The Language of Ineffability: Linguistic Analysis of Mystical Experiences David B. Yaden, Johannes C. Eichstaedt, and H. Andrew Schwartz University of Pennsylvania Margaret L. Kern University of Pennsylvania and University of Melbourne Khoa D. Le Nguyen University of Pennsylvania Nancy A. Wintering Thomas Jefferson University Ralph W. Hood Jr. University of Tennessee at Chattanooga Andrew B. Newberg Thomas Jefferson University Mystical experiences are often described as “ineffable,” or beyond language. However, people readily speak about their mystical experiences if asked about them. How do people describe what is supposedly indescribable? In this study, we used quantitative linguistic analyses to interpret the writings of 777 participants (45.5% female, 51.0% male) who recounted their most significant spiritual or religious experience as part of an online survey. High and low scorers on a measure of mystical experiences differed in the language they used to describe their experiences. Participants who have had mystical experiences used language that was more socially and spatially inclusive (e.g., “close,” “we,” “with”) and used fewer overtly religious words (e.g., “prayed,” “Christ,” “church”) than participants without such experiences. Results indicated that people can meaningfully communicate their mystical experiences, and that quantitative language analyses provide a means for understanding aspects of such experiences. Keywords: inclusion, linguistic analysis, mystical experiences, religion, spirituality If that is ineffable which cannot be spoken, then that is not ineffable which is called ineffable —Augustine, 1958, pp. 10–11 Mystical experiences are temporary mental states that include profound feelings of unity, positive emotions, a noetic quality, and most notably for the present study, alleged ineffability (Austin, 2006; Griffiths, Richards, McCann, & Jesse, 2006; Hood, Hill, & Spilka, 2009; James, 1902/1985; Pahnke, 1969; Richards, 1975; Stace, 1960; Wulff, 2000). The criterion of ineffability means that by definition, mystical experiences are beyond verbal description. Whereas some scholars maintain that language cannot adequately capture any aspect of mystical experiences (a view called “apophatic mysticism”), others maintain that the term “ineffability” qualifies one’s capacity to convey the full breadth of these profound experiences (Proud- foot, 1985). In general, people rarely discuss these deeply meaningful and generally positive experiences with others on their own accord (Hay, 1990; Tamminen, 1991). Yet when asked about them, those who have had such experiences often go on to describe them in detail, using language. This pattern led Chinese poet and comic Po Chu-I to comment on the mystical text, the Tao te Ching: “‘He who talks doesn’t know, he who knows doesn’t talk’ that is what Lao-tzu told us, in a book of five thousand words. If he was the one who knew, how could he have been such a blabbermouth?” (Mitchell, 1988, p. 89). Attempts have been made to examine verbal and written reports of mystical experiences. James’s (1902/1985) Varieties of Reli- gious Experience rests mostly on personal accounts of New Eng- land Protestants gathered by one of the fathers of the psychology of religion and spirituality, Edwin Starbuck. Durkheim (1912/ 2012) undertook a study of religious experience in Aborigines, and found that such experiences were central to these communities. Maslow (1964) described the phenomenon of “peak experiences,” which share a large degree of overlap with mystical experiences, by consistently seeing them appear in transcripts of interviews with highly successful, “self-actualized” individuals. Laski’s This article was published Online First July 27, 2015. David B. Yaden and Johannes C. Eichstaedt, Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania; H. Andrew Schwartz, Computer & Informa- tion Science, University of Pennsylvania; Margaret L. Kern, Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania, and Melbourne Graduate School of Education, University of Melbourne; Khoa D. Le Nguyen, Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania; Nancy A. Wintering, Myrna Brind Center of Integrative Medicine, Thomas Jefferson University; Ralph W. Hood Jr., Department of Psychology, University of Tennessee at Chattanooga; Andrew B. Newberg, Myrna Brind Center of Integrative Medicine, Thomas Jefferson University. Khoa D. Le Nguyen is now at Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to David B. Yaden, Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania, 3701 Mar- ket Street Suite 200, Philadelphia, PA 19104. E-mail: dyaden@sas .upenn.edu This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality © 2015 American Psychological Association 2016, Vol. 8, No. 3, 244 –252 1941-1022/16/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/rel0000043 244