A biography of the ampersand

Originally published as ‘A biography of the ampersand’, The Ampersand: Journal of the Bachelor of Arts and Science, vol. 1 (2008), pp. 1-2. This was the editorial introduction to the inaugural issue of McGill’s B.A & Sc. program journal.

In one of those weird coincidences that arise from time to time, I recently remarked in a B.A. & Sc. lecture on my area of specialty, the anthropology of writing and literacy, that the often-neglected ampersand is perhaps my favourite written sign in English. Good old Shift-7 – where would we be without you? I am thrilled to have been asked to write this short introductory piece, and I hope to share with you some of what I think makes this sign so very interesting.

The word ampersand itself has a very curious history. Prior to the twentieth century, particularly but not exclusively in Britain, & was regarded not as a punctuation mark or an auxiliary sign, but as a sort of letter of the alphabet, to be found after Z. In listing one’s letters in order, one would end the sequence ‘X, Y, Z, & per se and’ – that is, ‘&, by itself, standing for and’. Other letters that could stand for words on their own could also be named in this way (e.g. ‘A per se A’ or ‘I per se I’). The ampersand wasn’t quite a full letter – one wouldn’t use it when compiling an alphabetized list, for instance – but it had a definite place at the end of the alphabet, as recounted by generations of schoolchildren. Over time, ‘and per se and’ became ‘ampersand’, and in this blending of words its original sense was lost to all but etymologists.

Unlike the ordinary letters A through Z, & unambiguously represents a specific word in a language without indicating the sounds of that word – the term sometimes used for such signs is logogram. This usually makes the written form shorter (= for equals), but also allows it to be used regardless of the language of the reader. One can’t, however, except when being facetious, use it phonetically in words like m&atory or h&st&. Of course in French & is read as ‘et’, in German as ‘und’, and so on. It survives in part because and is such a common word, and thus in need of abbreviation, but of course many other words like the and of have no such common abbreviation, and never have.

The history of the sign & is as fascinating as its name. The earliest use of the ampersand was Roman; it emerged as a shorthand contraction of the Roman word et ‘and’ in the rapid scribal hand used in the early Empire. Of course, its reading would always have been ‘et’ in Latin – it was not yet a logogram – but as the two letters became one, its pronunciation became divorced from any specific language, even though the meaning remained constant throughout European languages. In German, this graphic origin survives in the name Etzeichen ‘et-sign’, and to this day proofreaders of English publications use the term ‘et’ in place of ‘and’ when reading & aloud, to avoid ambiguity.

Its name born out of the union of words, its shape born out of the union of letters, its meaning conveying the union of disparate ideas and concepts – the ampersand is no mere shorthand. Indeed, this publication bears the indelible mark of the merger of diversity, as will your B.A. & Sc. degree, and ultimately, your intellectual experiences.

John DeFrancis, 1911-2009

Sad news from the world of writing systems research. John DeFrancis, whose books on Chinese writing have done more than any other scholarship to demolish the myth that the script is ‘ideographic’ or ‘pictographic’, died on January 2 at the age of 98. To be honest I had no idea he was so elderly, because his research productivity over the past 25 years has been so tremendous. While his Sinological expertise ranged from language to literature to foreign policy, I know him through his books, Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy (1984) and Visible Speech: The Diverse Oneness of Writing Systems (1989), which demonstrated masterfully that the morphemic and phonemic elements in Chinese writing far outweigh the non-linguistic ones. As someone who works on a subject that also straddles this boundary between linguistic and non-linguistic representations, my work has been profoundly influenced by DeFrancis’ thinking about the nature of written communication.

Works cited
DeFrancis, J. 1984. The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy. University of Hawaii Press.
DeFrancis, J. 1989. Visible Speech: The Diverse Oneness of Writing Systems. University of Hawaii Press.

Paleolinguistics and archaeolinguistics

There’s an absolutely fascinating post over at Language Log, by guest blogger Don Ringe, on the hypothetical-but-not-completely-unknowable state of linguistic diversity in Europe ‘between the end of the last ice age and the coming of the Indo-European languages’. It’s the sort of thing that absolutely should be read by anyone interested in the topic of paleolinguistics (the study of prehistoric languages) or more narrowly in Indo-European studies. I certainly plan to present it to my students, many of whom are archaeology students taking linguistic anthropology as part of a broad four-field anthropological education. Of particular importance is Ringe’s insistence that the once-popular notion that single languages (like proto-Indo-European) were spoken across wide areas of prehistoric Europe cannot be true, because populations that are not in contact with one another diverge linguistically without any specific motivation or cause. Linguistic diversity was certainly characteristic of all of European prehistory.

One challenge in getting linguists and archaeologists to talk to one another is that the sorts of data that they find persuasive are rather different. Paleolinguists look for evidence of regular patterns of phonetic change to reconstruct proto-languages like Proto-Indo-European, and use the existence of reconstructable words as evidence for the origins of particular languages and language families (as in the first paragraph of the section ‘The spread of Indo-European languages’). Archaeologists, on the other hand, focus on material cultural signatures of ethnic identity, demographic and subsistence shifts that correlate with migrations, and increasingly, DNA evidence. This presents some serious challenges to paleolinguistics as traditionally conceptualized as a part of historical linguistics, but also gets involved in ‘race-language-culture’ debates that not only raise epistemological issues for the study of the past, but also political ones. Absolutely no European scholar has forgotten the perils of assuming correlations between biology, language, and material culture of the sort typical prior to World War II. These issues have always been around, and aren’t going anywhere. At the same time, we know that linguistic evidence alone is only going to get us so far – we need good anthropological and archaeological knowledge about the way that societies (linguistic communities) work, in order to think meaningfully about the way that prehistoric social formations would have (and could not have) related to languages.

A fair amount of the literature that Ringe is citing reflects a sort of uneasy dance; Ringe’s own article focuses primarily on the linguistic evidence from reconstructed PIE as well as the early attested inscriptional evidence of Indo-European and non-Indo-European languages. There are, and always will be, huge evidentiary gaps in our direct knowledge of prehistoric languages, however, and the archaeological record must have something to contribute to filling those gaps. Since developing and teaching a course at McGill in early 2007 on the prehistory of language and the mind, I have been giving a lot of thought to this issue, and Ringe’s post has given me more to think about.

Pseudo-archaeo-linguistics in review

Happy New Year! I’m hoping to be posting at least once a week over the next term, so stay tuned. I have a couple of longer posts in various states of semi-composition, but for now I wanted to mention to you that over at Archaeoporn, there is a fascinating list of the top 10 pseudo-archaeological subjects of 2008. Of particular note for readers of this blog, or in general for those interested in pseudoscience related to archaeological decipherment, are #5 (the earliest Hebrew writing), which I wrote about, and which is pseudoarchaeological only in the sense that some of the claims lavished upon this poor ostracon are so wild, and #1 (the purported Sumerian clay tablet documenting the Köfels ‘impact’ in Austria), which I haven’t written about, but which is so bizarre as to defy any sensible explanation (check out this skeptical essay, for instance).

Script typology and print-capitalism

But these varied idiolects were capable of being assembled, within definite limits, into print-languages far fewer in number. The very arbitrariness of any system of signs for sounds facilitated the assembling process. (At the same time, the more ideographic the signs, the vaster the potential assembling zone. One can detect a sort of descending hierarchy here from algebra through Chinese and English, to the regular syllabaries of French or Indonesian.)

Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities, 2nd ed. (London: Verso, 2006), pp. 43-44

I’ve been rereading Anderson for the first time in at least a dozen years, and found this little gem which has bearing on much of the work I do (which requires that one replace ‘algebra’ – a technique – with ‘numerals’ – a representational system). Here he’s asserting that the process of standardization that accompanies the rise of capitalism and printing is most invasive where the script being printed is more ideographic rather than more phonetic. Numerals, being thoroughly trans-linguistic, should spread as widely as possible. One central argument of my forthcoming book holds that the present domination of Hindu-Arabic (Western) numerals is largely not a product of technological ‘natural selection’ but is dependent on a set of social processes accompanying the rise of the world-system in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.

But I’m still dissatisfied with Anderson’s proposition, because it goes beyond his detailed consideration of early modern social, economic and technological processes (which he calls ‘print-capitalism’) and postulates a generalization (dare I say ‘law’) about the role of script type (and orthographic-phonetic correspondence) generally correlates with the tendency of script traditions to become standards across wide regions. This may be intuitive, and invites evidentiary justification, but is, as it stands, ‘not proven’ in the Scottish legal sense. As far as I know, no one has actually attempted to demonstrate Anderson’s proposition (which is, if not central to his thesis, certainly not incidental), but it is this sort of empirical work, unifying the technical study of writing systems with the sociopolitical interests near and dear to Anderson’s heart, and mine.