[Marxism-Thaxis] Recursion
Recursion in language The use of recursion in linguistics, and the use of recursion in general, dates back to the ancient Indian linguist Pāṇini in the 5th century BC, who made use of recursion in his grammar rules of Sanskrit. Linguist Noam Chomsky theorizes that unlimited extension of a language such as English is possible only by the recursive device of embedding sentences in sentences. I think this gets overdone. First, I doubt that one of Chomsky's challengers has actually found a human language without some recursion (as broadly defined here). Two, I doubt that anyone will ever be able to prove its recursion than makes human language unique from other forms of communication. Three, recursion in language more than anything, I think, means that nothing is conceived and planned in a simple SEQUENCE, even though that is the illusion of language--a sequence of sounds, a sequence of syllables, a sequence of words, a sequence of phrases, a sequence of clauses, building up to sequenced discourse. f you step back and examine what must have gone into producing such a sequence, it's obvious the planning stage in the 'mind' wouldn't have to be limited to such a sequence. In fact, such a sequence would make language impossible. So, for example, if I know I'm going to say/produce the words 'top place' in one of my phrases, in terms of articulation I may well be planning and then articulating sounds that come after my initial [t] of 'top'. So although one side of the illusion is a nice sequence of segments, my prearticulated language is not such a nice sequence of segments. And this then builds up across my entire control and ability to produce a message in discourse. However, the other side of the illusion of recursion is the illusion of infinity. Speech (and its 'mental' planning) happen in the real world, in real time. And they happen in the phenomenological world of the speaker/writer/interlocuters/listeners/readers. And they happen in 'linguistic time'. None of these can transcend the limits of the real world into 'infinity'. Try to over-embed and use recursion too much and you end up incomprehensible. Indeed, one of the challenges for people learning to write their own language is to simplify their language so their reader can understand it more easily. CJ ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Evolutionary timeline for language
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Evolutionary timeline for language The entire article looks dubious and would require a lifetime to discuss. CB: A lifetime ? What is dubious ? Most articles on linguistics at wiki are awful. Any attempt to revise them will result in a small clique 'reverting' them. I was however jokingly referring to the many 'dubious discuss' comments that peppered the article. I think the overall thrust of the accounts I posted excerpts from is formed thus: that syntactisized upper body ^ CB: Why upper body ? Body language includes the lower body , too, the whole body. Yes but gesturing with syntax and coordinated (mentally controlled) with vocalization limits you to the upper body. And it is on the face and the upper respitory and digestive traces where the two systems converge. Gesturing and sophisticated vocalization abilities ^^^ CB: A lightbulb just went on for me with your emphasis on gesturing. You are just saying that a sign language came before a vocalized medium for language, no ? A type of 'sign language' is still found in speech, even though we are dominated by the vocal aspects of the system. Try speaking without moving your body. Try speaking to someone without 'gesturing'. People who are fluent sign language users still VOCALIZE when they gesture. Their language is as human and as much a language as any other, but with a different emphasis. And what does their sign language have in common with our speech? One, it has a 'phonology' in that we (at least think we) can analyze into sub-lexical 'units'. Two, it is controlled from the top down (the 'mind' must first conceive a thought to be communicated and then in some sort of 'buffer' structure and plan it, and then realize it). Three, it is kinesthetically experienced by the person controlling and producing it. CJ ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Launching Language: The Gestural Origin of Discrete Infinity
CB: In other words, the fact that the signifier is _not_ the thing or processes that it signified is the characteristic that allows it to get across the death barrier that the body of the ancestor faces. So that which crosses the death barrier is not actually a thing? So what is it? Isn't there a danger here of the usual structuralist idealism? That somehow the social-symbolic defies our material world, subsisting in a 'third realm' that is crystalline and godless but still immaterial? Also, I think you have to separate that (1) language life and development transcends the 'death barrier' and (2) that language, in part, and only in part, conveys the information and knowledge we use to learn and to work with others to create, produce, change our world. Still, languages change over time, given enough time, because every act of decoding and encoding in the real world of social being brings about change, such that we would have a hard time communicating in 'English' with Geoffrey Chaucer (even if he didn't speak the way he wrote). And all it takes is one failed generation of knowledge transfer and transformation and cultures can break down, fail to reproduce into future generations. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Recursion
I wrote: f you step back and examine what must have gone into producing such a sequence, it's obvious the planning stage in the 'mind' wouldn't have to be limited to such a sequence. In fact, such a sequence would make language impossible. So, for example, if I know I'm going to say/produce the words 'top place' in one of my phrases, in terms of articulation I may well be planning and then articulating sounds that come after my initial [t] of 'top'. Let me try that again. I got distracted by the fact that I can't load the utah edu pages where the list is archived. And then the usual 'phonetic miscues' that seem to come more and more into my English as I live longer and longer outside an anglophone culture and as my brain gets older. Try 2 If you step back and examine what must have gone into producing such a sequence (in terms of language control, planning on the part of the language producer), it's obvious that the planning stage in the 'mind' wouldn't have to be limited to such a sequence. In fact, such a sequence might make using a language to communicate cognitively impossible. So, for example, if I know I'm going to say/produce the words 'top place' in one of my phrases, in terms of planned articulation and even articulation before phonation, I may well be planning and even articulating sounds that come after the initial aspirated [t] of 'top' before I actually pronounce that initial aspirated sound. I should add electromyographic research I did on some of the key muscles in articulating and producing speech actually revealed this. So, for example, we could see in terms of 'muscular signature' the 'swalllowed' glottalized final [p] of 'top' and the initial aspirated [p] of 'place' coming into play before the initial [t] of 'top' was actually pronounced. In other words, in controlled speech processes, you plan and even articulate some sounds across whole syllables and words, even though the illusion is one of a simple sequence of sounds. So one side of the illusion is a simple sequence of sounds, syllables, words, phrases, clauses, etc. The other side of the illusion is a complex recursion into an infinity that seems to swallow itself. However, you still have to move forward through to actual articulation with phonation/vocalization, and so an actual sequence does emerge. It's a somewhat recursive one, but not that recursive. Real time and linguistic time make sure it isn't. It's not a simple sequence of notes, but a complex sequence of plucked chords, to use a musical metaphor. CJ ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Launching Language: The Gestural Origin ofDiscrete Infinity
Charles, I don't understand the purpose of so many posts. Since reading them all is out of the question, and I have no principle of selection that would work, I end up not reading any of them, thogugh some of them must be important or at least inteesting. Carrol ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Launching Language: The Gestural Origin of Discrete Infinity
Charles, I don't understand the purpose of so many posts. Since reading them all is out of the question, and I have no principle of selection that would work, I end up not reading any of them, thogugh some of them must be important or at least inteesting. Carrol I'm not sure which Charles you are addressing, but I will point out I was attempting to consolidate the discussion somewhat by putting all the replies to replies into one post, under one related thread. Is the issue the number of posts or the total volume of text? I could try a summary if you want. CJ ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
