Are you sure you want to delete this post?
THROWINGS OF IDEAS AND THINGS 2nd part of LINGUISTICS essay (1st part posted last week)
Most everyone grows up with some experience in things thrown.
Thrown by hand or propelled by racket or club or bat or whatever. “Trajectory” is the pertinent term for the dynamic involved. And we’ve been involved therewith, usually from a very young age. And even far short of any professional ability or acuity, we deal with the phenomenon satisfactorily.
But then you sometime get exposed to the realm of rocket science.
Most everyone grows up with some experience in things linguistic. Babble, banter, chit-chat, conversation, even discourse, debate, polemical or dissertative declarations. And though short of true erudition, much less Darrowian fluency, we communicate quite suitably.
But then you sometime find out the scope of what it’s all about when you come upon the actual subject matter of linguistics. Reading any linguistics text reveals that language, inclusive of its subtending “neuro-anatomic” substance as well as its “data-dimension” of syntactic structures, encompasses a far greater range of involvements than the strictly verbal/.sonic . . ”speechic” considerations.
Yes, despite our years and even proficiencies in communicating in the linguistic realms of life, it’s when we happen across the study and discoveries of the field of linguistics that a whole vaster vista opens up to us. Even for someone who might be formally concerned with another realm of the utmost erudition and expertise, to suddenly soar into the heights of perspective on something we so take for granted (or as simplistic modularity) – to perceive more the dimension of language as system and structure and more – should be of interest If not of value. Just the exercise of consideration of the matter might be beneficial to broaden the context of another specialist pursuit.
And, especially wherein factors of language might be involved (such as in trauma or tumor, lesion, leakage, plaquage . .whatever), possibly concerted indagation even unto implementation of linguistic “variables” might be applicable in remediating or rerouting (such as re-allocating domain to module) or otherwise uncovering or recovering communicative ability.
Far more than “pixels of image and conception on the screen of consciousness”, the substrate categories and elemental “units” of dynamic (intra-neuronal-electro, and inter-neuronal-chemical) “hardwired” processes of “data-input” of the senses and across or even in place of the senses sometimes . . . . such dynamics transcend both “digital-cybernetic” and “analogue-analogy” understanding and explanation both.
Yes, there are the “essential” modules (brain areas, for example) wherein language resides, in part. But “in parts”, too, literally signifies the subtlety and complexity of linguistics strata.
Of course there are the receptive and productive (hearing and speech) organs and systems and the interconnections with the brain. But also there are unique domains of linguistic derivation and containment (such as verbs which represent “state-variant data” vs. say, nouns which “code-in-sonics” or in-signage more “stasis” or substantive significance. Said domains somehow suggest fields of linguistic storage and, as well, synthesis -- somewhat like gravitational matrices from which language, spoken, signed, or variantly symbolized, takes form.
There are comprehensive Darwinian inspirations and contemplations for where we’re at and how we got here linguistically. And obviously, to deny an evolutionary process is to espouse a nihilism inclusive of God him- (it)-self unless we can envision a reverberant voice from heaven saying “hokus pokus, shazamm!! Hokus pokus shazamm!!” an awful lot of times during a mere six day period. Even Genesis relates process: breath, dust, water, land, dark, light, and on into the “begatterama” ensuing and ever since proliferating unto population explosion.)
But I am not alone in finding fictions of fixation within the factions and fact ors [sic] of the neoDarwinian synthesis wherein the random micro-mutation (about the only acknowledged variational dynamic) seems to represent a “lotteryzation” of process nowhere else evident in the sciences or existence (at least above “chaos-assumption” of sub-particulate states . . . .or below the pseudo, or quasi-, chaos of algorithmic-generated “swarming” phenomenologies). Micro-mutation is genetic mutation per se, and genetic, as well, as the “componential” or “structural” basis of 1) “whole-chromosomal selection” (a concept seemingly, sneakily, almost endowing selection with the capacity to choose what and how it’ll select) . . . .and 2) “punctuated equilibrium” (which sure sounds like an explanatory “special-creation” by a stymied evolutionist combining Lyellian uniformitarianism with hopscotch – or running the gene on quantum mechanics.
Yes, Natural Selection has been ensconced as usurper of the throne of Special Creation. Thus, the only evolutionary plan or “purpose” one might perceive would be an epiphenomenon of default. But consider that such sheer “mindless” selection from supposed pure randomicity, has resulted in the essential in toto replication of existence in essence as existence-in-awareness in the mind (module and domain) of man and in the blink of time since chimpanzee . . . .but further, also coded, symbolized, etc. in man’s language and other ciphers and symbols as an “alter-dimension” or analogue-replication of the very universe.
If, from evolutionary premise and temporality, we can exclude cognition (and its “bits” exchanged) as behavior just because we discern no morphological medium for the manifestation thus considered “metaphysical”, then there’s suddenly a significant realm for which “punctuated equilibrium” doesn’t make it at all. Rather, “edited reality” or “expurgated rationality” might fit.
We could consider that language is a neurological systematology and that “bits”, the sonic (vocalized, ciphered, whatever) manifestation a physiological phenomenon sort of “beyond the point” of the “program”. Yes, I’m risking a semantic and linguistic muddle of meaning here. But from the standpoint of language as a conveyance of information and/or directive from one individual to another or from one to a multitude and even the reverse wherein the singular is “informed” by the group – further interpolating the factors of abstract, social, and even complexly mathematical (direction/distance) “data” interchanged. . . .the scientific consideration of language as something literally spoken seems, if not simplistic, faulty by over-inclusion of behavioral factors far beyond the neurological transceiver and message-milieu
Insect dynamics (for example with ants and bees) demand that we interpret communication and data thereof. Migratory species commune, if not fully communicate, with greater existence in their dynamics of vector, locus, and geomagnetic, sidereal, geographical, thermal, lumenal, and other ”contexts” determining behavior and interchanging information and cognition inclusive of sounded ciphers . . . a form of language, yes.
In the context of direction/distance to food source or other, similar signal-systematologies regarding “prey-colonies” for example, or “travelogueish” factors regarding summer-to-winter grounds or return-to-specific-nest-site (or spawn stream or breeding beach) . . .the differential language can hardly be denied. But it’s a level and form of language significantly (veritably dimensionallly) different from the essence of human language with which my concern lies here.
I think it valid to assume that animal language (sonic-ciphered, waggle-danced, or other representative neuro-behavioral formulations analoguing and conveying existence data-states) is limited to a level of “physio-adjunct”. Animal language is a factor of, mainly, a function of life-dynamics (as I said awhile before). Animal language, though communication it may be, does not equate the critter with an internal scope of the cosmos or parts thereof in an awareness beyond the functional, directional (etc.) of the animal’s life-dynamic.
Perhaps I should stop using the term “language” for other than man. “Communication” would fit for the vast scope and variety of life forms.
But this still misses my point.
For I refer to the terminological (existential-data) “analogue” of the mind of man in my consideration of the language of the human. If there is any comparable conceptuality in other life forms, either the 1) absence (as in “lower species”) of sufficient sonic specificities (“terms”) precludes assuming any dynamics of language per se, 2) our preponderant ignorance of the meaning of representation of even varietal sounds (such as by dolphins and whales make) permits no conclusions of “existential ciphering”, 3) of the life forms definable as “mute” (bacteria, worms, corals and such) any attribution of linguistics is de facto disproven (hey, they’re mute like I said) unless there’s invertebrate telepathy or something, and 4) I forget what I was going to . . . . .
Enough of this morass. The mind of man and only man (far as we know) equates with the (potentially) universal scope of existence. And the language of man and only man (far as we can tell) communicates as well as internally, individually, encodes, encrypts, “data-fies” this analogue dimension of BEING in a being.
But aside from this esoteric level of consideration (maybe obfuscatory as well, or unintelligible per se?), language involves many areas of important and fascinating implications and considerations.
Before I continue, my “text”, this brief aside that I wrote to a neurosurgeon who was involved with a family member. He and I were both familiar with a particular linguistics text to which I refer.
Even the evolutionary, the phylogenetic, dimensions of neuro-and physiological(behavioral) substrates may have application in the reiterative and recapitulative (thus to relieve “errant”, or to reinstate lost, linguistic abilities.
My purpose I extracting information from the book and composing an intro-ductory ramble and sending all to another is this: the text is concerned with research and development primarily applicable to infants and children. Obviously such findings have the potential for application, for “treatment” implementations involving others.
The regeneration of linguistic structures and substrates or the re-learning or rerouting or recontexting of communication even for the adult might be facilitated by some of the information here.
What “intonative” stimuli (from frequency to prosody) provided, say, by a
therapist or even established as an ambient approach to regeneration, might enhance the basal biological state and subsequent neural reconnectivity in a patient? (see p. 51 ff)
Could patient-generated signage (from truly abstract-syntactic even unto muscular-codifications of conceptuality) be co-developed with therapeutic expertise to provide communication means for even those of the “Hawking-degree” of disability (who wouldn’t have the access to – read “bucks for” – computer voice-synthesizing equipment such as he does (see p. 41 top
My point in the above is that high-level linguistics remediation procedures for children should be attempted with others. The interfaced stimuli of sonics on physiologics, and the “detour-pathways” of neurosystems (even unto speech – or at least demi-communication) represent a vast realm hardly touched (and/or taught).