Rescuing The Myths* Through Language

Endangered Myths*
Rescue Through Language

Introduction:
The term 'myth' has been understood in multiple ways by scholars of various concerning sciences. This has rendered the term, myth, multiple shades of meaning, too. This paper deals with 'myth' in a particular shade of meaning where it comes closer to superstitious beliefs. The objective of this paper is not to validate or invalidate any myth but to impact a change in the prevalent viewpoints regarding them. The larger objective of this paper is to identify them and seek ways for rescuing myths through language. 'Myths' the way understood here are available universally [across ages, across cultures]. Still, they are more endangered today than ever before and hence need a rescue operation that will be exhaustive enough to be never accomplished.

The paper starts with the term 'myth' and its origin. Following that it deals with the various shades of meaning and various definitions this term has acquired over ages. Then, there is a note on some commonly observed characteristics of myths. This paper also deals with the assorted perspectives that have emerged regarding this concept. There is an analysis on the present condition of myths (in the sense understood here). In order to exemplify the concept, in this paper a small inventory of myths is also attached towards the end. Finally, the paper deals with the need and ways to rescue myths.

The term and its Origin:
The term 'Myth' derives from the Greek word 'mythos' (plural 'mythoi') which simply meant a tale or story. Over the ages the word came to mean a story about the gods or demons and much later any fanciful story with supernatural elements.

Focusing on the etymological basis upon which concepts of myth operate, Cobley (2006) holds "Myth is derived from the Greek word 'muthos' which presents an interesting case in the matter of translation because it means simply speech." However, 'muthos' refers also to story which in the origins of narrative, was always spoken (prior to the invention of writing) and was told by a storyteller who was not necessarily the author. Further he adds that "because of its Greek derivation in muthos we tend to associate myth with the Greek model.

Meanings and Definitions
As Myth has interested scholars from varied fields like anthropology, sociology, cultural studies and linguistics, the term has acquired varied meanings or definitions as well. Elizabeth Holtze provides some 27 definitions or definitional comments. Its a term with no singular historical usage, rather it has carried a wide range of defining features. A correct definition of myth is like finding a correct human being (Doty, 2000).



Acording to Longman dictionary of English language ( 2nd ed.,1985) Myth may refer to any of the following:
1.A usually traditional story that embodies popular beliefs or practices or on natural phenomenon.
2.A parable, allegory.
3.A person or thing having a merely fictitious or imaginary existence.
4.A belief given uncritical acceptance by a group.

It is in this shade of meaning (where it gets closer to beliefs like superstition) that this paper intends to communicate its ideas. Henceforth the use of the term myth will confine to this [special] meaning not the commonly used meaning. For instance, lets consider a myth that is widely prevalent: Don't pass under an erect ladder.

Some linguistic myths: Mind as 'tabula rasa'. Mind as stomach: learning too many language would confuse the mind. [My] language is more musical than others. Sanskrit is the mother of all languages of the world.

Why this shade of meaning?
Closeness to our daily living.
Least documented.
Empirical; experimentally verifiability.
Linkage; both meanings are connected.
For practical and functional considerations.
They are repository of knowledge accrued over ages, over generations.
They are interesting from psycho-semantic, pragmatic and discoursal points of view.

According to a web source (Dictionary.com) the term (definition 5.) myth is an unproved or false collective beliefs that is used to justify a social institution. Overall, the assorted meanings and definitions have rendered the term 'myth' an open-ended semantics in the sense that it causes different meaning and reaction to different people albeit with some commonalities like fictitious elements, sacredness, rituals, heroism etc. Its worth examining how scholars from different field have viewed the concept of myth.

While for Cobley (2006), myth is commonly assumed to designate the primal stories shared by members of a society or community, for Campbell (1975) Myth is a secret opening through which the inexhaustible energies of the cosmos pour into human cultural manifestation, According to Pettazzoni (1954) myth belongs to the realm of imagination, which is distinct from, even opposed to the world of reality. Still, the dictionary of semiotics defines myth as symbolic narrative often involving gods or heroes and offering an explanation of some fact or natural phenomenon. In the concluding section of this entry in the dictionary the editors (Martin and Ringham, 2000) offer a point that is significant from the view I have chosen in this paper. It says "The term myth is used simply to indicate a figment of imagination or a commonly held belief without foundation."

Characteristics of myths:
Universality: Myths are presents everywhere – all societies, all cultures have them.
Timelessness: They have existed over ages, over generations.
Naturality or Supernaturality: They often involve natural/ supernatural agents & events.
Lack of ownership: They don't belong to any particular author, not even myth tellers.
Oral transmission (mainly): The primary mode of transmission has been the oral. However, other minor ones also exist. For instance, Adaptation, Revisions and Updates, Emblematization, Translation and Documentation.

Perspectives on myths:
From the assorted definitions and meanings mentioned above various perspectives regarding myths emerge: Myth is a vital ingredient of human civilization; it is not an idle tale, but a hard-worked active force; it is not an intellectual explanation or an artistic imagery, but a pragmatic charter of primitive faith and moral wisdom (Malinowski, 1948).

Myths (as in the sense expressed above) are found universally so much so that mythlessness may be considered a myth. Every culture with each of its followers carries myths of one kind or the other, but interestingly, no one really owns them. Thus, myths become illegitimate children of the ever - advancing human science.

Myths as products of human desire to avoid dangers and stay safe/ alive, to avert troubles and win prosperity is yet to become the commonplace understanding. They embody bulk of knowledge/ imagination (related to medicine, weather, behavior, plants, animals etc.) that might come handy in times of crisis. They exist in order to regulate behavior and instill faith.

Myths are neither true nor false in theoretical sense but viable or not viable for the tasks which confront us (Scarborough, 1994). Even if they fail a validity test the imaginative content in them expressed through language makes them interesting and a subject worth studying. They are windows to what has traveled through ages and what has existed across cultures. The dynamicity of human quest and subsequent findings is that: what we call myth today might have existed as powerful science one day [in past] and that which we confidently call science today might turn out to be myths some day, in future.

Cobley (2006) in his article on 'Mythologies in pop culture' pinpoints the set of theoretical assumptions laid down by Roland Barthes. According to Barthes Contemporary myth is discontinuous. It is no longer expressed in long fixed narrative but only in discourse; at most, it is a phraseology, a corpus of phrases (of stereotypes); myth disappears but leaving - so much more the insidious - the mythical. As for Levi Strauss an analysis of mythical thought can reveal the deep structures of the human mind, for Barthes myth is a language - a collective representation. Whereas Levi Strauss's notion of myth relies heavily on traditional myths wherein events, heroes, ceremonies are significant, Barthes version has an absolute grounding in everyday life in contemporary world. Frye (1990) identifies two types of myths: Primary myths that can be understood as verbal sequence and Secondary myths that can be understood in terms of social functions. This distinction becomes important from the point of view of semiotics.

Myths are, though deeply rooted in all cultures, there is hardly any lexical terminology to express the exact sense in which it is understood here. It cannot be regarded simply as superstition, neither it can be left under the cover term of beliefs. It is important to study for various reasons like: they are part of our everyday living, they give us an insight into the ways people think, or might have thought when these myths came into being. We may imagine the possible causes into their constructions and continuation over ages. Also, a study into myths would lead us to understand the central aspects of human thinking like nature, well-being, prosperity etc. If they were useless why do we then have greetings, good- wishes, slangs and curses in human languages. Belief and socio-psychological functions could be two convincing reasons for them. So are they for myths.

State of affairs:
With the development of modern tools of verification and changing attitudes due to academic trainings myths have been the worst sufferers. Myths are endangered also because of lack of empirical or rational basis. Experimental verifiability is missing. Modern sciences are always challenging their existence, as they are believed to be harbinger of superstition, blind fold beliefs etc. All these puts myths in such a state that if no immediate measures taken we are bound to lose a significant quantity of them if not all of them.

Conventionally, myths are the issues taken up for study by scholars of sociology, anthropology, culture studies etc. Myths, usually, fail to be an issue that linguists would take interest in. However, as a lot of myths has existed through the use of language (spoken or written), that qualify them as suitable candidates for linguistic analysis. When they [myths] are lost we lose insight into the way our ancestors might have thought/ imagined and acted in situations that were adverse to them. The objective of this paper is not to validate or invalidate myths, but to look into their genesis, development, universality, their purposes and so on, in order to understand their utility for ourselves and formulate a curative plan for them. In other words, the objective of this paper to is to attempt a study of myths from socio-cognitive and linguistic perspectives and see what scholars from literature, linguistics, applied linguistics and translation studies can do in this regard.

Some tentative solutions can be:
Careful analysis (looking into semantic, pragmatic and discoursal contents of myths),
Precise and lasting documentation,
Comparison for their similarities and differences with other candidates like proverbs.
Translation of myths of one language into various languages.

An Inventory of myths:
Ladders: Passing under an erect ladder is considered to bring problems inlife.
Salt: Spilling of salt isn't considered good and therefore restricted in many a cultures.
Numerology: Some numbers (often odd ones like 3, 9, and specially 13) are considered to bring bad luck or misfortune.
Pointing to flowers/ trees: In certain cultures while pointing to flowers or trees the use of index finger is avoided, with belief that it might cause harm to them.
Broken mirror: Viewing oneself is considered as the harbinger of bad luck therefore avoided.
Plucking flowers at night: In some cultures plucking of flowers at nights (odd hours) is restricted drawing parallel with the pain of separating children from its mother.
Making faces: Children are often told not to make faces with a fear that this would permanently render them the faces they make.
Cough, Sneezing & burp: Such instances are often followed by admitting sorry as in some culture and taking gods name in the others.
Yawning: Yawning after taking food is criticized with the belief that the food having eaten would go to the dogs.
Directions: For certain activities certain directions are preferred with the hope that it would be godly, or the others are avoided as they would be unholy. Like West for Muslims.
Expectations from this study:
Insight into the thoughts and beliefs that are universal have lasted over ages.
Gain/ regain of a volunimous body of knowledge.
Space for experimental verification.
Study into the imaginative ways of dealing with natural & supernatural phenomenon.
Exchange and Sharing myths and thereby study of fiction.

Problems in this task:
Lack of Lexicalization for the topic of discussion.
Size of the myths inventory is too small to attempt any generalization regarding cognitive factors that might have led to the creation and continuation of the myths.
Lack of empirical studies on the issue.
No attempt has been made to exemplify how exactly the myths have to be dealt with, (understood or interpreted).


Acknowledgement:
A brief personal discussion on the title of this paper with Dr. K. Rajyarama, (CALTS, University of Hyderabad) is acknowledged with thanks.

References:
Barthes, R. (1973) Mythologies. Lavers A (trans.) London: Paladin.
Campbell, J. (1975) The hero with a thousand faces. London: Abacuss.
Cobley, P. (2006) Myth. Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, vol.8, London: Elsevier Ltd.
Doty, W. G. (2000) Mythology: The Study of Myths and Rituals. 2nd ed. Tuscaloosa: Univ. Of Alabama Publication.
Doty, W. G. (2005) Myth A Handbook. Chennai: Rain Tree Pub.
Freze, N. (1990) The anatomy of criticism. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Levi Strauss C. (1977) Structural Anthropology 1. Jacobson C & Schoepf B (trans.) Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Malinowsky, B. (1948) Magic Science and religion and Other essays, NY: Anchor books.
Martin, B and Felizitas, R. (2000) (ed.) Dictionary of Semiotics, NY: Cassell Wellington House.
Raffaele, P. (1954) Essays on History and Religions; Supplements to Numen, vol.1, London: BrillScarborough, M. (1994) Myth and Modernity: Postcritical Reflections.Albany:SUNY.


* Stands for uncritical and unproven beliefs, stereotypes etc.