Nothing is Always Something: Analyzing Silence in Language

We spend infinite amounts of time studying, analyzing, and characterizing language and its influence in and on our lives. But what about when it is missing? In language, the absence of speech is silence, a phenomenon that occurs as frequently as speech. Like speech, silence leaves room for interpretation, in fact that’s all--other than to ignore it--that can be done with silence. Unlike speech, there is no physically tangible evidence therein making it more difficult to research and fully comprehend silence. Nevertheless, silence is an integral part of language as it allows for the growth of the individual and a defining of the self, revealed when silence is finally broken. To understand silence, analyzing its various occurrences such as (but not limited to) silence in discourse, culture and religion, and secondary language acquisition, reveal it as a form of language, clearly influencing the definition and creation of individual language.

Silence in General Discourse (Silencing)
It is important to first put discourse in to context. Theismeyer explains,

The object we are calling ‘discourse’ here consists of publicly accessible language and other forms of expression that circulate widely and consistently throughout a society. They include straightforward uses of language in exchanges of information as well as forms that comment on, analyse, entertain, or criticise other forms and their social
contexts, for example literary and artistic expression, scholarly work, and legal and
editorial decisions. (Theismeyer xi)

Silence that occurs in discourse can best be generalized as silencing. “…[S]ilencing as an act, whether single or repeated…has larger personal, social and global consequences…[it] attempts to create or maintain a relationship in which the social value of the exchange is at least apparently or symbolically unequal.” (Lynn xii-xiv) Silencing can be unwanted, imposed, or self-imposed acts caused by political dissatisfaction, social, racial, and/or gender inequality (including acts of aggression and violence), or by individual rights to silence.

Theismeyer argues that in these situations silencing forces the individual to disguise what they would like to say through other socially acceptable avenues of expression. In this way silencing works in the individual’s favor; it gives the individual more liberal use of language. Yet this seems counterintuitive as the individual must create language by not actually saying precisely what needs to be said to a society that is either ill-prepared or unwilling to listen. However disguised language to counter the affects of silencing does in fact work.

Individuals who are silenced by political dissatisfaction and/or social, racial, and gender inequality tend to break their silence through literature or artistic works. These works tend to be purposely ambiguous to promote discussion and interpretation that will eventually lead to acknowledgement of the artist’s conflict. Not all disenfranchised artists disguise their language. In fact, some artists, once having broken their silence, decidedly tell all in order to provoke emotions in the observer that only they, the one experiencing the disenfranchisement, could have felt. Because this action requires the artist to rehash painful memories, the observer is inclined to listen to the breaking of the silence and the redefinition of the artist as a new individual, incapable of being held down and silenced by past affronts.

Another form of silence in discourse is secrecy. As both a form of imposed and self-imposed silencing, individuals who are silenced by secrecy are forced to disguise their language out of conformity. Zerubavel explains the notion of secrecy as a conspiracy using “The Emperor‘s New Clothes” as a model. It began with one individual’s inability to tell the truth and was perpetuated by the rest of society. In the end, it took one individual to break the silence and tell the truth to end the conspiracy.

In the politically correct society of today, there are silent conspiracies whose existences are acknowledged, however the subjects themselves will never be discussed in public or without hushed tones in private. Individuals, groups, even whole societies can be in on these conspiracies; they “tacitly agree to outwardly ignore something of which they are all personally aware”. Societal conspiracies that are ignored or questioned today range from “sexual liaisons between masters and slaves in the antebellum South” to just the simple mention of the word unmentionables (Zerubavel 2).

Conspiracies of silence exist because of denial. Denial can essentially be comprehended as a self-imposed silence created by the community (those in on the silent conspiracy) on the individual. Consequently denial involves disguising what we want to say, to the extent that affects other senses.

As evidenced by the way we often use numbness imagery to portray it, being in a state of denial usually involves a quasi-sensorial shutoff. As conventional metaphoric allusions to “blind spots” as well as images such as “looking the other way” or “turning a blind eye” seem to indicate, we tend to equate being out of sight with being out of mind. It is hardly surprising, then, that we often associate denial with blindness. (Zerubavel 4)

Zerubavel continues by mentioning “turning a deaf ear”. Basically denial as a form of silence that is disguised not only in language but through all the senses. The individual loses themselves and the truth until they decide to break the silence.

Breaking the silence in conspiracy and denial is evidently the hardest because it causes embarrassment for all parties involved and does not come without repercussions. It is especially hard because those that break the silence in these situations are stigmatized as traitors or as every child was called at least once on the playground, “tattletale”. Therefore silence in secrecy through conspiracy and denial is essentially imprinted upon us at a young age.

Silence in Culture and Religion
In the Western world, silence is dysfunctional. Westerners “favor performance over contemplation, participation over inaction, and--what is most relevant here--speech over silence” (Granger 11). They are inclined to fill silence to make conversion less awkward, and at times, to make conversation itself. Yet in much of the Eastern World, silence is appealing. Easterners “…take the attitude that it’s a waste of time to use words to chop reality up into little pieces…Instead, the emphasis is often on inner, lived experience, which cannot be defined in words.” (Stevenson 24) Therein it is plausible to assume that silence is culture specific (Montiglio 3) One way to approach this difference is to assess religion, in the sense that religion relates to culture as a way of life; silence in religion must also exist along the west-east cultural divide.

Western cultures are uncomfortable with silence because it is ambiguous. In a world based upon definition and categorical organization, westerners cannot let silence be because it does not fall into a category that they can deal with accordingly. Westerners find it necessary to reconstruct silence in order for it to have meaning; it is an absence that must be filled. Westerners are so inclined to fill silence, that those that are isolated become psychotic in the need to fill the silence of isolation with words--they begin to mutter and talk to themselves. It parallels the fear of becoming widowed; it is ultimately the fear of being left to one’s demise, the first sign of which is silence, with no one to talk to and no one to respond when you cry out. Even in western prisons, solitary confinement is a punishment reserved for the worst offenses.

Western religion mostly reflect western culture. Consisting of primarily of Judeo-Christian dominations, there is never complete silence during most western religious services. If anything there is a hushed reverence: an imposed and self-imposed silencing. “…[S]ilent worship is the least imperfect homage that one can pay to the only God, who, being one, baffles the multiplying operations of language: the only true language to speak to God, and of God, is silence” (Montiglio 9). In essence, the silence that does occur in religion exists only because of the belief in something so infinitely greater than man, that there is no language other than silence in which won’t offend it.

When western religions wish to beseech this being, they choose to completely break their silence. Montiglio discusses the idea of prayer in western Judeo-Christian religions.

All rituals call for prayers, and all prayers call for fully audible voices. From Homeric epic down to tragic poetry the words meaning “prayer” mostly emphasize the sonorous quality of the utterance. Homeric euchomai (to pray), for instance, outside the religious sphere signifies “to assert oneself loudly and publicly”; moreover, when this verb means “to pray,” the vocal dimension of the prayer is highlighted by the response of the god invoked, who “hears.” A prayer is an attempt to hit the ears of the gods, that they may “listen.” Thus, the relationship between man and god in prayer is envisaged as a relationship between a sender and a recipient of sounds. It is a relationship with a remote deity, which only a resonant voice can hope to bring nearer. (Montiglio
10-11)

This shows that in respect to prayer westerners favor speech because they believe it is more efficient in aiding them gain what they want. Hushed reverence would get them nowhere. They become individuals seeking to define themselves by their wants. Consequently praying in hushed tones is stigmatized as an action relating to magic, mysticism, and the occult.

Eastern culture and religion view silence as insightful, best summarized by Taoist idea, “Those who know do not speak; those who speak do not know.” For many easterners, “…true wisdom is not so much a doctrine that can be explained in words, but an experience, a state of mind, or a way of life” (Stevenson 24) It is this idea that carries eastern culture; words are spoken in order to make a point, but they are never the defining and end to all ends of the subject of discussion.

The idea most often highlighted in eastern religion is meditation, the finding of one’s inner quiet. Meditators sit in silence. Not just silence of the vocals, but silence of the mind and silence of the ears. The aim is increase concentration and clarity by simply being--closing off the mind and mouth--in oneself. Even in vocal meditation where mantras occur, mantras are characterized by the silence that follows (i.e. the mantra OM, chanted aa, oh, mm, silence) as it represents transcendence, the highest state of being. (Stevenson 25)

In this way, silence in culture and religion falls along the divide of west versus east. The west being uncomfortable in silence is best summarized by Stevenson stating, “All this goes to show that what often passes for “understanding” in the West--fixing on a concept and analyzing it to see what it is and how it works--tends to look like so much obsessive bean-counting…” (25). The east values silence to the extent that no summary is needed.

Silence in Secondary Language Acquisition (SLA)
Secondary Language Acquisition (SLA) is the process of learning or being fully immersed in a language that is not your mother tongue. For many this process involves the silent period, an objectively observable stage in the development of some second language learners, that manifests itself in certain psychical characteristics (Granger, 3). The silent period does not occur in all secondary language learners, varies in degree, and is not always characterized by silence. Researchers cannot agree on how define or categorize SLA, much less the silent period; some completely deny its existence. However for the purpose of this treatise, my own definition of the silent period will be reflective of Granger’s.

I hold that what silence signifies could actually be much more than the absence of speech during the process of second language acquisition, that it may be a psychical moment, as well as a linguistic stage, in the complex process of moving from one language to another, and from one self to another. For silence is not limited to the absence of verbal expression. The self, the identity, can also be silent, unexpressed, and even--at least temporarily--lost. (Granger 12-13)

Essentially the silent period is when a speaker cannot express themselves in the way they wish; they are unwontedly silenced.

The silence in the silent period occurs for all language speakers at least once in their lives, even for mono-linguists. The early years of infancy are spent observing and imitating the language of the adults around them. The silent period in infancy ranges from the completely silent child that one day pipes up with a word or two, to the child that initially says a few phrases repeatedly then suddenly is able to string together a sentence or two. As first language acquirers grow older, they depend less and less upon their adult influences and begin to create language on their own. They’ve officially broken the silent period because they have created themselves as individuals in language.

This is essentially the same process that second language acquirers go through. However, once again researchers disagree as to when, precisely, one breaks through the silent period. Saville-Troike’s belief is that the silent period ends when language is “…distinguish[ed] between the ‘repetition of others utterances [and] recall and practice’ as one kind of speech act, and the ‘creation of new linguistic forms’ as another”. Basically, Saville ascertains that the silent period ends when the individual is able to creatively speak the language and express themselves in their own words. Granger essentially agrees with this argument when she states, “…silence within the second language acquisition process [is] less as an interpretable communicative strategy and more as a manifestation of identity formation-process.”

Therefore in SLA, an individual is finally able to express themselves uniquely, once and only once they have passed the silent period. The breaking of silence in this example of silence is the creation of an individual.

Conclusion
There are far many more examples of silence than are discussed in this treatise. In studying silence, we must remind ourselves that silence can never be fully understood; studying silence is the interpretation of non-existent speech. How can we make assumptions from nothing? Nevertheless, silence as evidenced in its varying forms, holds the key to the creation of the individual through language or rather, by what the individual chooses, refuses, or cannot say. So I begin self-imposed silence.

References
Granger, Colette A. Silence in Second Language Learning : A Psychoanalytic Reading. Clevedon, GBR: Multilingual Matters Limited, 2004. http://site.ebrary.com/lib/stanford/Doc?id=10096120&ppg=28.

Montiglio, Silvia. Silence in the Land of Logos. Ewing, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press, 2000. p 3-45 .
Stevenson, Jay. Complete Idiot's Guide to Eastern Philosophy. Indianapolis, IN, USA: Alpha Books, 2000. p. 24-25 http://site.ebrary.com/lib/stanford/Doc?id=10048585&ppg=51.

Thiesmeyer, Lynn Janet. Discourse and Silencing. Representation and the language of displacement. Philadelphia, PA, USA: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2003. http://site.ebrary.com/lib/stanford/Doc?id=10041591&ppg=11.

Zerubavel, Eviatar. Elephant in the Room : Silence and Denial in Everyday Life. Cary, NC, USA: Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2006. p ix-16 .

Back 2 Old Skool

The latest article I read was a short one, but meaningful nonetheless. The majority of India's 573 recognized tribal peoples live in the lower region of the Himalayas. In this area there are varying languages, some lost, some used for efficiency, and some forced upon conquered tribes.

In an attempt to promote access to these areas, the Head of the Gojri Wing of Jammu and Kashmir Academy of Art, Culture and Languages, Dr. Javaid Rahi has created a project to translate rare works in English, Persian and Sanskrit into Gojri (the language of one tribe out of the 573 recognized tribal population of India). His major goal is that his work, will spark translations in other tribal languages.

This project is to be finished by 2010, and in my opinion, will be the beginnings of India's Second (perhaps) Renaissance. India's economy is already flourishing, so is its population, and with the spread of ideas through translating classics the outcome of these combinations seems wholly reminiscent of Italy's Renaissance. Who is to say?

~1~

J-O-B or D-A-T-E

You ever have a job interview where the end outcome is entirely unexpected? You may get the job with an additional request, like a date. If you're wondering why it happens, answer this question: which way do you tilt your head?

According to Tonya Redman, an expert body language analyst and professional speaker, if you tilt right it suggests you're more "...trustworthy...", while tilting to the right evoke "...sign[s] of attractiveness and desirability." Reiman believes that "...about 90 percent of our interpersonal communication is nonverbal. How bodies move, what expressions a face makes, how fast one speaks, and even where we sit in a business meeting, send messages far more convincing than any words spoken."

One important aspect of body language that has continued over the decades is the handshake. According to Reiman there are no less than 12 ways to shake hands incorrectly in respect to strength, affection, eye contact, sweat, and body lean. The worst is the limp handshake, which lacks all of these qualities; the best being an equal mix of all of these aspects will simultaneously introducing oneself.

Reiman isn't the only one to postulate on the idea of body language. UK's Robert Phipps has worked with companies such as Canon, Apple Macintosh, Hewlett Packard, and Rank Xerox; he is also leading commentator on political leaders for BBC and several other media outlets. He gives Ten Tips to better body language in ten categories: eye contact, posture, head position, arms, legs, angle of the body in relation to others, hand gestures, distance, ears and mouth movements. All of these aspects play a large role in how people respond to you.

So perhaps the things we don't say impact us more than we think. Next time you want a job and a date with your future employer (a strongly discourage) tilt left for half the interview, then right for the rest.

~1~

Language: The Sharpest Blade

Caillera, or French slang, was a language created by the youth of France’s minority (mainly North African Arabs). It was meant to unify and create a sense of belonging amongst the mostly poor and often politically underrepresented minority of France's ghettos. They, in feeling rejected by France and its culture, have rejected French culture through language, the strongest aspect that unifies any culture.

Caillera is impenetrable to most French speakers as it is a mix of "...old argot and Arabic, black American, African, Creole and Romany"; it would require French speakers to remove themselves from their comfort zone and learn in the least, Arabic. Many words are insulting to the white, French majority; however much of the language is basically the pronunciation reversal. For instance (this is an example in English), to say the word "banana", one would say "anaba".

France has been trying to suppress the growth of French slang, enforced by L'Academie Francaise, a body that defines Standard French. Not that this matters, as 10 banlieue (project) youths, have decided to take Caillera to the next level.

The Lexik, is a guide to Caillera, that these youths have written. French from all backgrounds and ages are using this to expand their street smarts--not including purists who are appalled, perhaps due to the fact that much of the language insults them. Perhaps the purists need to educate themselves a little more though because much of Caillera uses obsolete French, much of which isn't used in modern French. So in fact, Caillera would be the more pure form of French, would it not?

This is the most efficient form of peaceful protest that I have known in my lifetime--language as a political weapon. And yes, this a language; it crossed the line from slang to language when it became communicative tool amongst a relating culture. I would also have to argue that, especially now that Caillera has an official dictionary/guide, it is official.

~1~

It's Not Just US

After reading a recent article entitled "Language Faultline Makes Belgians Foreigners in Their Own Country", I've had to rethink my position on America's own problem with languages and immigrants. In Belgium, a country where the majority speaks Flemish and a large minority speaks French, the problems of foreigners and their language(s) has reached a peak.

This Saturday marks the fifth month in which Belgium has been without a government; on June 10th elections were held, but a coalition government failed to be produced. This is all because of the striation between Dutch Belgiums in the north and French Belgiums in the South. The French Belgiums feel that they have no representation at all in politics and are especially enraged because there are bans against French-speaking in a lot of places including schools. Many feel as if they are foreigners in a place they do call home.

On the opposing side, Dutch Belgiums believe that the French Belgiums that are having issues with these policies are the die-hard French, who believe their language is superior. French did used to be the official language of Belgium, while it was still under French rule, but after WWII and with the rise of nationalism, Dutch Belgiums wanted a nation with a language uniquely theirs; therein came the rise of "Flemish-only" in many areas.

In Dilbeek, the city where most of this has come to head, the mayor, Stefaan Platteau, who is a descendent of French huguenots, has even said "If I moved to Paris, I would find it normal to learn French."

So this all brings me back to the US. The question that lies before us is should we allow Mexican immigrants to influence our politics and shape our language landscape? Will this lead to a breakdown in government like that in Belgium? How do we resolve the issue of integrationg without forcing assimilation?

~1~

10 for 10

A few blogs ago, I wrote about the probable connection of music and language. What the correlation is, I am not sure, but what I do know is that when it comes to learning how to speak languages, music definitely helps.

Arpan Sharma is a great example of this example. As a ten-year-old, he has learned as many languages as he is old. Many of them were self taught (with the help of language DVDs) and Hindu, the native language of his parents, was taught to him at home.

It's not just that he has a few key phrases memorized, "He speaks French with flair, rattles off German with ease and can hold a lengthy conversation in Swahili." He is reasonably fluent in five of the ten languages; however the speed in which he has picked up speaking the others is incredible. Perhaps it helps that he is also in the National Children's Orchestra? According to his teachers, they believe that that is the key to his unique ability to pick up languages so quickly.

In recent years, he has participated in the National Junior Language Challenge (see press release); last year he placed third and this year he has already reached the final round with 30 other competitors.

~1~

The Language of Unrestraint, The Language of Athletes

As an athlete (currently taking a year off), I'm constantly provoked when I hear others talking about how athletes are taught disrespect and allowed to proceed through school and life unrestrained. Usually the comments referred to athletes of the pro-world, but every once in awhile it would be aimed towards young athletes like myself. Every once in awhile, I find myself torn because there is truth to these allegations; however I believe more and more athletes like myself look to be exceptions to these comments.

In reading Beverly Beckham's article in response to Reebok's endorsement of Allen Iverson saying, "That those who try to find a balance between sport and life are defeated before the opening buzzer. We respectfully disagree. Actually, we disrespectfully disagree. Actually, screw those guys," it became absolutely clear to me why this assumption is perpetuated. In this instance, athletes are basically being told to ignore respect and do what they want; however to the young athletes Iverson was talking to--a completely different interpretation—this would mean don't let anyone stop you from achieving your dreams.

Some might ask, why didn't Iverson just say the latter half of what I just said? Because his use of language was more efficient and more practical for communication/what he was trying to communicate to the young athletes.

Beckham took offense to Iverson's use of "Screw those guys", especially when teachers and students alike stood up and clapped. She went on to mention that this mindset is what allowed those like Michael Vick to think that they were invincible.

This raises a few questions. Where do we draw the line in efficient communication versus respectful communication? Who's allowed to say what when? When do the negative consequences transition from the speaker to the interpretation of the listener?

I don’t feel qualified enough to answer these questions and simultaneously, I feel prejudiced as an athlete. I heard prep talks like this as an athlete, but today I am not the “invincible” athlete. I do respect others. I do have a positive attitude and I know better than to take Iverson’s words to what some interpret extremely.

~1~