SIT, TIP, Prophecy and Confession

[Raf]

Ok, back at a computer. I'm going to tackle this a few pieces at a time because a comprehensive response would be overwhelming. I do have a job. ;)

Yes, the last time we tracked it down, it was Sherril quoting Samarin's published work, which we do not have a link to or a complete reference to. In that work, Samarin quoted linguists responses. Sherrill noted inconsistencies in what the linguists in Samarin's study observed and what Samarin himself concluded.

Already noted: this is not true. Sherrill did not quote Samarin. Landry did.

I actually see parallels in issues with Samarin from the only published work we have an online link to - "The Linguistics of Glossalalia". For example, his basic definition of glossolalia:

"A meaningless but phonologically structured human utterance believed by the speaker to be a real language, but bearing no systematic resemblance to any natural language, living or dead."

That is correct. But it's also significant to note that Samarin specifically distinguishes glossolalia from xenoglossia, the speaking of an actual language to which the speaker has no previous exposure or knowledge. This is significant to us because it is the heart of my position: all SIT should be xenoglossia. That is, it should produce an actual language. I have stated before that if we do not agree there, a meaningful discussion becomes rather moot. Clearly, we do not agree there, so in a lot of ways this conversation ended before it began.

I believe the Bible is very clear that the expectation would be a real language, not something with language-like features that can be generated subconsciously by a speaker free-vocalizing on the spot. You are entitled to disagree with my expectation there, so long as we're clear on it. Everything Samarin says about glossolalia is colored by the finding that it is not xenoglossia: not an actual existing language. When he examines glossolalia, he is no different from an expert in the field examining the characteristics of a counterfeit $2 bill. No matter how much he praises the artistry, ink or paper, he is already certain he is not dealing with the genuine article. It's a fake. How good a fake is it? How good is the ink? How good is the paper? How much does it resemble the real thing? All worth reviewing, but the answers don't suddenly make this stuff money.

Then immediat

ely after his definition, where he includes what he says is 3 features that appear to be necessary in any definition of the phenomena, he says the first of these is this:

"a phonological structure, (that is the kind of patterning of sound generally typical of real languages)which distinguish it from gibberish".

So to me the guy is self-contradictory in his own definitions. He is choosing how to define this in his paper, and his definition says "bearing no systematic resemblance to any language", then in defining 3 key elements to glossolalia he states that the phonological structure is generally typical of real languages.

You left out the part where he makes it quite clear that these resemblances to real language are superficial (that's HIS word, not mine).

Just Google Samarin and Superficial, and the references pop up all over the place: (all emphases are mine)

"There is no mystery about glossolalia. Tape-recorded samples are easy to obtain and to analyze. They always turn out to be the same thing; strings of syllables, made up of sounds taken from among all those that the speaker knows, put together more or less haphazardly but which nevertheless emerge as word-like and sentence-like units because of realistic, language-like rhythm and melody. Glossolalia is indeed like language in some ways, but this is only because the speaker [unconsciously] wants it to be like language. Yet in spite of superficial similarities, glossolalia is fundamentally not language. All specimens of glossolalia that have ever been studied have produced no features that would even suggest that they reflect some kind of communicative system."-William J. Samarin, Tongues of Men and Angels (New York: Macmillan, 1972), page 227.

He is not merely writing about the speaker's communicative intent. He's discussing the utterance in a systematic, qualitative way. It's not a language.

Back to chockfull:

Hold on there, ace. If it "sounds" like a language (in your scientific terminology), then it DOES bear a systematic resemblance to language.

He makes no sense. It "sounds" like a language, but doesn't bear any resemblance to a language. Sorry, as Samarin stated, glossolalia actually DOES bear a resemblance to a language. Phonetically, it "sounds" like a language. That IS a resemblance.

Yes, a superficial resemblance brought to the glossa by the speaker. Nothing remarkable there: When I spoke in tongues, I wanted it to sound like a language. Samarin tells us that we succeed at producing something that has a superficial resemblance to language. That doesn't make it a language! It makes us creative.

This type of inconsistency I think is what leads a number of other authors like Sherrill to write works criticizing Samarin.

Again, false. Sherrill did no such thing. And the only thing I can say about Landry's use of Malony and Lovekin's quote of Samarin is that it appears to be cherry-picking of the highest order. You cannot talk about Samarin's findings of the linguistic qualities of glossolalia while divorcing it from his findings that it's not language and that it only resembles language in superficial ways.

I myself have scarcely seen that kind of internal contradiction in a published study right in the same sentences of the definition of terms. It is very glaringly obvious to the point of where I have to question Samarin's bias towards finding glossolalia as not a language.

Ah! If you want to question his bias, I can't stop you there.

Now if Samarin would have wrote that glossolalia "bears a strong resemblance phonetically to languages, but it is questionable as to the legitimacy of the meaning or interpretation of the utterance compared to language" he would have been more consistent even with his own logic.

It's more than just questionable. It is fundamentally not language. Again, I credit Samarin with putting his work out there for all to see, review and critique. But I don't agree that the examination should be used to get him to say the opposite of what he's saying.

Another Samarin quote, emphasis mine again:

"Over a period of five years I have taken part in meetings in Italy, Holland, Jamaica, Canada, and the United States. I have observed old-fashioned Pentecostals and neo-Pentecostals. I have been in small meeting in private homes as well as in mammoth public meetings. I have seen such different cultural settings as are found among Puerto Ricans of the Bronx, the snake-handlers of the Appalachians, and the Russian Molakins of Los Angeles. I have interviewed tongue speakers, and tape recorded and analyzed countless samples of Tongues. In every case, glossolalia turns out to be linguistic nonsense. In spite of superficial similarities, glossolalia is fundamentally not language."

I don't know the setting of that quote, but it does appear that he sets aside the politeness with which he delicately separates glossolalia from gibberish.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Raf

[Raf]

Another interesting fact from Samarin. In the cases he is examining where there is glossolalia among non-Christian participants, he submits one example as Albert LeBaron. LeBaron has recorded conversations with his "psychic automatism" where there are messages in another language and the interpretation of the language into English.

He says there are a number of other examples. I haven't seen all of his other examples. I haven't even seen one of his complete works, only one article. Yet I would submit that LeBaron's "example" is something in quite a different category than "glossolalia".

I will reserve judgement on the overall topic of "non-Christian glossolalia" until I have more of the direct sources cited.

There's plenty of work out there on non-Christian glossolalia to keep you busy. Clearly it's not the same thing we're talking about in terms of worship.

But here's an interesting question to consider, with no bearing on the questions raised by this thread: ever wonder where the Corinthians got so many bad ideas about what to do with glossolalia in the first place?

[chockfull]

Here's a dumb question. If tongues, in an assembled group, is the same thing they did on Pentecost, why would we need an interpretation?

It is taught that Pentecost was a special miracle. In addition to the tongues, God used it as a special sign on that day that everyone understood without interpretation.

I have heard anecdotes of about 5 or 6 incidents of similar occurrences where in a prayer meeting attendees understood the tongue directly. socks provided an anecdote like this on the thread.

There's plenty of work out there on non-Christian glossolalia to keep you busy. Clearly it's not the same thing we're talking about in terms of worship.

I'll look but maybe another thread in Doctrinal - Non-Christian Glossalalia? Until proven I am going to have to treat this as no different than personal anecdotes about the topic.

But here's an interesting question to consider, with no bearing on the questions raised by this thread: ever wonder where the Corinthians got so many bad ideas about what to do with glossolalia in the first place?

No friggin idea. Maybe with all their sexual problems they had inappropriate Freudian attachments to their mothers?

[waysider]

It is taught that Pentecost was a special miracle. In addition to the tongues, God used it as a special sign on that day that everyone understood without interpretation.

I, too, have heard that taught. I don't see Acts 2 declaring that to be the case, however.

I'm not trying to make this doctrinal. I just think we've assumed there to be more to it than actually exists.

[geisha779]

[quote name='Raf' date='18 October 2012 - 04:36 PM' timestamp='1350592617' post='547260

And where do the phonetic similarities come from? The native language of the SITter. He's talking about the quality of the stuff we're making up, not declaring it to be a hidden, unknown or secret language

Moore mentions this....I think from the same study? An English speaker using elements of English. . . albeit rearranged would cause the vocalization to have elements of a language, but more similar to a child who has not yet learned to arrange words and sounds in a communicative manner?

If someone already mentioned this.....sorry.

The subconscious and inhibition are powerful tools in persuasion. The exceller sessions were probably great for improving the quality of what we were producing. We were encouraged to improve.

It was tied into so much of our spiritual well being and ability to be effective. You had to be built up to receive revelation! Daddy's cookie jar and all that.

[Raf]

Next, getting to Samarin's main point. He states that glossolalia is "meaningless", and that is one of the big sources of his conclusions. By "meaningless" in his writings, he is mostly referring to the concept that the person speaking doesn't understand the words being said. This he uses as evidence that it is not a language.

I think you're simplifying him in a manner that is not entirely accurate. I do believe he is referring to the quality of the language itself, and not merely the usage by the speaker. He writes:

Meaningless. A glossa is always meaningless in the linguistic sense. That is, there are no consistent correlations between units of speech and experience... He insists, on the other hand, that a glossa has meaning because it is a language and because it can be interpreted...

He goes on to explore the issue in depth on page 59 and 60, and I believe the upshot of what he says is that it conveys whatever meaning the speaker wants it to convey. Read the section and tell me if you disagree. The words themselves don't mean anything in the objective sense, but the speaker may impart such meanings while thinking of or recalling certain things, people or ideas (ie, "Could you speak in tongues for me? I'm going through a rough time.")

The fact that we are able to do this has exactly zero supernatural implications and remains consistent with the entire experience being a case of sincere free vocalization carried out in a worship setting.

[Raf]

It is taught that Pentecost was a special miracle. In addition to the tongues, God used it as a special sign on that day that everyone understood without interpretation.

Jumping ahead to address this one specifically: the unusual thing about Acts was not that it was a human language, but that it was human languages spoken and understood by those present. Nothing in Acts or Corinthians indicates that the word "tongues," which means "languages," suddenly means something more cryptic that becomes the norm rather than the exception. I have seen efforts to reinterpret the scriptures in this regard to broaden the definition to include "unknown" languages and exclude "known" languages, but I see no reason to force this view onto scripture written 2,000 years earlier. It seems to me more like a retroactive attempt to explain why SIT always fails to produce a real language. In effect, we're broadening the definition of salt to include sugar and exclude salt.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Raf

[chockfull]

Already noted: this is not true. Sherrill did not quote Samarin. Landry did.

Agreed you noted it. But not addressed - why do you have people publishing papers pointing out Samarin's inconsistencies?

That is correct. But it's also significant to note that Samarin specifically distinguishes glossolalia from xenoglossia, the speaking of an actual language to which the speaker has no previous exposure or knowledge. This is significant to us because it is the heart of my position: all SIT should be xenoglossia. That is, it should produce an actual language. I have stated before that if we do not agree there, a meaningful discussion becomes rather moot. Clearly, we do not agree there, so in a lot of ways this conversation ended before it began.

I think you have a mistaken idea of Samarin's definition of xenoglossia. He defines it as the KNOWLEDGE of a language to which the speaker has no previous exposure or knowledge. His example was non Arabic speakers citing the Koran they've never read. P. 50.

I believe the Bible is very clear that the expectation would be a real language, not something with language-like features that can be generated subconsciously by a speaker free-vocalizing on the spot. You are entitled to disagree with my expectation there, so long as we're clear on it.

I absolutely disagree with this, as part of the definition used in defining a "real language" is circular logic. Meaning it's a real language if it involves communication with and understanding by others. The nature of tongues is different in private. It has similarities in public, but is not the same thing. This is clearly stated in I Cor. 14.

Everything Samarin says about glossolalia is colored by the finding that it is not xenoglossia: not an actual existing language. When he examines glossolalia, he is no different from an expert in the field examining the characteristics of a counterfeit $2 bill. No matter how much he praises the artistry, ink or paper, he is already certain he is not dealing with the genuine article. It's a fake. How good a fake is it? How good is the ink? How good is the paper? How much does it resemble the real thing? All worth reviewing, but the answers don't suddenly make this stuff money.

Nice extemporaneous speech there. Not really relevant to actual material in Samarin, other than a loose paraphrase interjected with your personal beliefs.

You left out the part where he makes it quite clear that these resemblances to real language are superficial (that's HIS word, not mine).

Just Google Samarin and Superficial, and the references pop up all over the place: (all emphases are mine)

Searched for it in the "Linguistics" article. Didn't come up.

Overall search produced this:

"He defined glossolalia as "unintelligible babbling speech that exhibits superficial phonological similarity to language, without having consistent syntagmatic structure and that is not systematically derived from or related to known language." (William J. Samarin, "Variation and Variables in Religious Glossolalia," Language in Society, ed. Dell Haymes, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972 pgs. 121-130)"

I don't have that work. It looks like in other writings he does divorce the phonological elements from other elements of language. I would have to read that work to see if he presents additional research to substantiate that statement there.

Yes, a superficial resemblance brought to the glossa by the speaker. Nothing remarkable there: When I spoke in tongues, I wanted it to sound like a language. Samarin tells us that we succeed at producing something that has a superficial resemblance to language. That doesn't make it a language! It makes us creative.

That you wanted it to sound like a language adds zero value quantitatively or qualitatively on whether or not it actually was.

Again, false. Sherrill did no such thing. And the only thing I can say about Landry's use of Malony and Lovekin's quote of Samarin is that it appears to be cherry-picking of the highest order. You cannot talk about Samarin's findings of the linguistic qualities of glossolalia while divorcing it from his findings that it's not language and that it only resembles language in superficial ways.

Listen, I'm only dealing with Samarin with the references I do have, not the 4 books that I don't have. And I find internal logic issues with his research. I actually see more evidence of Samarin starting with a preconceived conclusion and fitting his research into his beliefs. Kind of like my impression of a lot of what you are doing on this thread.

I see him saying in the paper I do have that glossa has the same overall constructs of language that natural language does. And I see him making distinctions in little things like consonant maps, accents, and repetition. The more I see him drill into detail, the less I see his conclusions supported. Apparently in other works, he extends his view on phonetics as not being an important relation to language but only being a superficial similarity. OK. Well the only two real ways you have to evaluate language are by 1) phonetics and 2) meaning.

It's more than just questionable. It is fundamentally not language. Again, I credit Samarin with putting his work out there for all to see, review and critique. But I don't agree that the examination should be used to get him to say the opposite of what he's saying.

I'm sorry that my review of his research points out his internal inconsistencies in his conclusions. But that is not getting him to say the opposite of what he's saying. Apparently I'm not alone in this. People publish papers on it.

Edited October 18, 2012 by chockfull

[Raf]

More Samarin

"If a glossa is meaningless, this does not mean it's gibberish. There is something onomatopoetic about the word 'gibber' that makes it incompatible with glossolalic utterances. The principal linguistic feature that distinguishes them from gibberish is the remarkable number of phonological units at various levels. Starting with the highest level, one finds macro segments (comparable to sentences), micro segments (comparable to words), syllables, and sound units (comparable to phonemes). The micro segments are separated from each other by pauses of greater or lesser duration and are characterized by certain configurations consisting of stress and pitch.

... (gives linguistic example)

In other words, glossic syllables are not simply spewed out in a haphazard sort of way; there is in each glossa a kind of microsegmental syntax similar to natural languages"

So when you dig into Samarin's scientific findings as a linguist, he finds that SIT / glossa pretty much has phonetically all the characteristics of a language. His conclusions seem to me to be that "it resembles a language, but it's not a language because nobody understands it".

Samarin after all this research seems to me to state a whole lot of the obvious.

Actually, we're both reading into this a bit. When I read into it, I see Samarin saying that glossolalia reveals the subconscious effort of the speaker to produce a language, where gibberish does not. Interestingly, earlier in his study he appears to reject a sample of SIT as NOT glossolalia because it was clearly gibberish, although he doesn't quite say it that way (I'm referring to page 51, in case you want to know what I'm referring to).

[chockfull]

Actually, we're both reading into this a bit. When I read into it, I see Samarin saying that glossolalia reveals the subconscious effort of the speaker to produce a language, where gibberish does not. Interestingly, earlier in his study he appears to reject a sample of SIT as NOT glossolalia because it was clearly gibberish, although he doesn't quite say it that way (I'm referring to page 51, in case you want to know what I'm referring to).

I don't feel I'm reading into it. I addressed this in the section that lists elements of a language and the areas where Samarin found differences in glossa. Every single one of those differences had to do with the fact the message was not understood, therefore it could not fulfill those elements.

[Raf]

You keep calling Samarin inconsistent. That is not true. Samarin is wholly consistent. He tells you, for example:

But xenoglossia and glossolalia are not identical. A case of xenoglossia would reveal a natural language, but a glossa is never a natural language, and it is like a natural language only in very limited ways.

...

For these reasons there is no justification whatsoever for pinning our hopes on future investigations to identify the glossas... It is on the basis of this knowledge that we assert that the glossas are not normal human languages even though they may reveal some of their characteristics.

When he articulates those very limited ways and some of the characteristics, some opportunistic apologists point to it as proof it really IS some kind of language and accuse him of being inconsistent. He never said glossolalia has no linguistic qualities. That doesn't make it a $2 bill.

It needs to be noted that Lovekin (of Malony and Lovekin) was (is?) a tongues speaker. That he would take a quote from Samarin out of context to have him say the opposite of what he is clearly saying doesn't necessarily surprise me. But not having read their book, I can't pick it apart any more than that.

They're also, if I recall correctly, not linguists. So I'm still looking for a single case of a linguist disputing Samarin's findings (we went from his own linguists disagreeing with him to Sherrill quoting him unfavorably to, now, no linguists challenging him. Let me know when you find one, or if I'm mistaken about Malony and Lovekin).

I don't feel I'm reading into it. I addressed this in the section that lists elements of a language and the areas where Samarin found differences in glossa. Every single one of those differences had to do with the fact the message was not understood, therefore it could not fulfill those elements.

Then we're in disagreement, but I submit it's not pivotal to either of our cases. Agree?

Edited October 18, 2012 by Raf

[hiway29]

I've been trying to stay with this, but am almost as bored as the 30th time through the intermediate class. I don't know where you find the energy or passion after all this time, but have at it.

[chockfull]

You keep calling Samarin inconsistent. That is not true. Samarin is wholly consistent. He tells you, for example:

The fact that he defines xenoglossalalia as knowledge of a language not studied and glossolalia as speaking a language not studied has absolutely nothing to do with the inconsistencies I'm pointing out in his research.

When he articulates those very limited ways, some opportunistic apologists point to it as proof it really IS some kind of language and accuse him of being inconsistent. He never said glossolalia has no linguistic qualities. That doesn't make it a $2 bill.

Which is why I'm speaking in detail about the similarities and differences, so people can consider and arrive at their own conclusions.

Similarities: Phonetic structure - both use sentences, phrases, words, sub-expressions, and variance in tone and inflection.

Differences: Speaking with a native accent, mathematically mapping consonants in tongue to native language produces inconclusive consistencies, messages are simpler and more repetitive

It needs to be noted that Lovekin (of Malony and Lovekin) was (is?) a tongues speaker. That he would take a quote from Samarin out of context to have him say the opposite of what he is clearly saying doesn't necessarily surprise me. But not having read their book, I can't pick it apart any more than that.

Haven't evaluated those in detail yet. AT this point the only thing I'm noting is multiple authors challenging the consistency of Samarin's 4 books and Hartford article. Do they have a point? I don't know. I see some inconsistencies that I'm pointing out. Coincidence? Don't know yet.

They're also, if I recall correctly, not linguists. So I'm still looking for a single case of a linguist disputing Samarin's findings (we went from his own linguists disagreeing with him to Sherrill quoting him unfavorably to, now, no linguists challenging him. Let me know when you find one, or if I'm mistaken about Malony and Lovekin).

Well Samarin after looking into in detail in the one article is definitely a linguist himself. And he had enough interest in the topic to publish 4 books on it. I don't know of another author like that with linguist credentials. Maybe there are none. But that still doesn't mean his conclusions are right. Obviously there are many who don't agree with him.

Edited October 18, 2012 by chockfull

[Raf]

I want to obviate something that I'm having a challenge with in this discussion. I really, really, really want to distance myself from TWI doctrine, in the spirit of what Jesus taught about "beware the leaven of the Pharisees".

Duly noted, and I think you've been clear about that all along.

As far as SIT, we're debating on the merits.

As far as Interpretation and Prophecy, the dynamic is a little more interesting: even though there's simply no way on God's green earth to either validate or discredit a spiritual energizing of either practice, we still have a consensus that fakery was widespread, though no consensus that it was faked every time by everyone. Truly unprovable and untestable and not even worth asserting for that reason.

Well Samarin after looking into in detail in the one article is definitely a linguist himself. And he had enough interest in the topic to publish 4 books on it. I don't know of another author like that with linguist credentials. But if I can see inconsistencies in it, then how many more do we need?

Just because you call them inconsistencies doesn't make them inconsistencies. They're not. He says they're not languages and they're only like languages in limited ways with some characteristics. He explains those ways and characteristics. That's consistent. It doesn't change the conclusion that it's not a genuine $2 bill. You can CALL it inconsistent all you want, but that don't make it so.

[chockfull]

I've been trying to stay with this, but am almost as bored as the 30th time through the intermediate class. I don't know where you find the energy or passion after all this time, but have at it.

I think I'm on a roller coaster ride without a parachute or ejection seat.

I guess partially I'm investigating my own past and SIT - which happened before TWI simply, beautifully, and clearly between myself and the Father. No PFAL or excellor sessions involved.

Raf kept telling me I was faking it and lying to myself and repeated it enough times it finally got me going. Now I'm having to learn linguistics terminology. I'm sure this thread all looks like a huge trainwreck.

I guess I like to read too. My fault. Perfect storm.

Just because you call them inconsistencies doesn't make them inconsistencies. They're not. He says they're not languages and they're only like languages in limited ways with some characteristics. He explains those ways and characteristics. That's consistent. It doesn't change the conclusion that it's not a genuine $2 bill. You can CALL it inconsistent all you want, but that don't make it so.

And you can call it fake and a counterfeit $2 bill all you want but that doesn't make it so. Just trying to get equal billing for the opposite viewpoint. His conclusions are inconsistent. To me it's like this. Research comes up with 2 + 2. Conclusion states 5 as the answer. That's the inconsistency. The degree of similarity and difference in natural languages and glossa are in question.

Edited October 18, 2012 by chockfull

[Raf]

You edited before I posted.

My original reply:

Fair enough. But we can't say that Samarin is calling it a real $2 bill just because he's impressed by the quality of the ink. We have to agree that his findings are his findings. I can't address your challenge to his bias. But I don't think it's fair or right to suggest that his conclusions are inconsistent with the linguistic qualities of glossolalia when he explicitly accounts for them.

My edited reply: Naturally, I do not agree that Samarin is concluding 5 as the sum of 2+2. That oversimplifies his work. He's saying it's good ink, good paper, good artistry. You might even pass it off to an untrained cashier. But it's still not a real $2 bill.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Raf

[waysider]

"Similarities: Phonetic structure - both use sentences"

But, they're not sentences. They just sound like sentences. Remember the old sentence diagramming from English class? (OK, maybe you're too young to remember that. ) Give it a shot. Diagram a few and compare the results of them to each other..

[Raf]

I've been trying to stay with this, but am almost as bored as the 30th time through the intermediate class. I don't know where you find the energy or passion after all this time, but have at it.

Yeah, this has become the Chockfull and Raf examine Samarin show, hasn't it. But I appreciate the challenge and I think Chockfull does, too, wherever it may lead either of us.

[chockfull]

You edited before I posted.

My original reply:

Fair enough. But we can't say that Samarin is calling it a real $2 bill just because he's impressed by the quality of the ink. We have to agree that his findings are his findings. I can't address your challenge to his bias. But I don't think it's fair or right to suggest that his conclusions are inconsistent with the linguistic qualities of glossolalia when he explicitly accounts for them.

My edited reply: Naturally, I do not agree that Samarin is concluding 5 as the sum of 2+2. That oversimplifies his work. He's saying it's good ink, good paper, good artistry, but still not a real $2 bill.

Well, I guess it's after work now in most parts of the US, so we're bickering realtime

My issue with his conclusions is he says it's not a natural language, then the sentence after that says a main feature of it is it has the phonological components of a natural language. Now if this was a research paper and I was his research advisor, I would tell him to make up his mind and present a unified message. Or explain away why it was after all of his research he feels the components of the phonetic side of language don't contribute at all to his overall conclusion.

[Raf]

"Similarities: Phonetic structure - both use sentences"

But, they're not sentences. They just sound like sentences. Remember the old sentence diagramming from English class? (OK, maybe you're too young to remember that. ) Give it a shot. Diagram a few and compare the results of them to each other..

I don't fully agree with you, Waysider, but you make a point that needs to be expanded upon: In other places, Samarin calls the utterances "word-like" and "sentence-like." Again, these findings are consistent with the explanation that the speaker WANTS it to sound like a language and injects those qualities into the utterance. It proves nothing as to actual language content. Samarin is impressed by human creativity, not by the "language" that's produced. He says so explicitly more than once.

[chockfull]

"Similarities: Phonetic structure - both use sentences"

But, they're not sentences. They just sound like sentences. Remember the old sentence diagramming from English class? (OK, maybe you're too young to remember that. ) Give it a shot. Diagram a few and compare the results of them to each other..

I remember them. So do one in English. Now do one in a language you don't understand. The comparisons make a lot of sense right? If they do, you could be Samarin's research assistant

[Raf]

Well, I guess it's after work now in most parts of the US, so we're bickering realtime

My issue with his conclusions is he says it's not a natural language, then the sentence after that says a main feature of it is it has the phonological components of a natural language. Now if this was a research paper and I was his research advisor, I would tell him to make up his mind and present a unified message. Or explain away why it was after all of his research he feels the components of the phonetic side of language don't contribute at all to his overall conclusion.

Ah, NOW you're talking!

Here's the thing: if he said it was LIKE real language in limited ways, that it shared some characteristics with language, but did not articulate what those ways and characteristics were, would you not fairly criticize him for holding back? [Poythress, if you read him carefully, holds back some stuff that might have proved helpful to your argument. It's impossible to tell where he was going with it, and I'm trying to find it myself when I have time. You'll have to trust me on that].

Thing is, I think he DOES explain why the phonetics don't lead him to conclude it's a language. The limited number of phonemes, the fact that they all come from the speaker's native language, the fact that they are lacking in variety compared to real languages (but have much more variety than gibberish). I think you're selling him short.

[chockfull]

Samarin is impressed by human creativity, not by the "language" that's produced. He says so explicitly more than once.

And thus, Samarin exposes his preconception prior to all his research. He's pre-disposed to think people are making it up. And maybe some of them are. Or maybe every single one of his samples that he examined are. I don't know. I don't have the samples, or the background write-ups of the speakers. But to me he comes off as finding what he wants to find.

His xenoglossalalia examples that I've seen pretty much are all mediums writing messages from their spirit guides. So someone's spirit guide speaks Spanish and is into Santeria? And somehow that means I'm making up SIT?

[Raf]

And thus, Samarin exposes his preconception prior to all his research. He's pre-disposed to think people are making it up. And maybe some of them are. Or maybe every single one of his samples that he examined are. I don't know. I don't have the samples, or the background write-ups of the speakers. But to me he comes off as finding what he wants to find.

His xenoglossalalia examples that I've seen pretty much are all mediums writing messages from their spirit guides. So someone's spirit guide speaks Spanish and is into Santeria? And somehow that means I'm making up SIT?

That's a pretty big assumption that he made up his mind prior to his research. But there may be SOME merit to that. Nonetheless, had he found xenoglossia, he would have noted it. I mean, why go into a page or two of really small type on the distinction between xenoglossia and glossolalia and fail to point out that 0.5 percent of the samples you studied were xenoglossic? Makes no sense. He didn't do it because he didn't find any such examples.

I finally understood what he meant by xenoglossia not being interesting to the linguist: If a tongues speaker produced an actual language, the linguist has nothing to study. He simply declares it Swahili and leaves it to someone else to figure out what the devil just happened. Glossolalia gives him something to study. And what he's studying appears very much to be the end product of free vocalization.

As for his xenoglossia examples, I don't think he's making anywhere near the leap you're making. No sample of SIT that he studied produced a language. That's as far as we can take Samarin, as far as I ever intended to take him.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Raf

[waysider]

Jabberwocky

Now, this one you can diagram AND present with theatrical flair.

It's still not a real language.