For different languages, the relation between the sounds going to form words in the language and the 'gestures' (arm and hand movements) that are directly related to them depends on the particular point within 'mental' space to which the formation of the words is referred. So, most languages use the most obvious central reference point, at the centre of the forehead and a few inches back from it. 'Deviant' languages may use a point also in the midline but higher or lower, or further back (Basque uses a point which is a mirror-image, reflection, at the back of the head of the forward central point used by the 'normal' central languages).
The problem to be considered is this: as an act of introspection, this relation between languages and the position of the mind/brain reference point is quite easily verifiable - but it sounds like an unprovable proposal to those who are not willing to attempt to verify the relation for themselves. They become self-conscious, nervous, about paying attention to the internally-perceived position of words in the head; they react with automatic reflex dogmas about the unreliability of introspection (despite William James's contrary use of introspection), the dangers of subjectivity etc. - even though language is so obviously something that can best be explored by attention to one's own activity in using language. This, of course, is in reality how the 'professionals' in phonetics and syntax have proceeded, relying on introspection. Chomsky, for judgments on the grammaticality of sentences, explicitly relies on the 'intuitions of the native speaker', which in practice has meant his own intuitions.
It would be reassuring if one could demonstrate that there is a corpus of 'scientific' experiment and theory within which this kind of approach to language can be fitted. The most obvious candidates to form part of this corpus are the experiments which have been carried out on binaural (or dichotic) hearing (which show that the apparent location of heard sounds in the head varies under different experimental conditions), research bearing on the localisation of aspects of language in the brain in cortical stimulation experiments (eg. by Ojemann and Mateer) and also in the extensive work on mental imagery, which includes such introspective manipulations as 'mentally rotating cubes' and other controlled action on internal visual perceptions. Another relevant field of research is that concerned with body-image, ego-centres and so on. Apart from its application to language, this approach to location in mind space may open up a whole new field of enquiry, the role of 'apparent localisation' (or perhaps real localisation) of a wide variety of 'mental' experiences within mental space, or even within a larger bodily space, of which 'mental' space is an aspect or a sector.
LANGUAGE REFERENCE-POINTS
These comments are preliminary to consideration of the real interrelation of the sounds of different languages, the mind/brain mechanism which translates one language into another, the real correlation in gesture, visual shape and sound of words in many different languages. For example, the word FIELD said at first silently in one's mind, then transformed into action through the usual procedures results in a sweeping movement of the hand, which can readily be associated with a gesture indicating the extent of a field, and accompanied by a breathing noise which seems equally obviously to represent the wind sweeping over a field. Exactly the same movement and sound are associated with a silent internal saying of the equivalent Latin word, AGER. In French, the word CHAMP has the same movement associated with it, whilst the sound is apparent in the surface form of the word itself, the SSHing sound of CHamp. The Russian word for field, POLYE, produces exactly the same movement and sound as the English and Latin words. The Turkish word for field, TARLA, produces the same movement and so does the Malay word HUMA. In all these cases the relation between the elements going to form the word and the associated gesture is the same, that is, the sounds have the same gesture-value. The same is true for HATAKE, the Japanese word for field.
This is not equally true for all languages. Most languages form a central group where the relation of speech-sound and gesture is the same as in English. However there are 'deviant' languages where the relation of speech-sound and gesture is different, but systematically different, that is, there is a regular correspondence between the sound/gesture values in English and the sound/gesture values in the other language, rather like transposition into a different key in music, or painting a picture using a different range of colours. Languages outside the central group (apart from the special case of tonal languages such as Chinese) include Hungarian, Basque, Finnish, Romany (Gypsy), the Semitic languages (Arabic and Hebrew), Korean, Bantu languages. Interestingly, some apparently remote languages such as Japanese in fact belong to the central group and use the same sound/gesture values as in English. The group to which English belongs is called the central group not only because it includes the greater part of major world languages, but also for a more direct physiological reason, namely that the gestures associated with a set of elementary sounds forming a word depend on the reference-point within the head to which the saying or hearing of the particular word is linked; in the case of English and similar languages, if one says a word mentally or hears it, centrally, so that the sound or the saying of it seems to have a location in the centre-line of the head, towards the front and a little way back inwards from the centre of the forehead, then the standard set of sound/gesture relations for individual sounds is evoked, that is, the association of vowels with a movement of the arm stretched forward, upwards from a low position to a high position, the association of one set of consonants, the Main Consonants, with the movement of the bent arm across the body and upwards, the association of the semi-consonants, L M N R, with a rotation of the arm on its long axis, and the association of the fricatives, S SH W X Z, with a sideways movement of the arm, and the association of another important group of consonants, P T etc, with a vigorous forward or upward thrusting of the arm, the Projective Group (which in fact includes amongst other sounds those indicated by the capital letters in ProJecTiVe).
In the case of languages not belonging to the central group, the same array of gestures (or arm-movements) described for English and other central languages is associated with a systematically varied set of sounds. One finds by experiment that the differences are due simply to the sounds being referred to a different internal point of reference in the mental space (in the head) within which one locates the saying or hearing of any particular word. So, Hungarian and Finnish are the result of a backwards and sideways displacement of the point of reference within the head. Korean is the result of displacement of the point of reference backwards and upwards in the centre-line to a position near the crown of the head. Basque is the result of the displacement of the point of reference to what might be described as the mirror-image position to the forward central position for English, that is, the point of reference is found at the back of the head. For the Semitic and Romany languages, the point of reference is lowered towards the mouth area and for Bantu language it is lowered and moved backwards towards the throat.
These differences in the points of reference for different languages, which with practice one can observe in oneself quite clearly, are the result of different inherited patterning of the brain, in development and functioning, as between different genetic groups, in some cases linked to obvious characteristic anatomical differences eg. in the Bantu and Semitic races. Whilst for some other 'deviant' languages eg.Hungarian we describe the point of reference as abnormally located, it seems probable that for a genetic Hungarian, the point of reference may well be normal, that is, located in the same central position behind the forehead as we can observe in ourselves in English. But only Hungarians, and speakers of other apparently 'deviant' languages, will be able to say whether this is in fact the case. It would be a very simple experiment to ask a number of Basques, Hungarians or Koreans where, when they silently say or hear a word in their heads, it appears to them that the sound is located. (It may be that they would find that for them it is English which appears to be abnormally, non-centrally, located).
The main and important exception to the general scheme presented is for tonal languages, which use an additional coding mechanism for relating sound and meaning, that is, by varying the pitch of individual syllables, as well as by altering the frequency-components (as is the case with the formant composition of speech-sounds in English and similar languages). The exact way in which the Chinese speech sound/gesture system is related to the central (English) sound/gesture system, can only be explored and determined reliably by those familiar with the tonal language and with English or another of the central languages. Whether tonal languages (from Asia, Africa and elsewhere) themselves have a central system or whether each tonal language represents its own particular solution of the relation between sound and gesture remains for exploration - an enquiry which is likely to be difficult in practice since there must be few with an equally good knowledge of languages as remote from each other as Chinese, the tonal languages of West Africa, Swedish, the tonal languages of the Americas and so on.
There is a virtually unlimited field for research into the relation of specific sounds, specific gestures and specific visual elements in different languages. The most difficult step for the sceptical researcher is probably the first, that is, that he should be prepared to pay attention to his own brain/mental functioning in the production and hearing of speech, to recognise that internalised speech and hearing is definitely localisable, and that one can examine separately each element in the sounds which go to form a word, by concentrating in one's head on the sound and the associated gesture (arm movement). Most academics will be reluctant to take this first step since they are trained to adopt an abstract, distanced approach to their subject, whether it is language or anything else, and find it uncomfortable to treat themselves as experimental animals.
For the word FIELD one can examine corresponding words in a whole range of languages and quickly determine whether they belong to the central group and whether therefore the sound/gesture associated with the word is the same as in English. So, the Basque word for field is ALHOR: if one transforms this using the standard central sound-gesture system that one uses for English, the gesture (arm-position and movement) associated with the Basque word at first appears quite different from that for the English word. The gesture involves raising the arm upwards and backwards behind the line of the head; no sweeping or circling movement of the arm and hand appears to be involved and there is no associated sound as of wind sweeping over a field. This difference results from using the forward central reference-point in the internal brain/mind space in attempting to find the equivalent gesture to the sound elements going to form ALHOR. If, however, by a deliberate redirection of attention, one transfers the reference-point for the heard Basque word from behind the forehead to the back of the head, two or three inches below the crown of the head in the midline of the head, one finds to one's surprise that with this change the associated gesture and sound for the Basque word ALHOR are the same as for the English word FIELD or indeed for the Japanese word HATAKE. In Hungarian the word for field is MEZÕ ( pronounced MEZUR) or MEZÕNY. If one uses the central reference-point for saying MEZÕ, the resulting gesture is quite unlike that for the English word FIELD; the arm is stretched almost vertically up, slightly out to the right side, the palm of the hand turned outwards to the side, and the arm as a whole is subject to a good deal of rotational stress. If however one deliberately shifts the reference-point for saying the word from the Central position to a position on the left side of the head, at the side, a little above the level of the left ear, the resulting gesture is very similar to the English one for FIELD and there is the same accompanying sound, probably representing the sweeping of wind over a field.
The Finnish word for field is KENTTä. Using the central reference-point, one gets an associated arm-gesture for this word which closely resembles that in Hungarian (using the central point), that is, the arm is stretched almost vertically up above the head, but not, as for the Hungarian word, slightly out to the right side nor is the palm of the hand turned outwards. Using the Hungarian reference-point just described for the Finnish word, the resulting gesture does not resemble either the Hungarian or the English gesture and sound associated with FIELD, so it seems clear that for Finnish a different reference-point is used from that for English or Hungarian, though there seems some relation to Hungarian. If one uses a reference-point at the same level and in roughly the same position as for Hungarian, that is somewhat above the level of the ear, but on the right side rather than on the left side as for Hungarian, one's resultant gesture and sound are closely similar to those for the English FIELD and also to those for the Hungarian word MEZÕ when the Hungarian reference-point is used. Finnish and Hungarian seem to have mirror-image reference-points, on the right and left side of the head respectively.
The Korean word for FIELD is TUL, pronounced TURL (short u). Using the central reference-point for saying this word, one gets a resultant gesture which somewhat resembles the first versions for the Finnish and Hungarian words (using the central reference-point). The arm is stretched vertically upwards above the head but without any turning of the arm or palm of the hand and without the rotational tension observed in the case of the Hungarian word. No sound-gesture is associated with TUL, when one uses the central forward reference-point used for English. If, however, one uses a reference-point moved backwards and upwards to coincide in effect with the crown of the head, the Korean word will result in an arm position and movement and an associated sound (sweeping over the field) identical with that for English. That is, the internal reference-point for Korean (at any rate for someone with a brain structured to speak a 'central' language) is located at the crown of the head.
In Arabic the word for FIELD is HAKLI (pronounced in effect as it is spelled). In Hebrew the word for FIELD is HAKEL (as in HACELDEMA). Again the gesture associated with the word initially (using the standard central reference-point) does not resemble the sound/gesture associated with the English word FIELD, though it does resemble that observed initially for Korean. If one uses the Korean reference-point for the word, the associated gesture still remains unlike that for the English word FIELD though there is now an associated sound similar to that found for the word FIELD. If one takes the Korean reference-point, however, and lowers it internally to a level just above the back of the mouth, the Arabic word will now produce a gesture and a sound closely similar to those associated with the English word FIELD. The Hebrew word and the Arabic word are virtually the same word.
In Ancient Egyptian, the word for FIELD was SEKHET (KH as in LOCH). Using the Hebrew/Arabic reference-point, one gets a sound and movement of the arm resembling that for the English FIELD but an arm position different from (higher than) that for FIELD. If one uses a reference position lower and a little further forward than for Arabic and Hebrew (notionally located just below the centre of the roof of the mouth), one then finds the same gesture, arm-position and arm-movement and sound as for English FIELD and for the corresponding words in other languages. In the main Indian languages, Hindi, Punjabi, etc. the reference-point appears to be the same as for English. In the languages of Southern India, such as Telugu or Malayalam, the pattern appears to be different but further research is needed; the reference-point seems to be closer to that for the Semitic languages.
African languages present some special features. Besides the tonality of some languages, particularly in West Africa, one has in Southern Africa a range of elementary sounds (the click-consonants) which are peculiar to the area. The question of their relation to sounds used in English and other 'central' languages has still to be explored. For Bantu languages (non-tonal, non-click),the reference-point appears to be lower even than for Hebrew or Arabic. So in Venda the word for FIELD is TSIMU, in Lozi it is SIMU; with a reference-point notionally located below the back of the throat, the associated gesture and sound are similar to those for English FIELD. One gets a similar result with the Swahili word for FIELD, SHAMBA.
In some parts of the world, a different complication is found. The idea of FIELD, as we understand it in English, probably does not exist or may be quite different from the English understanding of it. There may well be differences in the appropriateness of particular gestures or sounds to represent the concept 'field'. This could be the case in countries where the crops are quite different eg. rice, or where agriculture is primitive or non-existent, in some parts of Africa or in the Pacific Islands. It is interesting to examine words from some of these areas: in Samoa, the word for FIELD is LAUFANUA, which is a composite word meaning area of land (FANUA); in Hawaiian the word for FIELD is again composite, HE MALA (apparently 'piece of land'). It is difficult to judge what the appropriate point of reference might be but it seems to be somewhere near that for the Bantu languages, at any rate in the case of the word FANUA.
In the Amerindian languages, there does not seem to be a similar concept of 'field' to that in English. In Arawakan there is a word TAMBA meaning 'cultivated clearing'(with cognates OANTSI WIJAHA SANA YIIHA). None of these except possibly TAMBA appears to produce an associated gesture or sound similar to those for the English word FIELD so it is not possible to check what reference-point may be used by these languages, at any rate in terms of the word used so far FIELD. There is other evidence, however, that Amerindian languages generally use the central reference-point. For the Amerindian languages, for Australian languages and for languages of other more primitive cultures, one has to turn to comparative examination of a different range of words, where there can be no doubt about the parallelism of the concepts referred by corresponding words in more familiar languages.
(whilst the Chinese T'IEN¹ 
means SKY).
Tonality
obviously makes a radical difference to meaning and consequently
to the appropriateness of the gesture associated with the
word-sounds.
The word T'IEN, with the No. 2 Tone Lower Even, is pronounced as
written and it seems legitimate to try the effect of using the
central reference-point. Doing this, one finds an associated
gesture/sound not far removed from that associated with
English FIELD (which can also be considered as a Lower Even Tone
word). It is possible therefore that Chinese uses a central
reference-point but the shape of the words is modified by the
effect of those tones which involve significant changes in
pitch over the duration of the syllable. Using another simple
word SHOU³ 
(Rising Tone), pronounced in
the same way as SHOW
in English, one finds an associated arm-gesture very similar
to that for English HAND (which is what SHOU³ means in
Chinese). The Chinese word PEI
Departing Tone, which is
pronounced like BAY in English, if one uses the central
reference-point produces an associated gesture similar to that
for English ARM, which is what PEI