Glossolalia and Cacophony in South Korea: Cultural Semiosis at the Limits of Language
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
NICHOLAS HARKNESS Harvard University Glossolalia and cacophony in South Korea: Cultural semiosis at the limits of language ABSTRACT n Wednesday mornings at the Yoido Full Gospel Church In Christian traditions of “speaking in tongues,” glossolalia refers to an in Seoul, more than 10,000 congregants gather for a explicitly linguistic form of involvement with the deity, one carried out sermon and pray for healing. After the sermon, the through denotationally unintelligible behavior. Its religious legitimacy pastor opens the prayer by asking the congregation to depends on its being speech and not merely speech-like. South Korean stand, to address the deity, and to summon the deity Christians practice glossolalia widely across denominations, commonly Owith a full-throated, archaic hyperdeferential vocative: “Chu yo!”˘ (“O in cacophonous settings of group prayer. Combined, glossolalia and Lord!”). They call out three times, and then the thousands of people cacophony impose limits on “normal” linguistic functions while in the main sanctuary break into loud group prayer. The excerpt be- reinforcing ideological commitments to language itself. Glossolalia low is taken from a Wednesday-morning service that took place on should be conceptualized as cultural semiosis that is said to contain, July 17, 2013. Head Pastor Young-hoon Lee had given a sermon titled and can therefore be justified by, an ideological core of language, but “When the Holy Spirit of Truth Comes.”1 After invoking the deity, that is in fact produced at the ideological limits of language. This Lee prayed with the congregation, beginning with a quick repetition dynamic shapes how practitioners discern the nature of communication of “hallelujah.” He chanted this phrase on a B-flat, the tonic of the with their deity and with one another. [speaking in tongues, noise, accompanying hymn, “Old Rugged Cross.” As the prayerful were unintelligibility, intensity and intensification, Pentecostalism, Yoido Full enveloped by the cacophony that they themselves produced, their Gospel Church, South Korea] prayers transitioned into glossolalia, that is, speaking or praying “in 2 ‘()’ tongues” (pangon˘ kido). Uri ka onul˘ tarun˘ kott˘ ul˘ ul˘ ta ttonago˘ Chunim songny˘ ong˘ . ch’ungman haeso˘ Yesunim hamkke hayo˘ chuopsoso.˘ Yesunim hamkke hayo˘ chuopsoso˘. . Today we depart from everything, and as the spirit of the Lord , fills [us], Jesus, [we ask that you] be with us. Jesus, be with us. . , “ ” “Chu yo”˘ k’uge˘ se pon˘ uro˘ kido hamnida. . [We] pray “Lord!” three times loudly. . Chu yo!˘ Chu yo!˘ Chu yo!˘ Lord! Lord! Lord! . Hallelujah, Hallelujah, Hallelujah , .[, , [Glossolalia] , , , , ] AMERICAN ETHNOLOGIST, Vol. 44, No. 3, pp. 476–489, ISSN 0094-0496, online ISSN 1548-1425. C 2017 by the American Anthropological Association. All rights reserved. DOI: 10.1111/amet.12523 Glossolalia and cacophony in South Korea American Ethnologist Glossolalia commonly takes place during cacophonous The religious legitimacy of glossolalia depends on glos- group prayer like this. In this context, glossolalia is the solalic utterances’ really being speech and not merely concrete production of individuals making speech-like ut- speech-like. This distinction led William Samarin (1972), in terances, while cacophony is the result of many individuals his landmark study, to conclude that glossolalia doing this, all at the same time, in the same place. These events follow a predictable pattern of both suppression always turns out to be the same thing: strings of syl- and amplification. Repetitive utterances help the prayerful lables, made up of sounds taken from among those completely suppress denotation. The compounding effects that the speaker knows, put together more or less of repetition also, but less obviously, suppress prosodic haphazardly but which nevertheless emerge as word- variation, narrowing the pitch contour toward fluid vo- like and sentence-like units because of realistic, calizations that can be tuned in various ways—via pitch, language-like rhythm and melody. (228) rhythm, and tempo—to the ubiquitous musical accompa- niment, whether it be a pulsating Korean gospel band (as Samarin’s conclusion that glossolalia is made of “common above) or the austere, droning chords of a hymn played on human stuff” (229) draws an analytic line between two ways the organ. The cacophony produced by groups of people of segmenting this “stuff” into sounds: a grammar-driven praying together suppresses the audibility of individual segmentability of speech understood as linearly unfolding speech sounds, opening up private communicative spaces linguistic signs, and a more brute-reality segmentability of for individuals to engage in focused, intimate, even secret speech in terms of syllables. This line continues to shape communication with their deity. And their denotation- anthropological approaches to glossolalia. ally opaque vocalizations, buffered by noise, suppress The grammar-driven approach to segmentation begins role distinctions between speaker and addressee, “I” and with phonemes, the “oppositive, relative, negative” cate- “you,” the prayerful and the deity, creating a disorienting gories of speech sounds (Jakobson 1978) that, as individ- communicative space where it is unclear who is speaking. ual units, contribute to denotation by differentiating more Glossolalia and cacophony are fruitful disruptions of complex linguistic units. According to grammatical “rules,” “normal” speech, because each separately enhances prac- phonemes can combine to produce morphemes, the min- titioners’ sense of their direct, personal communication imal units of what linguists and philosophers call sense. and sensate connection with deity, and the combination These may be further combined to produce more complex of the two even more so (Lawless 1982; Maltz 1985; Titon syntactic units and, ultimately, denotational text. Denota- 1988). Glossolalia and cacophony impose limits on speech tion is most commonly associated with lexemes, those se- that, together, undermine “normal” linguistic functions mantically saturated linguistic units often conflated with while intensifying the very act of communication itself. “words for things” in folk ideologies of language. Lexemes This allows practitioners to construe the limits (as im- can be isolated through grammatical analysis by separating posed constraint) that glossolalic practice places on linguis- among syntactic units what appear to have a kind of stand- tic functionality as a generative, enhanced form of language alone semantic “content” from those that do not. For exam- that exceeds the limits (as extreme boundary) of linguistic ple, speaks and speaking are both formed from a verb stem, functionality. the lexeme speak; -s and -ing have grammatical but not lex- In Christian traditions of speaking in tongues, glos- ical “sense.” Phonemes (as the purely “negative” units) and solalia refers to an explicitly linguistic form of involve- lexemes (as the semantically “full” units) are functionally ment with the deity, one that is carried out through de- linked through a grammar.4 Within this structuralist linguis- notationally unintelligible, speech-like behavior. Although tic paradigm, the phonological plane of speech is defined the “world-breaking” and “world-making” properties of not merely by its rules of linear combination, nor merely glossolalia are stereotypically associated with Pentecostals by the distinctive features through which it is organized, (Robbins 2004), it is practiced widely across denominations but also by the way it is integrated systematically into more and congregations in South Korea. I was surprised to find complex planes of linguistic function. Glossolalia therefore that most Presbyterians I asked, let alone Pentecostals, had cannot be said to have even phonology, let alone grammar spoken in tongues or had prayed with others who did. Many or semantics (Chilton 1979). of them had initially encountered glossolalia as a foreign, In the more phenomenological approach to segmen- unsettling practice even as they yearned for it, and they tation, the brute reality of speech consists of a string of continued to treat it with caution even as they practiced syllables assembled by phonetic articulations. One of it. And while they did not always agree about the specific the hallmarks of glossolalia is that it is perfectly syllabic. nature, purpose, or degree of supernatural involvement in Because the syllables draw phonetically from phonological glossolalia, they generally did agree that true glossolalia is systems with which the speaker is familiar, and because the manifestation of language, be it spiritual, archaic, tran- they seem to follow some minimal rules of combina- scendent, or simply foreign.3 tion, the utterances would seem to be interpretable in 477 American Ethnologist Volume 44 Number 3 August 2017 phoneme-to-morpheme terms. In this view, the sounds an explanation of these technical Peircean categories). Se- should combine to produce denotationally coherent mantics and pragmatics do not form an opposition; rather, utterances. Glossolalic utterances are not, however, inter- semantics is a narrow domain of pragmatics. Whereas pretable in these terms: the syllables can never actually culture may be understood as a “construct for the meaning be construed as morphemes, so the utterance never rises system of socialized behavior,” language, more narrowly,