The work on this site considers the possibility that there is a universal language and that there are universal meanings of the sounds used in languages.    The work is based on the possibility that there could be a relationship between cultural characteristics and language sounds.   The research and evidence establishes that there is a serious possibility that specific speech sounds, such as "v", "z", and "th", as in "them", identified as voiced fricatives, may be symbols for group approval or toleration of violence.     The theory postulates that the presence of those sounds in a language tends to create and promote an unconscious tendency in speakers to accept or tolerate impulsive and unprovoked violence, as a natural and unalterable aspect or component of human nature.

Many English speakers, and speakers of other languages that use voiced fricatives, would probably say - "Well isn't it ?   Isn't violent behavior an unalterable part of human nature ?"   Most English speakers (and speakers of other languages that use those sounds) probably are not aware that their belief that violence is natural and unalterable may be culturally conditioned, and the presence of voiced fricatives in the language they use may well influence their assumption that violence is an unalterable part of human nature.    There are some cultural groups, such as the Choctaw, Menomini, and Wintu, in which voiced fricative phones (speech sounds) are absent or very rare, and in which unprovoked violence is not considered a form of behavior that has to be tolerated as "natural".

The consideration of language groups has established that levels of violence in a language group can be roughly quantified and compared on the basis of evaluations of independent observers.    The scientific evaluation of these comparisons of levels of group violence and their relation to the sounds used in languages, in all probability, may represent the first work on this planet in a new group of sciences, the moral sciences.

The research completed to date establishes that there is a serious possibility that there is a correlation between social or group approval or toleration of violence and the presence or absence of those sounds (voiced fricatives) in a language, and, therefore, a serious possibility that there are universal meanings of sounds used in languages.

Understanding the universal language meanings of the sounds used in languages could provide the human community with knowledge of the unconscious forces and tools used by collective consciousnesses to direct and control the formation of the consciousness of participants in a group.    Understanding of those unconscious conditioning forces could provide the human community with the tools to control and direct the formation and modification of the collective consciousness (by intentionally changing the language or the sounds used in a language) to serve the interests of all as equals, rather than allowing the collective consciousness to control participants in the culture without their knowledge.    Knowledge and understanding of those unconscious conditioning forces could limit or restrain the currently nearly unlimited power and ability of the collective consciousness to use those unconscious tools to attempt to confine the consciousness of individuals to their own selfish interests, even when such confinement to selfish interests is not necessary or beneficial to the group or the human community.

Those interested in understanding the background for the idea of the existence of a relationship between language sounds and cultural attitudes or conditioning, may want to start with Moral Science Hour... ",   "Theory of linguistic derivation: continuing study", or Section 2, "Unconscious Frameworks in Your Consciousness", of the observations in Unconscious Frameworks in Your Consciousness.

The results of the comparison of the first 55 language groups indicate that there could well be a relationship between the presence or absence of those sounds and collective, group approval or toleration of impulsive or unprovoked violence in a culture.

Groups identified as "Most Violent" include:   1)  Arabic,   2)    Burundian (Kirundi),  3)  Cambodian,  4)  Cheyenne,   5) Chinese,  6)  Chiricahua Apache,    7)  Comanche,   8)  Dakota,   9)  English,    10)  Fore,  11) French,   12)  German,   13)  Hawaiian,   14)  Hebrew,  15) Italian,   16)  Japanese,   17)  Jicarilla Apache,   18)  Kamano,  19)  Klamath,  20) Mescalero Apache,   21)   Mohave,  22) Mohawk,   23)  Navaho,   24)  Ngoni,   25)  Norwegian,   26)  Pakistani (Urdu),   27) Persian,   28)  Portuguese,    29)  Quileute,  30) Russian,  31)  Rwandan (Kinyarwandan),   32)  Seneca,    33)  Serbian ( Serbo-Croatian ),   34)  Spanish,  35)  Tahitian,   36) Toda,  37)  Turkish,  38)  Uturupa,   39)  Western Apache,   40)  Yavapai,   and   41)  Zulu.

Groups classified as "More Violent" were: Arapesh (Bumbita), Bandjoun, Bangangte, Potawatomi, Winebago, and Zuni.

There were two groups classified as "Less Violent": Cocopa and Tiruray.

The six groups classified as "Least Violent" were: Choctaw, Iraqw, Menomini, Rong (Lepcha), Semai, and Wintu.

It should be observed that the sample considered in this analysis cannot be considered to represent scientific evidence because the method of selection for groups in the second study was not random, and could be biased; and the population of groups responsible for the practices considered are not exhaustive, except, possibly, for the groups responsible for genocide and colonial subjugation of other linguistic groups (substantially exhaustive for colonizing groups).   However, the groups considered in this paper, and the analysis, may indicate a possible (or probable) direction of future results.

Statistical analysis included at end of :  Theory of Linguistic Derivation: Continuing Study.

Click here to return to Universal Verbal Language home page