1

Part 1. ORAL SPEECH

Chapter 1. THE CULTURE OF SPEECH IN PRE-LITERARY SOCIETIES

1.1 THE GENRES OF ORAL SPEECH

Oral speech is a heterogeneous phenomenon which is being formed throughout time.

Classification of utterances is complex and has many aspects to it. There are various approaches to

classification of utterances.

One of such approaches to classifying genres and types of oral speech is based on the

communicative situation. Thus the types of utterances are divided by the number of people

involved in creating and receiving speech (a monologue and a dialogue), by the message (a

phillippic, a polemic, a panegyric), etc.

A different approach to classifying utterances is based on the function of the speech act (a

common every-day communication, liturgy, forensics, propaganda, theater, instruction, etc.).

Functional classes of oral speech are divided into genres of utterances. Thus, dialogues within

every-day communication are divided by their context: for instance, a dialogue in a hotel, a

dialogue on a bus, a dialogue in the doctor's office, etc. [60]. Another example is the codification

of genres in liturgy - they are a sermon, a reading and a series of hymnologic genres: psalm, tropar',

kondak, vozglas, etc. Forensic, religious, military, political, propagandistic eloquence are studied

under oratory [82].

The genres used on television and radio are variedly codified: information, story, review,

interview, radiorama, etc. Equally detailed is the codification of theatrical speech: drama,

comedy, stage monologue, stage dialogue, variety show conversation genres, etc. The genres of

pedagogical speech are divided by methodological objective: a lecture and a seminar further

diverge by the type of assignments.

Thus, the general genre classification of oral speech is a complex task requiring a special

approach. The classifications listed above belong to particular areas of philology, since in the long

run they depend on the historically formed structure of specific philological disciplines: rhetoric,

liturgy, language teaching methodology, journalism theory, etc. As for general philology, it has a

uniform basis for text classification - the texture of texts.

Modern oral speech is divided into three large classes by the manner of its production.

One such class is literary speech proper, i.e. speech that is first written and then read, or

memorized and only then pronounced. This kind of speech comprises first of all stage speech

(except compering), liturgical speech (except sermon), practically all genres used on television

and radio (except interview), etc. Pronouncing such a speech the speaker orally reproduces a

definite written prototype.

Another class is speech that does not have and cannot have a written prototype. Such are

all everyday-dialogues, various oral business negotiations, various types or orally transmitted

rumors, fairy tales that are created while telling them or reproduced from memory. In short, this

class comprises all utterances which are created orally and only later may be in some way fixed in

a written, magnetic of other recording.

One should notice that some of such texts often are purposefully protected from recording. Thus, a folklorist

or an ethnographer may come across a situation when their informant for certain reasons does not want a text that only

2

he or she knows to be written down. There is a direct prohibition on writing down or taking minutes of many intimate

or secret talks.

Alongside with those two large classes of utterances there is a third, transitional one,

containing features of both classes. Thus, all kinds of speeches belonging to oratory (i.e. forensic,

political, military speeches, lectures, propagandistic or preaching appearances, various speeches in

meetings, presentations, etc.) have this particular feature: they are not necessarily first written and

then pronounced. They may be pronounced impromptu, or be first submitted in the written form

and only then said from memory or freely re-rendered; in any case, all of those kinds presume the

permission to be recorded.

Thus, three spheres appear in oral speech in its relation to writing: a) oral speech

necessarily having a written prototype; b) oral speech that does not have and cannot have a written

prototype (though in some cases allows written fixation); c) oral speech that may or may not have

a written prototype.

Functional division of the spheres of oral speech must be considered when describing the

rules of speech perception and production.

The oral speech that necessarily has a written source-prototype is built according to the

principles of written speech, i.e. it is literary and strives to be true to the norms of the logic arts

(grammar, rhetoric, poetics, logic and stylistics), in spite of being written for oral pronunciation

and oral impact.

The oral speech that may or may not have an oral source-prototype does not have to but

often is built on the principles of written speech; it does not have to, but often does take into

account the rules of grammar, rhetoric, poetics, logic, stylistics, and to a certain extent is guided by

them.

Only the sphere of oral speech that cannot have a written source-prototype is not oriented at

written speech. By its structure, topics and situational content this sphere of oral speech

corresponds to the complete body of oral speech in languages which have no writing systems. It is

the sphere that constitutes the oral conversational foundation of language, i.e. the oral

conversational source that is reflected and manifested during further evolvement of language (at

the stages of genesis and development of hand-written, printed and other types of texts). It is the

sphere of oral speech where we can most likely observe the historical beginnings of basic varieties

of oral speech and the simplest representation of the ground rules of handling it.

This is why the study of oral speech rules must begin from the sphere that does not and

cannot have a written source-prototype. Only after the main varieties in this sphere are singled out

does it become possible to proceed, on the one hand, to researching the rules of handling written

speech, i.e. to the study of a historically later layer of language, and on the other hand to studying

the influence of written speech on the oral one in the two spheres where the connection exists

through a written source-prototype, i.e. to the study of forensic, political, liturgical, pedagogical,

propagandistic and other varieties of oral speech, including their genre systems.

However, the study of communicative relationships in this sphere is further complicated by

national, personal, social, cultural, age and sex peculiarities which influence specific

communicative relationships and the perception of the major rules for using oral speech correctly,

for correct speech behavior.

In addition to that, the sphere of oral speech proper, the one not connected to written

speech, is complex and intricate and, most importantly, hard to observe because of the ephemeral

material of sound.

3

In this respect there is hope in the studies of gango seikatsy - "the life of language", conducted in Japan as

mass recording of oral speech on magnetic tape [79].

This is why the classification of utterances that belong to oral speech proper in general

philology is based on specific texture of oral speech, i.e. the material and methods of creating oral

speech.

1.2. MAIN TYPES OF ORAL SPEECH: MESSAGES, RUMOR, FOLKLORE

With a few exceptions, all people with their various biological, psychological, cultural,

class, age, educational and other characteristics use oral speech. Each person has a combination of

features which are manifested in the person's speech through the speaker's intent, goals and speech

content. However, the influence of those factors on oral speech is not well researched. It usually

becomes the object of philological study to the extent in which the rules of written speech are

traditionally differentiated by communicative situation. Thus, Malay language has high, low and

middle registers (ngoko, kromo and madju), each of which have their specific lexical and

grammatical ways of expression [108]. Similar features are characteristic also for the classical

Tibet language, where two opposite registers are found: high and low [97].

The word "register" refers to the language fact that the communicating people register in their speech their

social, age or educational differences. Those differences are reflected in language by forms (words and expressions)

particular for different types of communicative situations.

Languages are known which have linguistically described grammatical systems of

politeness [4] (for instance, Japanese).

Traditionally, stylistics studies lexical and phraseological differences in speech relations,

and age, educational and social characteristics of interlocutors (cf., for instance, the concept of

"speech characteristic" of a hero in literary analysis courses [80]). Rhetoric recommends to

consider the relationship between the orator and the audience for speech structure, ways of

addressing, tempo, duration of speech and types of arguments used [118]. Similarly, other

language disciplines point out separate characteristic features of relationships between people

which influence oral speech. Thus, N. Trubetskoy in "Foundations of Phonology" specifically

notes the differences in male and female pronunciation [111].

All those heterogeneous data only partially illuminate people's relationships in oral speech

and contain no comprehensive information on general ground rules of constructing those

relationships. To define basic and most important sides of oral communication we should first

characterize the texture of oral speech, i.e. the essential features of the medium used in oral speech

and the consequent structure of oral communicative acts.

Oral communication is the type of verbal interaction that materially exists only at the

moment of interaction and only within the hearing distance for a normal human voice.

Based on the material features of oral speech we must conclude that the participants of an

oral communication act are by definition a smaller group than the general number of persons who

know that language. And as long as there may be many oral communicative acts, there may also

be many elementary groups joining for each oral communicative act. Such elementary groups are

formed and fall apart depending on where, when, how and how many communicative acts, i.e.

creations of utterances, take place.

4

Let's imagine, though extremely generalized, the main trait of creating such groups through

oral communication: anyone knowing that language may potentially be a member of an

elementary group, but there is no such member who would be included in only one group. Oral

communication participants always are members of several oral communication groups.

Thus, oral speech by definition cannot unite all people knowing that language, unless it is

reproduced. Reproduction is needed because oral speech medium is local and fleeting, and thus

does not cover everyone who know the language. It means that the members of that language

society must divide into small (elementary) groups where members constantly interact (for

instance, families); oral connection between such groups will constantly tend to wither. The only

way to become a united language group is oral speech reproduction.

Oral speech reproduction means that previously heard texts are rendered from memory,

since memory is the only way of storing oral texts due to the fleeting nature of their material.

Reproduction can be of two kinds: a)singular and b)multiple.

a) with singular reproduction every member of the group receives the text only once. It

can be shown as ABC… Singular reproduction is based on the following

principle: person B listens to the text, transmits it to person C who does not know it yet,

etc. It is forbidden to transmit the text to someone who knows it already.

b) With multiple reproduction every speaker and listener in that language society comes

in contact with the text not once, but many times, i.e. the same text may be transmitted

to persons who know it already and each time they must listen to it.

In both cases the utterance covers all members of the language group through a mixture of

singular and multiple reproduction.

Thus, oral speech must be reproduced to preserve the unity of a language society. During

reproduction individual members of oral communication are summed up into elementary groups

(for instance, families), and the use of both types of reproduction results in summing those

elementary groups up into a united language society. Such summing up may and usually does

have a series of intermittent stages, when singular and multiple reproductions cover not the whole

society but its parts, and sum up the elementary groups not within the whole society, but partially.

Since partial reproduction and the combination of reproduction types are allowed in practice, both

types of reproduction have very specific rules. When the rules are not followed consistently,

intermittent groups of people are formed, called in sociology "informal groups" [141].

Texts subjected to different types of reproduction have different names. Thus, texts which

are reproduced only once for every listener are called rumors. Texts which are subject to multiple

reproduction form oral verbal art per se (in other words, folklore).

Texts that are not reproduced do not have a special name. Let's name them messages. So,

a message is an isolated text that is not reproduced.

Those three types of utterances (messages, rumors, folklore) perform distinct functions in

society. Messages and rumors, due to the type of their reproduction, cannot be the bearers of

culture, since their content is not passed on from generation to generation; at the same time,

folklore is the bearer of culture. Cultural content of oral verbal art is of general importance, is

passed on from generation to generation and covers every member of society.

When messages are created, those texts do not entail general importance, since not every

member of language society is familiarized with all messages.

When rumors are created, all society members are united by one reproduced text, but every

person deals with the text only once; this is why rumors stop when they reach the border of the

language society. A rumor does not presuppose succession and cannot by itself become a basis for

5

a new rumor (only for a distortion of the old one). A person getting involved in a rumor will not

find a content in it which would be historically important for the life of the language society; this is

why rumors do not have cultural importance.

Because folklore is many times reproduced by every member of the language society, the

texts of oral verbal art become important for the society as a whole; their reproduction, unlike that

of rumors, does not stop when the boundary of the society is reached. It follows, then, that the

culture of oral speech is represented in the texts of oral verbal art.

Different qualities of messages, rumors and folklore can be effectively presented in a table

showing the relationship between texts and people.

Matrix 1. Types of utterances

Relationship "text-person" Message Rumor Folklore

Listener does not deal with

the text more than once

+ + --

Text is created for the whole

language society

-- + +

Not prohibited from

repetition

+ -- +

The table shows that the main types of utterances have distinct functional distribution by

the relationship between the text and the person.

With its reproductability and general importance, folklore sums up and unites the language society into a

culturally unified group. Thus, societies which possess only oral speech are culturally united or divided only through

oral verbal art.

When folklore is lost, it equals the disappearance of the language society; when one accepts new folklore it

equals one's transition into a different language society. When oral verbal art is changed, it means the language

society itself is changed. But we should bear in mind that we are talking about a language society, not national

identity. History has examples when whole nations accepted a different language and verbal art, but preserved their

ancestral tribal identity. It is explained, on the one hand, by the existence of other semiotic systems in addition to

language, and on the other hand by the fact that a people's traditions and customs can be preserved in a

foreign-language environment. A characteristic example is the history of Altaic languages.

Thus, the proposed model confirms and specifies the known observation of ethnology and ethnography that

in a society which does not have a writing system, the loss, gain or change of language is practically identified with the

loss, gain or change of folklore.

The classification of oral speech into messages, rumors and folklore is based on the

material traits of oral speech which determine the types of text reproduction. For oral speech to

take place and become differentiated into types, special mechanisms are required which would

compel a particular type of action with words. A collection of such special mechanisms is speech

etiquette, defining the major rules of verbal contacts. Speech etiquette is learned through the

instruction from the elders, imitation and other ways.

At the later stages of the development of language textures speech etiquette of certain society strata may be

written down and even disseminated in printed materials [124].

In particular, the French speech of the educated strata was highly etiquette and created a new type of

conversation.

6

Speech etiquette is always directed at creating a special type of content. Different peoples

may have extremely different speech etiquette. However, there are some general rules common to

any nation. Such general rules are formulated in folklore.

1.3. MAIN TYPES OF ORAL SPEECH AND THE FOLKLORE SPEECH

ETIQUETTE

The major rules of etiquette provide for the development of oral speech and for

accumulation of culturally important texts. But the realization of those major rules requires great

skill and unfolds into a complex "grammar" of mutually dependent rules for constructing every

monologic cue in a dialogue. Language learning for children starts from that "grammar". Both

rules and precedents are used to teach it.

The rules of speech behavior are presented in the texts of oral verbal art. Every folklore

genre contains texts dedicated to the description of the rules of speech behavior. Thus, characters

in myths often win through a skillful use of speech or put the opponent in a fallacious position with

the help of speech. Folklore reproves the wrong use of speech. A good example is a widely spread

tale about a fool who always spoke out of place, i.e. made comments inadequate to the situation.

For instance, he greeted a funeral procession with "may you never run out of loads," which is

supposed to be a greeting for harvesters. Fables about flatterers and deceivers abound; many

riddles include the rules of using speech etiquette.

Folklore pieces on speaking have not really been studied as a particular thematic division

of folklore. What folklore studies point to (as noted long ago by Potebnja [90]) is that short

folklore genres in a number of cases are a condensed form of extensive genres. This is why it is

convenient to illustrate the detailed rules of speech behavior with proverbs and sayings.

It may be said that proverbs and sayings summarize the rules of speech behavior in the

most concise and comprehensive way. They are, also, the most easily surveyable material. It is

known that the hardest part in studying the meaning of proverbs is systematization. Proverbs are

allegoric and are used in different situations with different meaning. The collection of proverbs

and sayings for the people who use them always is a complex but fairly organized system. But any

thematic description of such a system always yields a vague and seemingly subjective picture due

to the allegoric character of proverbs. For instance, even the classical collection of Russian

proverbs by V. I. Dal [34] has this trait. The reason is that proverbs are polysemantic allegories.

Every section includes synonymous proverbs that are rarely complete synonyms - usually, partial

ones. The separate meanings of partial synonyms have rows of synonyms in other proverbs; this is

why the semantic system of proverbs ramifies and intersects, as does any subject classification of

words. It cannot be comprehensively covered if every utterance is assigned to one rubric only.

This is why it would make sense to develop a subject classification of proverbs selecting

beforehand not the rubrics themselves, but the principles of rubric creation and bearing in mind

that any principle of rubric creation will offer only one of many projections of the semantic system

of proverbs.

Let's review the proposed functional distribution of the meanings of proverbs using some

examples.

The proverbs are taken from the book by G. N. Permjakov Proverbs and Sayings of the Peoples of the Orient.

The reason for such selection is that my work is on general philology and must generalize folklore sayings of different

languages. The latest collection of that sort is the book by G.N. Permjakov. The author considered the collections of

proverbs of different peoples and selected the sayings that are logically and rhetorically invariant [85].

7

The proverb "It is a short way form blind loyalty to infidelity" has the following main

applications: 1) seeing the demonstration of blind loyalty towards yourself or a different person

you should expect that the person exhibiting such loyalty may cause damage, mostly unwittingly.

This meaning is linked to the proverb "A helpful fool is no safer than an enemy." 2) the person

unwittingly and unexpectedly exhibiting loyalty finds out that his or her actions are not welcome

or are detrimental. Recognizing himself in the situation described by the proverb, the person

understands the harmfulness of his "blindness," i.e. unaware loyalty. In this case the

disappointment may be expressed by the saying "Whom and how do I serve?" and be synonymous

to the proverb "Wanted to correct the brow but pushed out the eye."; 3) both the person receiving

and the person exhibiting loyalty should be guided by the presumption that blind loyalty is never

good, because, first, "Betrayal always hides behind fidelity," and second "Blindness of mind is

worse than blindness of eye." Those two proverbs characterize the potential danger of blind

loyalty for both sides.

It is easy to see that partial synonyms are different in their relation to time. In the first case

the meaning of the proverb "It is a short way from blind loyalty to infidelity" is easily interpreted in

terms of the future - "what should be expected". In the second case the proverb contains a

recognition of a situation that already exists and entails the correction of one's behavior after such

recognition - "what has already happened". In the third case the saying is not related to time,

which allows people to appreciate the harmfulness of blind loyalty in general and change behavior.

In the first case we are dealing with an "omen", a prognosis of future events; in the second

case - with a re-interpretation of an existing situation, and in the third - with a standard for dealing

with a class of situations and with the rules of thinking and acting. Thus, processing proverbs is

linked to the most important functions of language: in the first case it is the function of prognosis,

in the second case - the function of modeling, in the third one - the function of teaching.

In addition to being polysemantic, proverbs about speaking have antonyms which at the

first glance lead to a logical contradiction between the proverbs.

Thus, from the point of view of formal logic the proverbs describing the relationship

between word and action and the proverbs describing the relationship between people in speech

may seem to contradict each other. For instance, it is said "Don't hurry with your words, hurry

with your deeds," but it is also said "The smart one uses his tongue, the silly one uses his hands"; or

"He is a master when he talks but a messer when he acts" vs. "The tongue will not fall off if it says

a few nice words," etc. Such a contradiction illustrates very well the difference in the proverbs'

meanings. The pairs in the examples truly are contradictory if they are viewed as modeling the

same situation. But if they model different situations, the contradiction is removed.

From this point of view the proverbs describing the relationship between words and actions

and taken as a system of rules for teaching speech behavior not only do not contradict the proverbs

on relationship between people in speech, but directly follow from them. While the proverbs on

words and actions state that action is born or, rather, should be born from words, the proverbs on

speech relationships provide for the words to be born and point out that the more words have been

born the more foundation there is to arrange the action well.

Thus, the major rules of speech behavior may be discovered from proverbs; the proverbs

should be viewed in their didactic function, as instructional statements, regardless of how the

proverbs refer to speech - directly or metaphorically. From this point of view the proverbs fall into

several large semantic categories.

8

The first semantic category talks about the relationship between word and action, i.e. about

the connection between thought, speech and act. The second category of proverbs talks about

speech relationships, i.e. about the rules of conducting conversation and constructing a dialogue.

The third category gives the rules of behavior for a listener; the fourth category gives the rules for

a speaker. The last, fifth category of proverbs characterizes speech; directly or indirectly it

differentiates the types of utterances: messages, rumors, folklore.

The sum knowledge of those five categories of proverbs covers all basic and major rules of

speech behavior as reflected in folklore speech etiquette. It provides for the movement of texts and

accumulation of culturally important ones, the process which should be not only uninterrupted, but

also unhindered and as fast as possible. The speaker and the listener both should be behaving in a

way that would ensure the achievement of this goal.

Now let us review those rules and the proverbs illustrating them.

1. It is recommended that the listener be always prepared to receive speech without delays.

It means that speech reception is obligatory not only when the listener is free from other pursuits,

but even when he or she is busy doing something. So if a person is involved in a work and is

addressed at that time, it is recommended that the person set the work aside and listen. If the

person is talking and is addressed at that moment, it is correct to fall silent and listen rather than to

continue to talk. This way the person avoids negligence in speech reception and speech is not

devalued. A proverb says, "The learned one does not talk, the ignorant one does not let others

talk" (God gave you one mouth and two ears; speech is silver, silence is gold; a still toungue makes

a wise head).

How this main rule is observed depends on the situation, of course. If the rule is violated,

the responsibility always falls with the listener who should consider very seriously the motives

impelling him to violate the main rule - prefer listening to any other verbal or non-verbal actions.

2. For speech to develop unhindered the speaker is forbidden to create a content which

would harm the listener or listeners (either bodily, as in magic, or morally). The speaker is

prescribed caution and must foresee such possible harm. A proverb says, "All troubles come from

words".

The violation of that rule, i.e. a speech act causing harm, is tabooed. Thus, foul language,

curses, magic attempting to harm and similar verbal acts are tabooed. If a speaker violates the rule,

it must be caused by special circumstances; naturally, the violation presumes that the

responsibility falls with the speaker.

This main rule for the speaker is explained by such qualities of speech as "A word hurts

more than an ax", etc. Besides, the proverbs specify what in the meaning may "hurt" the listener.

For example, "Don't talk about ropes in the house of a hanged."

The main rules of speech etiquette can be shown this way (see scheme 2).

Scheme 2. Main rules of oral speech behavior

LISTENER

SPEAKER

It is recommended to accept any

speech and prefer listening to any

other action.

It is forbidden to harm or insult the

listener by undesired and

detrimental content.

9

The main rules of speech behavior have specific applications for different types of oral

speech.

On the whole any type of oral speech differs from others by the type of interdiction

imposed on the text content. Those interdictions in each type of speech depend on the type of

receiver and consist of the further detailing of the ban on harming listeners:

a) if the receiver is an elementary group (or an informal group), then it is banned to harm

only the members of that group; but the speech may contain potential damage for people outside

the elementary group (or the informal group).

b) If the receiver is the total language society, and every member receives the text only

once, than the ban on harm is broader. A rumor may contain information damaging only for a

person outside the society which speaks that language. Otherwise a forbidden type of rumor

emerges, colloquially called gossip.

c) If the receiver is the total language society and every member receives the text more

than once, then the ban on harm is complete: no one person may suffer from such a text.

Interestingly, folklorists often discover in oral verbal art an opposition to other folklore groups, but it is

always expressed allegorically (euphemistically).

The banning of messages which are harmful for the interlocutor means that any event or

information on any person may become the subject of elementary messages, except information

which is undesirable for a member of the elementary (informal) group. Rumor places a broader

ban on speech content: any events may be talked about, but undesirable comments may not be

made about a member of that language society. Folklore does not speak about specific members of

the language society at all (since it is repeated many times and undesirable comments on the

interlocutor are forbidden). Moreover, folklore always talks not about people, but only about

folklore characters who are not specific members of the society but approximate, symbolic figures.

Maybe this is why folklore characters often do not look like normal people - they are fantastic, and

in early folklore often have unusual appearance compiled from the features of different natural

phenomena, animals and people. Even cultural characters of early mythology frequently look like

fanciful compilations.

We should notice that elementary messages within elementary or informal groups may

touch upon various interests of the members of society. Messages are possible which are

undesirable or even hostile for other elementary or informal groups or individuals outside the

group within which the message is circulated. Thus elementary messages within informal groups

may become a source of disintegration of a united language society. However, the reproduction of

such texts within the informal group may be going on according to the rules of speech behavior.

Hence, speeches reproduced within one informal group may be secret from other informal groups.

The confidentiality may be preserved only if the cases allowing the reproduction of such texts are

specifically stipulated. It is forbidden, as a proverb goes, "to wash dirty linen in public."

Consequently, for the message to remain confidential the reproduction of the secret texts must be

allowed only within the informal group and forbidden for other informal groups. Everybody

comes across this rule daily while conducting so-called confidential conversations. The content of

text in those conversations is such that is may harm the relationship of the speaker and some third

person. This is why the listener must not report the content of the conversation to third parties.

Cf. the ending of A. P. Chekhov's short story "Live Merchandize":

- Spineless, that's what you are! - I blurted out to Groholsky.

10

- Right, I am not a strong-willed man… that's all true… Fare you well! Stop by again, and don't tell Ivan

Petrovich what I said to you about him.

Creating a message, the members of the informal group should know if it contains a secret

of that group. Otherwise reproduction may put the speaker in an awkward position and he or she

by the etiquette rules may develop the reputation of a "gossipmonger" or "prattler".

If the utterance contains no secret it may be reproduced for the members of other informal

groups. As stated above, there are two options in that case: rumor - when every person may

become a listener of the text only once, and folklore - when every person may become a listener

and a speaker more than once. Speech relationships between the participants of oral

communication change depending on that.

With rumor, as has already been said, the speaker should not reproduce the text to a person

who has already received it. Speech etiquette allows the speaker to ask the receiver of the text if

the content of the rumor about to be reproduced is already familiar to the receiver. Obviously, in

the case of a rumor the requirement to the listener to receive the text is not as rigid.

Because folklore allows multiple replication of the same text to the same person, the text

must be accepted and welcome at each reproduction. The question if the receiver has heard the

text before is pointless - the receiver is supposed to know it, unless for some reason he or she has

not been initiated into a particular sphere of oral verbal art.

Thus the seminal types of oral texts - messages, rumors, folklore - in their relationship to

the speaker are differentiated by the traits which determine the speaker's behavior: for messages

the distributive (relevant) trait is confidentiality, i.e. the ban on transmitting certain content; for

rumor it is the selection of listeners, i.e. the ban on repeating familiar information to the same

person (content should be new to listeners); for folklore it is taking into account the

communication context, i.e. the ban on unmotivated reproduction of a piece of oral verbal art.

The above may be summarized in the matrix table:

Matrix 2. Distributive features of the main types of utterances

Types of utterances

Relevant features

Messages Rumor Folklore

Ban on transmitting certain

content

+ -- --

Ban on repeating the same

information to the same person

-- + --

Ban on unmotivated

reproduction of the text

-- -- +

Oral speech connects the speaker and the listener in two principal ways: instruction and

information.

In the case of instructional speech knowing the content is required for all society members.

Instructional texts are different from other types in that they are repeated and obligatory. This is

why it is the instructional texts that form culture. Such is the function of folklore in pre-literary

societies.

An information text may have any content. However, it should always be addressed to a

new person. Rumor is an information text.

11

The third kind of texts are the ones linked both to information and education. Those are

messages.

Let's look at the basic division going throughout the body of proverbs using as an example

the fifth category of proverbs, the ones explaining qualities of speech and differentiating, directly

or indirectly, the main types of utterances.

For a society which possesses only oral speech any type of text on the surface is presented as an oral message

passed from one person to another, i.e. all oral texts may fall in the category of messages. This is why the general rules

of speech behavior captured above cover all three main types of utterances.

The rules are further differentiated for every type of texts with the exception of messages, for which those

additional rules are null. This is why the rules for rumor and folklore follow the general description of the qualities of

speech, or, in other words, the differentiation of text types.

Definitions of the qualities of speech, as a semantic category of proverbs, permeate the

body of proverbs about speech; the types of utterances may be differentiated through collating

proverbs. Thus, the "qualities of speech" are described in the proverbs of the following types:

1. A timely word is worth a camel.

2. A heart-felt word reaches hearts.

3. Tongues kill like daggers, except that blood does not show.

4. Good reputation is easy to lose, bad reputation is hard to get rid of.

5. A dish passed around gets empty, a gossip passed around builds up. (A tale never loses

in the telling)

6. Nothing is known in the house yet, but everyone outside already knows.

7. A word has no wings, but it flies.

8. Sickness comes through the mouth, trouble comes out of the mouth.

9. Heaven is silent, people talk for it

10. A thought has no bottom, a word has no limit.

This systematic set of proverbs points out the general qualities of speech. Those are first

and foremost positive qualities, since they solve difficult situations (1 and 2); however, speech can

also be destructive. The negative qualities are, first, that the speaker may harm the listener (3), and

second, that a third person's reputation may suffer (4).

The possibility of harming a third person is based on spreading rumors (5,6, and 7). A

rumor may damage both the listener and a third person, and thus cause far-reaching harm to some

members of the whole society (8).

The "volatile" quality of speech may become stable if the word is constantly "in flight" (9).

Words should reflect the depth and limitlessness of thought (10); otherwise a private person's

opinion is evaluated by proverbs like "Rattling like an empty jar".

When the proverbs describing various qualities of speech are collated, the typical features

emerge differentiating the main genres - messages, rumor, folklore.

It can be illustrated by the table:

Table 1. Distinctive features of the main types of oral speech as reflected in proverbs

Proverbs

Types of speech

1, 2 3 4, 5, 6 7, 9 10 8

Messages + + -- -- + +

Rumor + + + + -- +

Folklore + -- -- + + --

12

The distinction between messages as opposed to rumor and folklore is a semantically

important one in proverbs. The maxims about messages do not specify the correlation between

speech and action - it may be a mental reaction or an action. The maxims about rumor and folklore

specify that the received utterances may be dealt with only mentally or by another speech, but not

responded to with an action. It is easy to see that messages, rumor and folklore are very distinct in

the folklore understanding of the "qualities of speech": the maxims on the qualities of speech

structurally and functionally distinguish the types of oral speech and lock in the division of oral

speech into types.

The qualities of rumor are noted in maxims through a series of proverbs which add up to a

system of rules and evaluation of judgments. The following group of counterposed statements

comprises the sequence of rules related to both internal and loud speech:

a.1. "If the ear does not hear news for one day, it becomes deaf"

a.2. "I am passing it on for what it's worth"

b.3. "Speaking by someone else's mouth". "Another person's mind will not take you far”.

b.4. "There is no smoke without fire". " Grass does not move without wind".

c.5. "A big dog starts barking, and a little one picks up". "One dog barks for nothing,

others pick up for real".

c.6. "The dog barks, but the caravan goes on". "What does the moon care about a dog's

barking?"

Every group of proverbs is connected to the next one like in a dialogue. They may even be

connected by the conjunction "Yes, but…", since those statements give a different evaluation to

the information heard. Translated from the proverbial allegory such a dialogue receives the

following non-allegoric form:

a.1. News is valuable

a.2. This news is known to many except you; I am not sure how reliable it is but I am

passing it on exactly as I heard it.

b.3. He does not take the responsibility for actions resulting from that speech, he is only

passing on someone else's words, and this is not valuable.

b.4. But still, even not knowing how valuable the speech is, its mere emergence is

symptomatic and informative for the situation.

c.5. It's common knowledge that the value of words is checked by the identity of the

speaker, because that identity determines what kind of action may follow; I do not know who the

author of those words is, so I am cautious that they may be a gossip or a slander.

c.6. A serious matter will not be damaged by slander; let time prove the seriousness of what

was said.

This "dialogue" stating the rules of treating rumor is linked to another group of rules. That

group contains the ban on reproduction in rumors:

d.1. "If you shout into a jar, the jar shouts back". "What you shout in the forest, you hear as

a reply".

d.2. "The liar's house caught fire and no one believed it". "A slanderer will die of slander".

d.3. "The more you dig in the garbage pile the more you stink".

d.4. "Even a good word is good once".

This group of maxims adds to and specifies what was said above. The sayings may be

connected by "Besides, it should be remembered that…". Thus, the following chain of reasoning

13

is formed: “remember that rumors come back, so do not add what was not there; besides, a rumor

should be passed on exactly; also, detrimental and pointless information should not be passed on;

and it should be remembered that a rumor repeated to the same person loses its rationale".

Thus, some proverbs point out recommendations how to form a recount of information,

others point out the bans to be observed while forming it.

The first set of rules allows reproduction of another person's speech on certain conditions;

the second set instructs to refrain from reproduction of statements whose content is fraught with

damage for the reproducer and so makes it unsuitable for rumor.

As for oral verbal art, the maxims talking about folklore are very different both in content

and in imagery from the ones talking about rumor. Their peculiarity is that those maxims talk not

only about speech, but about knowledge in general.

First, there are maxims on the virtue and advantage of a learned person over an ignorant

one: A scholar is everywhere a scholar, a king is only a king in his kingdom; A woman's intellect is

in her beauty, a man's beauty is in his intellect.

Also it is added that knowledge should be complemented with common sense, because "an

educated fool is worse than all other fools".

Secondly, there are maxims on the need to study: You learn only if you study; you reach

only if you walk; Education is better than riches; Strive to conquer not the world, but its wisdom.

Third, the maxims state that the best way to gain knowledge is through old knowledge

which exists since earlier times: studying something old you learn something new; the old takes

care of the new.

Fourth, the maxims establish that the main source of old knowledge is speech: Old rivers

do not dry out; ancestral legends are the source of wisdom; words of old men are a source of

sense.

Fifth, the maxims recommend that educating the young should be actively undertaken: It is

easy for a young tree to bend, it is easy for a young man to make a mistake; When a young twig

bends, it breaks, when a young man comes to shame, he dies. There is a direct instruction: Bend

the tree while it's young, teach the child while it's little; straighten the young while it is flexible.

Sixth, the education should come from the carriers of tradition - old people: An old person

among the young gets stupider, a young person among the old gets smarter; Where there are no

good old people, there are no good young people.

The essence of this category of rules is to separate students from teachers, to establish the

compulsory character of education, to construct education as the replication of traditional forms of

oral verbal art, to put knowledge in the first place among life aspirations of a person.

All those categories of proverbs as a whole are divided in two large classes. One class

includes the maxims on "speech and action" and the maxims on "qualities of speech". The other

class includes the remaining three closely intertwined categories - maxims on the rules of

conducting a conversation and structuring a dialogue, maxims on the rules for the listener and

maxims on the rules for the speaker. The destinies of those two classes in further,

"beyond-folklore", development are different.

Maxims on the "properties of speech" and "speech and action" contain the seed of the

theory of naming. This is why when written speech evolves this sphere of knowledge develops

into full-fledged onomastic theories (theories of Logos). Together with developing the theory of

14

naming, the rules of coining words were specifically detailed and described; in language sciences

those rules are called "folk (or vulgar) etymology".

The other class of maxims, the one about the rules of conducting a dialogue, the rules for

the listener and the rules for the speaker, still acts as an organizing force in oral speech per se.

However, in the written-text-oriented genres of oral speech the rules of verbal art split up due to

the separation of written speech from oral. Written speech developed its own types of utterances -

monologic genres which are described by the rules for the speaker. Varied forms of extensive

monologues were reflected in rhetoric, poetics and stylistics. Oral dialogue, even with written

elements, has mostly preserved the traditional folklore rules of constructing a conversation, only in

rare cases and in a few cultures adding instructional written texts - manuals on conversation

etiquette.

1.4. DIALOGUE AND MONOLOGUE. MODALITY OF SPEECH

For a society which possesses only oral speech any type of text is an utterance transmitted

from one person to another, i.e. any utterance is, on the surface, an elementary message. Every

message, in its turn, can cause a verbal reaction in the interlocutor: either in the form of a simple

replication of what was heard, or in the form of another, new message joined to the heard one in a

specific way. A set of messages from different people on the same topic is normally called a

dialogue, and each message inside the dialogue - a monologue.

The division of the types of utterances into messages, rumor and folklore is based on the

use of different rules of reproduction. In general, utterance reproduction as a phenomenon of

speech activity presumes certain order of utterances within a dialogue: first comes the source text,

then its reproduction and then a new text which is not a simple reproduction of an already familiar

one but which will, in its turn, become the next source of reproduction.

On the scale of the whole society such dialogic utterances may be considered a random

sequence of texts to which only statistical rules may be applied, or it may be considered an

organized, formally and thematically ordered "exchange of cues" in a dialogue.

There are two spheres in the study of principles of the dialogic organization in the

"exchange of cues".

One of them analyzes the "exchange of cues" in the context of a situation. In this sphere we

have, on the one hand, thematically organized phrase-books and oral communication text-books,

and on the other hand some special guides (for instance, in law, where the theory of court argument

and the methodology of cross-examination are described). [45;133].

An interesting written realization of the full and consistent "exchange of cues" is a dialogue as a literary form.

A classical example of this genre is the dialogues by Plato; of newer works the book by Lakatos "Proofs and

Definitions" [61] may be noted. This literary genre exhibits the rules of joining dialogic utterances, first and foremost,

semantically.

The other sphere of research looks at the formal and semantic features of utterances in the

dialogic "exchange of cues"; it studies the typology of utterance modality and distinguishes

interrogative, imperative, exclamatory, narrative and other types of utterances. The modality of a

separate statement in a row of others has been studied by logic, establishing even a special aspect -

modal logic, and by linguistics, which identified and defined the main types of sentence modality

in the very beginning of its existence [89,44].

15

V.V. Vinogradov in his treatise on sentences showed that the classification of sentences by

modality is linked to person, tense and intonation, and constitutes the center of language semantics

and form [19].

Those spheres reveal certain regularities in the dialogic "exchange of cues". It turns out

that the process of sequencing and expanding utterances within a dialogue is fairly clearly

organized both from the point of view of semantic sequence of monologic utterances and from the

point of view of the form and meaning of each cue. Such organization can emerge only if special

rules are applied to conducting the conversation. Only the use of definite dialogue construction

rules can join separate utterances into a meaningful sequence and give every utterance in that

sequence a characteristic modal type, different from another in form and in meaning. Very

generally such rules may be characterized as an interface between, on the one hand, the theory of

questioning and proving, and on the other hand, the logic and linguistic rules of formal and

semantic distribution of utterances. To specify those rules in their simplest form it will suffice to

establish three main kinds of utterances-dialogic cues: an appeal, a question, a narration.

Appeal, question and narration as oral forms of speech are part of the hierarchy where texts

are linked to the non-verbal actions. This should be taken into account because oral utterances

may coincide with sentences classified by modality.

In other forms of speech, for instance in writing, different types of modality may be included in the text and

cover parts of sentences or supra-phrasal segments, or be contained in the text not explicitly. For instance: a letter

containing an inquiry; a law containing an appeal, etc.

Classification of utterances by modality (appeal, question, narration) involves the

existence or absence of a response by speech or action to the received text. In those modal forms

of speech the text always presupposes a second person as a specific addressee - communication

participant joining the speaker in space and time.

The division of utterances by modality is not only the property of messages, but also is

found in rumor and folklore where the necessary response by speech or action takes place in a

game, and not is the a situation.

In particular, in such cases the question and appeal are usually transformed into a fictional example, i.e. they

are not real appeal or a real question to the receiver of the text; they imagine a receiver that could, but does not exist.

For example, "Hi, neighbor!" - "Went to the market." - "Are you deaf?" - "Bought a rooster." The dialogue in this little

tale is a convention. So to say, it could potentially exist for either member of communication. Questions and answers

here are included in a narration and thus are devoid of their real meaning. The cue "Are you deaf?" should have been

followed by an answer "Yes", "I can't hear you", "Not deaf at all" or the like. The tale models a wrong exchange of

cues in a dialogue. The listeners know the rules of conducting a dialogue and that allows for the comical effect of the

tale.

It is important to distinguish between a question and an appeal in rumor and folklore and an

appeal in a normal imperative sentence. Every nation has tales and fables (or proverbs) describing

how unreasonable it is to respond by speech or action to a rumor or a folklore text containing

interrogative and imperative statements. Interrogative and imperative statements in reproducible

texts lose their direct function and assume the function of quoting direct speech. Utterances of

different modality included in a reproduced text acquire a narrative flavor, since the receiver is not

participating as an actant. However, different modalities can always be included into any text.

16

It is easiest to study the speech etiquette rules for different types of modality using the

example of elementary messages. An oral message poses the following choice of the types of

responses:

1) a verbal reply with new content; 2) an action (non-verbal); 3) re-rendering of the

message; 4) no verbal or non-verbal response.

The receiver of the message should be able to identify various consequences depending on

the selected speech behavior. Such analysis of consequences is considered the correct behavior for

the listener and is the basic principle of message reception. This basic principle begets various

general rules for message reception, namely:

a) the receiver should attentively listen to the message;

b) the receiver should reply by speech if the message contains a question;

c) the receiver should reply by action if the message contains an appeal.

This determines the main etiquette rules for selecting the receiver's responses to messages.

The recommended types of receiver's acts are: 1) silence if there is no question; 2)verbal response

if there is no appeal to a non-verbal action; 3) re-rendering to another person, if there is no appeal

to a non-verbal action or a special interdiction of a verbal action;4) non-verbal action, if there is no

special appeal of non-action.

The seminal etiquette rules go back to the most basic cultural and historical functions of language and are

designed to prevent the interruption of communication. The uninterrupted flow of communication is rooted in the

social, and not in the ethological character of the language society. Ethological signal-automatic response behavior is

no longer operational at that stage. This is why in human society speech etiquette substitutes for the signal automatism

of animals.

Narrative statements are counterposed to interrogative and imperative ones in terms of the

choice of responses, but are not distinguished from them functionally and structurally, because a

narration does not lock in a required type of response, while a question and an appeal are strictly

differentiated by the free and restricted responses.

The seminal rules of the "exchange of cues" make the foundation of speech etiquette and

require flexibility in every specific communication situation.

For instance, if there are several listeners, one should not answer a question not addressed to one personally.

This etiquette provision may be broken if the questioned person does not answer and thus does not uphold one of the

main etiquette rules.

Another example. Even if the message is trivial in meaning, it is recommended not to interrupt the speaker

(cf. a proverb formulating the corresponding rule: "Don't listen if it's not your fancy, but don't meddle in the tall-tale

either").

How the person observes speech etiquette is an indication of how advanced the person is. This is why the

observance of the etiquette rules is stimulated by the communicants' desire to have the elite qualities of their

personalities acknowledged. Being a criterion of the elite qualities, speech etiquette is one of the ways to achieve a

higher position in society (according to the saying, the person is an elite if that person knows how to "move and talk").

Let's review the table summarizing the main rules of speech etiquette.

Table 2. Speaker/Listener. Types of utterances and responses.

Speaker: Listener: types of responses

Types of utterances New message Re-rendering Action No action, no

speech

17

Narration 0 0 -- 0

Question + -- 0 --

Appeal 0 -- + --

Note: (--) in the table marks a response not recommended by the etiquette rules; (+) marks a prescribed type

of response; (0) marks a free choice of response.

The table demonstrates that:

1. types of utterances have different distribution of the types of responses;

2. appeal and question exclude the possibility of reproduction; reproduction is possible

only in the case of narration;

3. appeal and question allow either a new message or a new action as a response;

4. narration allows an absence of response or any type of response.

It can be seen that when communication is extended various modalities have a tendency to

be transformed into narration. Thus, question and appeal allow narration as one of the response

options. The narration itself allows any type of response. RE-rendering or silence are forbidden in

the case of question and appeal, but are allowed in the case of narration. It follows that narration is

the dominant speech modality. Narration content can be abstracted from the situation since

re-rendering and zero response are possible - those are the responses beyond the specific moment

of the communicative situation.

The meaning of reproduction is sustained only by the spiritual and intellectual interest of

the interlocutors, and not by a specific communicative situation. This is why narration always has

as its product the development of the social factor in language. All three types of utterance allow

the transition to practical action, but in each case it means not the future development of thought in

speech, but the cessation thereof.

It is possible to conclude that the problem of "exchange of cues" governed by speech

etiquette is close to the problem of name forming, i.e. to the problem of words and sayings

acquiring the nominative function. Nominative function presumes the ability to express the nature

of the object in its name and thus to offer the rules of treating that object.

In addition to the general rules of the sequence of cues in a dialogue there are many

particular rules determining the construction of every cue. Those rules prescribe the content of

cues and their relationship to the content of the previous cue or cues. Those particular rules of

constructing a dialogue and a monologue are well detailed in the maxims on speech relationships.

1.5 THE MAXIMS ABOUT DIALOGUE

The maxims on speech relationships can be conveniently described by grouping them to

reflect, on the one hand, a sequence of acts in time, and on the other hand, the degree of importance

of each act in structuring and conducting a conversation.

The first sub-group of maxims presumes that speech relationships of interlocutors must be

based on politeness formulas. It contains the proverbs evaluating a person by his or her familiarity

with the etiquette forms: "You know a horse by riding it, you know a person by conversing with

him"; "Politeness is comprehended through incivility"; "Look at a boor and learn to be polite". It

also includes the proverbs recommending civility and forbidding impolite speech: "One good

word is better than a thousand scolding ones"; "A tongue will not fall off if it is says a few nice

words"; "A rotten mouth will produce only an ill word". This group of proverbs about the need of

18

good manners in communication in fact presupposes not only the knowledge of etiquette norms,

but also the ban on verbally insulting the interlocutor (see the section "Rules for the Speaker").

The second sub-group of maxims is about the order of conducting a conversation. It

contains statements of three categories:

a) statements about speech being preferable to a speechless action: "The smart one acts

with his tongue, the silly one acts with his hands".

b) Statements about listening being preferable to speaking: "Chew before you swallow,

listen before you speak"; "God gave you one mouth and two ears, so listen twice and speak once";

"The learned one does not speak, the ignorant one does not let others speak".

c) Statements about silence being potentially meaningful in the context of a conversation:

"Silence is also a response".

The third sub-group of maxims includes the typical mistakes possible in constructing a

conversation. The most important mistakes are characterized by the following proverbs:'

1. "Answers when he is not asked" - a mistake in the order of conversation;

2. "He is talking about chickens and she is talking about ducks" - a mistake in topic of the

conversation;

3. "You listen while we keep quiet" - mistaken choice of the "no-response" option;

4. "The deaf one is listening to the numb one speak" - a mistake in the choice of the

interlocutor.

The above mistakes may lead to the cessation of the conversation.

Observing all three groups of rules makes a person a skillful conversationalist, a

"comfortable" interlocutor: "Know how to deal with a fool, and a smart one will deal with you

himself".

The three categories of rules for establishing speech relationships yield the following

picture.

Politeness formulas, insisted upon in the maxims, provide for the possibility to establish a

dialogue, because they act as a system of passwords, creating confidence that the start and

continuation of conversation are possible.

Conversation should be going on according to the rules of politeness and should be

preferred to non-verbal action; within it listening is preferable to speaking and a skill to remain

silent without breaking up the conversation is important.. Those three main rules allow to continue

communication interminably: no action requires moving on to speech, listening causes speaking,

and worthy silence does not interrupt speech.

Everything that may interrupt speech or render it fruitless is considered a mistake. Among

such mistakes are the wrong choice of the interlocutor, breaking the topic of the conversation and

breaking the order of the conversation. Such actions are forbidden by proverbs.

1.6. MAXIMS ABOUT MONOLOGUE

Monologue, as has been mentioned already, is part of a dialogue and consists of a message

from one person to another person (or people) in the course of the dialogue. The specific features

of the monologue are determined by the etiquette rules of creating and accepting monologues, in

other words, by the rules for the listener and the rules for the speaker.

The maxims on dialogue and on monologue are so closely intertwined that in folklore texts

their separation may look artificial. However, it is still necessary to single out the maxims on

19

monologues, considering the subsequent growth of monologic oral speech and the importance of

dividing texts into monologic and dialogic in the subsequent development of language.

The maxims on monologue fairly clearly separate the rules for the speaker and the rules for

the listener. The rules for the listener semantically precede the rules for the speaker.

The rules for the listener

The rules for the listener are presented in many thematic categories of maxims. Let's name

the most important semantic groups of maxims:

A. Maxims prescribing to look for difference in the content of speech received from

different people. For instance, "A hundred people have a hundred opinions", "Many men, many

minds"; "Every person has a good idea; five people , five good ideas".

B. Maxims prescribing the sorting of received utterances into true and usable vs. false

and unserviceable. For instance, "There is no wood that doesn't give smoke, there are no people

that don't make mistakes"; "Even the best teacher makes mistakes".

In oral speech, where the content of the utterance is blended with the personality of the

speaker, truthfulness and serviceability of an utterance should be evaluated as such, regardless of

who the speaker is.

C. Maxims prescribing to separate the speaker's personality from the content of the

utterance. Here several sub-groups are established:

1. "Don't make a decision after you've listened to just one side"; "If something is unclear

for you, don't make conclusions".

2. "All jackals howl the same way", "One dog's bark is the same as another one's".

3. "The elephant dreams one thing, the driver dreams another", "One person likes radish,

another likes melons"; "One likes the pastor's wife, another likes the pastor's

daughter".

The separation of the utterance content from the speaker's personality is based on

contrasting the opposing opinions and collating the comparable ones. The basis of differences or

similarities, according to proverbs, is in the speakers' characters.

At the same time the utterance content should be treated as independent from the speaker's

character.

4. "Even a fool says a smart word sometimes"; "Even a foolish speech may be timely".

5. "Too smart is sometimes no different from stupid"; "Too much wisdom is worse than

stupidity".

The juxtaposition of "smart" - "stupid" talks about the truthfulness and serviceability of the

utterance as it is, regardless of the speaker's character.

Thus, the maxims of group "C" contain the rules recommending the listener to separate the

utterance with its qualities of usefulness and serviceability from the proper qualities of the speaker.

D. Maxims prescribing to discern the intent and interests of the speaker in the utterance

content and the communicative situation. 1. "The man hides behind his words; if you want to know the man, listen to his speech".

2. "The fox know a hundred tales, all of them about a chicken"; "People talk about

whatever, a spinster talks about a husband"; "A cat's dream is full of mice".

This group of maxims prescribes to correlate the utterance content with the speaker's

character and to explain at least part of the utterance by the speaker's intent and interests.

20

E. The maxims warning about a possible "insincerity" of the speaker who is capable of

intending a detrimental influence on the listener. 1. "If insincerity could burn, wood would be two times cheaper"

2. "When meets a man, talks like a man, when meets a devil talks like a devil"; "Eats the

sheep with the wolf and weeps with the shepherd"; "Tells the rabbit to run and tell the

hound to catch"; "Operates like a two-handled saw: from one to the other".

3. "Don't trust the man who praises you"; "Who doesn't gossip about others, doesn't

gossip about you"; "Who talks to you about others, talks to others about you".

The way to protect oneself from insincerity, i.e. from the potentially harmful speaker's

influence, is to collate the speaker's statements made at different times to different people. If a

contradiction is found in the content, unveiling flattery or the reviling of third parties, which is a

circumstantial way of flattery, the opinion and appeal to action contained in the utterance should

be rejected.

F. The maxims containing the tools of evaluating the general content of the utterance

separated from the speaker's character, intent and interests.

1. Illogical conclusion: "Started with a jar, ended with a sauna"; "Started with "be in

good health", ended with "rest in peace"".

2. Lack of understanding: "It's o.k. that the house burnt - at least the bed-bugs are all

dead".

3. Bragging and unrealistic statements: "Was born before his father and watched his

grandfather's herd".

4. Uncertain judgment: "When If and Perhaps got married, they had If Only for a baby";

"Not many words, but many stipulations".

5. Discrepancy between the form and the content: "The letters are sloppy, but the

meaning is neat".

6. Allegory: "It's a bad joke which is not half truth".

This group offers the tools for "quality control" and "scraping" the content of utterances

after it is separated from the character and intent of the speaker.

G. Maxims pointing out the typical mistakes in constructing a statement.

1. Brainless imitation of others: "If it's a fashion, be it even trachoma".

2. Ungrounded dreaming: "On the throne with his thoughts, in the gutter with his butt".

3. Ungrounded self-justification: "Cannot dance, but says the floor is crooked".

4. Inappropriate touchiness: "The toilet's beam reproves the mill's pile for being dirty".

5. Ascribing other people's achievements to oneself: "The horse jumps and the rider

boasts".

6. Lack of understanding of one's own situation: "He is being kicked out of the village,

and he wants to be a alderman".

7. Lack of understanding of the true essence of events: "The river swiped away the whole

mill, and you are asking where the trough is".

8. Incompetent criticism: "Anyone can criticize a house, not many can build one".

9. Incompetent advice: "He who does not do anything likes to lecture to others".

10. Hypocrisy: "Oh, no, I can't take it, so please put it in my pocket".

11. Distortion of truth through anger: "Rage walks first, reason comes behind".

12. Conceitedness and envy: "One's own intelligence and someone else's wealth are

always exaggerated".

13. Ungrounded judgment: "A reason and a band-aid can be stuck to anything".

21

14. Ignorance: "People don't like what they don't know".

Those and similar rules, from the point of view of speech art, serve to identify typical cases

of "wrong speech"; this is why they are often ironic, a parody of wrong speech.

The maxims modeling mistakes in human behavior are numerous and varied, so a peculiar folklore

classification of human mistakes may be imagined. However it seems that such a statement would be "modernizing"

folklore, because in folklore as in a separate sphere of knowledge the idea of a comprehensive psychological and

social systematization of wrong behavior has not yet been formed.

The maxims identifying mistakes in judgment, by the general law of proverbs, are in juxtaposition to the

praise of "precise" and "sensible" speech: "My mouth is my shield", "A good word is half of happiness", etc. The

proverbs pointing out the possible duplicity of speech may be referred to the same category: "The tongue has no bones,

it will turn wherever you turn it", etc. However, this group of maxims already belongs to the rules for the speaker as

well.

As a whole, the folklore rules for the speaker may be combined into sort of a program,

where the message received goes through a series of analyses and checks:

a) be attentive to all received messages;

b) assume possible danger and/or mistake in the message received;

c) in order to evaluate the message correctly separate its content from the character of the

speaker;

d) discern the intent and interests of the speaker behind his speech, depending on the

speaker's personality and previous statements;

e) decline the statements inducing the listener to make an improper step;

f) establish the positive meaning of the message received.

Rules for the speaker

Rules for the speaker are built, as has already been said, on the warnings about the danger

of speech. The maxims fall into categories depending on what danger the speech contains.

A. As has already been noted, the speaker must first and foremost prevent the damage that

the word may bring to the listener ("A knife kills in an empty street, a word kills in public"), and

forestall the potential ill consequences when the statement is repeated to others ("All man's

troubles come from his tongue"); the speaker must also foresee direct harm to himself from a

mistaken statement. This is why the first group of maxims recommends caution when dealing with

speech. For instance,

1. "Cows are caught by their horns, people are caught by their tongues"; "If you watch

your tongue it will protect you, if you let it out of control it will betray you".

2. "A word is an arrow, you can't bring it back after you shoot it"; "You can say what has

not been said, but you cannot take back what has been let out"; "a word said is like a

tree cut"; "While the word is in your mouth, it's yours, after it flies out it's someone

else's".

3. "The fool's heart is in his tongue, the smart man's tongue is in his heart"; "It's better to

have a lame leg than a lame tongue".

The essence of this group of proverbs is to prescribe caution with words, since a)what was

said may turn against the speaker; b)speech is a one-act event not allowing re-takes; c)what is said

reflects the intelligence or stupidity of the speaker, depending on its content.

B. The next group describes internal operations with words. For instance

1. "First cook your words then take them out of your mouth"; "Think before you speak".

22

2. "Don't say all you know, but know all you say"; "It's better to keep silence well than to

speak poorly".

3. "If you are afraid to speak - don't say anything, if you have said something - don't be

afraid".

This group prescribes a)to think about the future statement from all angles; b)to filter

possible statements internally and to select silently what is appropriate to be said; c)pronounce the

selected statements clearly and exactly.

C. The third group of maxims gives a classification of typical mistakes in the pronounced

statements. For example,

1. Contradiction between the speech content and the situation: "It's better to weep in the

right place than to laugh in the wrong one"; "Clean the razor and give advise each in

their time".

2. Triviality of content for the listener: "Don't teach the fish to swim", "The egg is

teaching the hen".

3. Verbosity: "Words are pearls, but they lose value when there are too many"; "A rope is

good when it's long, a speech is good when it's short".

The same category of proverbs may also include the warnings that verbosity can harm the speaker, by leading

to mistakes in filtering and internal evaluation of statements: "He who says a lot, makes a lot of mistakes".

4. Repetition of the same content in the same communicative situation: "Even a good

word is good once".

5. Lying, i.e. intentionally wrong representation of reality in speech: "The liar's house

burnt down and no one believed it"; "Where truth is helpless a lie will not help"; "It's

better to confess well than to hide poorly"; "It's o.k. if the mouth is bent as long as the

words are straight".

6. Devaluation of the statement through wrong choice of listener: "Don't cast pearls

before the swine", "Playing the flute to charm the ear of a buffalo".

D. The fourth group of maxims contains stylistic and rhetorical recommendations. Such

maxims are rather varied in their content. Let's look at some examples:

"The meaning depends on the tone of expression'; "If you want to laud a person - laud him;

if you want to humiliate a person - also laud him"; "Shoots to the side but hits straight" (about an

allegory); "A smart person blames himself, a fool blames his colleague", etc.

The rules of speech behavior for the speaker are built as a program of actions coming in a

certain sequence:

a) Thorough silent formulation of speech is prescribed, since speaking is a one-act event

not allowing re-takes and the speech may turn against the speaker.

b) Silent selection of statements appropriate for voicing is prescribed.

c) It is recommended to review the statements selected for voicing to avoid the following:

contradiction to the communicative situation, triviality of content, verbosity, repetition

of previously said, intentional discrepancy between speech and reality, possible

devaluation of speech due to the listener's character and experience.

Thus, the speech behavior rules for the speaker and the listener constitute two juxtaposed

programs of speech actions [see the block-scheme "Rules of conducting a conversation"]. The

comparison of those programs shows that the juxtaposition takes place on the level of the whole

program. No specific operation in the listener's program corresponds to a specific operation in the

speaker's one, but both programs as a whole are built in such a way that the program for the listener

23

determines the program for the speaker. The analysis that the listener performs determines the

actions and the estimations of the speaker. Thus the general rule is implemented: the listener's

actions imply the speaker's actions.

The rules of conducting a conversation (block-scheme)

4. Accept the statement

1. Evaluate the content of the statement for

positive meaning:

1.1 Does the statement have positive

meaning?

1.2 Does at least part of the statement have

positive meaning?

1.3 Put in the results in the matrix.

1.4 Consider the statement understood

RULES FOR THE

LISTENER

3. Separate the speaker's personality from

the meaning of the statement:

3.1 Does the statement contain brainless

imitation of others?

3.2 Does the statement demonstrate that

the speaker does not understand his

or her own situation?

3.3 Does the statement contain

incompetent criticism or advice?

3.4 Does the statement demonstrate that

the speaker does not understand the

evens?

3.5 Does the statement intentionally

distort reality?

3.6 Estimate how much trust the speaker

deserves.

2. Separate the interest of the speaker from

the meaning of the statement:

2.1 Correlate the content with the content of

other statements by the same speaker

made to other people at different times.

2.2 Single out the common element of the

content in that set of statements

2.3 Does the content of the statement being

analyzed coincide with the content

discovered in 2.2?

2.4 Put the results in the matrix

6. Pronounce the statement 1. Start internal speech preparation process

5. Evaluate rhetorical and stylistic form

of the statement RULES FOR THE

SPEAKER

2. Evaluate the content for potential

harmfulness:

2.1 Can the statement harm the speaker?

2.2 Can the statement harm the listener?

2.3 Can the statement harm a third person?

4. Evaluate the statement for its verity:

4.1 Is the logical reasoning of the

statement true?

4.2 Is the content true in relation to

objective reality?

3. Evaluate the statement content for its

appropriateness to the situation:

3.1 Does the content of the statement

contradict the communicative situation?

3.2 Is the content trivial for the listener?

3.3 Is the content excessive for the listener?

3.4 Has the same statement been repeated in

the same situation?

3.5 Is the listener capable of understanding

the content of the statement?

Researchers note the difference in correlating silent internal processes with loud speech in speakers and in

listeners. The speaker's internal process sort of synthesizes the internal process of the listener, and conversely, the

24

internal process of the listener analyzes the internal process of the speaker. [150, 30]. Such observations are confirmed

by folklore data.

Viewed as the rules of operating with words, proverbs show that the speech programs of

the speaker and the listener necessarily include actions performed silently, in the internal speech.

Such silent internal speech is prescribed, formulated and regulated by definite etiquette norms and

rules; this is why it must not be thought that internal speech is something accidental or optional in

regard of loud speech. Thus, the relationship between thought and speech cannot be boiled down

to associative or neuro-dynamic automatic reactions. The relationship between thought and

speech is presented as a complex process consisting of a series of operations which consistently

bring the listener to speech understanding and the speaker to the possibility of implementing

speech. This process is a result of not only individual, but also social development. Such

understanding of the relationship between thought and speech should form the basis of studying

word creation. The ground rules of word creation are described in folk etymology.

1.7. FOLK ETYMOLOGY

The folklore understanding of "the word" is revealed in a special category of maxims on

"the word and action". The word here is understood as a minimal utterance and thus it possesses

modality and obeys, as a monologic part of a dialogue, the general rules of conducting a

conversation, the rules for the speaker and the listener. The word is an object of creativity.

Creation of words is, in effect, the creation of language.

Linguistics as a science calls the folk analysis of the nature of the word "folk etymology"

(as opposed to the scientific study of the history of the word's meaning). But folk etymology has a

constructive role in addition to analyzing words. A.A. Potebnja studied that constructive role of

folk etymology in great detail [91]. He showed that folk etymology includes the rules not only for

analyzing, but also for creating new words. Defining the qualities of the word folk etymology in a

sense integrates the rules for the speaker and the rules for the listener, the rules of conducting a

dialogue as a whole and of constructing separate monologic parts of a dialogue. Such integration

appears within the limits of a word functioning as a name. Thus folk etymology offers general

rules of word creation which provide for the evolvement of language.

Information related to folk etymology is presented in a large semantic category of maxims

on "the word and action", which splits into three correlating groups:a) maxims about the

relationship between thought, word and action; b) maxims on evaluating word through action; c)

maxims on knowledge (including the knowledge contained in a word) defining, on the one hand,

the rules of thinking and on the other hand the personal responsibility of the acting person.

It should be noted that the maxims on folk etymology do not always talk about speech directly. Some of them

talk about seniority and wisdom, others in a sense offer a parody at wrongly constructed speech (cf. "If I don't know, I

don't worry" or "Let the wolf eat me as long as I don't see it").

Maxims of the first group (thought, word and action) view the word first and foremost as

thought, and forbid to break the order "first thought, then action" ("Look before you leap"; "Don't

go in the water if you don't know where the ford is"). Such proverbs prescribe action only based on

a plan; it is forbidden to act without a preliminary plan: "Think first, act later"; "Thought begets

action". Proverbs requiring thorough thinking through a proposed act belong to the same group

(for instance: "Measure seven times, cut once"), same as the proverbs talking about individual

25

responsibility for actions (for instance, You can't even cut a donkey's tail in public: some would say

too long, others would say too short").

The other sub-group views the word not as a thought, but as a variety of action. The

objective of that sub-group is to make a person act according to his or her words: "Who said and

did is a man, who did not say and did is a lion, who said and did not do is an ass"; "If you have

climbed a horse - ride". Those and many other maxims prescribe implementation of words in

action. If a person does not act according to words, especially his own, such a person is reproved:

"He is a master when he talks but a messer when he acts"; "An empty nut-shell is always loud";

"The miaoing cat does not catch mice"; "He is too little to work, but big enough to talk", etc. As

long as for others the word is the incarnation of thought, the proverbs prescribe to start actions

from words and to forbid "windbagging", i.e. giving up or not starting actions outlined in words.

From this follows the second group of maxims, the one about evaluating the word. From

the folk etymology point of view evaluation comes through the actions which should follow the

word: "What was tied by the tongue cannot be untied by the hand". Thus the word is evaluated by

the action following it, presuming the word's ability to change the situation.

Because the word is evaluated by the action following it, we are compelled to assume paradoxical situations.

For instance: "If you said the sky was low, then bend and walk that way"; "The morning comes not because the rooster

crows", etc. In the context of the rules of speech behavior the comparison of those proverbs shows that the person

saying wrong unreasonable words should still behave according to them, even though the statement may make no

sense or be mistaken. The meaning of the word can be checked by a well-executed action: "Don't worry that you say

awkwardly, worry if you act awkwardly".

The relationship between word and action concentrates the person's attention on action.

This relationship is the ultimate measure of the person's quality.

If the person preserved the correct relationship between word and action all his life, then "A

man dies, but a good word lives", "A good man leaves behind a name, a bad man leaves behind a

pile of dirt". "Preservation of a good name", i.e. of the favorable reputation of the person depends

specifically on the relationship between word and action which he practiced throughout his life. It

is confirmed by the following parallelism: "Cattle dies - bones remain; a man dies - his deeds

remain"; "A horse dies - the field lives on, a man dies - the actions live on".

The semantic category of maxims on "the word and action" offers a system of rules which

may be described as a sequence of actions:

1. Every action must be preceded by thought. The person is responsible for the accuracy

of thought.

2. Before the action takes place, the thought may be expressed through words and thus

become a plan about which others are informed.

3. The action must correspond to the thought. If the thought has been expressed through

words, non-action is forbidden.

4. It is prescribed to act in accordance with the words even if the word was incorrect;

however, the incorrect word may be rectified through action.

5. The person's life is evaluated mainly based on how the person upholds the relationship

between word and action (i.e. the rules 1 - 4).

Thus, according to proverbs, "the word" a)precedes "action" in time; b) determines the

content and manner of action; c)is evaluated by the resulting action.

26

When written speech and literary languages are formed, this relationship between thought,

word and action becomes the starting point for forming the philosophy of name (Logos) which

underlies pre-national written language.

Ancient theories of naming are the variations of developed folk etymology systems. It

should also be noted that in any culture (Chinese, Indian or Greek-Roman) the theory of naming is

principally the same in purpose and in results.

The common sense of the theories of naming is the "instrumentality" of the word: in

naming an object the word becomes an instrument with whose help the named object becomes part

of human practice. The ancient Chinese philosopher Confucius thus formulates this principle: "If

the name is wrong, the speech does not obey; if the speech does not obey, the action does not take

shape. But if the name is correct, then the speech obeys; and if the speech obeys, the action takes

shape" [54]. This short formula is the foundation of the theory of naming. The theory will be best

explained if first the notions of "name", "speech" and "action" are defined. The meaning of those

words in modern languages is often different from what was common in the ancient world.

"Name" was understood not as just an arbitrary tag going with an object or a person, but as

an entity containing the rules for dealing with the object named and explaining its properties. In

other words, when a name is given to a person, such person should behave according to his or her

name; conversely, certain psychological, intellectual, professional or exterior features of the

person are reflected in the name. The same is true about objects, whose names express their

essential properties, reflect their behavior and offer rules of dealing with them.

In modern languages such qualities of names are found in using nick-names (see, for instance, Nikolay

Gogol's use of "patched" for Pljushkin: this word reflects both Pljushkin's appearance and character, and the attitude of

his serfs to him).

The word "speech" in modern languages normally is linked to the process of speaking. In

antiquity, however, the process of speaking had a direct association, first, with the process of

abstract reasoning, second, with behavior, and most importantly, it revealed the intent to act or

directly pointed at transition to action. "Speech" is always somewhat mandatory for the listener

and abstractly intellectual for the speaker.

This is why the words "name" and "speech" cannot be evoked freely: they always cause an

action or a connection between objects, people, or people and objects. "Verbal magic"

characteristic for the mythological psychology bestows on those words the meaning of active

principles.

With this in mind, "action" means first and foremost an operation with a real or imagined

object, always presupposes a result and provides for establishing something actual. This

established actual entity may be from any sphere: crafts, religion, law, administration, education,

people's attitude to nature, relationships between people, etc.

This interpretation of the ancient meaning of the notions "name", "speech" and "action"

shows that the word is the leading principle which organizes the intellect. Human intelligence

coming from the word which comprehends the world and explains it to people allows to acquire

various necessary data in economy, technology, cosmogony, astrology, land cultivation, ethics,

etc.

Those data become the foundation of the activity which forms human society, i.e. the group

of people connected by blood and social hierarchy on the one hand and by the production

processes on the other.

27

This is why the word, being the uniting force, requires special attention. It should be

created and used correctly, because otherwise social harmony is broken.

In ancient and Middle Ages philosophy the theory of naming and the correctness of names

was one of the central problems. It occupied the middle ground between gnosiology and grammar.

The practical center of the theory of naming was skill to give a correct name. From this point of

view, the Plato's dialogue "Cratylus" is most representative [86].

1.8. THE WAYS OF WORD CREATION

The folk etymology rules describing the ways of word creation in utterances are spread

between various folklore texts. They take the form of explanation of the origin of individual

words. The explanations are the clearest in myths, when the names of heroes and their attributes

are interpreted.

The folk etymology rules were summed up when writing evolved, and since then they were

neither changed nor expanded. The ancient theory of naming in effect contains the deductive

summary of folk etymology rules. However, in the theory of naming folk etymology is elaborated

through the general philosophical approach to language. This elaboration lies not in a qualitative

change in the ways of word creation, but in their greater detailing. Hence, the ancient theory of

naming, while detailing the folk understanding of word creation, is the language theory which

establishes a connection between the oral and written speech.

Let's turn to Plato's dialogue "Cratylus" [86] and try to separate within it the linguistic

object of study from the method and didactic approach to discourse. From this angle the dialogue

falls into the following sequence of parts:

1. About the general correlation between the naming agent, the name and the object;

2. About the person who establishes the correlation between the object and its name;

3. About object modeling being the basis of name-object correlation;

4. About the main rules of presenting objects through words, i.e. etymology.

The list of parts of the dialogue "Cratylus" shows that the dialogue is a description of rules

which provide for the establishment of speech containing names, i.e. of the human language.

It should be borne in mind that the borderlines of the parts, though clearly traceable between cues, also

become as if dissolved in the entirety of the dialogue. It is one of Plato's enigmas. His dialogues contain a special type

of cognitive discourse, a fusion of art and science, where the author merges the precise scientific system and the

expressive situational details that he imagines and presents with artistic authenticity.

The dialogue starts with Hermogenes inviting Socrates into the conversation with Cratylus

and summarizing the preceding content: Cratylus saying that "any entity has a correct inherent

name, and it is not the name that some people call it by agreement, voicing part of their speech, but

a certain correct name inherent for the Hellenes and the barbarians, the same for everyone" [86,

p.36].

Thus it is stated that the "content of the word" is pre-determined by the nature of the object

and hence is "natural". Hermogenes objects, saying that the name is given arbitrarily through

agreement, and thus cannot be predetermined by the nature of the object.

Socrates accepts both points of view as a given. This establishes the antinomy providing

the dramatic plot for the dialogue. In fact, linguistics' most important antinomy is established: on

the one hand, the form in language is linked to the content by a conditional, arbitrary connection,

and the formal level of expression has a structure different from the structure of the content; on the

28

other hand, both aspects cannot exist without each other and cannot reveal their content without

each other. Socrates confirms this most important linguistic antinomy. However, accepting both

points of view, Socrates reserves the right to go beyond that antinomy. His hidden goal, as

becomes clear from the plot of the dialogue, is to study how that antinomy appeared. This is why,

taking the initiative, Socrates begins to study the process of establishing the formal and the inner

aspects, i.e. the process of naming. His purpose is to understand the nature of the created

antinomy.

The study of the naming process performed by Socrates in the dialogue establishes that the

arbitrariness of the connection between the name and the object depends on certain factors. To

understand the nature of the facts which influence the naming process, two sides of naming should

be distinguished: a) the connection between the naming person and the name and b) the connection

between the name and the object. Those two sides reveal themselves when the correctness of the

name is analyzed.

Hermogenes states his view of the correctness of the name: "I cannot believe that the

correctness of the name comes from anything other than an agreement and an arrangement…

because no name is inherent to anyone, but belongs to one based on law and tradition established

by those who first stated the law and started using the name" [86, p.37]. In other words, in

Hermogenes's view, the correctness comes from "law" and "tradition", i.e. from the established

rules of behavior and action.

Thus by comparing the views of Cratylus and Hermogenes Plato introduces the notion of

correctness into the relationship between the name and the object, the name and the act of naming.

Cratylus reviews the relationship "name - object" ignoring the fact the act of naming is

performed by humans. Considering that the same thing in the same language, let alone in different

languages, has many names corresponding to it, the correctness of the name has got to depend not

on the sounds, but on the general meaning of the word. This is the correctness of content.

Hermogenes, conversely, starts from the act of naming. This is why for Hermogenes the

correctness is, first and foremost, the legality of establishing the name by a person. This is the

correctness of form.

Socrates, accepting both points of view for discussion of their understanding of

correctness, thus admits that there is the correctness of content and the correctness of form. We

may guess that Socrates's further goal is to point out at the common source of both types of

correctness and to deduce both types from that source. Socrates starts moving to that goal by

specifying the correctness of form.

Two aspects are studies: a) who gives the name and b) the verity of naming.

The naming agent may be an individual and a community. It turns out that the identity of

the agent is not relevant to the correctness of the name; what is relevant is how the name was given

- verily or falsely. It means that id and individual names verily and the community names falsely,

the correctness belongs to the individual; if the community names verily, and the individual

falsely, the correctness belongs to the community.

According to Plato, what is the verity of name? In the process of naming it becomes the

final measure of correctness. Does verity depend on the agent giving the name or on the object

being named?

Socrates answers: "So, if it's not always the same to everybody, and on the other hand not

for everybody every thing exists differently, it becomes clear that things in themselves have a

certain firm essence regardless of us and independently from us; things cannot be pulled by us up

29

or down by our imagination, but they are in a definite relationship to their natural essence" [86,

p.39].

This natural essence of things is understood by people not through a subjective view of the

thing, but from actions with things: "… we... will cut and be successful (following the nature of the

thing - Y.R.) and will do it correctly, but if we do it against the nature (of the thing - Y.R.), we'll

make a mistake and not achieve anything…"[86, p.39].

This way an important distinction is achieved: to be correct, the name should verily reflect

the object's self-contained qualities independent from people.

The proof of the name's verity is that with its help the correct opinions about the nature of

the object appear. The correctness of those opinions leads to success in non-linguistic, but

so-called production operations with things. Thus, the name is correct if it is veritable; it is

veritable if it reflects the objective qualities of the thing. The correct understanding of the thing's

properties is checked by the success of production operations with it.

Another type of correctness is also revealed in the operations with objects: "So, if we start

burning, should we be burning according to any opinion, and not only the correct one, i.e. the way

that is natural for each thing to be burned and to burn, and that is inherent? [86, p. 39].

It means that there exists a correctness which is established by the result of the action.

From the result of an action people make a judgment about the true nature of the object

independent from subjective opinions.

Now we can make a conclusion that naming is just one of the operations with things.

"Socrates: Isn't talking one of the actions?

Hermogenes: Yes.

Socrates: So, will the person be speaking correctly if he speaks the way he thinks he should

speak or the way that is natural for the things to speak and be spoken about…, - if he speaks this

way he will have success and really say, but if not, he'll make a mistake and not achieve anything"

[86, p. 39].

Thus, correctness of speech is a particular case of the correctness of action which is seen

through its results.

Socrates says that it is natural for things to mane and be named: a name for a person is a

tool by which he influences the nature of the object and achieves or does not achieve results. The

result depends on the correctness of action, i.e. on the correct choice of the tool (name) and the way

of using this tool.

This forms the foundation to answer the question what is the verity of the name and who is

the naming agent.

The name being a tool is similar to a gimlet or a weaver's shuttle. Any tool has a function,

a way of using it and an object to be used on. The weaver's shuttle separates the weft and the warp,

the gimlet bores. As for the name, the following may be said about it: "the name is a tool for

instruction and separation of essential things in nature, like the weaver's shuttle is a tool for

separation of cloth" [86, p. 40].

The function of the name is established here: to be a tool for instruction and analysis; i.e.

the name is the tool of education and culture like a shuttle is a tool of cloth production.

It now becomes clear how names are given and who gives them. Since naming is a type of

operation, and operations are based upon the division of labor, then there must be special people

who create names, like there are weavers, carpenters, helmsmen, etc.

30

Not anyone may give (create) a name, but only a specialist. Plato calls that specialist a

legislator: "…to establish names is the work of not any man, but of a creator of names. This is,

evidently, the legislator, a master that is rarer among people than other masters." [86, p. 41].

The word "legislator" in the dialogue by no means should be interpreted in the legal sense.

The legislator is a professional, a master knowledgeable in the laws of culture. He may be a priest

or a tiller, a poet or an orator, a developer of a craft or a philosopher. A legislator is he who creates,

or forms, the tool of education and analysis of the nature of things. Since the nature of things

transpires from the operations with them, the legislator should first and foremost know the ways

humankind operates with things and be able to invent new ways of operation leading to a useful

result. For that purpose he creates the word (logos), otherwise entitled law.

Plato develops his idea: the legislator is the inventor of new social norms in whatever field

he might work. It is natural to assume that there are many such legislators in the history of

humankind. First and foremost they are gods and heroes, like Teut, who taught people the art of

writing, or Vo Chao, who taught the Chinese to build houses, or Socrates himself, who was

teaching people the art of reasoning, etc. Thus, a legislator is a person who formulates a system of

knowledge or fragments of such a system.

Legislator's work, first, belongs to the community and is controlled by it, and second,

follows specific rules.

Legislators are controlled by society. Their imagination, which allows them to invent, or

create, new words, is free and not controlled. But the result of their work - the newly created word

- is evaluated by society and either accepted or rejected by it.

The legislator's work is evaluated by those who use its results, similarly to the work of

lyre-maker is evaluated by a harpist and the work of a ship-builder being evaluated by a helmsman.

The work of the legislator is evaluated by those who "know how to ask questions and give

answers", i.e. by dialecticians.

Socrates says: "Evidently, Hermogenes, establishing names is not a trifling matter, as you

think, and not a job for a first nonentity that comes along? And Cratylus is right saying that names

are inherent for things and that not anyone can be a master of naming but only he who looks at the

naturally inherent name of a thing and is capable of putting its image into syllables and letters" [86,

p.43].

This way both opinions, not only Cratylus's, but also that of Hermogenes, turn out to be

right. It is true both that a thing has a name inherent to it, and that a thing's name is established

through law and tradition.

The legislator should be able to "clad" any thing's name in sounds and syllables and,

looking at the entity that is the inherent name, create more new names. The legislator names

objects with the whole history of naming in mind. Hence, the name should be correct not only in

regard to the object, but also in regard to another name which was given before.

The act of naming creates a custom, or a norm; this is why the new name should follow the

existing naming custom and should be correct in terms of form. Dialectician, looking at the names

received, makes sure that the names are correct in both senses (in form and in content). It is

achieved if in dialectician's argument the correct name leads to correct operations with the object.

Names should give rules of using objects. The correctness of naming is checked through using the

object according to its name. Hence, a name models the operations with the object.

The name's correctness is the fruit of a creative hypothesis about the nature of the object;

the verity of the name is the test of that hypothesis theoretically and in practice by the results

achieved when applying the hypothesis. Such understanding of the nature of names presumes:

31

first, the division of labor; second, multiple names for one object (since single name would prevent

the verity check through the result of operation); third, communication between all participants of

the functionally divided labor in one language with the adequate understanding of the cultural

importance of naming.

Thus, in some societies (e.g., Australian aborigines, Papuans of the New Guinea, North and South American

Indians, some African tribes, etc.) a person or a thing may be named not by anyone, but only by the tribe's elders who

have the function of conducting the rites in which the language system is ratified (established) through the system of

myths (so-called syncretic performances). Those legislators give names only after they confirm them with the other

elders of the tribe, those who head families, are especially skillful in certain crafts - in a word, with all those whose

knowledge qualifies them to be dialecticians capable of confirming the verity of names. The name given by the

legislator and ratified by dialecticians is then confirmed through a rite and becomes accepted in the tribe by agreement.

[14].

The triple division of functions during name creation exists in all spheres where language

units are born. For instance, when a name is given to a person, the legislators are the parents, the

dialecticians are the registering organizations and the users are the named person and all

individuals and institutions who come in contact with that person. Scientific and technical

terminology is offered by scientists (they are legislators), is discussed and accepted by scientific

organizations, dictionaries and committees on standards (those are dialecticians), and is used by

everyone who needs them (users). The vocabulary of any literary language is created by authors

and translators (legislators), discussed and accepted by lexicographers (dialecticians), introduced

into usage by schools and used in literary texts by different people (users).

If the functions, or social roles, of the naming process participants are compared with types of utterances in a

dialogue by their modality as distinguished in the speech etiquette (see 1.4), a correlation is observed.

In the "exchange of cues" in a dialogue appeal as one of utterances types by modality excludes, by etiquette

rules, a reproduction or a non-answer, but requires an action, leaving only one other option to the addressee - creation

of a new utterance. This is the social function of the user.

A question as a cue type by modality excludes a reproduction and a non-answer, but requires a new utterance,

leaving one more option - a response by action. This is the social function (role) of a dialectician.

A message, by the etiquette rules, allows a reproduction, a new message or a non-answer as a response, but a

response by action is not recommended. This corresponds to the social role of the name creator, i.e. the "legislator".

Apparently, the connection between the social roles of the naming process participants and the speech

etiquette rules is always understood intuitively. But the causes, the consequences and the mechanisms of that

connection are still not researched.

It may only be prolegomenously noted that the speech etiquette rules which determine modality during the

exchange of cues in a dialogue are a form of the naming process. As long as division of labor and communication

through language are the properties of any human society, naming process provides for the social basis of names and

for observing the cultural norms of the language community during communication.

Going back to the dialogue "Cratylus" it should be noted that Plato states that the leading

principle during language creation is "representation" of the object's image or, as it would be called

now, modeling. Plato writes: "A representation does not have to reproduce all aspects of the thing

represented in order to be a representation" [86, p.54].

It is the modeling principle that allows to find a solution in the argument between

Hermogenes and Cratylus. A model always reflects the object's nature because it is identical with

the object (Cratylus is right). But as long as the model is not identical with the object, the object

has many names given to it consciously and by an agreement (Hermogenes is right).

32

It is useful to evaluate the modeling principle from the point of view of the mathematical combination

principles. In modeling one object (model) is paralleled with the other object (the thing modeled) in such a way that

some features of the object are matched to the features of the model.

Sounds are a part of the world that may be paralleled with any object (but not sounds). Articulation organs

produce any perceivable characteristic of sound (noises, tones, timbres, etc.). All those sounds will be unique. If, for

example, there are 20 sounds at a human's disposal, and the word is six sounds long, then there are potentially 206

words fitting. It means that potentially a language may have an enormous number of words, while in reality the need

is many degrees lower. This in turn means that the legislator has an unlimited freedom of choice. He or she has a

capability to formulate a sufficient variety of synonyms giving different models of the same object and thus revealing

different qualities of the object. Thus, the material of speech offers a constant source of the new modeling both for

new and for already known objects. It is reflected in synonyms, which are a most important result of the word's

modeling function.

While the principle of modeling in the naming process is universal, individual rules and

devices may not be parallel in different languages and may change with time, i.e. they depend on

the cultural tradition and on the legislator's skill.

Plato reviews only the most general rules of modeling that existed in his time - what later

acquired the name of folk, or vulgar etymology in language sciences.

According to folk etymology names fall into two main categories: primary and derivative.

Derivatives consist of primary names. We read in the dialogue: "Socrates: …some names are

composed of others that are more primary, and other names are initial…" [86, p.55-56].

The rules of forming primary names boil down to two aspects: a)modeling the behavior

(otherwise, actions) and b)modeling the world, i.e. sense perception of it.

The main device for modeling in primary name creation is imitation. Cf.:

Modeling behavior

"Socrates: First of all, it seems to me that ("ro") is somehow a tool for any movement…" [86, p.50].

Modeling the world

"Socrates: …So do you think we say well when we say that the letter o fits a gust, a movement and

firmness… or not well?

Cratylus: Well, to me.

Socrates: And lambda fits smooth, soft and what we have just talked about?

Cratylus: Yes" [86, p. 56].

In naming acts behavior models are correlated to the world models and vise versa.

"Socrates: First, in the words (flow) and (current) it imitates a gust… He (the first legislator - Y.R.)

noticed, I would think, that in pronouncing the tongue does not stay stationary, but is strongly shaken... And he used

the letter (iota) for everything thin, what can most easily go through everything… using (fi), (psi), (sigma) and

(dzeta) he imitates everything that is like them…" [86, p. 50].

"The legislator used this way to achieve letters and syllables, when he created a sign and a name for every

thing, and after that compiled the rest from letters and syllables through imitation." [86, p.51]

Formation of derivatives follows a number of rules:

1. Adding, inserting or subtracting a sound or a tone. E.g., "considering what

he sees" (from , ) [86, p.44].

2. Reducing a phrase to a word (abbreviation). For instance, "moon, Selena"

(from the phrase ) [86, p.44].

3. Borrowing. E.g., 'fire' [86, p.44].

4. Modeling the content: description approach to naming. For example, 'fair,

just', "…because it rules everything else going through it () , it was correctly

33

called that way - fair () having accepted inside itself the sound of kappa () for

euphony." [86, p. 45].

5. Euphony. "For example, Sphinx is called Sphinx () instead of Fix ()" [86,

p.45].

6. Lost etymology, or abstract combination of sounds. For instance, 'going',

'flowing', 'connecting' [86, p. 46].

7. Combination of words. For instance, according to Plato, 'good' is combined of

'surprising' and 'quick' [86, p. 46].

Presumably, not one of those seven rules, but always a combination of them is used when

creating derivatives. The use of one rule only is an exception.

Plato's etymologies are the matter of people's every-day practice. When poets create

words, they evaluate their sound, "taste", "color" and even "smell" to estimate how fully they have

expressed the nature of the object.

Further Plato shows that words are created not only from the limitless possible

combinations of sounds, but also by combining one word with another. Once created, the

name-model may be used for studying different objects. During that process a need may arise to

change the models, to add to them or to restructure. This forms semantic connections between

names, and makes the meanings of the names varied. Hence, polysemy, same as synonymy, is an

inherent quality of language. Every word has a host of synonyms because it is polysemantic.

Plato's etymology system is a system of rules which, when used reasonably, can yield

veritable names. Real languages has both veritable and non-veritable names. Non-veritable

(though used) names appear when the legislator neglected the offered rules - etymologies, or when

he failed to use them "in a fine way".

Thus, Plato's etymologies constitute the "grammar of naming" (the rules of constructing

new names), listed as a system of precedents and examples (as any grammar always is set forth). A

grammar always offers an open list of main rules skillful use of which provides for intelligibly

constructed speech.

In order to understand the dialogue "Cratylus" better it makes sense to list its theses

deductively:

1. There are two sides to activity which is characteristic to human society: a)structure, b)

division of labor.

2. The structure comes from humans influencing materials with certain tools in the

process of labor creating the product of that activity. Thus, the structure of activity has the

following sides: a) labor itself as a purposeful effort, b) the use of tools during labor, c) the use of

materials during labor, d) the product of labor. The structure of activity is considered realized and

implemented when the desired product of labor is achieved.

3. The division of labor presumes that one person in his or her labor uses tools or

materials which are the product of another person's labor. Because the products of one person's

labor are used later as materials or tools in another person's labor, chains of individual activities are

formed, linking people through specific forms of labor. However, the number of people is not

identical to the number of specific forms of labor, and people are split into professional groups by

the form of labor they engage in (thus a helmsman, a weaver, a carpenter, a lyre-maker, a musician,

a blacksmith, etc. are representatives of such groups). No person is firmly locked in one form of

labor only and thus everyone is a member of more than one group.

34

4. Both aspects of activity (structure and division of labor) presume that a person is not

biologically destined for one or several specific forms of labor. The ability of a person to engage

in a specific form (or forms) of labor presumes education and instruction in those forms.

5. Specific forms of labor develop, begetting new forms of labor. Emergence of any new

form of labor is a result of a human's creative act. This creative act leading to the new form of

labor may be called invention. An invention contains structure (purposeful effort, tool, material

and the product of labor) and is a variety of labor. As any specific form of labor, invention

presumes instruction in that field.

6. The society offers to any member a potential possibility to join any form of labor,

including invention or instruction in inventing. Obviously, for subjective or objective reasons, this

potential by far not always may be realized by every society member.

7. To provide for the existence of activity with its structure and division of labor, a

system of rules must exist for every form of labor. Such rules presume that when followed they

will provide for every form of labor to lend itself to instruction and to yield product. Observing the

norm (the rule) means that the activity was performed "correctly" and its result is "fine" and

"perfect".

8. Norms and examples are created through knowledge. During the process of labor the

person acts upon the objects of nature. The composition and properties of the objects of nature

exist before the person and independently from him or her. The product of labor, the result of

successful activity, appears only when the objective properties of nature's objects were correctly

taken into account. Understanding those properties is a discovery, but knowledge is subjective;

this is why it is the result of activity that testifies to the correlation between a specific form of labor

and the true nature of things (tools and materials of labor). Thus the objective value of knowledge

is demonstrated.

9. Two notions are important when activity is considered: correctness and verity.

Correctness is following the norm (rule) in mind and in practice, providing for a perfect result.

Verity is a statement, contained in the norms of activity, about the nature of things. The norm is

veritable if its use yield a desired result. Correctness is an attribute of a specific form of labor and

is demonstrated in the actions of individuals. Verity refers to the division of labor, is demonstrated

in all specific forms of labor and depends not on an individual society member, but on the society

as a whole.

10. Norms of activity as specific and general knowledge should be created and preserved.

This is why a special form of activity should exist, which serves for the creation and preservation

of norms and samples of activity. This is the language activity. Language activity is the way to

create new norms and samples of activity; in the form of language it captures knowledge and the

ways to determine people's behavior in specific forms of labor. Simultaneously, language is the

tool of invention, discovery and education. This is why language is not only the way to capture

knowledge, but also the tool for creating it.

11. Because language activity is a form of activity, it has a) structure and b) division of

labor, and its norms and samples follow the criteria of correctness and verity.

12. The structure of language activity is demonstrated in the acts of naming, where sounds

of speech are the tools, and the named objects (existing of imagined things) are the material. A

name is the product of that specific form of labor, and naming is the process of labor. As any other,

language activity contains norms. The norms are characterized by correctness and verity.

Correctness of naming depends on how well the norms of language use were followed during the

35

naming acts. Verity depends on how well the name corresponds to the object's nature and

describes its essential properties.

13. The principle which connects speech sounds with the named objects, i.e. the principle

of naming, is modeling. Modeling assumes that only partial, and by no means complete, match

exists between the name and the named object. The name depicts a certain quality of the named

object. Due to that trait the name refers not to one object, but to an unlimited class of objects

possessing the quality reflected in the word-model. Due to modeling the same object may have

several names that would model its different qualities.

14. Due to division of labor the name which appears as the product of naming is used in

other types of activity. Because the name is a model, it must reflect not the whole object but only

the essential qualities, otherwise called the nature of the thing. Correct naming of the nature of the

object provides for the correct (corresponding to the nature) use of it in non-language activity.

This way the verity of the name is revealed and established. Thus, the name-model equals the

knowledge of the nature of the object. Other types of activity may be built on the basis of that

knowledge (first and foremost, production operations).

15. The naming person is called the creator of logos, or the legislator. Based on his

knowledge of the named object gained from the results of specific non-language forms of activity,

the legislator through the naming act must create the new model of a class of objects, depicting the

nature of the object, its essential properties, in its word-model. Through division of labor, as the

result of the legislator's work, all members of the society become potential users of names. When

the name given by the legislator is used by other society members, it constitutes the "agreement"

about the use of the name in speech.

16. The success of the agreement depends not upon the desire of the society members to

accept the name (their desires cannot be taken into account because of the division of labor and the

rules of including people in labor), but only upon the productivity of the model contained in the

name for other forms of activity. The legislator himself cannot judge the success of the name.

Legislators' work would be subject only to whim and arbitrariness if it were not for a special form

of activity designated to analyzing the effectiveness of names-models. This activity is dialectics,

and people involved in it are called dialecticians.

The role of dialectics is to establish the verity of the name. To that end the dialectician

reviews how the name-model corresponds to the nature of the object, determines the correctness of

naming, gives recommendations for the legislator's further work.

17. The dialectician's recommendations concern both the verity of the name, i.e. the

correspondence between the object's nature and the modeled properties, and the rules of naming,

i.e. the correctness of modeling itself. Dialectician offers to the legislator the grammar of naming,

i.e. the system of modeling rules. Those rules cannot regulate the search for the nature of the

object, because that search depends only upon the legislator's creativity. But those rules may

regulate the use of the language material. The combination of speech sounds in the process of

name creation in each case depends on the legislator's skill in using the tool on naming - sounds of

speech.

18. The skill of using the tools on naming - sounds of speech - boils down to the use of a

number of rules:

a) names may be simple and complex;

b) simple names are created based on a purely onomatopoetic principle by depicting in

sounds the look of the object, its movement or operations with it;

36

c) complex names are created by fusing simple ones; in that fusion the sounds of the

simple words are changed enough to distinguish the new word from an expression consisting of the

old ones;

d) creation of complex names is a system of changes in the sounds of the initial word

combinations. Those changes boil down to the following: change of a sound in the initial name,

abbreviation and metonymy, borrowing, creation of new abstract sounds or re-analyzing old ones,

euphony, combining words with a change in sounds. Any of those particular rules may be used in

combination with any other or with several others.

19. Following that system not one, but many languages may be created, each of which will

give veritable names corresponding to the nature of things.

20. Animals can act, think and make noises, but they do not constitute a society. A society

is formed through activity, (i.e. through division and structure of labor). For activity to be formed

the naming is necessary.

The deductive rendering of the dialogue "Cratylus" shows the system which allowed for

the emergence of language as a social phenomenon, in contrast to the non-social language of

animals. The system laid out by Plato in the dialogue "Cratylus" summarizes all ideas about

language creation that existed by that time. Language creation has been uninterrupted since the

establishment of society and human culture.