Roland Posner Sign Economy in Language and Related Sign Systems Series A: General & Theoretical Papers ISSN 1435-6473 Essen: LAUD 2003 Paper No. 574 Universität Duisburg-Essen Roland Posner Technical University of Berlin (Germany) Sign Economy in Language and Related Sign Systems Copyright by the author Reproduced by LAUD 2003 Linguistic Agency Series A University of Duisburg-Essen General and Theoretical FB Geisteswissenschaften Paper No. 574 Universitätsstr. 12 D- 45117 Essen Order LAUD-papers online: http://www.linse.uni-due.de/linse/laud/index.html Or contact: [email protected] Roland Posner Sign Economy in Language and Related Sign Systems To appear in: Walter Schmitz (ed.), Sign Processes in Complex Systems. Proceedings of the 7th Congress of the International Association for Semiotic Studies in Dresden 1999. Dresden: Thelem. 1. Semiotic systems My task is the description of language as a complex semiotic system. Initially, I intended to approach this task by confronting my audience directly with sign definitions, characterizations of rule types, and system-theoretic statements.1 This would then sound as follows: A semiotic system (or sign system) is a code taken together with its context of use. Each code includes a repertoire of basic signs and a set of rules for their combination and interpretation. A context of use consists of situations in which a sender applies a code in order to produce a sign combination and (or) a receiver tries to interpret the sign combination with the help of a similar code, both of them being led by certain purposes and specific knowledge.² If I were to continue in this style with you then we could work out together step by step a concept system that is so elaborate that it can explain precisely what is typical about verbal codes and which requirements sender and receiver have to fulfill in order to use verbal codes successfully in sign production and reception. However, the chain of definitions necessary for this approach is long and the procedure too abstract for an oral lecture. I have therefore decided instead to present, wherever possible, selected examples of language use to you and to elaborate its special features by comparing them with other types of sign use in a culture. 2. Logosphere and semiosphere Instead of speaking we often make gestures or operate with numerals and symbols, and in many cases we achieve more by doing that. What is the difference between the spoken word and a gesture or a symbol configuration? And how can they supplement one another in order to facilitate efficient communication? Instead of speaking we often produce a written text, or even a chain of Morse code signs, and in certain cases it is necessary to recode language in this way in order to establish communication. What is the difference between a spoken word and a written word or a word in Morse code? And in which types of situations can they replace each other? Our verbal utterances make use of our lexical repertoire and our grammatical rule knowledge. But this knowledge does not govern them completely. No grammar stipulates how fast or slow, how loudly or quietly, how high or low, how sonorously or hoarsely we should speak. Nevertheless, how we speak often has greater consequences than what we actually say. Are not all modes of sign behavior determined by semiotic systems? And if yes, in what relation do these modes of sign behavior stand to language? Such questions can only be answered when language is regarded as a semiotic system without assuming this system existed in empty space. A language like German is in continuous exchange − with other languages such as Polish, Hungarian, Italian, French, English³, − with language–related codes such as the alphabetic script and the respective cultural techniques of writing and reading4, the chants and the cultural techniques of solo and choir singing5, as well as language art and the cultural techniques of scanning, rhyming and composing literary texts6, − with the body codes of mimic and gesture, which partly accompany speech and partly replace it7, − with the systems of number representation8 as well as arithmetic and algebra9, which again partly accompany the writing of words and partly replace it, − with general behavioral codes such as those of politeness and etiquette10 , − and with the sign systems of pictorial representation in art11 and science.12 All of these systems are semiotic systems in the sense outlined initially. Language itself must therefore be regarded as part of a complex system of sign systems. For systems of sign systems, the Estonian semiotician Jurij Lotman introduced the concept of a semiosphere in the 1980s.13 In doing this, he continued a tradition in which 20th century structuralist linguists distanced themselves from the historically-oriented linguists of the 19th century, who had all too often studied words as isolated individual objects. The structuralist thesis proposing that a sign receives its meaning only within a field or system of signs14 is supplemented by Lotman through the thesis that a sign system also only receives its meaning within a system of sign systems which are used in close connection with one another.15 According to this approach, each national culture is a system of sign systems16, and all cultures of the world are sub-systems of the semiosphere of humans. From a biological point of view, cultures are those ecological niches which gave rise to the emergence of languages. And if it is correct that all humans have at their disposal an innate competence for the acquisition of a language17, then it is important not to forget that this innate competence could not be used without the competence to apply mimic and gesture, and to practice politeness and etiquette according to the conventions of a culture – a context which for millennia also included the cultural techniques of singing and writing as well as those of art and science. As you can infer from my formulations, I consider language in line with its biological evolution primarily as a phono-acoustic means of expression, and I will therefore speak of “oral language” wherever necessary for the sake of clarity. Oral language is a sign system unique to homo sapiens and universally present in this species.18 Only in the event of 2 damage of the necessary production and reception organs is it replaced by another system, for example the sign language of hearing-impaired persons.19 Now, in the course of human history, a series of language-related codes (see above) has established itself around oral language, which makes each oral language appear today as the core of an extensive system of sign systems within the semiosphere of a culture. I would like to designate such a language-related system of sign systems as a “logosphere”.20 Every oral language of today is thus embedded in the logosphere of a culture, which is itself part of the semiosphere of humanity. Strictly speaking, even an oral language is also more than a simple sign system. As children we quickly learn to differentiate variants: dialects indicating difference of origin, sociolects indicating social difference, idiolects indicating speaker identity, and outdated phrases indicating past language stages. Thus apart from language-related codes, an oral language is itself a whole cluster of sign systems and only as such embedded in the logosphere of its culture. It is within this multi-faceted context21, that I would like to treat language as a semiotic system. Thus, language-related codes will play a special role in my lecture. They serve to recode oral expressions so that the language can be used in additional types of situations. This is equally true of the codes of writing, of singing, and of literature. And it is also true of the semiotic systems of number representation. All these codes have historically developed in a close relationship to language. They do not only complement language, but through their joint use with language in the last millennia they have also changed the structure of language considerably. Interesting conclusions on the essence of language can therefore be drawn from a comparison of a language with its language-related codes, as I would like to demonstrate in the following. 3. Performance effort: complementarity of production and reception My main hypothesis in the comparative analysis of language and language-related codes is the idea that sign systems serve to handle complexity: we use them in communicative interaction to reduce complexity in our relation to each other and in cognition to reduce complexity in our relation to the world.22 If sign systems are to fulfill their purpose as instruments for dealing with complexity, then they should not get too complex themselves. It is the context of use of the signs which keeps their complexity on a manageable level. The extent to which the structure of verbal utterances is shaped through their use as instruments of communication, has been convincingly pointed out in investigations which were carried out thirty years ago by my respected teacher Helmut Lüdtke at the Technical University of Berlin.23 He formulated his results in such a succinct way that, as an allusion to the Nuremberg Funnel, his students started to talk of “Lüdtke’s Funnel”: Verbal expressions which were fed in at the top of the funnel thousands of years ago, are systematically modified through permanent use and come out at the bottom completely different. The following example24 may elucidate this. 3 When we refer to the current day in German, then we say “heute”. In French we say “aujourd’hui”. Hui is derived from the Latin hodiē – a word, which has emerged as a contraction from the nominal group in the ablative hō diē, which means ‘on this day’.