These are terms coined by the linguist Noam Chomsky. Probably this entire essay is predicated on an understanding of these terms. It hardly matters if this theory proves correct for language, it is nonetheless a very useful way of looking at the issues. But if you aren’t familiar with the terms, and many aren’t, we’ll try here. According to Chomsky, (non-human) animals certainly communicate but insists that these communications can not really be called language because the animals lack essential mental features. He has a point. It’s a fine one and could easily be overturned some day. But it is based on the notion that there is a unique mental apparatus. A Language Acquisition Device. A bee dance or a bird call serve linguistic purposes, but bees’ and birds’ brains don’t have enough parts. Each human language obeys a somewhat unique set of conventions. “Noam talks about language.” is not the same as “Language talks about Noam.” The difference in meaning is derived from their specific surface grammar. But the fact that we can put words together in some order and it will convey a message is deep structure. Though it is clearly impossible all the specifics of a language would be in our genes (no one is born speaking fluently, we need to learn), it is also unlikely we could learn so many detailed rules, so proficiently, with almost no trial-and-error for many aspects, in the few years we acquire language. “Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.” Chomsky’s famous example feels like it should make sense but does not. Possibly because, while we may figure out by “looking up” the references of our learning, that this is meaningless, we are “hard-wired” for the rules by which a languages rules are concocted. The brain doesn’t actually know syntax from chaos, it simply applies this pattern recognition to whatever stimuli is input. Over the ages we have gradually adapted this mental tool to the task of communication via words.
Published in Chapter:
Technological Social-ism
Judson Wright (Pump Orgin Computer Artist, USA)
Copyright: © 2009
|Pages: 32
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-352-4.ch020
Abstract
Culture is a byproduct of our brains. Moreover, we’ll look at ways culture also employs ritual (from shamanistic practices to grocery shopping) to shape neural paths, and thus shape our brains. Music has a definite (well researched) role in this feedback loop. The ear learns how to discern music from noise in the very immediate context of the environment. This serves more than entertainment purposes however. At a glance, we often can discern visual noise from images, nonsense from words. The dynamics are hardly unique to audial compositions. There are many kinds of compositional rules that apply to all of the senses and well beyond. The brain develops these rule sets specific to the needs of the culture and in order to maintain it. These rules, rarely articulated, are stored in the form of icons, a somewhat abstracted, context-less abbreviation open to wide interpretation. It may seem somewhat amazing we can come up with compatible rules, by reading these icons from our unique personal perspectives. And often we don’t, as we each have differing tastes and opinions. However, “drawing from the same well” defines abstract groupings, to which we choose to subscribe. We both subscribe to and influence which rule-sets we use to filter our perceptions and conclusions. But the way we (often unconsciously) choose is far more elusive and subtle.