There are volumes that can be written on the subject of “tongues” – the below is an attempt at a brief summary on the phenomenon as viewed and studied through the lens of linguistics.
First, let me state that I am neither a so-called cessationist nor a continuationist (frankly, I’ve never heard the two terms until just late last year); thus, the views offered below are not derived from any particular religious context, view, or slant, but rather one based on a more in depth reading of the two main sources cited as evidence for modern ‘tongues’: the Pentecostal narrative of Acts, and in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians.
There are a few types of “tongues”; I classify them quite differently however: ‘tongues’ as described in the Bible, and the modern Pentecostal/Charismatic practice/understanding of ‘tongues’. The later includes those practiced by many non-Christians in their various cultural traditions. Contrary to how many view it, Biblical tongues are in no way mutually inclusive with the latter; they are two totally different phenomenon.
Biblical ‘tongues’ are simply real languages, perhaps unknown (i.e. foreign) to those listening to them, but known by the speaker (typically his/her native language). All Biblical references to tongue(s) (‘glossa’) describes one of two things: the physical organ in the mouth, or real language(s); there is no reference to tongues in the Bible that cannot be explained in the context of real language(s).
The more common practice used by Pentecostal/Charismatic Christians seems to be one of interpreting Scripture to fit the modern practice/connotation of what glossolalia is perceived to be. The only praying going on with tongues is the deep subconscious praying of the individual (in whatever their native language happens to be); inspired, of course, by their deep faith and beliefs. There is nothing divine or miraculous going on here, in fact, there is nothing being done that can’t be explained in natural terms.
Interpretation may again also be inspired by one’s deep faith and beliefs, but the relatively generic messages of most interpretations do not suggest anything that is divinely inspired. This is clearly evidenced in that if one gives the same glossic string to ten different people who can interpret tongues, one will get ten different interpretations typically non-related to each other. In this respect, glossolalia fails even the most basic criteria which define communication itself, let alone language.
The all too common come-back to this issue of ‘multiple interpretations’ is that God/the Holy Spirit simply gives different interpretations to different people. As one on-line writer quips (and I couldn’t have said it better myself), “Pentecostal Darwinism does not exist – there’s no mutation or transformation of one message into several for the sake of justifying an obvious discrepancy. If this were the case, it would completely eradicate the need for glossolalia in the first place.”
So, if not language, what exactly is being produced?
Tongues is the Christian term for what is more commonly known as glossolalia. A phenomenon practiced by many other cultures and religions. It’s all done essentially the same way.
How does one define glossolalia? In the most simple of terms, it is non-cognitive non-language utterance (NC-NLU’s) composed of random free vocalization – essentially the subconscious “playing with language”. Due to the nature of glossolalia, the language producing centers of the brain (particularly the area controlling grammar) are not overly engaged when one practices it, as a study done by the University of Pennsylvania (2010), using SPECT imaging, demonstrated.
Study after study (including my own) all lead to the same conclusions. Let’s look at some facts regarding glossolalia/tongues - Glossolalia consists of only those sounds found in the speaker’s native language (and any language they may have been exposed to), though typically the phonemic inventory (set of sounds) that any given speaker will use is considerably less than what occurs in his/her native language.
Anyone can learn to produce glossolalia relatively easily in a matter of minutes; it’s nothing that requires a great deal of practice or thought. Further, ‘word’ stress and general accent are typically those of the speaker’s native language. A person from Georgia is going to sound like a person from Georgia when “speaking tongues”, i.e. typically there’s no “foreign accent”, so to speak, in glossolalia. It is the generation of simple syllables all of which are almost exclusively ‘open’ syllables (i.e. Consonant-Vowel-Consonant-Vowel, etc.). Glossolalia has no grammar; thus, also no syntax (word order).
One noticeable feature of tongues-speech (T-speech) with respect to American speakers, is that many will typically trill their r’s when “speaking in tongues”. With some it’s more a what’s called a ‘flap’ – the ‘t’ in “water” – than an actual trilled ‘r’. Why is this done? It makes the glossic utterance sound more “foreign” to the speaker.
Because tongues are produced subconsciously and draw on a limited "pool" of phonemes and particularly due to the open syllable structure, they seem to "roll off the tongue" and many people report being able to seem to speak considerably faster or easier than when normally speaking. There's really nothing more mysterious than that going on here with respect to "fluency" with T-speech.
All of the preceding also applies to the so-called “singing in the Spirit”; it is simply sung glossolalia rather than spoken.
The above, as well as many additional features too lengthy to explain in detail here, demonstrate that ‘tongues’ fail as language on virtually any criteria by which ‘language’ is defined. It simply isn’t what many people would like it to be.
Incidentally, just because the sound or tone of someone’s glossolalia/tongues does not match your preconceived idea of what a ‘tongue’ is supposed to sound like, does not make it inherently “demonic”. Further, there is no such thing as “faking tongues” – the question is “faking what?” Faking the fluent production of syllables? To produce syllables fluently is to produce syllables fluently. I would posit a definition of “faking tongues” as the ‘conscious effort of a speaker to produce glossolalia’ as opposed to the natural flowing of syllables as is normally produced by the subconscious.
Being something that is self-created, no two ‘tongues’ will ever sound the same and many speakers report being able to speak various ‘tongues’ (i.e. the concept here being that the speaker discerns them as separate from each other). Each time a person produces T-speech, s/he may draw on a different subset of phonemes on which the T-speech is based; thus, it comes across as different/separate tongues.
Something to note is that when Paul describes different “kinds of tongues”, the word he uses for ‘kinds’ actually denotes ‘families’ (‘genos’), i.e. in this case, language families (e.g. Semitic as opposed to Italic, as opposed to Celtic, etc.) – there is no way to interpret that phrase as anything but referring to real languages.
If T-speech met the criteria of language and had a definite lexicon, structure and grammar, I’d be the first to say, “Hey, you’re on to something here that’s supernatural and really needs to be looked at more closely and studied”, but tongues simply isn’t that. Neither are modern tongues xenoglossy – there are, in fact, no known provable cases of xenoglossy…anywhere.
Still though, despite this, the Pentecostal/Charismatic community is rife with examples of ‘tongues’ being heard/understood as real language(s). It is truly unfortunate that no such cases have ever been documented and studied. It would either answer a lot of debate and questions, or it would create a slew of additional questions and areas for study. In most cases, such reports are very anecdotal and lack specifics. I am not beyond believing that that the divine can speak to a third party through someone. This is common in a lot of faith traditions and is actually the more “correct” (if I can call it that) usage of glossolalia.
Let me ask if you have ever heard someone speak in tongues and thought “That doesn’t sound like tongues” or “That sounds demonic”. What was your basis for thinking that? What was it that made you doubt the ‘authenticity’ of their tongues as opposed to yours? I’d be curious to know.
Some people are quick to tell me that I am trying to ‘explain the spiritual in earthly terms’, or something along those lines. There are many intangible things in religion that that must be taken on faith alone; they cannot really be proven, nor can they be disproven. Tongues, however is not one of these things – it is something that is very tangible, it is something physical. Tongues can be examined, analyzed and studied.
Glossolalia is essentially a tool – a way to initiate a connection to the divine.
Glossolalia as practiced in most other cultural and/or faith traditions around the world typically entails a petitioner seeking aid in the emotional and/or spiritual healing process, who is helped by the practitioner (minister, priest, shaman, healer – whatever s/he is called in that culture). It is rarely, if ever, the petitioner him/her self who is engaging in the actual glossolalia; it’s almost always involves a third party.
In these instances glossolalia is used as a tool to establish a ‘connection’ to the divine, a message is received (either directly or indirectly via an interpreter) that is extremely pertinent to this third party’s situation and, as a result, with the message delivered, the petitioner may begin the process of emotional/spiritual healing. It is important to note that the glossolalia itself does not contain the message; it’s simply the tool by which to establish and maintain the connection to the divine.
Though this more ‘correct”, if I may call it that, use of glossolalia does occur in the context of Christianity, from all accounts I have read or been told about, instances of this are exceedingly rare. Whether or not it is rare because most people do not practice glossolalia ‘correctly’ (due to a misconception of what it actually is) is a matter for further study/debate. In addition, whether or not Christian practitioners realize that glossolalia is simply the tool used to enter into the process (not the means) may also be a matter for debate.
Next time you speak tongues, take out your phone; put it on voice recorder, and record yourself for about a minute. Then play it back and take a listen, truly listen to the utterances – play the recording back over and over and write them down and look at them. Can you see the patterns, the play on sounds, repetitions of syllables, predictability of syllable structures, the constant use of particular vowels over others – then ask yourself, is this language or simply something that mimics it and is only a façade of language? Next, listen to the tongues/glossolalia of say a Shaman from Siberia and you’ll notice he’s producing his tongues the same exact way you are. They may even sound like something you’ve heard before – are his ‘tongues’ any less divine than yours?
As a Linguist who has studied the phenomenon, my take on it is that tongues/glossolalia is to some Christian believers a very real and spiritually meaningful experience, but consisting of emotional release via non-linguistic ‘free vocalizations’ at best – the subconscious playing with sounds to create what is perceived and interpreted as actual, meaningful speech. In some extreme cases, I would argue that it is clearly a self/mass delusion prompted by such a strong desire to “experience God” that one creates that experience.
I am not against the practice of glossolalia; particularly if it is a way for the speaker to strengthen his/her own spiritual path, but understand what it really is and perhaps just as importantly (indeed, if not more importantly) ……understand what it is not.