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 .