The Functional Diversity of Speech

Human speech assumes a variety of forms. Its diversity manifests itself not only in the existence of innumerable languages, dialects and idioms – including the jargons of different social groups and individuals – but also within any given language, idiom or dialect (even within the idiolect of a single individual), and it is functionally determined by a complex network of factors that must be taken into account in any attempt to study language in its phenomenal immediacy, and to explain its genesis and history.

* * *

Language is coextensive with the diversity of human behavior, which is a psychological or biological fact if viewed as an expression of the human organism, and a sociological fact if viewed in light of its rootedness in the social, interactive life of human organisms. Thus, the factors determining speech will belong either to the psychological or the sociological order.

* * *

The psychological rootedness of speech enjoins us to distinguish between the following basic modalities: speech as a function of normal, pathological and irregular physiological states, respectively, and speech as a function of mind and emotion. Although all of these modalities (possibly with the exception of irregular physiological states) have been widely noted in contemporary linguistics, there is hardly any concrete research on the diverse manifestations of speech and its dependence on one or the other of its determinant factors and states. Linguistics and speech pathology do not share their findings. Speech as a function of emotion has not been studied at all – even the basic data have not yet been collected (with the exception of data concerning the use of words, but even here the results are far from satisfactory). The impact of emotion on pronunciation, too, has hardly been explored. Linguistics is especially ill-prepared to deal with speech as a function of irregular physiological states, such as the state of poetic inspiration, a better understanding of which would allow us to isolate those aspects of lyric poetry that are the products of physiology rather than art.

* * *

The sociological determinants of speech can be broadly and preliminarily categorized as follows: (i) the conditions of interaction, in both familiar and unfamiliar environments; (ii) the forms of interaction (mediated/unmediated, one-/two-sided); (iii) the concrete goals of interaction (practical/artistic, neutral/hortatory).

* * *

The study of language in its dependence on the conditions of interaction constitutes the foundation of contemporary linguistics. The complex diversity of speech (languages, dialects, idioms and so on) – classified, depicted and genetically studied by contemporary linguists – is, first and foremost, the result of specific conditions of interaction and the concomitant formation of different interacting social groups determined by a variety of factors (territorial, national, professional and so on). Much less attention has been paid by linguists to the concrete goals and functions of utterance. I would even go so far as to say that this question has mostly been ignored, especially among traditional neogrammarians. Philosophers of language and students of poetics are a notable exception.

* * *

The functional diversity of speech was already of interest to Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767-1835), who distinguished between "poetry" and "prose" as discrete manifestations of language, without, however, explaining this distinction in any detail or grounding it in linguistic analysis. Although "poetry and prose are subject to the same general requirements" in terms of their respective "orientations" and "means," Humboldt observes, "they can never become one." Referring to lyric poetry in particular, Humboldt contends that while "poetry, in its true essence, is inseverable from music, prose is an exclusively linguistic phenomenon." The difference between poetry and prose is, according to Humboldt, the difference between "art and nature," "artistic form" and "natural simplicity." Introducing yet another functional modality, "ordinary speech," Humboldt surmises that, because prose – including "scientific prose," which "combines strength with utmost clarity" – "can limit itself to representing reality and to purely practical goals at the expense of inspiring ideas and sentiments," it "does not essentially differ from ordinary speech."

* * *

It would be a waste of time to look for a productive engagement with Humboldt in the writings of neogrammarians and dialectologists, who either believe that "for the most part Humboldt exercised a merely moral influence on later linguists," or reduce his significance to the "transposition of issues concerning the general conditions of language into the realm of psychology." Questions pertaining to the functional diversity of speech – already broached by Humboldt - are excluded from the dialectological study of language because they are considered irrelevant. (We disagree emphatically; further development of functional linguistics will undoubtedly correct many of the errors vitiating the dialectological approach).

* * *

More recently, questions concerning the functional diversity of speech have been gaining traction in connection with a growing interest in poetry and an attempt to develop a scientific poetics. However, nothing final or especially noteworthy has yet been presented on the subject. Poetic language has been at the center of the Collections published by the Society for the Study of Poetic Language, and two functional varieties of speech were initially singled out: "practical language" and "poetic language." This classification was accompanied by a fairly superficial psychological characterization of both varieties. The contributors to the Collections have since emphasized the fact that the term "practical language" is too broad and should not be used without reservations. They have also stressed the necessity to distinguish between ordinary spoken language and the language of science and logic. Many pertinent contributions have been provided by the members of the Moscow Linguistic Circle, especially Roman Jakobson and Viktor Zhirmunsky. Unfortunately, however, both critics have merely touched upon these issues, leaving many problems undiscussed. (Interestingly, the functional distinction between the languages of the everyday, poetry, science and logic can already be found in Humboldt.)

* * *

In the following pages, I explore the various forms of utterance and their functions – monologue and dialogue in particular -– with a view to bridging the gap between the actual manifestations of speech and its external conditions, as well as to enhancing our understanding of the diversity of communicative means employed in this or that variety of utterance in a given setting.

The Forms of Utterance

Unmediated, face-to-face interaction is mirrored in unmediated speech interaction, which is characterized by our direct, visual and auditory, perception of our interlocutor. Mediated interaction is mirrored, for instance, in written communication. Alternating forms of interaction, which imply a relatively quick-paced exchange of action and reaction between the interacting individuals, are mirrored in dialogue; conversely, one-sided forms of interaction in which one of the participants dominates are mirrored in monologue.

* * *

Dialogue almost always goes hand in hand with unmediated interaction. Sometimes, however, that is not the case, as when unmediated perception is not (fully) available due to impaired or complete lack of visibility. Think, for instance, of talking to someone in the dark, on the telephone, or through closed doors or walls. Passing notes in a meeting, too, is a special case of dialogue; here, given our unmediated perception of our interlocutor, a rare union obtains between mediated (written) and unmediated (properly dialogic) communication. Writing generally goes hand in hand with monologue, with the exception of the case just mentioned and similar, equally rare, cases (such as a possible telegraphic dialogue). Because unmediated interaction can go hand in hand with both dialogue and monologue, it is especially conducive to their comparative study.

* * *

The most basic form of dialogue manifests itself in the precipitous, alternating everyday conversation on mundane topics. It is characterized by a relatively quick exchange of short utterances that are not preceded by deliberation on either side and that do not follow a scripted outline. The most basic form of monologue – such as a speech delivered in a public (or private) setting – is marked by a certain length, coherence, artful construction deliberation and unidirectionality, and it doesn't imply or rely on (an immediate) response. These two limit cases are complemented by a number of intermediate forms centering around those instances of 'monologic dialogue' where dialogue turns into alternating monologues – as when we exchange greetings, give brief remarks at ceremonies, take turns sharing our impressions, emotions or adventures (in the latter case, our monologic utterances tend to be interrupted by our listener's participatory interjections and rejoinders).

* * *

'True dialogue', which is characterized by a moderate pace of exchange, a relatively large number of speech elements, as well as a purposeful structure based on careful deliberation, is midway between 'monologic dialogue' and the everyday exchange on mundane subjects. Generally speaking, true dialogue is the product of leisure; however, there can be true dialogue on practical issues or matters of business as well.

* * *

Among the possible couplings of dialogue and monologue with mediated and unmediated interaction the following three are socially particularly relevant: dialogue coupled with unmediated interaction, monologue coupled with unmediated interaction, and monologue coupled with mediated interaction, as when we write to someone; however, one can imagine other forms of communication as well. In this essay, I focus on unmediated dialogue, referring to the other forms only when necessary.

Unmediated Communication

Our visual and auditory perception of our interlocutor, which is absent in mediated interaction and always present in regular dialogue, is one of the key factors determining our understanding of what the other is saying. Being face to face with our interlocutor allows us to see his facial expressions, gestures and other bodily movements. The latter sometimes suffice to establish communication and mutual understanding. The possibility of 'communication at a distance' is based on the crucial communicative function of facial expression and gesticulation, both constituting a 'language' of their own. Theatrical pantomime, for instance, turns this common phenomenon into a complex art form. The role of visual perception for communication is in no way diminished when we actually talk to someone face to face; in fact, it sometimes even dominates. In such instances the actual flow of words, as Gustave Tarde puts it, "feels like a mere addition to the glances exchanged." We tend to underestimate the crucial role of facial expression and gesticulation for unmediated – especially, dialogic – interaction. Here are some examples from Anna Karenina:

"'It will soon be over' said the doctor. And the doctor's face was so serious as he was saying it that Levin understood the words 'it will be over' in the sense of 'she is dying'."

"'I want to tell you this much –' began the princess, and Kitty divined from her serious and animated face what she would be talking about."

"'And how have you arranged it?' Dolly began, meaning to ask, what name the girl would bear; but observing Anna's frowning face, she changed the meaning of the question."

* * *

In face-to-face dialogue, facial expressions and gestures sometimes make responding with words unnecessary. The face tends to respond faster than the voice. One of the interlocutors intends to object, is on the verge of uttering the objection, while the other – taking into account the objector's facial expression and desire to object – is satisfied with the facial expression itself and says something like, "Wait, I know what you are going to say," and continues speaking. Often, a facial or gestural response is enough to render additional words unnecessary. On the other hand, facial expressions and gestures frequently function in the same way as intonation in inflecting or modifying the meaning of words. Just as a phrase may acquire different meanings depending on its intonation, so our facial expressions and gestures may impart unusual semantic overtones to what we say, which may contradict its actual 'meaning'. We may call this facial, pantomimic and gestural 'intonation'. Facial expression and gesticulation – the ever-present attendants upon everything we do or say – turn out to be powerful means of communication in their own right. Unmediated interaction is always coupled with facial expression and gesticulation.

* * *

When we watch a play through binoculars, we don't only see better, but we also hear and understand better; and because we see better, closely following the actors' facial expressions and gestures, we find out more easily what the play is all about. The same goes for public speeches. Special places designated for speakers – such as rostrums or daises – don't only create better acoustic conditions for the audience, but conditions of improved visibility as well. We look at each other instinctively when we talk to each other. I think that this instinctive desire to see our interlocutor's face and to make use of all the means of communication at our disposal may explain the 'impropriety' of turning one's back on someone in a worldly salon, which is a setting devised specifically for cultivating the art of conversation. Far from being extraneous, ancillary or fortuitous to speech, facial expression and gesticulation are an organic part of it. Even on the telephone, when we don't see our interlocutor, facial expressions and gestures are at work.

* * *

Our interlocutor's facial expression, which indicates the degree of his interest, attention and emotional involvement in what we have to say, fundamentally determines the intensity of our utterance, facilitates or impedes our mind's associative processes as well as the selection of appropriate words and expressions – in short, it determines the degree of our own eloquence (in both dialogue and monologue). We all know this from experience: The tone of our words, their 'temperature', depends on our interlocutor's facial expression. When the latter appears to listen attentively, our speech flows more easily.

* * *

It is hardly necessary to emphasize the importance of our interlocutor's audibility in unmediated interaction. The crucial communicative function of voice, intonation and timbre for understanding another's speech is generally acknowledged. In mediated, written communication these factors play hardly any role at all. I am not talking about those aspects of voice, intonation and timbre that are part of a language's universal vocal patterns and that may be reproduced in writing through signs (such as going up with our voice before a comma or question mark). I am here talking about those aspects of intonation that introduce personal overtones, of both meaning and feeling, into an utterance, thus acquiring unprecedented communicative significance in revealing the speaker's emotional and mental state more fully than the words' meanings themselves.

* * *

Let me quote a passage from Dostoyevsky's Diary of a Writer for 1873 (from the chapter entitled "Small Pictures") that pointedly illustrates, by way a single "unprintable noun," the import of intonation:

Late one Sunday night, I happened to be walking next to a bunch of drunk artisans ... and it was there and then that I realized that all thoughts and feelings could be expressed by merely using a single noun – a particular noun of utmost simplicity ... This is what happened: First, one of bunch utters this noun in a shrill, emphatic voice, as if to deny a point of general contention made earlier in the conversation. Then another picks up that very same noun in response to the first, but in a very different tone of voice, as though to categorically contradict him. A third one now gets angry at the first, abruptly joining the fray and tauntingly throwing that very same noun back at him. The second one in turn gets angry at the third for being rude to the first, and cuts him off by merely uttering that same time-honored noun for a certain body part, as though saying: 'What the hell do you think you're doing butting in like this?! Me and Filka were having a nice quiet chat and just like that you come along and start cussing him out!' ... Whereupon, out of the blue – and as though he had just stumbled upon the solution to the entire problem – a fourth chap who had remained silent until now ecstatically shouts that very same unprintable noun, just that one single word alone ... Finally, the oldest in the bunch, a surly

character, who apparently didn't think his friend's enthusiasm appropriate, turns on him and repeats, in a gruff and expostulatory bass – yes, you guessed it – that very same noun, whose usage is forbidden in the company of ladies ... And so, without uttering a single additional word, they all repeated just this one, obviously beloved, little noun of theirs, understanding each other perfectly.