Chapter Three. The role of feedback in language use

Not only in language learning would there be a psychological continuum. Human language proficiency[1] needs the notion of the human person as well. To discuss the role of feedback in a mature language faculty, the human brain yet shall remain of reference, as “neither linguistic competence nor linguistic performance are mere abstract entities but are mediated by the physical structure of the human brain” (Puppel, 1992). Program and feedback to be compared for neuro-behavioral priority[2] in language, universalist[3] tendencies in linguistics can be analyzed with concern to natural language permanence,[4] and thus standards. Linguistic behavior[5] to require physical parameters of speech and writing, human sensory processing opens the consideration of the role of feedback in language use.


For the work without footnotes or to comment, visit Chapter 3 post


document translation


3.1. Sensory signal processing by the human brain


The brain works on sensory signals in a parallel and distributed manner. Sense organs convert impulses into graded and action potentials to be sent to input consolidating areas in the brain. The biological code the brain operates during processing differs materially from the input signal with which it corresponds. Integrating inputs, the brain does not translate the processing code back into the stimulus quality, compound brain codes to account for perception (Vander et al., 1985).


The difference between sensory impulses and brain transmission codes compares with that between sensory alterations and perception. Afferent impulses of no conscious correlate[6] most often become discarded, as the term perception applies to conscious recognition from neural input. Signal transfer in the brain is inseparable from signal interpretation, relayed processing to mean signal split into aspects communicable to specific neural sets (ibidem).


For visual processing, lateral geniculate nuclei[7] may exemplify relay centers to assist focus, supporting the thalamic function. Inputs from retinal distinctive sites[8] reach specialized brain destinations simultaneously. Frontal lobes integrate information on object identity to have arrived via the temporal tissues; object spatial component has inputs from the occipital and parietal areas. Distributed processing requires precise synchronization for input reassembly.


The lateral nuclei, besides engagement in signal transmission, contribute to brainstem and cerebellar patterns for wakefulness and locomotion, help manage eye and head coordination, fixation of gaze,[9] and pupil constriction. Pupillary response can be an indicator for processing workload[10] (Zimmer, 1993). Of the cortical structures to synchronize signals, the angular gyri[11] neighbor on brain visual, auditory, as well as tactile specialized locales. The gyri are notable in object identification and naming (Puppel, 1992). Relayed processing provides for a degree of separation between cognitive functions and motor behavior. All sensory modalities are processed in parallel-distributed manner. Inclusive of language, human feedback connectivity for sensory signal processing can be presented as in Figure 5.


Figure 5. A general model for feedback connectivity in sensory signal processing, inclusive of language (compare Vander et al., 1985).


Figure 5. Sensory processing by the brain inclusive of language


The parallel-distributed processing requires multiple feedback pathways, which favors efferent capacities to accompany afferent sites. Active palpation coalesces with tactile receptiveness,[12] for example. Hearing is unique in its use of efferent pathways of no learned component.[13] The paths project from the brainstem to the cochlea and end on both the hair cells and afferent terminals. The function of these paths is not certain. Animals surgically deprived of them were impeded in discriminating audio frequencies, as well as signal sound from noise. Ancillary mechanisms for isolating signal from background might work also in humans (Vander et al., 1985).


Eyesight needs ontogenetically acquired[14] re-afference.[15] The learned acuity and focus emerge in feedback with the vestibular system, along with neural schemata for bodily movement and balance. All sensory modalities have the potential to mobilize overall responses, parallel-distributed processing to be of possible consequence to information processing in the brain entire. However, intrapersonally evolved cognizance is decisive to human perception, in standard circumstances.




Research in neurophysiology was used to attempt a learning-capable machine, named the perceptron. The machine was a parallel-operation device (Puppel, 1996). Construction of artificial consciousness may remain impracticable, owing to natural intricacies in personality factors. Intrinsicality of feedback promotes the factors also for sensory processing, as there is no feedback-governing brain locale, and focus naturally belongs with individual interest and choice.


3.2. Managing multiple inputs: pathway length and efficiency


Biological processing of information brings forward the matter of signal priority, with respect to neural pathway length and speed of transfer. Parietal inner and outer regions may attract focus, also owing to high limbic connectivity.[16] The outer areas neighbor on primary sensory cortices directly. The inner work on compound modality data,[17] enhancing not only pattern identification, but also permanence. This is the integrative work of the inner parietal lobes to invite a relatively constant sense for verticality, despite changes in head position.[18] Inner parietal linkage with the limbic system can result in highly processed signals of emotional preeminence (Vander et al, 1984).


Limbic paths loop with the thalamus and the amygdalae,[19] and make neural “shortcuts” capable of overriding the regulative powers by the frontal lobes. Though there is no “emotional system” in the brain, the paths can alter homeostasis, decision making, memory, and lexical access (ibidem). The phenomenon of “emotional hijacking” would suggest an ability by the brain to establish “express” connections in response to psychological or physical pressure (in Goleman, 1997). The eventuating[20] limitation in linguistic aptness denies terms of advantage,[21] however.


Quillian’s experiments on semantic processing would imply pathway length for directly proportional to the time of signal interpretation (Kurcz, 1992). Nonetheless, his network models of memory assumed varied “weight” for particular neural nodes. In the light, the “rule of force”[22] as described in Puppel (1992) would require comment. The impact of path priority might place individual behavior outside the boundaries of norm as drawn by statistics. It yet would not waive individual selectiveness as constituent in neural path build generally. Potential for behavior universality has inspired disputes among psychologists and physicians (Goleman, 1997).


3.3. The feedback-reliant nature of the speech act


Already the preliminary stage of motor program selection requires preparatory effort of the feedback faculties. Exact loci[23] of the command neurons for particular neuro-motor sequences in language production have never been, and further may remain undiscerned. Neurophysiologically and pragmatically, the signals can be noted to accord the afferent information on the status of the articulators (Vander et al., 1985; Puppel, 1992). A neuro-motor sequence would be chosen and implemented upon integration of the command and afferent variables.[24]


These would be multineuronal pathways, cerebral and corticospinal,[25] to communicate the neocortex with articulator muscles. Corticospinal axons end directly on the alpha[26] and gamma[27] motor neurons, as well as interneurons (Puppel, 1988). Also presynaptically[28], multineuronal paths can branch on afferent neurons and influence the ascending information, which increases focus on the concurrent act (Vander et al., 1985). By standard, multineuronal pathways loop the brainstem, the basal ganglia, the cerebellum, and the cortex (ibidem).[28]


The fine motor mastery for the speech segment is completed in a part open-loop fashion, as can be observed in slips of tongue. Undistorted, segmental restriction on neural programming adds to speaker swiftness, accuracy, and flexibility (Puppel, 1992).[30] Speech segments follow articulatory plans,[31] managed neocortically via the cerebellum. Reliant on the cerebral cortex logical functioning,[32] speech plans can direct multineuronal feedback pathways to negotiate inefficient sequence real-time modifying or replacement.[33] Natural circumstances and linguistic skill allow flawless language.


Change of speaker feedback control in experiments by Ladefoged (in Puppel, 1988) proved distortive to the realization phase.[34] Auditory feedback deficiency induced divergence in pitch levels, or in vowel lengths and qualities. Inhibited tactile, kinesthetic, or proprioceptive feedback slowed articulatory movement and provoked compensatory muscle effort. Exophasia[35] is not the sole brain function for language.


document translation


3.4. Inner speech[36]


The terminus[37] of articulatory development[38] via egocentric speech, inner speech has been described as proceeding considerably faster than speech acts (Jurkowski, 1986; Pazukhin, 1996/97). Stipulated to found on reduced neural conveyance, the word sense to be “compact” rather than “limited” (Pazukhin, 1996/97), endophasia[39] is not opposed to exophasia. Most often incomprehensible to persons other than the speakers, it yet would build on the neural linkage for audible speech. Human language skill naturally gains finesse in adulthood[40] and may continue to improve in advanced age.


Autoreflection[41] on endophasia (ibidem) reports speech organ trace activity[42] to accompany thought processes, in reading or writing. The peripheral[43] signal returning would concern segmental, open-loop aspects of language. In networked processing, the centripetal[44] impulses would derive from the centrifugal[45] actuation for egocentric speech and exophasia. The speech organ movement would be an activational carry-over,[46] outside afferent monitoring until a threshold is reached. Linguistic open-loop patterns always to be feedback-mediated for build,[47] only consolidated neural monitoring would remain beyond the formative stage. Endophasia is not bound to occur, also in the same persons.


Cognizance on language performance is intrinsic[48] to the declarative memory, all speech sound shaping to rely on goal-oriented behavior.[49] Therefore, postulates on neural networks heterarchic[50]  manner can be affirmed (Puppel, 1992), “top-down” as well as “bottom-up” interactions to make the networked operative mode. It would be the neural interconnectedness to show in the actuational carry-over of endophasia.


Figure 6. Heterarchic interacting of symbolic and sub-symbolic layers of a neural network, a schematic presentation.

Figure 6. Neural network heterarchic mode


Visual representations of neural networks have been schematic[51] by standard, owing to the intricateness of the live, biological reality. Deterministic[52] network volumes might vary for symbolic and sub-symbolic layers, path and pattern real-time co-work to model heterarchy dynamics. To take reading for an example, symbolic paths would connect for text interpretation. Sub-symbolic layers would grant priority to perception and the motor ability to turn pages, or make notes.[53] Network heterarchy thus would most probably be part in negotiation of polysemy.[54]


By standard, speech precedes writing, yet loses the exclusive role for linguistic expression in early years of human life. Most children are aware of existence of written language before learning to read or write. With progress in linguistic acquisition, brain structures generate neural concordance for language production and perception, as well as consolidate spoken and written forms of language. Therefore, the phenomenon of inner speech would be a potential aspect of an inner language faculty, rather than literally inner spoken production.


The inner faculty would be much more independent of auditory processing and comprise variables from brain areas not classed as specialized primarily for language.[55] Without perceivable verbalizing, the inner faculty would act in mathematical and other skill, all coaching to require language, and practice to invite verbal externalization. Orienting responses of linguistic component can help illustrate feedback prominence in the inner faculty work.


3.5. Orienting response of linguistic component


Patterns for individual reaction to novelty are known as orienting responses. Observable in EEG tests, the response brain activity has been part ascribed to the thalamic nuclei pacemaker abilities. The nuclei reconcile on the thalamus feedback network of excitatory and inhibitory neurons (Vander et al., 1985). The faster, beta brain waves arise with focused attention, likely to be accompanied by a slowed heart rate, cranial blood vessel relative dilatation, and pupil width enlargement. Focus may and does not have to bring motor response, in humans (ibidem).


Unlike in behaviorist frameworks to rely on active stimulation, it is also in silent study that a natural orienting response may help isolate meaningful variables, for processing and intellectual elaboration. Wojtaszek (1993) postulated a neural mismatch detection filter, the term of a novelty detector to have been supported by Vander and others (1985). Mismatch or novelty, discernment needs inner feedback for variable analysis within established memory. The process will engage inner language capabilities. Memory prohibitive of language is hardly probable, in unimpeded persons.


Intellectual elaboration will involve the cerebral cortex, the thalamus, and basal ganglia. The hippocampus,[56] amygdala, and diencephalon[57] will participate in forming a memory, as well as a cognitive correlate for the percept (Vander et al., 1985). The cerebellum will sustain readiness for verbal rehearsal, or note making. All these functions, part even labile, are not open-loop or program processes, and rely on feedback.


Visual perception alone exercises extensive feedback with the cerebral cortex. Beatty and Schluroff found semantic incoherence to override syntactic correctness, the pupillometric curve[58] for semantically distorted sequences to approximate that for incidentally structured chunks[59] (in Zimmer, 1993). The matter of neural schemata permanence comes forward, in the light to inner dynamics and work.


3.6. Module autonomy theories


The human mind has been speculated to form “units of knowledge” (Tolman, jednostka wiedzy in Szewczuk, 1984) or “modules” (Fodor, moduł in Kurcz, 1992). The theoretical “processing units” have been purported impermeable[60] to one another as well as to central processes. Concerns of human linguistic permanence and, at the same time, versatility in language behavior would have positioned nativism[61] and empiricism[62] at the extremes of the “black box” and the “blank slate”.


“Module autonomy” was hypothesized to induce “automatic” percepts (Kurcz, 1992). Auditory experiments by Richard and Roslyn Warren (in Grabowska, 1995) requested volunteer evaluation of masked speech formant audio material.[63] The persons reported speech sounds, continuing to conceptualize the distortions also when informed about substitutions. The deliberative processes must have belonged with neocortex functions to associate speech sounds and word sense. The “cocktail party effect”[64] (ibidem) affirms on inter-schematic management to language perception.


Module or processing unit theories become denied also in co-articulatory adjustment (in Puppel, 1992).[65] The adjustment does not impede comprehension, and occurs in monolingual as well as multilingual people. For multilingual persons, speakers of Polish to progress into a proficient, philological study of English for example, are more than likely to develop allophonic variants[66] for Polish that remain imperceivable to persons unaware of the process. The “language switch” would not affect language outside bilingual or multilingual contexts. Graphemic variance[67] might occur as well, along a study of phonetic transcription.


Linguistic practice thus proves that human language learning and use is conceptually motivated (Puppel, 1988). Cognitive grounds for perceiving as well as producing speech are individual,[69] which has interpersonal as well as intrapersonal implications. The brain sustains spectra rather than fixed module values, for multifarious handwriting or font styles, voice and articulatory manner language realizations.[70] Language skill to meet real-time linguistic criteria, the course of a neural function is necessarily fast, yet it cannot be automatic. Speaker or writer content cannot be told before reception of the spoken or written text.


Part the module or processing unit argument came with opinion on language learning and the “critical age”. It is commendable to mind the need for a proportionate time commitment to develop a language strategy. Brain tissue does not impose maturational time spans on language study. In linguistically diverse environments, with advancement in age, or simply following own interest, humans may decide to shape own language skill, especially if not contravening personally established or preferred phonologies and styles. Continuing the pursuit of linguistic permanence, universalist theories on language can be explored. Universals are posited to hold for all natural languages.


3.7. Universalist theories on language


Any written or spoken language is a possible realization of meaning. Humans can vary significantly in verbal response to environment or spontaneous and independent language production, text interpreting, translating, structuring or restructuring, semantic as well as syntactic revision. Search for language universals has inspired conflicting approaches, the “Cartesian” and “Leibnizian” ventures to have become vitally counter-indicative.


Anna Wierzbicka (1999), an acknowledged Polish Leibnizian, proposed a limited set of lexical items for “semantic primitives”.[71] She argumented the “elementary units of meaning” were universal and thus not subject to “semantic decomposition”. With syntax and semantics alone, the primitives were to form a “natural semantic metalanguage”.[72] The word list for all human languages would have had about sixty items to include “I” (Polish “ja”), “you” (Polish “ty” or “wy”), and “word” (Polish “słowo”).


Contrast to the approach may come with a perspective to language as a real-time phenomenon of also phonological value. English languages not only have forms homophonous[73] with the personal pronoun “I”, such as “eye”, or “aye”. They have the objective and dative cases, “me”. Syntactic valence[74] can negotiate word sense. The parameter has been joined with the lexical field[75] by Igor Burkhanov (1998), for example.


To take Polish for a comparison, the corresponding lexical items, “mi”, “mnie”, and “mną” will differ in syntactic valence, owing to the pro-drop parameter[76] of the Polish language. Ignoring the valence, the Polish “To ja” might translate into *”It is I”[77]. Further, the pro-drop parameter might allow interpreting  an utterance as “Ja nie wiem” for “It is not me to know”, when compared with “Nie wiem”,[78] “I don’t know”.


“Semantic primes” can be doubted on quantity as well as quality. Sixty items would make a severely impeded vocabulary, the lexical array to be unlikely also in an injured human.[81] Further, the psychological realities for lexeme experiential fields vary,[82] among languages as well as individual speakers. The personal pronoun “you” might be considered polysemous, when compared with the Polish “ty” for the second person singular, and “wy” for the second person plural.[83] The English lexical item “word” would correspond with the Hebrew “davar” that collocates closely with representations for motion and deed. In the psyche of a Greek, “logos” may connote reckoning as well as gathering (Kubiński, 1999).


Therefore, the “semantic primes” do not to bring universal meaning. Further, “semantic decomposition” would fragment or reduce word sense. The real-time, present-day, and standard language does not have the verb “to understand” for “standing under”, despite etymology. “Decomposition” would fail with the adjective “improbable”, as logically premised on discernment[84] as well as extance[85] of probability. Morphologically able to build on the prefix “im–” and the adjective “probable”, speakers cannot “extract” probability from improbability.


Ms. Wierzbicka’s concept of a “natural metalanguage” can be discussed with regard to Cartesian linguistics. René Descartes differentiated human language as not explicable in terms of stimuli or mechanics, from animal communication.[86] He also formulated on his existence as dependent on his thought: it is consciousness to allow the person to perceive own existence and thus to be.[88] His ideas influenced linguists to include Noam Chomsky (Akmajian et al., 1984). Approach to Cartesian linguistics can be selective, with regard to the concept of dichotomy.[89]


The physical structure of the brain is indispensable for there to be perceivable human language and thought.[90] The dual-loop feedback model of Figure 1 presents an ideational duality,[91] the same as Figure 6[92] model for neural network heterarchy. The illustrations yet do not present body-mind dualities, and they could not be concerned with dichotomies, for feedback functions to exist. The functions are constitutive in the models build.[92]


Computational models[94] for language, as deducing from Noam Chomsky, solicit comment on differences between artificial configurations and live tissue. The notion of the human person remains necessary at the cellular level of natural information processing, where there is ground to posit supra-cellular summation, though there is no premise to assume non-cellular processing. Natural language does not work as prescribed, software consecutions, and there is no brain site that would act as a server.


Further, mathematical or physicist operands would be an arbitrary ascription, to human live neural tissue as biological structures for psychological and linguistic activity. Wiktor Jassem hinted at a possibility for underlying paradigmatic[96] features, within generative phonology (1987). His example held the lexical item “to reduce” for potentially co-actuating phoneme /k/ paths, the phrase “to make a reduction” to be closely synonymous. Arguably, such co-actuation would be likely. Generally, the co-actuation process yet would depend on individual inner lexicons and grammars, for which an all-inclusive or universal, mathematical or physicist framework is not plausible, also owing the dynamic relationship between human language and thought.


Metalinguistic analysis differs Cartesian and Leibnizian stands essentially. Generative linguistics describes a metalanguage as knowledge on language structure and content. Even if intuitively, majority of language speakers are capable of telling nouns from verbs, or commenting on word collocations. The Leibnizian approach by Anna Wierzbicka attributes a superior meaning to a non-representative[97] set to fail with basic spatial percepts, as “up” or “down”, or major temporal reference, as the present, past, or future. Whether in syntax or in semantics, natural language universals never could come to actuality without human brains. Speculation on universality[98] of thought invites reasoning about human cognition.


3.8. Feedback phenomena and cognition


Human language, knowledge, as well as cognition require human consciousness for discernment, shaping, and practice. Human consciousness can be comprehended as perception of own existence, existence to connote a continued viability. A cognitive process would be that of awareness of own knowledge, the insight also to allow solving problems. To be universal, a cognitive process would need a statistically significant occurrence, such occurrence being impossible without individual humans


Personal self-sustainment motivates knowledge of own body position and posture. The skeletal muscle-spindle, mechanoreceptor, and vestibular or kinesthetic types of sense data make only part the neurophysiological component in human orientation for own body in physical space (Vander et al., 1985). Humans naturally build cognitive maps, already in early years of life.[99]


Human cognitive mapping is the skill for intellectively operating on spatial parameters of the environment (Puppel, 1996). The “cognitive map” or “cognitive maps”[100] into which a person organizes aspects of experience can contribute to his or her mental reality, that is, inner representation for own self in the world. The competence has been proposed for constituent in the sense of individual ego (Damasio, 2000).


Ontogenetically, the primary notions of “up” and “down” would ensue after those of “front” and “back”. The vertical axis and the horizontal plane are elementary percepts in all unimpeded persons. Cross-linguistic evidence for spatial properties in time expressions has encouraged the term of spatialization[101] (Maciejewski, 1996): unconnected natural languages have been found to project part the lexemic scope for space on expressions that reflect on time, “before” and “after” to make typical examples in English.[102]


The horizontal plane would preponderate in time expressions of Polish as well as Fula, the vertical axis to be prominent in Chinese.[103] Potentially locomotion and travel to bolster the horizontal mark for time as also in English, the[104] movement of the Sun might have inspired at least some of Chinese time expressions (ibidem). As Miller and Johnson-Laird put it (in Puppel, 1992), “The intimate relation of space and time concepts is most apparent in motion, which involves both spatial and temporal changes”.


A culture-independent core of cognizance all humans would have in common yet is improbable, and locution for time and space varies among languages (Maciejewski, 1996). Even basic discernment as for “up” and “down”, or “on” and “in”, may not only receive different lexical labels, but also depart in notionality, to compare Polish and English for the preposition on, the Polish na.[105] Familiar to all language speakers, basic spatial coordinates deny semantics universality, supporting varied expression in language standards.


Of controversial approaches to the language standard, Lev Vygotsky attempted to view human consciousness, language, and behavior as connected with reflexes, for permanence. In Vygotsky’s perspective, speech might inspire consciousness and thus the society, which had a potential to affect speech in turn.


Figure 7. Vygotskian interrelationship of society, speech, and consciousness (compare Pazukhin, 1996/97).

Figure 7. Vygotskian model


However, speech, consciousness, or society cannot subsist as abstract thoughts only. Knowledge of natural language cannot be purported without the personal, physically effective praxic intellect that partakes in linguistic competence as well as performance, perceivable intrapersonally and in the physical parameters of speech or writing.[107] The Vygotskian schema thus cannot apply to language standard. Human individuals become necessary at each of the nodes of Figure 7, natural language anthropomorphization[106] or programmed development within society to remain impracticable. Therefore, Figure 8 is proposed for a feedback model, cognition to denote intellectual processes along with ability to produce them, and language to include written discourse.


Figure 8. Feedback model for individual linguistic awareness.

Figure 8. Feedback model


The human ego as in Figure 8 is not to complement theories of the psychoanalytic unconscious. The theories are not relevant to grammar. This would be self-induced neural network stochastic actuation in which rather to seek spontaneous linguistic detail. The term ego is to invoke the human person as capable of evolving own language command, also with egocentric language.


The human individual to remain vital for linguistic permanence, Kozielecki (1995) proposed that humans were capable of forming “notional matrices”,[110] for abstract ideas as “triangularity”, or arbitrary sets to emerge in hypothesis making. As brain biological modes for thought, “matrices” might support language permanence. Not only speech sound patterns can be posited to derive from theory-shaping processes of language acquisition.[111] Natural language acquisition and learning should remain in the context of human language standards.


3.9. Language standards development or change


Language can be understood as a human faculty to consist of grammar, semantics, phonology, and graphemics.[112] Written forms of language need to correspond with the phonological component. Animal communication cannot qualify for language, in the strict sense. Though structured, animal signals lack lexical items and syntax, as well as speech sounds and phonology, thus being only codes. Machine codes would further fall short of natural language generative and creative features. New languages continue emerging on Earth.


Origins of language in the human species and on the planet can be placed in evolutionary perspectives. The exact process may never become known. Genetic and cytostructural properties of the human brain, also with focus to the Broca and Wernicke areas, are species-specific. However, genetic change is not inherent to language. Individual language learning and practice, as well as new languages development, do not require or bring genetic transformation.


A common root to all languages is unlikely, also the Proto-Indo-European study to lack coherence in the lexical scopes for households and people, used in language classing or grouping. Words as man, woman, child, or house may not have cross-linguistically cognate word shapes in “family” language sets, to compare Russian and Polish, for example.[113]


Established languages are not fixed realities. They change over time, as observed in diachronic linguistics. These have been mostly urban thriving, trade contact, or cultural and technological progress to commend new linguistic devices. Latin was brought to many European lands by military forces. English spelling, syntax, and semantics assumed Latin patterns via written resources, however. Transition from Old to Middle English having been associated with the Norman invasion, the Great Vowel Shift, with the broad range to embrace a formed national identity, would have been impossible without persons who spoke, read, and wrote.


Interpersonal rapport and trade continue to power new languages emergence, in modern cultures. Several or at least two languages to have contributed to their form, initially pidgin or Creole tongues happen to become official languages in new country states. Geopolitical conditions may modify governmental recognition of a tongue as a language or a dialect (Comrie et al., 1998). Regard to human faculties will have every dialect for a linguistic entity.[114]


Human writing has had, among others, cuneiform[116] and ideographic[115] notations as of ancient Sumer and Egypt, runes of Scandinavian and Celtic scripts, logographic[117] Chinese, as well as Arabic written representations (ibidem). The Cyrillic to have been widely reported a conscious human device,[118] the left-to-right linear ordering as also of the Latin alphabetic script already has been adapted for most, if not all, human notations. Top-down and right-to-left writing and reading of Chinese or Arabic for example, can show that notation is not universal.[119]


Therefore, these always would be circumstances of relative linguistic permanence in which to consider language universals and standards. “Notional matrices” might hold for systems of writing as arbitrary sets for encoding word sense and sound.[121] Matrix forming yet would be the same process for abstract ideas, whereas there are no abstract letters of alphabet, or speech sounds.[122] Language variance[123] to remain a fact, and the concept of an “archiphoneme”[124] an abstraction, neural schemata as internally formed and managed by a human person would remain the rationale flexible enough, for the observably dynamic reality of human language and speech.


3.10. Conclusions


Human inner dynamics have brought the matter of feedback or program priority, in linguistic behavior by humans as beings of an instinct to self-sustain. DNA programs are indispensable for the biological development that allows establishment and use of own linguistic skill. However, the development as well as sustainment would not be possible without feedback capableness, also biologically. Own language activity can be claimed constitutive to the human person, as a vital integrant of brainwork.


Natural language relies on feedback continually, for the parallel-distributed processing of sensory signals, neural network heterarchic coordination, selective focus as in orienting responses of linguistic component, or any neuro-motor behavior of spoken or written language. Volunteers of experimentally altered feedback ability experienced change or even loss of linguistic effectiveness without exception.


The physical structure of the human brain is always person-specific. Individual dynamics to have brought language permanence to focus, linguistic universals in semantics or syntax have been discussed, with regard to language standards. Anna Wierzbicka posited semantic universality about narrow referential dynamics. Lexical items as I or you yet would follow variance in lexeme semantic and experiential fields. Everyone, saying I or me, means a different person. Further, language skill does not occur without cognition, or coincidentally only with thinking. Neural complexity augments individuality factors, which allows doubt on universal thought processes also for syntax. Universality of thinking has not been Noam Chomsky’s postulate, however.


To deliberate on language and cognition, standards may differ in spatio-temporal wording, and diverge in manners to address notions as basic as the present, past, or future. Grammar tactics always needs to be learned, to retain language specificity. History of human linguistic development shows an extensive transfer of knowledge. Devices have been adopted as well as adapted, new languages to continue to emerge. Therefore, natural language can be perceived in terms of individual cognition, ingenuity, and inner logic, as expressible and learnable in language vocal and written forms. To promote good standards for education, criticism on Lev Vygotsky may be used to address tendencies to exteriorize human specificity from language perspectives (as also in Pazukhin, 1996, 1997).


The thesis information framework can support psycholinguistic opposition to behaviorism (Puppel, 1996), not only on grounds of human learning, but also language use. Analysis of language neural and psychological reality allows rejection of operant conditioning. Linguistic finesse would be impracticable with punitive methods, already at the neural level of human functioning to refer to inner equilibrium for agreeableness. Reward approach might encourage linguistic permanence (Akmajian et al., 1984), yet never as qualities set, program, or reflex. Formation of reflex response, conditional or unconditional, has been the objective of behaviorist study and manner.


“Phoneme restoration” as of the Warrens experiment has proved there are no formant absolute values for speech and language. Shortcomings of the masked, phonological component naturally would be overridden by syntax and semantic information types, language to become interpretable with achievement of thresholds for language information pools. Feedback-mediated linguistic performance would deny validity to sustaining artificial qualities in informed language perception as well. Inter-schematic and feedback-reliant threshold functions have been found also in endophasia, thus to decline operant-conditioned constituents for natural speech and language.


Spectra or ranges of variables rather than module fixed values to build individual idiolects, speech and language permanence further does not have the program properties for a finite system. Language segment forming and sequencing would only assist, as open-loop consolidation, in the actual neuro-behavioral priority for the human person to develop a feedback capableness, within own language skill. Focus to individual cognizance shall accompany the Chapter Four analysis on feedback and linguistic deficit, concluding the thesis exploration on feedback significance in human behavioral validity and language.


document translation




[1] Language proficiency: standard language competence and performance. Language standard is the acknowledged, educated language practice. Further, we might recognize language behaviors as “sub-standard”, we yet never have “supra-standard” language. We have academic or creative language styles.


[2] The chapter examines if biologically or instinctively we would rather make neural programs or build feedback abilities, for language.


[3] Universalist: an approach to propose universals, generally held concepts, notions, or principles. All universals are purported to be principles, not all principles are universals.


[4] Language permanence: human ability to comprehend as well as produce language at similar or same levels and of similar or same linguistic qualities.


[5] Psycholinguistics has behavior for volitional, exteroceptive, and definable activity. Our thought processes are not behavior. Neither would errors or mistakes be. Terms as “purposed error” or “error on purpose” would not hold ground, volitional behavior outside the linguistic default or language standard to be potentially correct, dependent on particular contexts.


[6] Conscious correlate: associations of awareness. If perceivable to the person at all, non-specific sensation tends to induce conscious correlates. For example, a person may have a dish with chives, never having had the spice before. He or she may ask what it is to give the mild, onion-like taste. Correlates may differ, among persons.


[7] Present in both hemispheres, the nuclei receive inputs from the retinas and the brainstem reticular formation, making inputs for cortical visual processing. The nuclei may participate in shifting focus between eyesight and other senses (Vander et al., 1985).


[8] Fovea centralis is widely associated with clarity of vision, yet retinal cells all are specialized. The peripheral visual field prioritizes movement, for example. Please discern the retina and reticulate from reticular structures that occur in the body besides the eyes.


[9] Fixation of gaze: ability to hold a line of vision.


[10] The pupils would enlarge with bigger scopes of information. Pupil width is outside conscious control. Measurement only can apply in targeted, detailed studies, as pupils change also with luminosity, pain, and other factors.


[11] Angular gyri: the left gyrus also may be known as Brodmann area 39. For persons with brain left hemispheric dominance for language, it may help phrasing for visualization and abstract thought. The right gyrus is vital in cognitive mapping.


[12] Touch receptors neighbor on sites for active touch. For example hiking, we may feel pressure, water, or excess warmth on our fingers, and palpate for a better position, even before we have a look.


[13] All senses connect with efferent capacities, which yet need to be learned via feedback exercise. Hearing can be moderated only with behavioral control, as use of headphones or ear plugging.


[14] Not innate, acquired after birth, during lifespan.


[15] The nervous system learns to use neural copies for afferent coordination.


[16] Please compare chapter 1.9.


[17] Combined sensory information, for example hearing and vision.


[18] By standard, we can tell the vertical from the horizontal regardless of concurrent body position.


[19] Amygdala, plural amygdalae: nuclei clusters in each temporal lobe to connect closely with frontal lobes associative cortex, to influence decision making, memory, attention, homeostasis, and volitional responses (Vander et al., 1985).


[20] Eventuate: to come in consequence.


[21] Persons under the emotional adversity would retain limited vocabularies only. “Express” connections are not an advantage.


[22] “The rule of force” says the neural paths we use more often or prioritize for emotional or intellectual value are stronger. These paths might “take over”, when time or neural abilities are limited. Goleman observed that emotional “hijacks” did not give universal results.


[23] Locus, plural loci: Latin, the (exact) location, as in the phrase the locus of control. There are no universal brain maps. Humans differ in sizes and connectivity of brain regions. Further, there are neural information pool phenomena. Particular language patterns do not have to activate the same neurons every time. We also can think about hidden functions of language, as in the sentence: Exact loci of the command neurons for particular neuro-motor sequences in language production have never been, and further may remain undiscerned. The meaning is the loci have never been discerned.


[24] Cortical neurons communicate with the articulators and start working after they get afferent feedback. For example, we would be unable to speak without feeling our tongues at all.


[25] Communication between command neurons and articulators is not controlled by select fibers only, which is not because there would be a prohibitive limit on fiber length: an axon can be even a meter long or longer (Vander et al., 1985). Multineuronal communication most probably helps compensation (ibidem). Please compare chapter 1.5 on reflex and voluntary behavior, for interneurons.


[26] Alpha motor neurons: neurons to control extrafusal muscle fibers. Extrafusal fiber: Latin exter, outside, fusus, spindle: muscle fiber outside the muscle spindle. Muscle spindle: also called a stretch receptor, an enveloped group of muscle fibers within the muscle to monitor muscle length. Intrafusal fiber, from Latin intra, within: muscle fiber within the muscle spindle.


[27] Gamma motor neurons: neurons to innervate intrafusal fibers. Alpha and gamma motor neurons are most often co-activated together (Vander at al., 1985).


[28] A neuron to convey impulses towards a synapse is a presynaptic neuron. A single neuron can be presynaptic to one cell and postsynaptic to another (Vander et al., 1985).


[29] Details of multineuronal function are not known. We can tell from experience there has to be synaptic sequencing, by the human potential for slips of tongue for example, hence the term “path”.


[30] When we acquire a language routine, as saying [th] for example, we do not have to focus on the way to make the speech sound every time we speak. We can have the routines for open-loop sequences. They also happen to be called reflexes or neural programs, as the nervous system executes them “in one go”.


[31] Articulatory or speech plan: the neural predesign to speak, whether in a few words or giving a long exposé. The plans are not programs. We form them when we think what we want to say. Speech plans avail of open-loop sequences, yet they depend continually on feedback with brain neocortex.


[32] Everyone is capable of illogicality, yet syntax always employs brain logic. People may differ in linguistic advancement, as well as be of very similar levels.


[33] Feedback remains active at the realization phase. It allows the speaker to correct own utterance or rephrase it even at the very time of speaking.


[34] Realization phase: after neural planning, the stage of actually speaking.


[35] Exophasia, from Greek ekso, outer, external, and phasis, utterance, expression: audible speech


[36] Inner speech is not internal locution. Norman Geschwind was a behavioral neurologist in times MRI imaging did not exist. He proposed there was an internal monologue, among brain natural functions. Brain imaging shows there would not be such a process, please compare chapter 1.9. footnote 84, and 3.1. here, on sensory signal processing by the human brain. I cannot agree on the “internal monologue” also from introspection. The inner language faculty is capable of compact and highly economical inner activity that can work without the spoken or written neural planning, however.


[37] Terminus: boundary, landmark. Please discern it from termination. To regard progress and advantage, let us mind language acquisition. Initially, children learn by “talking to oneself”, via egocentric speech. The neuro-motor component is indispensable and may precede inner convergence, compare chapter 2.7. With inner language, thought and language processes in the brain do not depend on neuro-motor formulation. Naturally, the terminus does not forbid further progress in enrichment of own linguistic resources.


[38] Please compare chapters 1.6., on relevant neural patterns, 2.2., on the closed-loop processes of neural network formation, and 2.7., on egocentric speech.


[39] Endophasia, from Greek endo, within, phasis, also view, decision, information: inner language, a non-vocal form.


[40] Research on brain maturation would tell about “brain plasticity”, the developmental time span within which it is best to learn language. The span would end at ages 14 or 15. However, humans become linguistically adept about twenty years of age, further language work potentially to add to prowess. Effects of language study may depend on brain developmental stages, as well as the time and focus we give to linguistic activity.


[41] Autoreflection, formed from Greek autos, self-oriented (please discern from automatic): self-oriented consideration over own functioning.


[42] Speech organ trace activity: activity on minute aspects of audible speech, as when an accountant sums up and whispers [sᵊnd f^i] for “one thousand five”. Inner language may not have auditory actualization at all.


[43] The nervous system is classed into the central nervous system (CNS) to include the brain and spinal cord, and the peripheral nervous system (PNS). The autonomic nervous system (ANS) is a subdivision of the PNS (Vander et al., 1985).


[44] Centripetal, from Latin centralis, central, and petere, to make for a destination, to seek: forwarding impulses to the CNS.


[45] Centrifugal, from Latin fugere, to run, pursue outward from: forwarding impulses from the CNS. We always initiate our speech and language within our CNS.


[46] Activational carry-over: additional transfer of actuation, please mind chapter 1.9., and language neural overlap.


[47] Please compare chapter 1.6, on relevant pattern formation and dependence on feedback.


[48] Intrinsic: belonging within a structure; also essential.


[49] Please compare chapter 2.3 on interschematic communication. Naturally, we do not have a memory record for everything we say, or would say. We yet must remember our language knowledge, to tell if our skill meets our standard.


[50] Heterarchy, formed on Greek, heteros, varied, not uniform, and hieros, high, and archo, rule, as in hierarchy: not limited to top-down influence, and not anarchical.


[51] The use of the word schematic here is an example of polysemy. A graphic schema can be a diagram, or a shape we associate with geometric regularity. A neural schema might be not symmetrical at all, bringing together neural connections for a type of process.


[52] Deterministic: active in goal-oriented neural activity; not stochastic.


[53] Philosophical speculation on theory, poesis, and praxis as by Plato and Aristotle may help think about the symbolic and sub-symbolic interconnectedness. Human species has been capable of introspectively analyzing own network function by standard.


Evolution of word sense also is a network-mediated process. We can view theor―, prakt―, and compare the Greek poieo in Perseus word study tool.


[54] Polysemous: having more than one meaning.


[55] As described in chapter 1.9.


[56] Hippocampus: part of the limbic system indispensable for formation of declarative memories (Vander et al., 1985). The name comes from similarity with seahorse. Illustrations: Wikimedia Commons, hippocampus next to a seahorse, and hippocampus animation.


Human hippocampus next to a seahorse, Wikimedia Commons.



[57] Diencephalon: part the forebrain to forward thalamic and brainstem reticular inputs about select aspects of the environment to the frontal lobes, it moderates cortical activation for consciousness. Diencephalon is prerequisite in formation of declarative memories, along with the hippocampus and amygdala (Vander et al., 1985). Illustration: Wikimedia Commons, Diencephalon.




[58] Pupillometric curve: diagrammatic presentation of change in pupil width. Illustration: Peer J, Intrasaccadic perception.


Pupillometric curve


[59] The test involved utterances that were correct in syntax and distorted in word sense.


[60] Impermeable: impenetrable, unyielding to outside processes.


[61] Nativism: the stand that language is innate, we have language abilities at birth, as in a “black box”.


[62] Empiricism: the stand that all language has to be learned, we are born as “blank slates”.


[63] The persons were presented with recordings that masked part the speech sounds. Even when the persons knew the recordings had substitutions, they continued to interpret the words as if containing standard speech sounds.


[64] Also with many persons talking, people can focus on conversation.


[65] We do not speak in isolated speech sounds. The [s] as in “books” will become a [z] in “keys”. Our [æ] in the words “tap”, “pat”, or “bag” will show differently on spectrogram. Illustration: sample spectrogram, Praat,


Spectrogram for RESEARCH PROJECT


[66] Allophone: a variant of a phoneme, that is, a speech sound. If we place a thin sheet of paper in front of our mouth and say poll and nap, we will notice the sheet is blown with the p in poll more.


[67] I changed my handwritten (ɑ) to (a), to avoid ambiguity in transcription.


[68] Transformation: change, also as part natural linguistic processes, please compare Transformational Grammar and Noam Chomsky. Reading articles about generative grammar, please note that the grammar is not to transform existent utterances. It is to help generate language.


[69] There is no abstract cognition. Every person needs own competence.


[70] We make our language skill for ourselves. We yet learn various letter shapes to read handwriting or print styles. We also learn to comprehend spoken language despite differences in voice, manner, or accent.


[71] Primitive, from Latin primitivus, the first or earliest of its kind, elemental, not derived from something else, primary or basic.


[72] Metalanguage: vocabulary to talk or write about language. Please compare the Greek meta–, on, about.


[73] Homophones, from Greek homo, the same, and phone, sound. Words to sound the same, but to spell and mean differently.


[74] Syntactic valence: the capacity of a word to combine with other words in utterances and sentences.


[75] Lexical field: an approach in linguistics to recognize words as related with other words. For example, the words hot and cold are antonyms. The antonymy works literally for physical temperature. It can work also in metaphors, as “a hot name for a new company” or “a cold welcome”.


[76] Pro-drop languages: those to drop personal pronouns and include structure head information in the verb form. For example, the Polish Ja mówię could mean It is me to say. The Polish Mówię could translate as I’m saying or I say.


[77] The present-day English has the form It is me for standard.


[78] „Nie wiem” means I do not know. „Nie wiesz” means You do not know. „Nie wiemy” means We do not know. „Nie wiedzieliśmy” means We did not know, etc. Personal pronouns, as I (in Polish ja), or you (Polish ty), we (my), are not always required in Polish. The information can be conveyed in the form of the verb.


[79] Please compare chapter 1.7, on pool phenomena in neurophysiological compensation and auricular obstruction.


[80] We always need the context to interpret language. The thesis follows with “semantic primes” to include the Hebrew word “davar”, see over Biblical Hebrew E-Magazine. We can compare word build and semantics for the Greek log–, to make logos, word, as well as reckoning, see over Perseus word study tool.


[81] The list of “primes” had categories and words as follows: [Substantives] I, you, someone, person, people; [Relational substantives] something, thing, body, kind, part; [Determiners] this, the same, other; [Quantifiers] one, two, some, all, many, much; [Evaluators] good, bad; [Descriptors] big, small; [Mental predicates] think, know, want, feel, see, hear; [Speech] say, words, true; [Actions, Events, Movement, Contact] do, happen, move; [Existence, Possession] there is, exist, have; [Life and Death] live, die; [Time] when, time, now, before, after, a long time, a short time, for some time, moment; [Space] where, place, here, above, below, far, near, side, inside, touch (contact); [Logical Concepts] not, maybe, can, because, if; [Intensifier, Augmenter] very, more; [Similarity] like, way.


[82] We associate words with own experience, which also may be our reading experience. Therefore, we can speak same languages and vary in associations.


[83] Naturally, we easily tell if we speak with one person or a number of people. The core sense of the pronoun “you” would be that of [not me].


[84] Discernment: insightful perception, but also recognition from a difference.


[85] Extance, from Latin exstare, to extend, to remain in existence.


[86] Please note on the semantic shift since ancient Greek, in which automatos connoted people acting spontaneously, out of own will, and the word automaton could mean an accident. The present-day word automatic refers to mechanical works as not requiring propelling, or manually operating by a human.


[87] Cogito ergo sum, I think therefore I am, stated René Descartes.


[88] We could not tell we exist if we were unable to think about own existence.


[89] Dichotomy, from Greek dichotomia, dividing in two. See over Perseus word study tool.


[90] We could not have minds without bodily brains, for all known earthly circumstances.


[91] Egocentric and environmental feedback are the ideas to organize the figure.


[92] Thought and deed could be named for the organizing ideas in Figure 6.


[93] If we dichotomize the organizing ideas, we lose the feedback process. Then, we have no presentation for functions observable within human minds and bodies, as well as between people.


[94] The models pattern after human neurophysiology, yet humans do not even resemble artificial processing, whether in language learning or remedial. The models have been of use in computer sciences.


[95] Naturally, we do not have to produce new languages, to generate language. However, even if we say “good morning”, it is not because we remember somebody saying the same. Our adaptation to conventional language will depend on the weather and other circumstances.


[96] Paradigm: pattern for related language forms, mostly of high occurrence. If we think about the lexical field, we can see the words “to reduce” and “reduction” as related. Most people associate the grammatical categories of verbs and a nouns.


[97] The list of “semantic primitives” does not include basic words for space, as on, at, up, down, etc.


[98] Processes that would be self-same in many humans, psychologically and neurophysiologically.


[99] Neurophysiology is not sufficient to declare that a process is universal, especially cognitively.


[100] For example, we may comprehend directions to get to a place easier, when a person shows the way as if from above or on a map, mapping cognitively.


[101] Spatialization, from Latin spatium, space, extent: use of part the words and phrases we associate with place to regard time as well. The linguistic sense has nothing to do with Marxist ideas, or psychophysical concepts of “social space”. As an intellectual capacity , cognitive mapping cannot depend on keeping company.


[102] We can say “before that turn” (about place), as well as “before ten” (about time).


[103] A horizontal axis would tell about before and after a time; a vertical perspective would have times up and down.


[104] The movement of the Sun: solar movement as apparent to people on Earth. If we believed the Sun moves around the Earth, we would say “movement of the Sun”, without the definite article.


[105] Both Polish and English would place objects on tables, yet we could meet an acquaintance “on a street” in Polish, and in a street in English.


[106] Anthropomorphize, from Greek anthropos, human, morphe, shape: to give a human shape to a concept, as in Medieval presentations of human vice or virtue as human persons. In a discourse, anthropomorphization can be a figure of speech.


[110] Notional matrix, from Latin matrix, origin, source: conceptual blueprint, design. The argument is we tell also distorted or quasi-triangles as triangles. Quasi, from the Latin quasi, “as if”, having some semblance only.


[111] Except difficulty, children learn by guessing what speech sounds are spoken in what words.


[112] Graphemics, from Greek graphe, drawing and delineation, writing: the letters and letter combinations that represent a phoneme, as f, ph, and gh for the phoneme /f/ (AHD4).


[113] For example, in Russian we say zshenshchina for a woman; in Polish kobieta. Children are riebiata in Russian, and dzieci in Polish.


[114] A person speaking a dialect speaks a language, still.


[115] Ideographic: based on visual representations of ideas, as Egyptian glyphs.


[116] Cuneiform, from the Latin cuneus, a wedge: elaborating on wedge-like shapes for notation.


[117] Logographic: also viewed as pictures sometimes, logographs base on word sense.


[118] Antiquity knew attempts to limit literacy by holding graphemics for sacred. In ancient Egypt, writing symbols were called hieroglyphs, “holy glyphs”. Of all known scripts, records on the origin of the Cyrillic are the most precise. It was developed in the Preslav Literary School, and named to honor two saints, Cyril and Methodius.


[119] People do not differ much in walking, which can be considered an innate potential. People yet can vary considerably in writing and speaking, also within standard.


[121] The letters or sounds h-o-u-s-e are not a house, and it is brainwork to associate words and meaning. Let us take the Japanese maneki-neko, the popular figurine of a beckoning cat. The Japanese name does not have the word shape “cat” in it, same figurines also to be called lucky, happy, fortune, or money cats. Word sense depends on associations.


[122] Letter shapes and speech sounds need to be real, that is, to have proper physical parameters, within spectra allowing recognition and comprehension.


[123] There hardly would be a language to have a one-to-one correspondence for letters of alphabet and speech sounds. We say gist, but also gift, for example. Further, people can vary in accents, intonation, and wording, within standard.


[124] Archiphoneme: an abstract concept of a neutralized speech sound. Language pragmatics stays with schwa [] for a reduced vowel, for example.