Publishing Partner: Cambridge University Press CUP Extra Publisher Login
amazon logo
More Info

New from Oxford University Press!


Oxford Handbook of Corpus Phonology

Edited by Jacques Durand, Ulrike Gut, and Gjert Kristoffersen

Offers the first detailed examination of corpus phonology and serves as a practical guide for researchers interested in compiling or using phonological corpora

New from Cambridge University Press!


The Languages of the Jews: A Sociolinguistic History

By Bernard Spolsky

A vivid commentary on Jewish survival and Jewish speech communities that will be enjoyed by the general reader, and is essential reading for students and researchers interested in the study of Middle Eastern languages, Jewish studies, and sociolinguistics.

New from Brill!


Indo-European Linguistics

New Open Access journal on Indo-European Linguistics is now available!

Query Details

Query Subject:   Kinesthetic-based Human Languages?
Author:   Dan Moonhawk Alford
Submitter Email:  click here to access email

Query:   Dear Linguists,

After 30 years of investigating Algonkian languages and listening to the
insights of their speakers, I have some preliminary observations, a daring
- if not completely unprecedented -- hypothesis, and a request.

The original NLP, Neuro-Linguistic Programming, co-developed by former TG
syntactician John Grinder, demonstrates how humans are primarily V(isual),
A(uditory), or K(inesthetic) in their sensory processing preferences; by
extension, groups and societies can enculturate their young into preferred
sensory modes, and ours is V-primary: words evoke pictures in the head for
those who are V-primary, though not me so much -- being K-primary, I¹ve
always been feeling the beat of a different drum. Sign language is also
K-primary, with its 'speakers' thinking in gesture.

Imagine my surprise, then, on hearing a Canadian Blackfoot woman (Amethys
First Rider, creator of Calgary¹s Trickster Theatre) tell Bohmian Science
Dialogue participants in Albuquerque two summers ago and again last summer
that when she says even the simplest things in English, like "The man is
riding a horse," pictures come up in her head; but when she says the
equivalent in Blackfoot, no pictures -- just [kinesthetic] feelings of
riding. This adds to what her husband (Leroy Little Bear, a Constitutional
lawyer) says about Blackfoot: that it is made of about 80 roots which are
combined and recombined to make words/sentences.

As I found for Cheyenne, these roots often point to abstracted dynamic
(kinesthetic) primes, allowing {duck} (Se?Se) and {rattlesnake}
(Se?se-novotse ­ 2nd morpheme = {goes down a hole}) to share the
morphologically important first slot in Algonkian languages. Note our
semantic bogglement in trying at first to figure out visually what the
picture/object {duck} has to do with the picture/object {rattlesnake}. Bu
for Cheyenne, where animal names describe their unique traits, the firs
(reduplicated) morpheme describes, for both, the zigzag motion and the sh-sh
rattle sound accompanying their movements as they¹re going away from you.

So I believe we are, because of university educated Natives who can describe
their languages from the inside in English, just now -- after 500 years of
viewing these languages through our habitual Visual-primary lens -- arriving
at a new threshold of understanding. Thus I now hypothesize that *Algonkian
and other Native American languages to be determined are of a type
previously undescribed in linguistics, based primarily on a kinesthetic
rather than visual processing of spoken sounds.* This is a kinesthetic-
to-sound (& vice-versa) base rather than the (related?) kinesthetic-to-
visual base of Sign; and this is curious given the prevalence of Plains Sign
among Algonkians who were living in the Plains and western mountains (for
intratribal, as in simultaneously with speech for deaf elders, as well as
intertribal talk).

To the question: does anyone out there know of any linguistic or
ethnographic works (besides Whorf on Hopi aspects) where any such
observations or hints of such have been made before, perhaps tucked away in
a footnote, a musing, a dictionary definition ... or anything? (I know Ives
Goddard is sitting on an Algonkian-language goldmine for a Q like this, bu
it¹s a tough sort to get at this kind of language-and-cognition info.)
Navajo¹s 352,000 or so sounds for {go}, according to Gary Witherspoon,
probably fit the kinesthetic-to-sound mode of human speech I¹m proposing.

I would especially appreciate replies from Native American linguists,
anthropologists, teachers or students who speak their tribal languages, as
well as anyone else with citations or comments. I'll summarize if there are
enough responses.

LL Issue: 12.711
Date posted: 15-Mar-2001


Sums main page