Let's face it, humanity has a lousy definition, accompanying practice, and analysis of peace.
Since the Peace/War cycle repeats like the night/day contrasts of dark and light, or the consonant/vowel expressions of speech; do we convince ourselves that such a Peace/War dichotomy is physiologically or environmentally induced and feel secure if claim an inevitability? Does the Peace/War dichotomy express some vague resemblance to a surviving dichotomous stimulus that forces humanity to repeat? Will it repeat in the same sequential measurement of time and space, or change according to the change in the day/night event and/or an alteration in speech usage of vowels and consonants; despite the tri-modal nature of language into subject, object and verb? Necessarily so, let's take a brief look at linguistics:
(Linguistics is) the scientific study of language. The word was first used in the middle of the 19th century to emphasize the difference between a newer approach to the study of language that was then developing and the more traditional approach of philology. The differences were and are largely matters of attitude, emphasis, and purpose. The philologist is concerned primarily with the historical development of languages as it is manifest in written texts and in the context of the associated literature and culture. The linguist, though he may be interested in written texts and in the development of languages through time, tends to give priority to spoken languages and to the problems of analyzing them as they operate at a given point in time.
The field of linguistics may be divided in terms of three dichotomies: synchronic versus diachronic, theoretical versus applied, and microlinguistics versus macrolinguistics. A synchronic description of a language describes the language as it is at a given time; a diachronic description is concerned with the historical development of the language and the structural changes that have taken place in it. The goal of theoretical linguistics is the construction of a general theory of the structure of language or of a general theoretical framework for the description of languages; the aim of applied linguistics is the application of the findings and techniques of the scientific study of language to practical tasks, especially to the elaboration of improved methods of language teaching. The terms microlinguistics and macrolinguistics are not yet well established, and they are, in fact, used here purely for convenience. The former refers to a narrower and the latter to a much broader view of the scope of linguistics. According to the microlinguistic view, languages should be analyzed for their own sake and without reference to their social function, to the manner in which they are acquired by children, to the psychological mechanisms that underlie the production and reception of speech, to the literary and the aesthetic or communicative function of language, and so on. In contrast, macrolinguistics embraces all of these aspects of language. Various areas within macrolinguistics have been given terminological recognition: psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, anthropological linguistics, dialectology, mathematical and computational linguistics, and stylistics. Macrolinguistics should not be identified with applied linguistics. The application of linguistic methods and concepts to language teaching may well involve other disciplines in a way that microlinguistics does not. But there is, in principle, a theoretical aspect to every part of macrolinguistics, no less than to microlinguistics.Eric P. Hamp: Robert Maynard Hutchins Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus of Linguistics, of Psychology, and of Slavic Languages; Director, Center for Balkan and Slavic Studies, University of Chicago. Coeditor of Readings in Linguistics, I & II.
The system of tagmemic analysis, as presented by Kenneth L. Pike, was developed for the analysis not only of language but of all of human behaviour that manifests the property of patterning. In the following treatment, only language will be discussed.
Modes of language
Every language is said to be trimodal—i.e., structured in three modes: phonology, grammar, and lexicon. These modes are interrelated but have a considerable degree of independence and must be described in their own terms. Phonology and lexicon should not be seen as mere appendages to grammar, the former simply specifying which phonemes can combine to form morphemes (or morphs), and the latter simply listing the morphemes and other meaningful units with a description of their meaning. There are levels of structure in each of the modes, and the units of one level are not necessarily coterminous with those of another. Phonemes, for example, may combine to form syllables and syllables to form phonological words ("phonological word" is defined as the domain of some phonological process such as accentuation, assimilation, or dissimilation), but the morpheme (or morph) will not necessarily consist of an integral number of syllables, still less of a single syllable. Nor will the word as a grammatical unit necessarily coincide with the phonological word. Similarly, the units of lexical analysis, sometimes referred to as lexemes (in one sense of this term), are not necessarily identifiable as single grammatical units, whether as morphemes, words, or phrases. No priority, then, is ascribed to any one of the three modes.
The originality of tagmemic analysis and the application of the term tagmeme is most clearly manifest in the domain of grammar. By a tagmeme is meant an element of a construction, the element in question being regarded as a composite unit, described in such terms as "slot-filler" or "function-class." For example, one of the tagmemes required for the analysis of English at the syntactic level might be noun-as-subject, in which "noun" refers to a class of substitutable, or paradigmatically related, morphemes or words capable of fulfilling a certain grammatical function, and "subject" refers to the function that may be fulfilled by one or more classes of elements. In the tagmeme noun-as-subject—which, using the customary tagmemic symbolism, may be represented as Subject:noun—the subject slot is filled by a noun. When a particular tagmeme is identified in the analysis of an actual utterance, it is said to be manifested by the particular member of the grammatical class that occurs in the appropriate slot in the utterance. For example, in the utterance “John is asleep,” the subject tagmeme is manifested by the noun "John." Tagmemicists insist that tagmemes, despite their bipartite structure, are single units. In grammatical analysis, the distribution of tagmemes, not simply of classes, is stated throughout the sentences of the language. Subject:noun is a different tagmeme from Object:noun, as it is also a different tagmeme from Subject: pronoun.
Historical (diachronic) linguistics
All languages change in the course of time. Written records make it clear that 15th-century English is quite noticeably different from 21st-century English, as is 15th-century French or German from modern French or German. It was the principal achievement of the 19th-century linguists not only to realize more clearly than their predecessors the ubiquity of linguistic change but also to put its scientific investigation on a sound footing by means of the comparative method.
Languages borrow words freely from one another. Usually this happens when some new object or institution is developed for which the borrowing language has no word of its own. For example, the large number of words denoting financial institutions and operations borrowed from Italian by the other western European languages at the time of the Renaissance testifies to the importance of the Italian bankers in that period. (The word "bank" itself, in this sense, comes through French from the Italian banca). Words now pass from one language to another on a scale that is probably unprecedented, partly because of the enormous number of new inventions that have been made in the 20th and 21st centuries and partly because international communications are now so much more rapid and important. The vocabulary of modern science and technology is very largely international.
The comparative method
The comparative method in historical linguistics is concerned with the reconstruction of an earlier language or earlier state of a language on the basis of a comparison of related words and expressions in different languages or dialects derived from it. The comparative method was developed in the course of the 19th century for the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European and was subsequently applied to the study of other language families. It depends upon the principle of regular sound change—principle that met with violent opposition when it was introduced into linguistics by the Neo-grammarians in the 1870s but by the end of the century had become part of what might be fairly described as the orthodox approach to historical linguistics. Changes in the phonological systems of languages through time were accounted for in terms of sound laws.
Criticisms of the comparative method
One of the criticisms directed against the comparative method is that it is based upon a misleading genealogical metaphor. In the mid-19th century, the German linguist August Schleicher introduced into comparative linguistics the model of the "family tree." There is obviously no point in time at which it can be said that new languages are "born" of a common parent language. Nor is it normally the case that the parent language "lives on" for a while, relatively unchanged, and then "dies." It is easy enough to recognize the inappropriateness of these biological expressions. No less misleading, however, is the assumption that languages descended from the same parent language will necessarily diverge, never to converge again, through time. This assumption is built into the comparative method as it is traditionally applied. And yet there are many clear cases of convergence in the development of well-documented languages. The dialects of England are fast disappearing and are far more similar in grammar and vocabulary today than they were even a generation ago. They have been strongly influenced by the standard language. The same phenomenon, the replacement of nonstandard or less prestigious forms with forms borrowed from the standard language or dialect, has taken place in many different places at many different times. It would seem, therefore, that one must reckon with both divergence and convergence in the diachronic development of languages: divergence when contact between two speech communities is reduced or broken and convergence when the two speech communities remain in contact and when one is politically or culturally dominant.
The comparative method presupposes linguistically uniform speech communities and independent development after sudden, sharp cleavage. Critics of the comparative method have pointed out that this situation does not generally hold. In 1872 a German scholar, Johannes Schmidt, criticized the family-tree theory and proposed instead what is referred to as the wave theory, according to which different linguistic changes will spread, like waves, from a politically, commercially, or culturally important centre along the main lines of communication, but successive innovations will not necessarily cover exactly the same area. Consequently, there will be no sharp distinction between contiguous dialects, but, in general, the further apart two speech communities are, the more linguistic features there will be that distinguish them.Sir John Lyons: Master of Trinity Hall, University of Cambridge. Professor of Linguistics, University of Sussex, Brighton, England, 1976–84. Author of Introduction to Linguistic Semantics; Language and Linguistics.
The methodology of generative grammar was first applied to dialectology in the 1960s, when the use of statistical means to measure the similarity or difference between dialects also became increasingly common. The most important development of that time, however, was the rapid growth of methods for investigating the social variation of dialects; social variation, in contrast to geographic variation, is prominent in the United States, above all in large urban centres. In cities such as New York, a whole scale of speech variation can be found to correlate with the social status and educational level of the speakers. In addition, age groups exhibit different patterns, but such patterns of variation differ from one social stratum to another. Still another dimension of variation, especially important in the United States, is connected with the race and ethnic origin of a speaker as well as with the speaker's date of immigration. So-called Black English, or African American English, has been influenced by the southeastern U.S. origin of most of the African American population of non-southern U.S. regions: many Black English peculiarities are in reality transplanted southeastern dialectal traits.
Normally, speakers of one of the social dialects of a city possess at least some awareness of the other dialects. In this way, speech characteristics also become subjectively integrated into the system of signs indicating social status. And, in seeking to enhance their social status, poorer and less educated speakers may try to acquire the dialect of the socially prestigious. Certain groups—e.g., African Americans and the working class—however, will, under certain conditions, show a consciousness of solidarity and a tendency to reject members who imitate either the speech or other types of behaviour of models outside their own social group.
As a consequence of an individual's daily contacts with speakers of the various social dialects of a city, elements of the other dialects are imperceptibly drawn into his dialect. The collective result of such experiences is the spread of linguistic variables—i.e., groups of variants (sounds or grammatical phenomena) primarily determined by social (educational, racial, age, class) influences, an example being the existence of the two forms "He don't know" and the standard "He doesn't know." Traits representing variables in inter-group relations can become variable features in the speech of individuals as well; i.e., an individual may employ two or more variants for the same feature in his own speech, such as "seeing" and "seein'" or "he don't" and "he doesn't." The frequency of usage for each variable varies with the individual speaker as well as with the social group. There are intermediate stages of frequency between different social groups and entire scales of transitions between different age groups, thus creating even greater variation within the dialect of an individual. The variables also behave differently in the various styles of written or spoken language used by each speaker.
The study of variables is one of the central tasks of any investigation of the dialects of American cities. Applying the statistical methods of modern sociology, linguists have worked out investigative procedures sharply different from those of traditional dialectology. The chief contributor was William Labov, the pioneer of social dialectology in the U.S. The basic task is to determine the correlation between a group of linguistic variables—such as the different ways of pronouncing a certain vowel—and extralinguistic variables, such as education, social status, age, and race. For a reasonable degree of statistical reliability, one must record a great number of speakers. In general, several examples of the same variable must be elicited from each individual in order to examine the frequency and probability of its usage. Accordingly, the number of linguistic variables that can be examined is quite limited, in comparison with the number of dialectal features normally recorded by traditional fieldworkers in rural communities; in these situations, the investigator is often satisfied with one or two responses for each feature.
A completely new, flexible, and imaginative method of interviewing is needed for such work in urban centres, as well as new ways of finding and making contact with informants. One example is Labov's method for testing the fate of final and preconsonantal "r" in speakers of different social levels. Choosing three New York City department stores, each oriented to a completely different social stratum, he approached a large number of salesladies, asking each of them about the location of a certain department that he knew to be on the fourth floor. Thus, their answers always contained two words with potential "r's"— "fourth" and "floor." This shortcut enabled Labov to establish in a relatively short time that the salesladies in the store with richer customers clearly tended to use "r-full" forms, whereas those in the stores geared to the poorer social strata more commonly used "r-less" forms.
Social dialectology has focused on the subjective evaluation of linguistic features and the degree of an individual's linguistic security, phenomena that have considerable influence on linguistic change. Linguistic scientists, in studying the mechanism of such change, have found that it seems to proceed gradually from one social group to another, always attaining greater frequency among the young. Social dialectology also has great relevance for a society as a whole, in that the data it furnishes will help deal with the extremely complex problems connected with the speech of the socially underprivileged, especially of minority groups. Thus, the recent emphasis on the speech of minority groups, such as the Black English of American cities, is not a chance phenomenon. Specific methods for such investigation are being developed, as well as ways of applying the results of such investigation to educational policies.Pavle Ivic' (Ed.): Former Professor of Serbo-Croatian Language, History, and Dialectology, University of Belgrade. Author of Die serbokroatischen Dialekte; coauthor of Accent in Serbocroatian.
Source: "Linguistics." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013
By providing the above excerpt, we are of course assuming that the Peace/War phenomena is related to language... even if in the final analysis it is found to be otherwise. If it is due to mis-spoken or misinterpreted perception, we must nonetheless ascertain whether the peace/war speech is a "whole" language or some variant of a "mother tongue". In other words, is it vulgar, slang or the result of a speech impediment brought on by an unrecognized problem with articulation due to a physiology that is only recently evolved away from a more primitive hominid whose facial features more readily exhibited a link to an even more primal past? Does humanity exhibit a primitive jaw and larynx but we are unable to distinguish such because we assume present day speech is the product of some fully evolved vocalization apparatus that everyone shares? While we of today can readily describe those of the past as having expressed some variant of present day speech and vocabulary, we of today can not so easily appreciate how primitive we are in comparison to a future evolution... that is if we don't wipe ourselves out due to some language-related misunderstanding.
Necessarily so, we must wonder how primitive the language of all professions is. For example, is the language of so-called "Diplomacy" or politics a type of slang labeled as being "professional" due to the level of arrogance and egotism of its speakers who use it to conceal ignorance and personal motives from which is instigated war... and/or the absence of war defined as peace? And when such an "absence of war" state is achieved, how is it to be sustained if the definition is not a "full" explanation of social behavior? In other words, if we simply describe an absence of war as peace, yet peace can only exist for a short interval of time during which resources are collected in order to pursue a conflict in an attempt to redistribute one or another resource on an unequal basis; our definition of peace is based on a mind-set of superficiality. Peace does not have a "full" definition and therefore represents little more than an interval of time for resources to be gathered so that another conflict can ensue as an attempt to fulfill someone's personal interests... whether or not they actually have anything to do with democracy, money, territory, or some other resource. Sometimes, people simply want to fight, kill and cause destruction... though the usage of the word "simply" is not meant to construe a simplicity.
In discussing peace and war from different perspectives, it is easy for a reader to overlook underlying themes of cognitive commonality such as the recurrence of ideas such as monism, dichotomy, and trichotomy, because such words are not always used and instead may be "spelled out" in examples using various single, double and triple formulas, that may or may not involve geometric illustrations thereof. Whereas many people think in simplistic terms, they do not necessarily think in terms of acknowledging basic cognitive profiles as a type of Universal language of brain activity that may differ from what one thinks to how one may describe such in terms of speech, a written alphabet, or some artistic, mathematical, scientific mode of articulated portraiture. Without some familiarity and ability to decipher the language of various subject areas, a researcher interested in basic profiles of mental activity (devoid of cultural subjectiveness), may overlook the same types of expressions occurring in the different languages used by different subject genres. For example, one person studying Sociology may describe the lower, middle and upper classes while another person describes the three large sub-atomic particles (electrons- neutrons- protons)... and yet another draws out a triangle— while yet another use trigonometry; and not be able to describe any basic mental commonality amongst all of them.
The peace/war dichotomy is an example of a cognitive language that may or may not be a "parent" tongue. Yet, the widespread existence of using dichotomies in different subject areas along with other identifiable patterns if not describing a similar physiology and brain structure; also describes there once was or/and remains something in the environment which impresses the pattern on human psychology. If it is environmental in terms of the planet and not mere human sociology, than it is of need to recognize this influence to see whether it is "stuck" or subject to change... which will/can affect global human behavior.
Digressively, let us look at the presence of dichotomous thinking in reference to computers which utilize the off/on switching mechanim of an electrical circuit to which is applied the non-mathematical configuration of 0/1. This two-part arrangement is called a "bit" and eight bits are called a byte. However, humorously, we can referred to individual bits as nibbles and rewrite the word byte as "bite"... but one should not be inclined to think that we are on some fishing expedition with a half-full tackle box containing a "church key" (opener) for a can of worms. Nonetheless, the presence of the "nibble" as an expression— such as the consonant/vowel utterance "ba" (or na, da, ti, etc...) found in babbling or the one and two-line configurations found in an I-Ching list of 8 Bigrams whose 64 configuration is commensurate with chess board squares and amino acid allotments. In short, there are parallels in basic structural formulas but there is an overall conservation in the types of basic cognitive patterns being used. It's not that we can think in multiple patterns, it's just that the environment of Earth, this galaxy and this Universe imposes restrictions as requirements for maintaining some semblance of an equilibrium along its course of incremental decay.
The peace/war dichotomy are part of a cognitive language, whether or not we have misinterpreted and mis-labeled the circumstance(s). So long as we define peace in terms of an absence of war and not in a larger social activity sense because we insist on using generalizations and assumptions; there can be no sustained peace. The moments of peace we think we have will be little more than periods of recuperation in order that resources and attitudes can be organized to establish the rationale for committing another instance of non-peace... or providing the hopeful situation in which the "peace" which follows will be defined in accord with the views of a new (or old) victor. Then again, once again, we must ask how are we to define peace? What do we mean when we say "peace"? And irrespective of language, is peace similarly defined the world over, or is it like one's personal definition of truth, love, reality, beauty, wealth, health, etc...?
If peace is to be defined in terms of prosperity alternatively defined as economic growth, are we referring to an increase in everyone's economic prosperity or simply in terms to be calculated by a GNP (Gross National Product) number that is not directly tied to everyone's happiness, employment and health? Since it is known that not every single person benefits from an increased GNP or the Stock market indices, these criteria can not be used to adequately or accurately define peace... unless one's own person happiness, employment and health are used as the defining measurement.
Since the definition of peace is based on subjectivity related most often to an absence of war, lack of happiness, employment and health do not typically constitute an absence of peace. This is the basis by which the Nobel peace prize members evaluate a person's peace efforts against a situation of conflict. There could be wide-spread unhappiness, unemployment and disease... but the presumed qualitative state of peace would said to exist. In terms of an absence-of-war/conflict state, the total extinction of humanity would thus represent a condition of peace. So would many be inclined to describe a state of non-war though thousands were living in poverty. Clearly, the word "peace" is not all-inclusive with respect to well-being. Many people could be suffering but if those in leadership positions are not and have no relative empathy for the plight of the public, they might well describe social conditions as being filled with peace... though there exists some social problems. Hence, the pesence of social problems does not equate with the presence of an anti-peace situation. In this perspective, peace is only absent if there is some conflict-of-personal interest.
Likewise, if there is an ignorance of an occurring conflict... one might claim the presence of peace, while those who suffer because of the conflict may view such a person as being insensitive to their experiences. But providing full employment and health care benefits in the absence of a given conflict does not necessarily guarantee happiness, if the state of happiness is as subjectively defined as love/hate, truth/justice, beauty/ugly right/wrong, and peace... When the presence of any given governing practice is not a guarantee of peace since democracy or any other social philosophy can be alternatively defined by those in power, just as can any religion or economic policy; the desire for some ideal representative model of peace becomes rather problematic all the more so under dynamic conditions in which the environment is headed along a course of incremental decay. However, even without a realization of this we have found previous researchers of Peace having reached a conclusion of negativity for the implementation of a sustainable peace.