Basic HTML Version
22
modern-day manifestation something else
again?
Linguistícs of Glossolalia
Many tongue speakers feel that they
speak in genuine foreign languages.
There are numerous stories in circula–
tion to this effect. Most newspaper and
newsmagazine accounts include such
claims.
The stories vary in specific details,
but they generally follow a consistent,
stereotyped pattern. A person speaks in
toogues at a group gathering. Among
the group is someone having a knowl–
edge of sorne exotic language. He as–
tounds the group (or maybe they
expected
it
all along) by telling them
that the glossolalist spoke this particular
strange, foreign language "fluently."
These stories are quite common and
appear in many accounts of glossolalia,
including popular journalistic reports.
But in most cases, the story is second-,
third-, or fourth-hand. Often, too, no
positive identification of the language is
actually made. lnstead, someone says it
"sounds like" such and such or
"I
thought
1
heard a few words" of such
and such a language.
But professional linguists have in–
vestigated modero glossolalia and have
found no evidence that it ever consists
of actual speech. Dr. William J. Sama–
rin, while professor of linguistics at the
Hartford Seminary Foundation, dis–
cussed just this point.
After analyzing it with illustrative
examples, he concluded that although
speaking in a rea l language "is claimed
by Christian charismatists to be part of
the tongue-speaking experience, they
would be unable to provide a case that
would stand up to- scientific investiga–
tion." (See "The Linguisticality of
Glossolalia,"
Hartford Q11arterly
viii,
1968,
pp.
52-55.)
Different From Real Language
Professor Samarin examined recorded
samples of glossolalia from a linguistic
point of view. Jt is definitely not gib–
berish as sorne have charged. But there
are significant differences between
certain of its features and those of real
intelligible speech.
Professor Samarin concludes: "In the
foregoing we have seen that glossas
The
PLAIN TRUTH
["tongues"] are not natural languages,
and they are unlike natural languages in
very significant ways eveo though fea–
tures are shared" ( p.
65).
Anthropologist Felicitas D. Good–
man reported on a specilic study of his
in the
Journal for the Scientific Stt1dy
of Religion
(vii,
1969,
"Phonetic
Analysis of Glossolalia in Four Cultural
Settings," pp.
227-39).
He listed six
speci1ic ways in which glossolalia dif–
fers from human language. We will not
Although speaking in
a real language
11
Ís
claimed by Christian
charismatists to be part
of the tongue-speaking
experience, they would
be unable to provide a
case that would stand
up to scientific investi–
gation.11
-Dr. William
J.
Samarin,
Cente r for Linguis t/c Studles,
Unlversity
of Toronto
go into these since they mainly involve
technical points of linguistics. But his
studies back up those of Dr. Samarin.
Dr. Eugene A. Nida, of the Ameri–
can Bible Society T ranslations Depart–
ment, has also studied tapes of
g lossolalia. Although he has not
published his findings formally, he has
read unpublished papees in scholarly
meetings and has made available certain
unpublished findings. He similarly con–
dudes that there are distinct contrasts
between glossolalia and real language.
A study of the "interpretation" of
"tongues speaking," regarded by many
glossolalists as essential, also shows no
correlation between the "tongue" and
the " interpretation." An experiment was
conducted in which a tape of glossolalia
was played to severa! individuals claim–
ing to have the "gift of interpretation."
The "interpretations" were general
statements
in
most cases. But even then,
there was
no similarity
-
the "inter–
pretations" varied widely.
The conclusions of bona fide linguis–
tics after scientific study are unanimous :
October 1971
the tongue speaking prevalent today
does
not
involve any real, natural
languages.
Glossolalia Under Psychological
Scrutiny
Contrary to the claims of sorne critics,
tongue speaking is not usually the prod–
uct of schizophrenia. But other studies
having to do with more minor types of
abnormality have been somewhat con–
tradictory. A study reported in the
Jotlr·
nal for the Scientific St11dy of Religion
concluded that:
"... [there is] no evidence ... that
the differences ... found indicate abnor–
mality or psychologica1 pathology of
any ki nd. . . . Quite clearly, available
evidence requircs that an explanation of
glossolalia as pathological must be dis–
carded" (V. H. H ine, "Pentecostal Glos–
solalia," JSSR
VIII, 1969,
pp.
211-26).
But a study conducted by
J.
N.
Laps–
ley and J.
H.
Simpson of Princeton
Seminary adds another dimension to the
picture. In their research among tongue
speakers, they noticed the presence
of "uncommonly troubled people"
who exhibited "more anxiety and per–
sonality instability than non-Pentecostals
of the same socio-economic back–
ground" ("Speaking in Tongues,"
Princeton Semitwry 811/Jetin
LXIII,
1965,
pp.
3-18).
Dr. John P. Kildahl, a practicing
psychologist who recently finished a
study of the phenomenon under a grant
from the National Institutes of Mental
Health, said that glossolaüst tend to
"develop a deeply trusting and submis–
sive relationship to the authority figure
who introduces them to the practice of
glossohlia. Without this
complete tllm–
ing oneJelf over
to the leader, there
can be no beginning to speak in
tongues." (The results of Dr. Kildahl's
researches will be published in a book
early next year.)
Whatever one's personal views on the
subject, it seems that all must agree on
one point - glossolalia demands that a
person relinquish sorne of his mental self–
control and tucn his mind over to some–
thing other than his own conscious wi ll .
From Wheoce Come Tongues ?
Tongue speakers, naturally, claim
that their "gift" is the product of the