Eunoically…
Originally published in 2001, Eunoia consists of five chapters, each making use of only a single vowel. Following in the footsteps of the Oulipo movement, Christian Bök imposes this limitation in order to show that ‘even under such improbable conditions of duress, language can still express an uncanny, if not sublime, thought.’
While I will not comment on the literary merits of this venture, I am intrigued by the claim, put forth on the BBC last week (in an article apparently inspired by a new hardcover edition of Eunoia), that Bök ‘believes his book proves that each vowel has its own personality, and demonstrates the flexibility of the English language.’
I am not sure what Bök (or the BBC) means by vowels having ‘personality’, but this statement has led me to consider the limitations imposed by eliminating certain vowels. Without a one cannot use indefinite articles. Given the regular -ed and -en endings, it would be difficult to express past happenings without the letter e (though not impossible, allowing for irregular forms such as shrank and mown). Definite articles would also be out. Omitting i would mean no first-person singular, and no present participles (forget writing). Without o we could not go to and from, and without u there would be no up or under. In fact, under, like many other words, would already be entirely forbidden, on the basis that it contains different vowels. Using one vowel at a time also probably decreases average word length, since the longer a word is, the more likely it is to have multiple vowels.
I appreciate the observation that Eunoia may show the flexibility of the language, inasmuch as the author must have had to develop ways of working around his self-imposed constraints. However, I think the examples listed above also suggest ways in which English is inflexible. As in any language, certain functional words (e.g. pronouns) and morphemes (e.g. past tense -ed) are essentially non-negotiable. This is not to say that language does not change, but rather that in the use of functional categories we can most clearly see the application of rules that make a language a language rather than simply a collection of vocabulary.
On a slightly different note, I also feel compelled to point out that Bök is not really working with vowels, but rather the letters that represent vowels. English has five vowels orthographically (and sometimes y), but, if I remember correctly, at least 12 phonologically:
bat bait bet beet bit bite bought boat butt bull boot bout
[N.B. These all have different vowel sounds in my dialect, but not necessarily in yours.]
Bök’s book is thus also subject to the vagaries of English spelling convention. As such, he may limit himself to single vowel representations, but he actually has multiple vowel sounds per chapter.
