Language, Syntax, and Phonology

Consider these words:

Cats

Dogs

Horses

If you look at those or say them out loud, you probably don't notice a difference in the way the plural is signified.

But you are actually making 3 different sounds:

s

z

ez (actually this should be a əz, but unless you know IPA, that's not very helpful to you :) )

The same you will find with the words walked (d), boxed (t), wanted (ed-- or Id, to be accurate).

...Now how do we know that those all mean plural, or past tense? We didn't learn written spelling before we learned past tense in speech, and people learning English as a foreign language often mix these sounds up, especially the s and z and the d and t-- not so much the ones that add a whole syllable, because those are easier to memorize, although ELL students do still sometimes have a hard time figuring out which words will do that. Children with spelling issues can often trace them to a problem getting these rules straight in their heads, but notice how many of us learn these rules instinctively-- even these children generally know them in speech, though they may not be able yet to recognize them in writing.

Now let us build off of that with accents. Next time you go to the grocery store, see if the checker asks if you want a "beggar". If they're from somewhere along the Canadian border, they probably will (bagger, if you were trying to figure out what the word was supposed to be). The reason it's pronounced "beg" instead of "bag" has to do with ease of the placement of tongue from one sound to the next. How do you say "pumpkin"--pumkin? punkin? Again, this is a matter of tongue placement.

What is amazing, is that different areas all do tricks of ease the same way. Every language gets "lazier" as it develops in the same fashion, modifying vowels or consonants by moving them slightly forward or backward in the mouth. And yet, in the same language, this simplifying happens in different ways. How hard is it for you to understand a Bostonian, Canadian, English, or Southern accent? Not only do we simplify language, but we simplify it together. We develop language as a group.

Now here's the question I have with this regarding Saussure: how do you think this instinctive understanding of sounds especially in connection with syntax as they express meaning affects his argument? What does it mean that as children we can learn syntax and phonological phenomena at shocking rates, and in a communal manner? Is there some underlying understanding or yearning for meaning there which Saussure and Nietzsche have overlooked? Or is that understanding limited? --After all post-puberty we don't learn languages the same way. Or is it not indicative of the meaning of language at all? Is it merely a convention of sound and grammar, whereas meaning is something totally other?

I would posit that the way meaning carries down through words-- the way when we talk about "Big T Truth" we are thinking of some of that faithfulness that comes from "troth" while when we talk about "Fact" we think of the individual-detail-aspect that is connected to the Latin individual occurrence or the early modern "thing known to be true"--comes from the same mysterious learning habit. There is something in the meaning of words that we pass on. When considered that way, there almost is a sort of communal telepathy going on, which might indicate a betterment of understanding or a danger for our poor, herd-minds.