Only 2 of 141 Global Languages Employ a Labial for "Tongue" in 1st position Challenging Saussure's Arbitrariness With Near Universal Embodied Iconicity for Tongue Vs Mouth in "inverse" Control

141 (now 154) of most spoken languages - the word "Tongue" provides statistical significant evidence for "Embodied Iconicity" Please note that the list was expanded to 154 languages, the additional 13 languages - all with more than 1 million speakers - strengthen these findings. These would be available in the next update. SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION A Framework for Embodied Articulatory Reenactment: Evidence from Cross-Linguistic Analysis Author: M. PhillipsAffiliation: IndependentContact: mg@mgcode.mozmail.com I welcome your feedback. Please feel femail at the address above. If you find the article useful please forward it © 2025 M. Phillips All rights reserved. Abstract Through cross-linguistic analysis of 141 languages spoken by the majority of the world’s population, this study demonstrates systematic “embodied expression” of “cognitively motivated self-reference” representing a robust sound–meaning relationship. While lingual consonants are plentiful, the available pool of labial consonants most appropriate to be present in the first consonant position is significantly diminished in comparison, with only M, B, and P representing the most viable labials to occupy the first consonant position. Hence, despite a weaker embodiment of labials for the word “mouth”, there is a statistically robust inverse relationship, to the point that the odds of this being random were calculated by Google’s Gemini (+ Anthropic's Claude agreement) to be... ). Please refer to the list of 141 languages "Tongue" at at the bottom of this page. The use of any one of the multiple phones produced by either the tongue or labials, in the form of "self-reference" present embodied cognition leading to lexical selection in the naming of speech organs. In this paper, I concentrate on one core mechanism: the tendency for articulatory organs to “name themselves” using consonants produced by those organs (A broader set of related ideas—such as tension scaling, phase splitting, and the “marketplace of phonology”—is developed more fully in a separate, companion work.) These findings, once confirmed and validated by peer review, may establish a new empirical lens on sound–meaning relationship in basic vocabulary and offer a foundation for future research in psycholinguistic, computational, and neurolinguistic domains, with potential applications to language pedagogy. This level of embodied selection with discovering only 2 labials for tongue in the top most spoken 141 languages - possibly - among the most robust evidence ever published for iconicity, embodiment, semantic-class, "sound-meaning" relationhsip - sufficiently striking that they warrant verification and analysis by reviewers. For this reason, I am including the "tongue" word list directly on this page for all to examine. Methodology for List Compilation: I used search engines, and publicly available lists, and AI assistance to compile words for "tongue" vs mouth across the world's most spoken languages. The list was organized by speaker population, with the largest languages at the top and smaller languages toward the bottom. To my knowledge, no language on the list has fewer than one million speakers. I requested that search engines provide and include all of the most spoken languages without any exceptions. Verification Process: After initially compiling this list, I asked AI to verify that all languages were included and properly sorted by speaker volume. This review identified approximately 10 to 20 missing languages, which I then requested be located and added. Limitations and Call for Review: It is imperative to ascertain that this list is complete, without omissions, and with accurate transliteration. I do not speak most of these languages, and therefore this data warrants re-examination by others to confirm its accuracy and completeness. Please Note: This draft is a "work in progress" and needs further refinement This document is only the 1st part of a major comprehensive multidimensional framework to follow. 1.1 Theoretical Foundation For over a century, Saussure's principle of arbitrariness has dominated linguistic theory, positing that the relationship between sound and meaning is fundamentally random. This framework challenges that orthodoxy through systematic demonstration of embodied articulatory reenactment—the principle that speakers engage specific articulatory organs and physiological processes due to "cognitive resonance" seeking a match between word and meaning, when naming concepts related to those organs. The Saussurean paradigm treats sound-meaning relationships as arbitrary convention. This framework proposes an alternative: when naming body parts involved in speech, speakers systematically engage those very organs—the tongue "speaks" about itself using tongue-produced sounds This work represents 25 years of independent research development, integrating classical linguistic philosophy with modern cross-linguistic analysis. The intellectual lineage traces from Plato's Cratylus dialogue (examining sound-meaning relationships in Greek) through Gesenius's Hebrew philology (documenting systematic patterns in Semitic languages) to contemporary embodied cognition research. This framework builds on a 2,400-year intellectual tradition—from Plato's philosophical intuitions about sound-meaning "appropriateness," through Gesenius's meticulous Hebrew and Semitic language etymological observations, to modern embodied cognition theory. It is not a break from tradition but a systematic continuation of it. While Plato raised the question philosophically, and Gesenius documented patterns philologically, this framework provides the first systematic cross-linguistic empirical test with explicit "Semantic Class" plus 1st Position Salience, along with cumulative measurement methodology. 1.2 Core Hypothesis The central hypothesis proposes that embodied articulatory reenactment operates as a systematic (though not universal) principle in language formation. Specifically: when concepts relate to articulatory organs or physiological processes, languages show statistical tendencies to employ consonants produced by or associated with those organs/processes. This represents cognitive selection for resonant forms rather than pure arbitrariness. (ai Summary: The hypothesis is precise and falsifiable: languages should show elevated frequencies of tongue-produced consonants in "tongue" words, lip-produced consonants in "mouth/lip" words, nasal consonants in "nose" words, etc. This is not mystical correspondence—it is measurable statistical tendency reflecting cognitive preference.) Critically, this framework does not claim universal patterns across all languages for all concepts. Rather, it proposes a cognitive ideal model—if language were designed for optimal mind-body integration, these would be the operative principles. Actual languages may show varying degrees of adherence due to historical, social, and contact-induced changes. This is a "Weak Saussure" position—not replacing arbitrariness entirely, but demonstrating systematic non-arbitrary undercurrents. The framework predicts tendencies, not absolutes. Languages exist on a spectrum between arbitrary and embodied, with different historical pressures producing different degrees of alignment. 1.3 Answering the Call for Systematic Framework The Field's Documented Need The present work does not emerge in a vacuum. Over the past two decades, multiple scholars have explicitly called for exactly the kind of systematic theoretical framework this research provides. At least seven major research teams have identified gaps that ad-hoc studies of individual sound-meaning correspondences cannot fill. (Elegant Summary: This framework is not speculative invention—it answers documented needs that leading researchers have explicitly articulated. The field moved from "does iconicity exist?" [answered: yes] to "we need systematic theory explaining HOW and WHY" [unanswered until now].) 1.3.1 Johansson, Anikin, Carling, & Holmer (2020) Citation: Johansson, N., Anikin, A., Carling, G., & Holmer, A. (2020). The typology of sound symbolism: Defining macro-concepts via their semantic and phonetic features. Linguistic Typology, 24(2), 253-310. Key Quote (verbatim from source): "Despite the progress made in the field of sound symbolism and iconicity...our understanding of sound symbolism and its mechanisms remains patchy. One way of bridging the gaps in our knowledge of universal sound symbolism is to conduct large-scale cross-linguistic comparisons." What They Provided: Analysis of 344 concepts across 245 language families; proposed 20 macro-concepts as organizational principles; identified four types of sound symbolism (unimodal imitation, cross-modal imitation, diagrammatic mappings, situational mappings). The Gap That Remains: Their typology categorizes TYPES of sound symbolism but does not provide a cognitive mechanism explaining WHY speakers preferentially select iconic forms. (Elegant Summary: Johansson et al. provided the most comprehensive typological survey to date, yet explicitly acknowledged the field's understanding "remains patchy." They organized what exists; this framework explains why it exists.) 1.3.2 Dingemanse, Blasi, Lupyan, Christiansen, & Monaghan (2015) Citation: Dingemanse, M., Blasi, D. E., Lupyan, G., Christiansen, M. H., & Monaghan, P. (2015). Arbitrariness, iconicity, and systematicity in language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(10), 603-615. Key Argument: Language requires understanding the interplay of "arbitrariness, iconicity, and systematicity" as complementary principles—not as binary opposition. The authors called for systematic cross-linguistic theoretical frameworks explaining WHY iconicity patterns exist. What They Provided: Reconceptualized the arbitrariness-iconicity debate as false dichotomy; demonstrated that iconicity and s