Linguistics

An International Review

50

1969

MOUTON
THE HAGUE PARIS

 Copyright 1969 in The Netherlands.

Mouton & Co. N.V., Publishers, The Hague.
No part of this issue may be translated or reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publishers

Printed in The Netherlands by Mouton & Co., Printers, The Hague

FORMS AND FUNCTIONS OF NONSENSE

LANGUAGE

WILLIAM J. SAMARIN

Is there anything that m a n has perceived or experienced that he has not

incorporated in some system? Everything man lays his hands on, he uses.
Language is no exception. M a n takes both his linguistic capacities and
his or someone else's linguistic output and uses them in ingenious
ways. The investigation of these capacities and man's utilization of them
is the subject matter of linguistics. But linguistics has been primarily, and
almost exclusively, concerned with man's normal use of language. Of
man's use of abnormal language there is still far too little known.
Common sense permits the polarization of normal and abnormal language. If for no other reason, this dichotomy is justified by heuristics :
until our knowledge about language is far richer than it is today, we are
entitled to say that whatever is comprehended by our linguistic generalizations is 'normal' and whatever is excluded is 'abnormal'. Ultimately, of
course, a single linguistic theory must account for all linguistic variables.
In this paper I do not attempt any characterization of abnormal language. That would be a venture far too audacious, for me at least, or
perhaps for any one at this time. I limit myself to only one kind of abnormal linguistic behavior. And if by doing this I succeed in identifying
a particular species of linguistic phenomena, somehow really different
f r o m all others, then I will be satisfied. This I call 'nonsense language',
and 'pseudolanguage' is a perfectly acceptable synonym. (My own use
of the word nonsense should not be confused with other uses. I do not
mean, for example, what is incomprehensible although based on normal
linguistic material.)
Nonsense the kind under discussion is characterized, obviously
enough, by making no sense. It is unintelligible, however, to the speaker
as well as the hearer. But since we are all capable of meaninglessly passing
on what had meaning for the original speaker of a different language
(witness what happens in multilingual situations when people repeat
words and phrases for prestige purposes), we must qualify by saying that

FORMS AND FUNCTIONS OF NONSENSE LANGUAGE

71

the utterance is unlearned. Pseudolanguage is therefore unintelligible and

spontaneous.
But pseudolanguage must also be language-like. Babbling, ejaculations
of pain and pleasure, and other utterances covered by the term 'gibberish'
are specifically excluded. A pseudolinguistic utterance is a certain kind
of surrogate for n o r m a l language. It is felt to be so by the speaker. This
is a psychological criterion, admittedly ; b u t there are linguistic implications and correlates. A n acceptable language surrogate has linguistic
features that distinguish it f r o m other f o r m s of nonsense. This is stated
as a finding and as a hypothesis to be tested. It will be confirmed by b o t h
linguistic and nonlinguistic evidence. Of the latter type is the observation
that subjects who have listened to samples of pseudolanguage r a n k them
closer to real language t h a n to nonlanguage (Carlson MS).
Although pseudolanguage will be easily distinguished f r o m n o r m a l
language, this is n o t t o say t h a t they are in themselves pure types. It is
convenient to see h u m a n speech consisting of a b r o a d spectrum of phenomena.. A t one end is n o r m a l language ; at the other end are things like
interjections a n d repetitions of simple syllables (for example, in incantations). In between these are f o u n d m a n y kinds of utterances. Glossolalia
is probably somewhere in the middle of this scheme, with nonsense syllables like tralalala in musical refrains to the left (toward simple repetitions)
and the nonsense of "be b o p " or "scat" singing somewhat closely. T o the
right are to be f o u n d private languages a n d argots that have pseudolinguistic features (they d o n o t necessarily have them). Finally, there are
people w h o have a few pseudolinguistic innovations like the word kunaman
'wonderful' used by two male cousins since childhood. The m a n who
reported this use was a n o r m a l m e m b e r of the linguistic fraternity. Neologisms also occur, of course, a m o n g schizophrenics (for which see the
novel by Green).
We will n o t at this time characterize the linguistic features of pseudolanguage (for which see Samarin 1968). W e do need to define the concept
of meaninglessness.
Pseudolanguage is nonsense because there is n o semological structure
with which the phonological structure is correlated. T h a t is, the phonemic
stratum is n o t the a p p a r e n t realization of a sememic stratum. Even where
a pseudolinguistic text is motivated by a conceptualized (or conceptualizable) emotion, there is no neat way of showing the relation between
units of speech a n d units of meaning. One such text, obtained f r o m the
speaker P L described below, was associated with the concept of love,
and in it there was a very high incidence of the syllables zuw, zuw, juw,

72

WILLIAM J. SAMARIN

and suw, b u t this is all that one can say a b o u t the correlations at this time.
Even if a syllable, say, Suw, could be identified with some concept associated with love in a language k n o w n by the speaker and even associated
by him with a particular (perhaps childhood) experience, we learn nothing a b o u t meaning in this particular pseudolinguistic text.
There is, however, a great deal of meaning conveyed prosodically and
paralinguistically. H o w m u c h of this is linguistic? Even if one describes
the sememic stratum of language as having units that encode affects that
are realized eithei prosodically or lexemically {e.g., you poor thing), we
would have to say for pseudolanguage that there is no separate semology.
Whatever system it has is borrowed into the pseudolanguage as a 'coexistent system', to use a term f r o m the phonemics of the 1940s, and it is
realized only prosodically and paralinguistically. This is why intonations
of pseudolinguistic texts are so m u c h like those of the languages k n o w n
by the speakers whereas the segmental phonology is substantially restructured. In some sense, therefore, the speaker of pseudolanguage is
talking two languages at the same time!
Having characterized the f o r m of pseudolanguage, we can now discuss
its function.
T h e best-known pseudolanguage is glossolalia or 'speaking in tongues'.
It occurs in some f o r m s of the Christian religion and is reported also for
some non-Christian religions. I t is best k n o w n b u t very little understood,
partly because it has been considered gibberish or hysterical in nature. It
is clear now that glossolalia is n o t a very unusual p h e n o n e m o n and that
it serves several functions, some social a n d some personal. F o r example,
it legitimizes a particular kind of religious experience, it authenticates the
authority of sect leaders, and it produces euphoria and may even lead to
mild states of trance. But it has these functions primarily because its
speakers do not realize that glossolalia is accessible to everyone. Glossolalists capitalize on the obvious distinctiveness of glossolalia and on the
apparent difficulty people have in producing their own f o r m s of pseudolanguage. The result is a complex belief system that explains how one
acquires the skill, how it is to be used, what its value is, etc.
But glossolalists are only using in a social way what others have used
in a personal, or, if social, then ephemeral way. Many people have used
pseudolanguage only once or rarely in their lives; others have used it
sporadically or rather consistently for a long time. M a n y people indulge
in pseudolanguage when they are especially happy. Walking down the
street or driving their cars, they m a y give expression to their emotions
by talking without saying anything. Some use pseudolanguage to express

FORMS AND FUNCTIONS OF NONSENSE LANGUAGE

73

strong emotion, anger as well as pleasure, in the presence of and even to

someone else. One such person when still a boy burst out in pseudolanguage in a fit of anger at his brother. A n o t h e r person (PL, referred to
above), now retired, has been using pseudolanguage socially and personally since he was fifteen years old. Today, if he h a p p e n e d to d r o p a package
while paying his bus fare, he might very well express his exasperation in
a stream of pseudolanguage. As he puts it, Alakinky (a name invented
by him for the investigation now being carried on by one of my students)
blunts the edge of his emotions.
Other people have produced pseudolanguage in a playful attempt to
simulate a foreign language. One such person spoke in this way to conf o u n d his friends or when he, being a country lad, talked to the cows.
As he p u t it, "They couldn't understand English anyway, so it didn't make
any difference what I said t o t h e m . " Children talk in pseudolanguage for
more serious reasons. Several people have told m e that when they were
a b r o a d , their children out of desperation we would say created their
own pseudowords in talking French or Japanese, for example. In the
latter case, what was remarkable was t h a t almost all adults, even the
Japanese, thought that the child was really talking Japanese. In these cases
the children pretended that they were talking a real language, not to conf o u n d but to assume their p a r t of dialogue. But the motivations for
pretending t o speak another language are legion. O n a train in Holland
a girl picked u p a newspaper in her own language and read it off in
pseudolanguage just to be silly (or was she conscious of my being a
foreigner?). And in D u b r o v n i k , Yugoslavia, a y o u n g m a n w h o m my wife
and I had just passed was heard to speak out in pseudowords in a p a r o d y
of our English. Different, but not necessarily m o r e interesting linguistically, are those cases of children who grow u p n o t learning to speak, although
understanding, their parents' language, a n d speak a pseudolanguage
instead for several m o n t h s or years.
M o r e examples of the use of pseudolanguage can be given, but all of
them would, I think, be similar to those already cited. A t this stage of
our investigation of pseudolanguage, it would be premature, however,
to suggest a full inventory of functions. They would in all probability
parallel those of n o r m a l language to some extent. There would naturally
be some glaring discrepancies. Pseudolanguages would have no cognitive
function, for example, but they would have a strongly emotive one. This
is why one would expect t h e m t o be associated with the private, the
esoteric, and the religious.
In talking in this way a b o u t the uses to which pseudolanguage can be

WILLIAM J. SAMARIN

74

put, one is close to if n o t within the d o m a i n of psychology. A n d , as one

might expect, psychologists have shown an interest in pseudolanguage.
Laffal, one of these, first met pseudolanguage in a couple of his schizophrenic patients. (I have heard the tape-recordings, and the utterances are
similar indeed to glossolalia.) His explanation of these outbursts in pseudolanguage is t h a t the patients wanted to express themselves without really
giving anything away (Laffal 1965). H e also suggests (1967) that since
language serves as an 'energy discharge mechanism', pseudolanguage may
be used instead of n o r m a l language by some disturbed patients to vent
their emotions. These are interesting hypotheses that need a great deal of
study, always within view of the overall investigation of pseudolanguage.
(He a n d I are now cooperating in the analysis and interpretation of data
obtained f r o m a well-educated, n o r m a l glossolalist subject.)
M y own contention is that pseudolanguage is available to everyone,
t h a t is, everyone who has n o r m a l linguistic competence. It takes brains
to talk nonsense. A m o n g the mentally retarded, I predict, will never be
f o u n d speakers of pseudolanguage. T h e explanation is quite simple, given
a certain understanding of the n a t u r e of pseudolanguage : pseudolanguage
is parasitic; it is a derived f o r m of speech; its creation depends on the
speaker's ability to abstract, f r o m w h a t he hears of knows, the units and
the tactics the rules of a marginal a n d simplified f o r m of speech.
CONCLUSION

In this paper I have suggested t h a t pseudolanguage is one of the abnormal

f o r m s of language b u t that it is also m o r e c o m m o n t h a n we have generally
realized. T h e implications of the study of pseudolanguage for linguistics
a n d psychology are n o t spelled out, b u t they are there for all to see. This
investigator encourages the study of pseudolanguage and welcomes information, even if only anecdotal, a n d d a t a a b o u t it.
University of

Toronto

REFERENCES
Carlson, A., "'Tongues of fire (revisited)". MS.
Green, Hannah, I never promised you a rose garden (New York, The New American
Library, Inc., 1964).
Laffal, Julius, Pathological and normal language (New York, Atherton Press, 1965).
, "Language, consciousness, and experience", The Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 36
(1967), 61-6.
Samarin, W. J., "The iinguisticality of glossolalia", The Hartford Quarterly [The Hartford Seminary Foundation], 8 (1968), 49-75.