3.5. The Problems of Phonetics and Dialect

[Full title: Reflection of Mind on Language Behaviours (5): The Problems of Phonetics and Dialect]

In the Sutta Araṇavibhaga ‘The Exposition of Non-Conflict’ (Majjhima Nikāya, Sutta number 139) the Buddha in order to give bhikkhus an exposition of non-conflict expresses his teaching as follows:

One should not pursue sensual pleasure, which is low, vulgar, coarse, ignoble, and unbeneficial; and one should not pursue self-mortification, which is painful, ignoble, and unbeneficial. The Middle Way discovered by the Tathāgata avoids both extremes; giving vision, giving knowledge, it leads to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbāna. One should know what it is to extol and what it is to disparage, and knowing both, one should neither extol nor disparage but should teach only the Dhamma. One should know how to define pleasure, and knowing that, one should pursue pleasure within oneself. One should not utter covert speech, and one should not utter overt sharp speech. One should speak unhurriedly, not hurriedly. One should not insist on local language, and one should not override normal usage. This is the summary of the exposition of non-conflict.

(Majjhima Nikāya, Sutta number 139.3)

In explaining the covert speech and overt sharp speech the Buddha advices that:

“Bhikkhus, when one knows covert speech or overt sharp speech to be untrue, incorrect, and unbeneficial, one should on no account utter it. When one knows the covert speech or overt sharp speech to be true, correct, but unbeneficial, one should not try to utter it. But, when one knows the covert speech or overt sharp speech to be true, correct, and beneficial, one may utter it, knowing the time to do so”

(Majjhima Nikāya, Sutta number 139.10).

In case of speaking hurriedly, the Blessed One gives a detailed explanation that:

Bhikkhus, when one speaks hurriedly, one’s body grows tired and one’s mind becomes excited, one’s voice [therefore] is strained and one’s throat becomes hoarse, and the speech of one who speaks hurriedly is indistinct and hard to understand. And bhikkhus, when one speaks unhurriedly, one’s body does not grow tired nor does one’s mind becomes excited, one’s voice [therefore] is strained nor does one’s throat becomes hoarse, and the speech of one who speaks unhurriedly is distinct and easy to understand. (Majjhima Nikāya, Sutta number 139.11)

Thus, it was with reference to this that it was said “One should speaks unhurriedly, not hurriedly.” (Ibid)

Phonetically, the sound of speech, on the one hand, and the movements producing the sound on the other are in fact closely linked both for speaker and for the hearer. In the production of speech, if one of the four processes of air-stream, articulation, oral or phonation process is disconnected then the sounds become obstructed. When one speaks hurriedly, for example, the source of energy from airflow and pressure in the vocal tract is not adequate enough for generating speech sounds causing obstacle in the air stream process and thus causing direct effect on the understanding of the hearer.

The Buddha’s implication when saying, “not insist on local language” and “not override normal usage,” (Ibid, 139.12) relates to the problems of dialect, idiolect, and sociolect.

Linguistically, dialect is a variation of language based on a certain geographical location. It is sufficiently different to be considered a separate entity from the standard of literary form in terms of pronunciation, grammatical construction, or idiomatic use of words and so on within a language but not different enough to be regarded as a separate language. Idiolect is a variety of language used by a single individual as speech habits with peculiarrities of pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, and so on. It is an individual’s personal variety of the community language system. On the other hand, the members of a particular group of a speech community speak sociolect. Its difference can be attributed to a host of social factors such the socio-economic and political status of the speakers within the same linguistic community.

As observed in several Suttas in the Five Nikāyas, the Buddha not only appears in a role as head of the Order but repeatedly engages in living dialogue with people from the many various class of ancient Indian society, with kings and princes, with Brahmins and ascetics, with simple villagers or erudite philosophers, with earnest seekers, wanderers, or vain disputants and so on. The saṅgha at the Buddha’s time lived a life of homelessness and often wandered to pass through many localities with their distinct dialects. Even within the saṅgha, there were thousands of bhikkhus who came from many various states and social classes with a lot of different dialects, idiolect, and sociolect. If each of them, for example, insists on his own language, it might be cause of disagreement in the saṅgha. This would be more difficult on the missionary works. For such all reasons, bhikkhus are advised by the Buddha not to insist on their local language, or to reject the common language.

Adoption of a language other than Sanskrit, hitherto the language of power and legacy, was to assign Pāli the status of a medium for the new evolving discourse. But, here too by not insisting on a particular language for communicating with the masses, the Buddha followed a really pragmatic approach in his advice to the monks. The problem of dialect is actually at the core of the Buddha’s very teaching. Insistence for and firmly adhering to one’s own language is, therefore, justified as “only this is correct; anything else is wrong” and hence utterly unacceptable to the Buddha.

When a bhikkhu contacts with someone who uses his own dialect, such a bhikkhu is advised to willingly accept it in harmony of communication. Thus:

“‘One should not insist on local language, and one should not override normal usage’. So it was said. And with reference to what was this said?

“How, bhikkhus, does there come to be insistence on local language and overriding of normal usage? Here, bhikkhus, in different localities they call the same thing a ‘dish’ [pati] , a ‘bowl’ [patta] , a ‘vessel’ [vittha] , a ‘saucer’ [serava] , a ‘pan’ [dharopa] , a ‘pot’ [poṇa] , or a ‘basin’ [pislla] . So whatever they call it in such and such a locality, one speaks accordingly, firmly adhering [to that expression] and insisting: ‘Only this is correct; anything else is wrong’. This is how there comes to be insistence on local language and overriding normal usage.

“And how, bhikkhus, does there come to be non-insistence on local language and non-overriding of normal usage? Here, bhikkhus, in different localities they call the same thing a ‘dish’... or a ‘basin’. So whatever they call it in such and such a locality, without adhering [to that expression] one speaks accordingly, thinking: ‘These venerable ones, it seems, are speaking with reference to this’. This is how there comes to be non-insistence on local language and non-overriding of normal usage. (Majjhima Nikāya, Sutta number 139.12)

In short, if one cannot control his speech, there is hardly any possibility by which one can hope to control one’s mind. All courses of speech behaviour taught by the Buddha are either directly or indirectly the concerns of today psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, and metaphors.