1
Robin Levenson, PhD
Adjunct Asst. Prof. of Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences
City College, CUNY
robin.levenson@nyu.edu
March 28, 2014
Crossroads or Controversy?
Language Wars in Communication, Theatre and Linguistics
“The great myth of our times is that technology is communication.”
Composer Libby Larsen
“It’s not what we don’t know that gets us into trouble;
it’s what we know for sure, that just ain’t so.”
Mark Twain
"New technology can never substitute for human values.”
Media Specialist, Neil Postman
The use of language to communicate is a human endeavor; indeed it is
noted that we are the only animals on the planet that distinguish ourselves by
using words to communicate. And yet there is controversy among the fields of
communication, linguistics and theatre. Linguist J.L. Austin called his book
How to Do Things with Words, and it describes the fascinating ways we use
language. 1 What language makes us “do”—how language influences human
behavior—is vital. How language relates to our cognition—which evokes or
induces our behavior—is at issue between Comm. Studies researchers and
Linguists.
Between linguists and theatre practitioners, communication is rocky
too: regarding play translation, playwrights who don’t know the source
language often “translate” or adapt masterworks of lauded playwrights. How
may they do this? Linguists say it can’t be done2— their idea of “translation”
is a brick-by-brick replacement, where each word is equivalent in meaning to
1
Austin, J.L., HOW TO DO THINGS WITH WORDS, ed. by Marina Sbisa, Publisher: Harvard U. Press, 1975.
Nikolarea, Ekaterina, “Performability vs. Readability: An Historical Overview of a Theoretical Polarization in
Theatre Translation,” TRANSLATION JOURNAL, Vol. 6, No. 4, Oct. 2002.
Bassnett, Susan, “Translating for the Theatre: The Case Against Performability,” THE YEARBOOK OF THE BRITISH
PIRANDELLO SOCIETY, No. 7, 1987, pp. 58-79.
2
2
each word in the source language. But playwrights such as Tom Stoppard,
David Mamet, Lanford Wilson or Brian Friel—all acclaimed translators of
master Russian playwright Anton Chekhov—change words and syntax of
Chekhov’s plays peremptorily, while still claiming faithfulness to Chekhov’s
meaning, style and dramaturgy.
And yet, with these substantive disagreements, intersections of the three
disciplines— communication, linguistics and theatre—are evident. The need
to be seen as a discipline that has a basis in Science seems vital to all three.
Yes, even in the field of theatre, Stanislavsky, the great Russian theatre
practitioner and acting theorist, claimed his technique was based in scientific
studies of Pavlov and psychologist Théodule Ribot.3 For "Can Anyone Hear
Me?" my aim is to define what crossroads exist among researchers, rather
than what separates them.
Earlier in my career, as a theatre education major and an actor, I was
asked to teach in NYU’s former Media Ecology Dept. in the area of Speech
and Interpersonal Comm. while I worked on my PhD. I soon discovered the
clear crossover between the two disciplines of Theatre and Comm.: what
Communication called “paralanguage” or “non-verbal comm.” is known as
playing an “Action” or the “subtext” for the actor in the theatre, and in the
field of Linguistics, the term “extralinguistic” came up to describe what still
others called this “body/mind” connection that describes our movement and
motivations in the world before words are uttered, or complementary to
utterances. We see how the nomenclature of the various “disciplines”
matters so much to those involved in each area. As both my mentor Neil
Postman and reporter Bill Moyers have insisted, we live and die in the world
by our metaphors.4 What we call things matters. Euphemisms like “friendly
fire” may cover over the outrageous act of killing one’s comrades; promoting
3
Roach, J.R., THE PLAYER’S PASSION: STUDIES IN THE SCIENCE OF ACTING, Ann Arbor: U. of Michigan Press, 1993.
Blair, Rhonda, THE ACTOR, IMAGE, AND ACTION: ACTING AND COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE, New York: Routledge,
2008, pp. 28, 33-34.
Moore, Sonia, THE STANISLASKI SYSTEM, New York: the Viking Press, 1974, pp. 13, 49.
4
Bill Moyers on “Bill Moyers and Company,” PBS, Channel Thirteen, NYC, 2013 and Neil Postman in his course
“Language and Human Behavior,” New York University, 1999.
3
the “right to life” sounds better when confronted with a woman’s “right to
choose.” “Media Ecology,” a term coined by Postman, was an apt description
of the work he wanted his Dept. to do, but he wrote to me that he knew this
title would not gain NYU students. After he died, the Dept. name was
changed immediately to “Media, Culture and Communication,” based on
what the current Chair thought it should be, to encourage enrollment! (I
believe, with Postman, that “Media Ecology” is the more descriptive and
challenging title, and actually more inclusive of other disciplines.)
For the Comm. researcher, I imagine “paralinguistic” sounds more
“scientific” than, I guess, body movement or “non-verbal comm.,” though we
learn that in “Speech Communication” the “paralanguage” or physical
movement and sound inflection always accompany verbal utterances. And the
fact that the body moves with the voice and words is not news to the actor.
This is a function of language itself, which we learn is also arbitrary, symbolic
and culture-based.
And so, as the Sapir/Whorf Hypothesis states, does language determine
thought? Does the name “Media Ecology” spark you to think differently
about the Dept. than “Media, Culture & Communication”?
Here’s another example of word choice or naming: Interestingly I saw
that in one commonly used textbook for Speech Communication, Thinking
Through Communication by Sarah Trenholm, the Sapir/Whorf Hypothesis is
described in detail, while in Julia Wood’s Communication Mosaics, it is not
even mentioned.5 Is this because it has fallen into disrepute over the years
since it was put forward by Edward Sapir in 1929 and his student Benjamin
Whorf in 1940? This would be an interesting question for Ms. Wood, who is
here today, and neither broaches the terms “Language Determinism” nor
“Language Relativity” in her popular book. M.I.T. psychologist and linguist
Stephen Pinker makes fun of the ideas of Linguistic Determinism and also
Linguistic Relativity—which state that people from different language
5
Trenholm, Sarah, THINKING THROUGH COMMUNICATION, New York: Allyn & Bacon, 2005.
Wood, Julia T., COMMUNICATION MOSAICS, New York: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2011.
4
communities may perceive the world differently.6 He says he believes we have
a “mentalism” that sees the world in images rather than words, and he thinks
this is common to all cultures. (Ibid) And Paul G. Chapin, noted Linguist and
Program Director at the National Science Foundation, stated to me that the
Sapir/Whorf Hypothesis is mistaken: language does definitely NOT
DETERMINE THOUGHT, in his estimation. He told me the Sapir/Whorf
Hypothesis is not accepted by Linguists.7 But certainly we can agree that
people of different cultures may see the world differently—may not this be
extended to language use? Indeed, from Roman Jakobson we learn that
“Languages differ essentially in what they must convey and not in what they
may convey.”8
In French or German, objects are given Gender, but not in English; and
our English verbs force us to define the timing of an event, which the Chinese
do not. So may not our language be inextricably interwoven with our
cultures? Julia Wood does emphasize that our “cultural values are encoded
in language.” (Wood, p. 160) Does this mean she upholds the Sapir/Whorf
Hypothesis? Here’s a way, I believe, to prove that Language DOES curtail—
if not determine—thought: ask how many times have you heard different
people say these words repeatedly in the last 24 hours: “amazing,”
“incredible,” “awesome,” “hopefully (grammatically incorrectly),”
“basically,” and “literally”? Count how many times you’ve heard
“AMAZING” just today. It’s … frightful. The repetition is automatic; we do
it WITHOUT THINKING. Doesn’t this automatic use of “go-to” words
reveal our limited thought? We must practice using descriptive vocabulary on
purpose, or we fall into that rut.
As a Speech teacher of Non-Native Speakers and Intercultural Comm., I
see not only how Language may influence behavior, but how the phonology of
different languages does so as well. Cultures repeat certain sounds as well as
6
Stephen Pinker Language and Consciousness, Part 1 Complete Thinking Allowed w- J_ Mishlove - YouTube.mht
My Interview with Paul G. Chapin, Santa Fe, NM, June, 2013.
8
Guy Deutscher in “Does Your Language Shape How You Think?” from his book THROUGH THE LANGUAGE GLASS:
WHY THE WORLD LOOKS DIFFERENT IN OTHER LANGUAGES, New York: Metropolitan Books, August 2010.
7
5
“paralinguistic” behaviors that seem part of their communities. These
behaviors may be recorded as evidence in Communication research—and are
taught in actor training as well, as a means to “play” foreign characters—and
yet may not be noted or acknowledged by linguists, as these cultural behaviors
are non-verbal or “extralinguistic.” Examples would be the use of tones of
speech in Chinese, talking with the hands, the import of facial expression in
some cultures, and the lack of it in others.
Today, linguists like Stephen Levinson (no relation) have returned to
Whorf’s notion, to say “Language is the only animal communication system
that differs radically in form and meaning across social groups of the same
species, a fact that has been neglected in the cognitive sciences.” (Levinson,
2001). So we see how there is research and opinion on both sides of the
Language issue, across and even within the disciplines.
Another hot point in current Communication and Theatre Depts.—in
NYC, at least--is whether or not students should study and recognize
differences in dialects and accents. For example, the Theatre Dept. of Hunter
College balked at and then completely canceled all courses in “Voice and
Speech” in the Theatre Dept., as they stated—bizarrely, according to longtime
Hunter Theatre Prof. Michael Rutenberg9—that they felt they were afraid it
might discriminate against students with foreign accents, or distinct New
York dialects. Similarly, at LaGuardia CC, Prof. Sean Palmer and I were
told that the Voice Assessment we were assigned to create by our Director of
Comm. Studies had been hotly contested by at least one Faculty member who
thought it was discriminatory or in some way hurtful to some students to be
“assessed.” This was despite the fact, we discovered, that such assessments
are done routinely at other CUNY campuses. The rich geographical and
cultural differences in the United States enhance our American traditions.
Outside of academia, teachers or coaches of Accent Modification make
hundreds of dollars an hour coaching business people and actors who want to
transform or adjust their voices and/or speech to help communicating in their
work, both domestically and in international communities. Can we not do as
9
My conversation with Dr. Michael Rutenberg, summer 2009.
6
much for students at CUNY? Can’t we help them learn different speech
behaviors in the contexts of their lives that may require them?
As mentioned, often Theatre, Communication and Linguistics ideas are
often defined simply by the nomenclature they decide to use: what may be
described as “circumstances” in the theatre are called “context” in Comm.
Studies or “extralinguistic” in the field of Linguistics. For the theatre
practitioner, these terms describe, simply, the use of language or action in the
situation in which the speakers find themselves. For example, I may speak
differently to my teacher than I do to my mother; I may use different
language in a Job Interview than I do with my friends. While in a play the
“diction” used by the playwright is related to building a character, we
recognize in Comm. practice that “role-play” is something we all do in
different contexts of our lives. I use a film script dialogue, based on character
relationships in the film, for exercises in intonation and pronunciation with
Non-Native Speakers. Theatre “role-playing” is used successfully to teach
many speech communication skills.
Proxemics and Chronemics—simply the sciences of Space and Time—
embrace common and core ideas in both theatre and Communication fields,
though these designations are usually only found in Communication theory
publications. Peter Brook famously wrote: “All we need for theatre to take
place is a man (sic!) walking across an empty space whilst someone else
watches him.”10 This simple “act” conjures up the need for a particular
“circumstance”–which includes time specifics—within which such a walk
takes place. Language is the result of a physical or psychological need in a
particular situation. So we only speak when we have a particular Purpose.
Theatre practitioners know that playscripts, for instance, are not based on the
language written in dialogues we see on the page, but on the ACTIONS—the
purpose with movement—of the characters which evoke those words on the
page. Our inner desires come first—from the brain—and the words come
last. This is why words on the page of a playscript are seen only as a
“blueprint for performance,” and NOT the entire play itself. The
10
Brook, Peter, THE EMPTY SPACE, New York: Avon Books, 1968, p. 9.
7
performance of the play is the PLAY—not just the script on the page.
Language is secondary on the stage. This is why playwrights may “translate”
using Action and not simply word definitions. Even Shakespeare’s beautiful
poetry is lost if the characters have no Actions when they speak.
Indeed, famous director Vsevolod Meyerhold declared “In the theatre,
words are only a design on the canvas of motion.” It is this motion or
“movement” of our bodies and our inner desires, born of the purposes we
pursue—purpose plus movement—that is the catalyst for action in the world,
and prefigures our need to speak.
Thus my Russian acting teacher, Yevgeny Lanskoy of the Moscow Art
Theatre, declaimed in his Structures of Action course, “So you see, Action is
not what you do, and it is not what you say.” 11 It is, as critic and theorist
Francis Fergusson describes it, based on Aristotle: “…Action (praxis) does not
mean deeds, events or physical activity: it means, rather, the motivation from
which deeds spring.”12 But this idea is not easily explained intellectually to
those outside the theatre. It must be displayed and performed in practice.
Semiologists and linguists are just coming to an understanding—using their
verbiage, to be sure—of what theatre practitioners have known for centuries.
As mentioned, some linguists call this “acted” language “extralinguistic,” and
they may not recognize that all spoken language includes non-verbal behavior.
As my teacher, actor and scholar John Harrop wrote, “In the 20th Century,
critical attempts to deal with the nature of the theatre have been catching up
with acting practice…In this process the not unsurprising discovery has been
made that it is in Action, not just language, that theatre communicates with its
audience. Actors have always know this, and Aristotle dropped fairly strong
hints some time ago.”13 Just as literature teachers and linguists have much
to teach us, they might also take note of acting theory and practice, in the
search for useful responses to human behavior. An actor’s understanding and
practice of human behavior is integral to the art of Theatre, and our real lives.
11
Class with Yevgeny Lanskoy, the Stella Adler Conservatory, New York, NY, 1986.
Fergusson, Francis, Introduction to Aristotle’s POETICS, tr. By S.H. Butcher, New York: Hill and Wang, 1961, p.8.
13
Harrop, John, ACTING, London and New York: Routledge, p.10.
12
8
Caryl Churchill writes in her newest play, aptly titled Love and
Information, now at the Minetta Lane Theatre in Greenwich Village , about
how language is culturally and especially gender-based . In a scene between a
woman and her waiter at a high-end restaurant, the Waiter notes that “table”
in English is “mesa” in Spanish, and “table” (different pronunciation!) in
French, and is different words in a dozen other languages. But after
conceding that each culture has its own word for “table,” the woman
customer finally observes, “It really is a ‘tay—buhl,’ after all, isn’t it?” And
the Waiter smiles politely and exits; the audience laughed.
This demonstrates how we are all prisoners, to some extent, of our
language, our upbringing, our culture, our geography, our gender, and our
simple ingrained habits. Those of us who speak other tongues may know that
we begin to think in other languages, and this is a marvelous intercultural
phenomenon. And yet—sadly and ironically—CUNY Pathways is cutting out
the Language requirement for a four-year college degree in many of its
colleges. This may seem, to some, as another slap in the face to intercultural
understanding on a grand scale. We translate the world continually from our
own subjective perspectives. Learning another language can change
perspectives.
The fact is that the “overlaps” among Theatre, Language and Comm.
Studies are more prevalent than their imagined differences. If linguists see
the acquisition and/or practice of speech differently than Comm. Studies
scholars, so much the better—if “thought determines language” for example,
instead of “Language determining thought”—we may acknowledge these
ideas as gray areas of study, which may be further pursued. If Theatre skills
may be used to expand Communication across cultures, so much the better;
the “role-play” or various modes of behavior in different situations of our
lives may indeed be labeled “acting” with no degradation of either discipline.
And we need not summarily cut out the study of differences in speech practice
within and among cultures. We may allow and encourage cultural traditions
different from our own.
9
It is not helpful to us to ignore other languages and to assume it is a faux
pas to point out responses to “dialects” and “accents” in American speech.
Linguistics, Communication theory and theatre practice may exist side by
side. The idea that “Language determines thought” is no insult to any
particular language—it is a grand effort to explore how we may each see the
world differently, and learn from others’ divergent views. Voice Assessment,
supporting Language requirements, inclusion of Communication and Theatre
Art (part of the art of human behavior, after all) as vital disciplines and part
of any CORE or STEM Curriculum are steps towards nothing less than
trying to achieve common understanding and—may I say it?— world peace.
WORKS CONSULTED:
Austin, J.L. (1975). How to Do Things with Words, ed. Marina Sbisa. Boston: Harvard U. Press.
Bassnett, Susan (1987). “Translating for the Theatre: The Case Against Performability,” The Yearbook of the
British Pirandello Society, No. 7, pp. 58-79.
Blair, Rhonda (2008). The Actor, Image and Action: Acting and Cognitive Neuroscience. NY: Routledge.
Deutscher, Guy (2010). “Does Language Shape How You Think?” from Through the Language Glass: Why
the World Looks Different in Other Languages. New York: Metropolitan Books.
Harrop, John (1994). Acting. London and New York: Routledge.
Levenson, Robin (2007). Acting in Translation. Unpublished, in Proposal with Routledge.
Levinson, Stephen (2001). "Covariation between spatial language and cognition, and its implications for
language learning". In Melissa Bowerman and Stephen Levinson. Language Acquisition and Conceptual
Development. Cambridge University Press. pp. 566–588.
Moore, Sonia (1974). The Stanislavski System. New York: The Viking Press.
Nikolarea, Ekaterina (2002). “Performability vs. Readability: An Historical Overview of a Theoretical
Polarization in Theatre Translation,” TRANSLATION JOURNAL, Vol. 6, No. 4, Oct. 2002.
Pinker, Stephen (2014) Language & Consciousness, Part 1 Complete Thinking Allowed w-J_ Mishlove YouTube.mht
Roach, J.R. (1993). The Player’s Passion: Studies in the Science of Acting. Ann Arbor: U. of Michigan Press.
Steiner, George (1998). LANGUAGE AND SILENCE. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Trenholm, Sarah (2011). Thinking Through Communication. New York: Allyn & Bacon.
Wood, Julia T. (2011). Communication Mosaics. Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning