different scenario from Indo-European. Adding a new perspective to Sweetser Study by enlarging the study sample with a very different cultural group revealed a different pattern of semantic extension between cultures. This highlighted a cultural relativist position for the extension of sensory verbs into the cognitive domain.
‘See’ does not extend to ‘know’ in Australian languages but it might extend to ‘recognize’, which represents a deduction based on visual evidence. Only 2 Australian languages have ‘see’ develops into ‘know’ (Ngalakan & Kaurna languages) ‘See’ occasionally maps into cognition but rarely loses its roots in visual perception (‘see’ mapping into ‘recognise’).
There is a case of ‘smell’ developing into ‘to detect, to sense (something)” (Nunggubuyu Language) or “to recognize, know’ (Wemba-Wemba) with later extension to ‘know’, but only in very few languages ‘smell’ has extensions.
Hierarchy of perception verbs with respect to how commonly they shift into cognition: Hear , then See, then Smell
In the Mind’s Ear: Pr Nicholas Evans & David Wilkins in Languages (2000)
Subject:
They both endeavoured to test the concept of universality about the patterns of sensory verbs like hear, smell,.. and their extension into the domain of cognition.
Patterns of polysemy* (*words with common denominator but different meaning like bank as a financial institution and bank as you can bank on me, a polysemic pattern which commonality is security) and semantic extension* (*extension of word meaning like Maverick: an unbranded cow, extending in Maverick: a person who does not conform to conventions) have been studied by various academic fields of research like Typology, Cognitive linguistics, and Anthropology.
This paper is testing the validity of earlier studies findings and looks at universal constraints of sensory verbs and their influence in the conceptualization process of knowledge.
I will only concentrate here on two sensory verbs 'hearing' vs 'seeing' and their extension into 'know'.
EARLIER FINDINGS
Cognitive linguistic approach:
Sweetser theory (1990) proposes that cognition verbs like “knowing’ ‘thinking’ (high intellection verbs) are metaphorical extensions of perception verbs like “seeing’ and ‘hearing” with vision (“see” ) as a universal primary modality of recruitment.
Sweester claims that vision has primacy as the source of semantic shifts towards high cognition verbs like ‘know’. This stems out of cognitive linguistic studies universalizing proposals about the primacy of vision as the sense mostly used for metaphors of knowledge and thoughts.
Sweetser Cognitive linguistic approach: “The objective, intellectual side of our mental life seems to be regularly linked with the sense of vision, although other senses…occasionally take on intellectual meanings as well. There are major similarities in our general linguistic treatment of vision and intellection (Sweetser 1900:37)
For her, vision mostly is used for metaphors of knowledge and thoughts patterns. She is looking at the neurological “treatment” of information but her study is limited to Indo-European languages. It seems therefore pertinent to test the findings against an Australian perspective (deep cultural variation).
Anthropology
Ong’s (1967)
“It has been a commonplace that ancient Hebrews tended to think of understanding as a kind of hearing, whereas the Greeks thought of it more as a kind of seeing, although far less exclusively as seeing than post-Cartesian Western man generally has tended to.
Mayer (1982)
“In Papua New Guinea
Based on ethnographic fieldwork, Gell (1995) argues that the environment influences the “shaping, the ordering, and symbolic mapping of perceptions”.
They claim that we perceive, value, and symbolize our senses differently between cultures. Furthermore, we link differently specific sensory modalities (like hear smell) to specific cognitive states. This suggests no universality.
NEW FINDINGS
The Australian study findings refute Sweetser’s: the relation between cognition and perception is more relativistic than previously thought. More particularly, “see” is not the universal preferred source for metaphorical extension to ‘think’ and ‘know’.
The Australian study is taking a different perspective and is studying a different sample of population. The methodology involved (1) checking the etymology of ‘see’ and hear’ (2) looking at “bridging contexts” (3) Checking that the two concepts are understood separately (4) Cross checking: semantic extensions of body parts
Checking the etymology:
We need to look at the semantic changes, more particularly at polysemic extensions. The difference of mapping of “see” and “hear” onto “know” is reflected in different etymologies between the two families.
Etymological development of the perception verb “See”
Greek: eidon (see), perf. oida (know) - Eng. idea
Dutch: weten (know), German: wissen (know)
Russia videt (see)
English: wise, wit
Latin: video (see), Italian: vedere (see)
Irish: fios (knowledge)
In Indo-european languages weid- ‘see’ extends to meanings associated with knowledge (‘know’) in Greek, Dutch, German and Irish.
In Australian languages, NHaa- ‘see’ extends to ‘find’ rather than ‘know’ except for one language (Kaurna in extreme
Yidiny: nyaki (look at, see)
Guugu Yimithirr: nhaamaa (see), look, hear, THINK
Gugu Yalantji: nyajil (perceive, hear, see)
Warlpiri: nyangu (see, watch, perceive, determine, find out
Warumungu: nya (to see, loook at, look for, search for'
Kaurna: Nakkondi (to see, look); to KNOW
etc.
Etymology of the perception verb “Hear”
In Indo-european languages, k^leu- ‘Hear’ never develops into ‘know’ or ‘think’ meanings, but it can develop into ‘obey’ (Danish) or ‘attend to’ (Swedish’). In Australian languages, pina ‘ear’ it clearly develops into “think’ and ‘know’ (high cognition verbs).
This etymological approach suggests that different patterns in polysemy and etymology would reflect differences in cultures. Also these findings are representative of a larger Australia-wide study.
Looking at “bridging contexts” : Why does ‘hearing’ rather than “seeing’ give rise to cognitive verbs in Australian languages?
A bridging context is conductive to some pragmatic extensions, should the bridging context occur with sufficient frequency. Example: ‘knowing’ a place and its location means having ‘heard’ the relevant songs and stories for that place.
We go from ‘hear the name of the place’ to ‘hear the place’. This is called a metonymy. These bridging contexts need to be reconstructed in focusing on text and context in order to understand what happened.
The purpose of the approach is to seek whether the main driver of semantic shift is culture-specific or universal or both. We need to look at the bridging contexts and what cultural specific/environmental influences may operate there. Cultural factors from ethnographic data have been identified in this paper:
- Hearing as a channel of inwardly-directed attention in Aboriginal communities as opposed to vision in Indo-european communities. In aboriginal communities, there is no built-in environment to protect privacy, so the privacy is preserved through a sophisticated system of selective attention at any given time.
- Different context of conversation setting: eye contact and gaze patterns that follow European norms are offensive in aboriginal communities, which means that extensions of ‘see’ and ‘look’ could be favored towards other channels of extension: social interaction rather than cognition and intellection at large.
- Aboriginal ‘hear’ people who are not present and Indo-European ‘see’ them (mental vision).
- Knowledge and memory reported as a source of hearing. Knowledge of country (land) is a feature of intelligence and wisdom in Aboriginal communities, as opposed to any information that one might gather by sight. The knowledge of the land is accumulated by ‘hearing’ names, dreamtime stories, songs, history…and sometimes only spoken about in aural terms.
Checking that the two concepts are understood separately
The research study also verified that we are effectively dealing with a clear distinction between perceptual and cognitive senses in the Australian languages. We have to construct special sentences which clearly show that the concepts are distinct:
Ka tjaka lirungku nguurpa kulira ngunti kulilpai tjulpu kulunypa wangka-nya-ngka palku
= Typical snake snoring hear wrongly think bird young talk mistake
= Translation: 'And as one might expect, the snake, hearing the snoring, wrongly thought it was baby birds making sounds.'
This is an extract of Pitjantjatjara language and we are looking at the polysemy of kuluni meaning ‘listening’ and ‘thinking’. In this example, kuluni is used in the same sentence to express two distinct meanings (one with an auditory/hearing and one with a cognitive sense/thought).
The Australian study shows that the meanings of ‘hear’ are well conceptualised and separate from ‘think’.
Cross checking: semantic extensions of body parts
The study also looked at the social, cognitive, and emotional extension of body parts like ‘ear’ and ‘eye’ into cognitive experiences. There again, the findings show that ‘eye’ is taken as a faculty of vision, whereas ‘ear’ is both ‘hearing’ and ‘understanding’ and this is widespread in Australian languages.
Conclusion
Australia-wide, the ear is the organ of intellection as well as hearing. Although we may attribute this occurrence to verbal recollection (as opposed to read/visualised recollection), the extensions apply to all sorts of mental constructions like remembering or knowing faces, etc..
‘Hearing’ is the only perception verb that maps into ‘know’ (often once the verb has already extended to ‘understand’), thus presenting a very different scenario from Indo-European. Adding a new perspective to Sweetser Study by enlarging the study sample with a very different cultural group revealed a different pattern of semantic extension between cultures. This highlighted a cultural relativist position for the extension of sensory verbs into the cognitive domain.
‘See’ does not extend to ‘know’ in Australian languages but it might extend to ‘recognize’, which represents a deduction based on visual evidence. Only 2 Australian languages have ‘see’ develops into ‘know’ (Ngalakan & Kaurna languages) ‘See’ occasionally maps into cognition but rarely loses its roots in visual perception (‘see’ mapping into ‘recognise’).
There is a case of ‘smell’ developing into ‘to detect, to sense (something)” (Nunggubuyu Language) or “to recognize, know’ (Wemba-Wemba) with later extension to ‘know’, but only in very few languages ‘smell’ has extensions.
Hierarchy of perception verbs with respect to how commonly they shift into cognition: Hear , then See, then Smell
