enrico torre lancaster university
TRANSCRIPT
1
ENRICO TORRELancaster University
Agent, environment, and lived temporality:A distributed-ecological perspective on the epistemological role of language
5th Conference of the Scandinavian Association for Language and CognitionNorges Teknisk-Naturvitenskapelige Universitet - Trondheim, Norge
August 19-21, 2015
2
The relationship between subject and object
Subject Object
3
The generative linguist's view
EPISTEMOLOGY:
● Language as the object of study:
● Focus on people's knowledge of a language;
● Goal: explain language acquisition given a specific cognitive theory of learning.
4
The cognitive linguist's view
EPISTEMOLOGY:
● Language as the link between subject and object:
● Focus on the contribution of language to people's knowledge of the world;
● Goal: address language as a product of the interplay between domain-general cognitive principles and social interaction, in order to understand the relationship between language, mind, and society.
5
A distributed-ecological view
● A good deal of overlap with the strand of Cognitive Linguistics which aims to include social factors in pursuing an explanation for language facts (Bernárdez 2005; Croft 2009).
● Integrates it with insights from Ecological Psychology (Reed 1997), Embodied Cognition (Gibbs 2005; Chemero 2009), Distributed Cognition (Hutchins 2005), and Dynamic Systems Theory (Thelen and Smith 1994; Kelso 1995).
6
A distributed-ecological view
● Language as a social institution which is employed by individuals and groups to act in the world (Torre 2015).
● The organism and its environment are inherently coupled in a single system and they are constantly engaged in an interaction which alters both poles.
● Language takes part in this interaction; thus, it is also affected by the interplay.
7
Linguistic symbols as constraints
● Language is a dynamic system: inherently fluid, fuzzy, emergent, and context-sensitive (e.g. Elman 1995);
● The meaning of linguistic symbols arises through usage as a material device to constrain the dynamics of an interaction (e.g. Hutchins 2005; Raczaszek-Leonardi 2013);
● Linguistic symbols underdetermine the message being conveyed, with the rest of the communication being provided by the context.
8
Replicability and selection
● A linguistic symbol will first be used to constrain the development of a specific interaction. If successfully re-used in following interactions, then it will be culturally selected as a conventional constraint on the dynamics of a range of situations;
● The system will then be characterized by a persistent tension between the conventional function of its symbols and the situational uniqueness of each specific frame of reference (e.g. Raczaszek-Leonardi 2013, 2014).
9
Writing
● Language supports wider cognitive and communicative practices, to enable interpersonal interaction and coordination;
● Writing is a convenient example of a meaning-construction process based on the agent-environment interplay;
● While language is primarily spoken, a socially shared writing system enables the members of a cultural group to dilute their interpersonal interactions over time, also reducing the distances between people (e.g. Torre 2014).
10
The time-scales of writing
● The writing system is a socio-cultural apparatus consisting in a set of inscriptions developed through the manipulation of resources of the environment at a historical time-scale;
● At a cultural time-scale, a linguistic symbol assumes specific constraining functions. The form-function pairing is not supposed to be fixed;
● The system is learned by the members of the community at an ontogenetic time-scale, through a socially-driven process.
11
The employment of external resources
● The development of this system is an example of the use of external resources in order to reduce people's cognitive workload, objectifying the form-function pairing of linguistic units.
● Writing enables the members of a socio-cultural community to preserve their cultural legacy without being bound by the limits of human memory; also, it enables them to keep track of any discovery and pursue new technological innovations, forms of social organization, and kinds of art and science practices.
12
The physical dimension of symbols
● “natural language symbols are capable of evoking certain meanings because they participate, as physical stimuli, in various forms of social life. In such social situations, they are very strong stimuli (most often verbal actions, embedded in other actions), capable of influencing the coordinating situation and modifying it.” (Raczaszek-Leonardi 2013);
● Developing a writing system means to reify linguistic symbols, making them durably visible (also touchable in some cases).
13
The normative aspect
● Belonging to a certain social group entails one's awareness of a set of rules and conventional behaviors. Norms organize social interaction. Language, as a social institution, is inherently normative (e.g. Itkonen 1997, 2008);
● This means that members of a community will learn the physical symbols which are part of the linguistic system together with their constraining functions, which can be stronger or weaker according to the case (e.g. Raczaszek-Leonardi 2014).
14
A single system● Language
● Mental resources
● Bodily experience
● Cultural heritage
● Social organization
● Physical environment
15
Engraving
16
Holy Scripture (Latin translation)
17
Constitution
18
Tattoo
19
Signal
20
Wall writing
21
Digital writing
22
Conclusion
● Language is a technological artifact which regulates the life of a community, by enhancing communication between its members.
● Although it can often be convenient, for explanatory purposes, to treat language as an entity in itself, it cannot be separated from its social, historical, and material contingency.
● Language is an integral part of a complex system which includes both internal (neural, conceptual), and external (cultural, material) resources.
23
Conclusion● Language is therefore tightly coupled with cognitive, social, and
ecological processes which unfold over time.
● The cognitive-linguistic notion of a dynamic network-shaped inventory of form-function pairings can be extended to encompass cognitive, social, affective, and pragmatic values not crystallized in a specific verbal pattern, and also external resources.
● The system as a whole evolves as a result of the persistent interaction of all these elements at different time-scales.
24
ReferencesBernárdez, Enrique. (2005). Social Cognition. Variation, Language, and Culture in a Cognitive Linguistic Typology. In F.J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez and M.S. Peña Cerval (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics. Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 191-224.
Chemero, Anthony. 2009. Radical Embodied Cognitive Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar. Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.
Croft, William. (2009). Toward a Social Cognitive Linguistics. In V. Evans and S. Purcell (eds.), New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 395-420.
Elman, Jeffrey L. (1995). Language as a Dynamical System. In R.F. Port and T. Van Gelder (eds.), Mind as Motion. Explorations in the Dynamics of Cognition. Cambridge: MIT Press. 195-226.
25
References
Evans, Nicholas, and Stephan C. Levinson. (2009). The Myth of Language Universals. Language Diversity and Its Importance for Cognitive Science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32 (5): 429-492.
Gibbs, Raymond W. Jr. 2005. Embodiment and Cognitive Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions. A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at Work. The Nature of Generalization in Language. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hutchins, Edwin. (2005). Material Anchors for Conceptual Blends. Journal of Pragmatics 37 (10): 1555-1577.
26
ReferencesItkonen, Esa. (1997). The Social Ontology of Linguistic Meaning. SKY: The Yearbook of the Linguistic Association of Finland. 49-80.
Itkonen, Esa. (2008). The Central of Normativity in Language and Linguistics. In J. Zlatev, T.F. Racine, C. Sinha, and E. Itkonen (eds.), The Shared Mind. Perspectives on Intersubjectivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 279-305.
Kelso, J.A. Scott. 1994. Dynamic Patterns. The Self-Organization of Brain and Behavior. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol 1. Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Pinker, Steven. 1994. The Language Instinct. The New Science of Language and Mind. London: Penguin Science.
27
ReferencesPinker, Steven. 1999. Words and Rules. The Ingredients of Language. New York: Basic Books.
Raczaszek-Leonardi, Joanna. (2013). Language as a System of Replicable Constraints. In H.H. Pattee and J. Raczaszek-Leonardi (eds.), Laws, Language, and Life. Howard Pattee's Classic Papers on the Physics of Symbols. Berlin: Springer. 285-312.
Raczaszek-Leonardi, Joanna. (2014). Multiple Systems and Multiple Time-Scales of Language Dynamics. Coping with Complexity. Cybernetics and Human Knowing 21 (1-2): 37-52.
Raczaszek-Leonardi, Joanna, and J.A. Scott Kelso. (2008). Reconciling Symbolic and Dynamic Aspects of Language. Toward a Dynamic Psycholinguistics. New Ideas in Psychology 26 (2): 193-207.
Reed, Edward S. 1997. Encountering the World. Toward an Ecological Psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
28
ReferencesThelen, Esther, and Linda B. Smith. 1994. A Dynamic Systems Approach to the Development of Cognition and Action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Torre, Enrico. (2014). Digital Inscriptions as Material Anchors for Future Action. Multi-Scalar Integration and Dynamic Systems. Cybernetics and Human Knowing 21 (1-2): 128-142.
Torre, Enrico. (2015). The Emergent Patterns of Italian Idioms. A Dynamic-Systems Approach. Ph.D. Thesis. Lancaster University.
