1. A Symbol

            One of the strongest impressions I received in the early stages of my life in Korea was that of my visit to Panmunjeom. My memory brings back those tiny corrugated-roof buildings. And most of all, the conference room. A stark, dim room almost filled by a long table lined by chairs at both sides. Two flagpoles with the flags of the UN and of North Korea were the only decoration. But not quite. There was that mesmerizing line painted or pasted running through the middle of the table, which I have never managed to forget. That line marked the division of North and South Korea.

            But it was the table displaying that line which astonished me. That table was the only spot in the 250 km. of the DMZ where both sides could face each other to talk, not to shoot. That table, even though it looked big in that room, was a flimsy, wooden piece of furniture, not strong at all compared to the heavily armored tanks and guns deployed along the rest of the division line between the two Koreas. The power of that fragile table impressed me. It was a table just for speaking, for talking, nothing else. And yet, the talks at that table were able to keep two big armies at bay and effectively silence the big, heavy guns lining both sides of the border. That was, and is, the amazing power of language. Panmunjeom table... a most compelling symbol of the peace power of language.

            Years later I am still impressed by the power of language, both for good and for bad. I want to find an explanation for that power, especially for good. The arrival of the new Millennium and the clamour of many voices calling for a new civilization of peace only added urgency to my search. The declaration of the year 2000 as the Year for Peace by UNESCO, and its Peace Manifesto 2000, riveted my decision to do something about peace. It was my sabbatical year. I used that opportunity to explore the peace power that underlies language. What follows is an attempt to present a partial explanation of the peace power of language, as I see it. This is in no way a final statement.

2. A Postulate

            As anyone visiting Panmunjeom Conference Room will admit, the relationship between language and peace is far from being casual. People sense the importance of words to maintain peaceful relationships. Dialogue is talked about as the desired alternative to war. However, language should not be considered simply or primarily an instrument to stop war and violence. It should first be seen in its positive role of building communities and nations. But we would like to go even further than that and state that language is the most outstanding peace project of a community. This statement becomes the postulate that underpins whatever is said here. Language is the communication system that brings people together, keeps them together and empowers them to build the community together, peacefully. Language unites people in space, their Land, and in time, their History. Language is eminently a "peace-carrier". More to the point, language brings forth peace when crossed with physiology and culture. Language, indeed, deserves our primary attention when searching and working for peace.

4. A Method

            The method we propose for achieving the above two goals -essentially, a discovery procedure- is a unified process consisting of five steps which are outlined here and are applied later to each goal separately. This method is based on concepts of set theory and its basic set operations. We cannot help but keeping it simple.

            4.1 Identification.- On the first step, we try to establish the biological foundation of language and culture by pointing out some basic physiological elements of both: ten elements for each. Physiological elements of language are the activities of the human faculties involved in language communication; those of culture are key areas in the wide range of human activities that we call culture. They can be arranged as sets. One way to identify sets is by listing their members or elements. Elements are identified by their belonging in a set. Here we are dealing with physiology, language, culture, and peace sets.

            4.2 Correlation.- On a second step, we try to match up, correlate, and establish a correspondence between two pair of sets: physiology and language sets; culture and language sets. Since the process is identical for both pairs, whatever we say about the physiology-language pair is to be applied to the culture-language pair. The pairs can be arranged as the horizontal and vertical axes of a coordinate diagram.

            There is a problem, however. What criterion do we use to select the elements of the language set that supposedly correlate one-to-one to the elements of the physiology set? At this stage we cannot offer any airtight criterion or rules of correspondence for physio-linguistic correlations, except to say that our criterion is based on affinity. Perception of affinity, while based on knowledge, relies greatly on intuition. Therefore, some proposed correlations will seem justified, while others will be debatable. The door is open for improvements.

            4.3 Intersection.- The third step consists in "intersecting", that is, crossing the ten correlated elements of physiology and language sets on the coordinate diagram. What intersection does is to show what the intersected sets have in common. Out of all the possible intersection points we only choose ten along an ideal diagonal line between the two axes. That diagonal line, with its ten ordered elements, represents a new set. According to our theory of peace linguistics, the new set is a peace set; in other words, the peace set is the outcome of intersecting physiology and language sets. The reason for restricting our scope to those ten elements on the diagonal line is that, at this stage of the research we are not so much interested in quantitative calculations as in discovery procedures. Emergence of the peace set marks the end of what we could call the "foundation stage" of peace structure.

            4.4 Recursive Rule.-The fourth step is aimed at discovering more peace elements within the new peace set. We call it the "constitution stage" of peace structure. This stage involves two things. First, the organization of peace as a project in terms of areas, goals, systems and operations for its implementation. Secondly, a "recursive rule" that, theoretically "may be applied an indefinite number of times". This recursive rule is nothing but a repetition of what has been done before: to identify, correlate and intersect two sets. Since language is a masterful peace project, it can provide guidelines for peace implementation. Therefore, peace areas are correlated with and intersected by language areas to yield peace goals; which, in turn, are correlated and intersected again with language areas to yield peace systems; which are correlated and intersected in the same way to yield peace operations. At this stage, we don't need to proceed any further, but the field of inquiry is wide open.

           4.5 Chart.- All the elements obtained by the application of the four steps of our method are displayed in two charts, one for the peace structure of language and one for the peace structure of culture. Each chart contains sixty peace elements. Forty of them are peace elements in the strict sense, and twenty are elements leading to peace. Both charts together provide us with 120 different peace elements to look over whenever we may consider working for peace.

5. Peace Structure of Language

            By peace structure of language we mean all those elements, and their relations, in language that are conducive to peace. In a general sense, peace may be understood as the result of needs and expectations being met and satisfied. However, human needs and expectations being so many and so different, it is expected that the concept of peace might take many different meanings. A pocket-size English dictionary lists 32 synonyms and 39 antonyms for 'peace'. Therefore, in order to make it meaningful and useful, the term 'peace' must be context-bound. For instance, when dealing with language, we should look for peace in the context of the communicating act, that is, in the actual exchange among language users: the spoken language. (Written language is a symbolization of the speaking variety.) Speakers and listeners use language and react to it in various ways according to how the different human faculties engaged in language are affected. The peace, well-being, satisfaction and enjoyment experienced by the faculties at work in language exchange, as a consequence of their particular needs being met, may be summarized by the term "comfort". In this sense, "comfort" of the faculties would be a more specific expression of peace in language. However, for the sake of unity, we use the generic term "peace" both for language and culture.

           There are in language as many "levels of peace" as there are faculties involved. Peace structure incorporates all those levels. Here we will only deal with the primary human faculties and their organs, which constitute the physiological foundation of language communication. In this context, the experience of peace -understood as a basic "comfort" experience- applies to all of them. The absence of other reference to feelings in our model is the consequence of a methodological choice. In our study, our concern about emotions is restricted to this: has peace been experienced? We are interested in the yes answer. Furthermore, anything related to written language, eg. eyes, graphics, is not considered part of this structure. Other kinds of language, such as sign language, body language and other "silent" languages are also left out. Consequently, we focus on primary human faculties taking part in audio-oral language communication. They are the following ones:

Senses : 0. Ears 1. Mouth (Vocal tract)

Mind : 2. Intellect 3. Imagination 4. Memory 5. Reason 6. Expression

Will : 7. Self-will (I) 8. Other-will (Others) 9. Interactive will (We)

Taking together these faculties and their operations we obtain the basic human faculty areas involved in the language experience, its physiological foundation. We identify those areas as:

Physiological Elements: 0. Sound perception 1. Sound production

2. Ideas 3. Mental pictures 4. Recollections 5. Arguments 6. Codes

7. Decisions 8. Trust 9. Sharing

            The method to build the peace structure of language was explained in paragraph 4. We have identified the physiological elements. The next step is to find the appropriate correlation with linguistic elements. We propose the following linguistic elements as correlative to the above physiological elements.

Linguistic Elements: 0. Phonology-1(Acoustics) 1. Phonology-2 (Articulation)

2. Morphology/Lex 3. Analogy 4. Mnemonics 5. Syntax 6. Semantics

7. Pragmatics 8. Paraphrase/convergence 9. Exchange

           Next, we place those correlations in a set of coordinates and observe their intersection. Language is eminently a peace-carrier. It is designed not to rough the faculties, not to do violence to them, but to make them feel comfortable and smooth. So, wherever linguistic elements intersect physiological elements, there peace areas are born.

Peace Elements : 0. Audibility 1. Utter-ability

2. Meaning units 3. Vividness 4. Recall-ability 5. Coherence 6. Transparence

7. Adequacy 8. Dependability 9. Rapport

            After obtaining the first peace elements, we proceed to find more by means of the recursive rule (step 4.4). The application of that rule to peace areas, goals, systems and operations yields forty peace elements. To these must be added twenty elements (physiological and linguistic areas) leading to peace. Altogether, these sixty elements of the peace structure of language reveal, in part, where the peace power of language comes from. They are listed in Appendix 1.

6. Peace Structure of Culture

            If the concept of peace can bring new insights into the structure of language, it is not less true that language, as a model for peace, can provide new insights into the workings of peace in the real world. If, as stated in our hypothesis, language is the most outstanding peace project of a community, we may conclude that achieving a kind of peace endowed with such language qualities as resilience and durability is indeed possible. That should be a source of hope and stronger motivation to proceed in the search for the peace power of language.

            So far we have found a significant number of peace elements within the peace structure of language. Now it is time to move beyond language itself. Language is just a part of culture, albeit very important one. Couldn't a peace structure be found underlying culture? Couldn't language play a role in unearthing it? Our answer to both questions is yes. But, first, we need to have clear ideas about what culture really is.

            Culture is the realm of anthropology. One specialist in that area is of particular interest to us. We are referring to Edward T. Hall. We rely on his findings to provide enough basic information about culture, which allows us to correlate it with language, just as we previously correlated language and the human faculties engaged in language communication.

            In his book, "The Silent Language" (A Fawcett Premier Book. New York, 1967), Edward T. Hall expounds the concept that "culture is communication and communication is culture"(p. 169). What culture communicates, he states, are Primary Message Systems (PMS), which are "ten separate kinds of human activity" (p.45) covering the whole spectrum of human life. Those activities constitute ten basic areas of culture (p. 169). Hall stresses the point that those activities are biologically rooted and are infra-cultural, in the sense that they appear in living organisms long before human life appeared on earth (p. 44).

            One main aspect of communication -and, therefore, of culture- is "the ways man reads meaning into what other men do". Since "language is the most technical of the message systems" it is wise to use it "as a model of analysis of the others" (p. 38). That is precisely what Hall does concerning culture: he uses a linguistic model for culture (p. 169) We do, too. But, with a difference.

            Hall sees the linguistic model merely as an exemplary communication model to be applied to culture. For us, the linguistic model is more than simply a communication model: it is a model for peace communication and, therefore, for peace culture. It is by "upgrading" the linguistic model into a peace model, that culture can borrow that peace model and turn it into a model for a culture of peace.

            One important feature in Hall's theory of culture, as it appears in his book, is what he calls "A Map of Culture". The "map" is in reality a matrix consisting of the "Primary Message Systems" (PMS) and their range of operation. The outcome is a set of cultural elements that are identified as ten basic cultural areas. We list them below.

Primary Message Systems: 0. Interaction 1. Association 2. Subsistence 3. Bisexuality

4. Territoriality 5. Temporality 6. Learning 7. Play 8. Protection 9. Exploitation

Cultural Elements: 0. Communication 1. Society 2. Work 3. Sexes 4. Space

5. Time 6. Enculturation 7. Recreation 8. Defense 9. Material environment

            Once we have found the cultural elements, we try to correlate them with the appropriate linguistic elements of the language set. We repeat what was said before: the criterion for correlation is based on affinity, but its application depends considerably on intuition without forsaking knowledge. Correlation choices are, therefore, open to debate. With that proviso, and with the acknowledgment of our limited knowledge of linguistics for lack of dedication, we dare to suggest the following correlations and intersections, and their outcome, the peace elements.

Linguistic Elements: 0. Levels 1. Kinship/Address 2. V-classes 3. Gender

4. Location 5. Tense/Aspect 6. Syntax 7. Modality 8. Felicity 9. Acquisition

Peace Elements: 0. Faculties 1. Relationships 2. Results 3. Sex mutuality

4. Differentiation 5. Estimates 6. Awareness 7. Exploration 8. Safety 9. Necessities

            As it was the case with the peace structure of language, we are interested in finding more peace elements within those peace areas. We turn to peace goals, systems and operations as prime targets of our search. The procedure is simply to apply the recursive rule explained above. The outcome is a total of forty peace constituents in culture, plus twenty elements (culture and language areas) leading to peace. These sixty peace elements of the peace structure of culture are listed in Appendix 2.

7. Illustrations

            The above description of both the peace structure of language and of culture has been rather abstract and dry. We need some stimulus for our imagination in order to situate all those concepts closer to reality, our goal. We offer four illustrations.

            The first illustration is a take-off from Edward T. Hall "A Map of Culture". Our proposed peace structure of both language and culture might also be thought of as a map. Let's call it "Peace Atlas", just to be different. This atlas consists of 10 main sections or significant "peace areas". They include "peace goals", which are the most prominent points of interest for those areas. There are also all sort of roads leading to and from those points of interest, such as expressways, national roads, local roads, etc., which constitute a road network. They stand for the "peace systems". In a good atlas we will find added information such as road conditions, most adequate means of transportation, etc. Based on this information on operational procedures, the atlas user chooses his own itinerary and means of transportation according to his purpose. The use of available roads, means of transportation and added information illustrates what we call "peace operations".

            Another possible illustration for the proposed peace structure would be that of a geological map used by a mineral prospecting company. The peace elements we have identified would be like spots marked in the map where ore deposits may be buried, and therefore, should be considered as places worth exploring and exploiting. The labels we use for some of the peace elements in our map may seem strange. On the other hand, we could accept those words as if they were the coded labels used by a prospecting company to mark targets in their field of operation. In other words, we are dealing with information made available for action.

            Sometimes the expression is used that we must "build peace" in the world. If peace building is our business, here we have a foundation iron grid on which to build. We offer two charts that can be fashioned as grids of the peace structure of language and culture. They are abstract grids, much as the iron grid of a future building would be, for it doesn't tell us what is going to be built on top of it. Only by pouring "concrete" information (excuse the pun) on it, we will be able to find out "concretely" what we are building.

            One last illustration. We have identified 120 different peace elements in the peace structures of language and culture combined. Quite a number of peace elements. What can we do with them? Well, what pilots do with their pre-flight checklists: check them one by one before take-off. That will give us the assurance that we are not forgetting anything important and that all is in order for a safe trip. So, whenever we have a peace project of some sort and want to work for peace, it will be at least useful to check basic elements of the peace structure of both language and culture.

8. Applications

            It is time to go down to some concrete applications of the peace model. We have randomly chosen two topics from each the culture and the language sets.

            Two Koreas.- The division of Korea into two independent states pertains to the cultural area "Society". Its biological core is "Association", a so called "Primary Message System" (PMS). Its linguistic correlate would be "Kinship/Address System". The Kinship/Address of the two Koreas is: "two nations", next to each other, officially at war, but living under a truce. The peace operation involves "Network Closeness", that is, bringing the two members as close to each other as possible; for instance, as "brothers". The peace system to apply here is "Relative Identity", for instance, "older and younger brother". The peace goal is "Involvement", which in this case would be "reconciliation". The peace area for "Society" and "Association" of the two Koreas is "Relationships", understood as family-like, fraternal relationships between the two nations. Being aware of these peace elements in the present situation and acting on them, will prepare the way for an eventual and stable family household.

            Water Resources.- This topic belongs to the cultural area, or category, "Material Environment". It is connected with the biological core "Exploitation", a PMS.. The language correlate for this is "Acquisition" (of new words by coining or borrowing, etc.). Let's say that the acquisition referred to does not deal with words but with "surface water resources". The corresponding peace operation is "Increment", for instance, by gathering (dams, lakes), recycling (depuration, desalination plants), etc. The peace system to apply is "Need-oriented Resources", e.g. potable water piping, irrigation channels, pumping station network, etc. The peace goal for surface water resources is "Provision", that means, a steady supply of water for all the needs. The peace area for "Material Environment" and "Exploitation" is "Necessities". In our case, that includes: water for living (drinking and washing), for agriculture (irrigation), for industry (electric power, cooling systems), for transportation (rivers, channels), etc.

            Korean Unification (1).- We can study this topic under the category "Decisions" of the language set. The Primary Language Faculty (PLF) involved is the will as "Self-will (I)". The language correlate for this is "Pragmatics" which, in the topic under concern, is "individual commitment". (It could also be a "group commitment" vs. "other" group). The peace operation to do is "Inquiry"; for instance, to study the desirability, possibilities and obstacles for unification. The corresponding system is "Consensus", which would involve making known the results of inquiry opening it for improvement and broader agreement. The peace goal would be "Acceptance" by others of our proposed acceptable plans for unification. The peace area of Korean Unification from the point of view of "Self-will (I)"and "Pragmatics" is "Adequacy" of the personal involvement, by joining in or spurring into action unofficial and official government agencies which can act on unification of Korea.

            Korean Unification (2).- In order to show the versatility of the model as far as applications are concerned, we choose the same topic than above, but this time looking at it from another angle. Within the language set there is an area called "Sharing". Its biological core is "Interactive-Will (We)", a Primary Language Faculty (PLF). The linguistic correlate for this is "Exchange", in the sense of language exchange. Concerning our topic, the language exchange required is reconciliation talks. The proper peace operation for this is what Malinowski called "Phatic Communion", that is, using language primarily for the purpose of initiating or renewing personal and social relationships, not just for information purposes, as we do with greetings such as "How are you?", "Have you eaten your morning rice?" In the case of Korean Unification, phatic communion may take the form of greetings of all kinds: seasons greetings, feasts, happy or tragic events, anniversaries and other celebrations especially meaningful to the other. The peace systems to be used and developed are "Eliciting" systems, such as extending invitations of all kinds: lectures, entertainment, cultural shows, visits, tours, projects. The peace goal for this topic is "Initiative", for instance, as a willingness to offer proposals, welcome counter-proposals, and improve along. The peace area for Korea Unification from the point of view of "Interactive-will (We)" and "Sharing" is "Rapport", an atmosphere of harmonious relationship between the two Koreas as a consequence of taking the above steps.

9. Conclusion

            We have emphasized the relationship between language and peace. This does not seem to be a common position. A survey of a CD version of a language magazine shows that the terms "peace" and "peaceful" are practically nonexistent. Out of 110 documents published for a period of three years and out of more than 2,500 pages, only ten documents use those two terms; and they do very limitedly: 14 occurrences. Of those occurrences only two refer to a direct relation between language and peace. Not much to show. But we should not be disappointed with the turn out. On he contrary, we prefer to look at the results from a positive angle: there is certainly a dire need to think more about peace when doing linguistics. And apparently the reverse is also true: there is a dire need to think more about linguistics when working for peace. Those are two good reasons why we have tried to present here what amounts to a basic grammar of peace and a basic culture of peace. May this serve, if nothing else, as an invitation to work for peace by means of linguistics.

            Before concluding this brief exploration into the relationship between language and peace, we would like to mention the fact that peace linguistics does not need to be a mere theoretical exercise. The systematic approach to the peace structure of language and of culture described here allows for quantitative measurement, thus opening the way to empirical tests and verification. For instance, the outcome of "peace analysis" -evaluating the "peace factor"- of written texts could be empirically rated. A minimalist quantitative approach consists in using the 60 basic elements of the peace structure of language and the 60 basic elements of the peace structure of culture as a scorecard. A more elaborate mathematical model is, of course, possible. In conclusion, what is really important is to be aware of the inherent peace power of language and its fundamental role in building a culture of peace. This is just one start in that direction. Our ambitious hope is that these ideas would, one way or another, contribute to the peace of the Korean Peninsula, and of the world at large.

10. Appendices

 

Appendix 1. Chart of the peace structure of language

Appendix 2. Chart of the peace structure of culture

Appendix 1

Chart of the Peace Structure of Language

I. Foundation Stage

[Primary Language        Physiology              Language/1                  Peace Areas #
Faculties (PLF)] Areas Areas #

0. Ears 0. Sound perception               0. Phonology/1(Acoustics)             0. Audibility               
1. Mouth (vocal tract) 1. Sound production    1. Phonology/2(Articulation)          1. Utter-ability
2. Intellect 2. Ideas                               2. Morphology/Lex                        2. Meaning units
3. Imagination              3. Mental pictures         3. Analogy                                 3. Vividness
4. Memory                    4. Recollections            4. Mnemonics                                4. Recall-ability
5. Reason                     5. Arguments                5. Syntax                                       5. Coherence
6. Expression               6. Codes                      6. Semantics                                   6. Transparence
7. Self-will (I)                7. Decisions                                   7. Pragmatics                                  7. Adequacy
8. Other-will (Others)     8. Trust                        8. Paraphrase/Convergence             8. Dependability
9. Interactive will (We)  9. Sharing                    9. Exchange                                                    9. Rapport

II. Constitution Stage

Language/1      (Peace                           Peace                           Peace          Peace)
Recursive #                                                      (Areas #                       Goals                           Systems Operations)

0. Phonology/1(Acoustics)             0. Audibility                0. Distinctiveness                 0. Contrastive sys. 0. Distinctive feature
1. Phonology/2(Articulation)          1. Utter-ability              1. Effortlessness            1. Neutralization s. 1. Assimilation
2. Morphology/Lex                        2. Meaning units          2. Single meaning         2. Syno/Antonym s 2. Context frame
3. Analogy                   3. Vividness      3. Similarity 3. Symmetric sys. 3. Variant/Allo Class
4. Mnemonics                                4. Recall-ability            4. Light core                 4. Redundancy sys. 4. Relay features
5. Syntax                                       5. Coherence                5. Logic                       5. Link systems 5. Parsing
6. Semantics                                   6. Transparence   6. Simplicity                 6. Upgrad/Raising s 6. Condensation
7. Pragmatics                                  7. Adequacy                 7. Acceptance     7. Consensus sys. 7. Inquiry
8. Paraphrase/Convergence             8. Dependability           8. Reward                     8. Reciprocity sys.        8. Feedback
9. Exchange                                                     9. Rapport                   9. Initiative                   9. Eliciting systems 9. Phatic Communion

Appendix 2

Chart of the Peace Structure of Culture

I. Foundation Stage

[Primary Message          Culture Areas                Language/2                  Peace Areas # 
Systems (PMS)] Areas #

0. Interaction                0. Communication        0. Levels                      0. Faculties
1. Association              1. Society                     1. Kinship/Address      1. Relationships
2. Subsistence              2. Work                       2. Verb Classes            2. Results
3. Bisexuality               3. Sexes                       3. Gender                     3. Sex Mutuality
4. Territoliarity              4. Space                       4. Locatives                                   4. Differentiation
5. Temporality              5. Time                         5. Tense/Aspect            5. Estimates
6. Learning                   6. Enculturation            6. Syntax                     6. Awareness
7. Play                         7. Recreation                7. Modality/Mood        7. Exploration
8. Protection                 8. Defense                            8. Felicity/Aptness        8. Safety
9. Exploitation             9. Mat. Environment     9. Acquisition              9. Necessities

II. Constitution Stage

Language/2 (Peace                              Peace                           Peace                            Peace       ) 
Recursive # (Areas #                           Goals                           Systems                        Operations)

0. Levels                      0. Faculties                   0. Comfort                   0. Comfort Levels s.      0. Ranking of Levels
1. Kinship/Address 1. Relationships 1. Involvement                 1. Relative Identity s.    1. Network Closeness
2. Verb classes              2. Results                     2. Efficiency                 2. Act/Result Match s.   2. Scope & range
3. Gender                     3. Sex Mutuality           3. Sex Complement.     3. Sex Compatibility s. 3. Sex Parity
4. Locatives                                   4. Differentiation           4. Boundaries               4. Differen./Access s.     4. Stable references
5. Tense/Aspect            5. Estimates                  5. Time Frame               5. Alternat. Precision s. 5. Measuring processes
6. Syntax                     6. Awareness                6. Blueprint                                   6. Integrative sys.         6. Building structures
7. Modality/Mood        7. Exploration              7. Creativity                 7. Multiple Optional sys. 7. Individual Innovation
8. Felicity/Aptness        8. Safety                       8. Management             8. Few Control sys.      8. Facilitation
9. Acquisition              9. Necessities                9 Provision                  9. Resources for needs 9. Increment/Growth