General conclusions

Of the many definitions of feedback, those of output return, effect reversal, or acoustic interference have been widely used, with regard to mechanical devices. Psychological meaning to be that of evaluative behavior, feedback has become associated with guidance or viewpoints.[1] Neurology began applying the term of information processing to human bodily structures in the XX century.

The notion of feedback has been adapted for cybernetics,[2] the Greek kybernan to denote steering or governing. Artificial intelligence remains a secondary application, capable of patterning after human insight only to an extent. Hodgkin-Huxley mathematical model having lost prominence for life sciences, the cellular processes as discovered by the researchers remain a fact, feedback to be a closed-loop capability over open-loop sequences.

For the conclusions without footnotes, go to Conclusions post

Psycholinguistics gained prominence in 1960s, opposing behaviorism (Puppel, 1996). The framework for the present quest, the discipline has been defined as a study of the relationships between linguistic behavior and psychological processes, including language acquisition (New Oxford Dictionary of English, 1998). Encyklopedia Językoznawstwa Ogólnego would enclose language teaching and remedial with the field (1993). The study of psychological reality of language, as recognized also by the Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language (1989), does not abstract from language neural matter.

Human nervous systems can be viewed as natural information management structures. The tenets of option, information pool, program, feedback, and signal use are met within the human internal structuring by standard. Natural language is indispensable for human logical functioning, comprehension and production to depend on neural processes. Feedback reliance is a natural principle for live human systems.

Feedback phenomena are intrinsic to single neurons as well as systemic dynamics, of the central and autonomic co-operating for situational and individual stereotypes, or the cortical and subcortical negotiation for the spoken or written act. Regard to feedback is not to encourage pursuits for a uniform[3] neural model for language, human speech and language to be a natural faculty by a human person.

Individual, personality factors emerge already at the level of language cerebral patterns.[4] The patterns and their networks are not innate or inborn structures, but actual neural connections every person needs to form on his or her own. Consequently, there is no universal neural format for language, and no such model can become of function for personal linguistic strategies.

Strategy language styling and structuring depends on personal free will. The generative and spontaneous capability uses open-loop consecutions for language that can compare with programs, yet need to be formed in feedback-mediated exercise of goal-oriented behavior. The laws of learning by Edward Lee Thorndike are consistent with natural neural networking, in which personal congruity is an inherent component.

Human earliest vocal behavior is innate. As instinctively, humans begin own inner networking, in the egocentric feedback of circular reactions. Throughout lifespan, an essentially closed-loop manner can be observed about human learning.[5] Human persons to be dynamic entities rather than layers or scopes of actuation, cognitive processes would require use of own inner input.[6] Timing would be indispensably intrinsic for all intellectual performance, human working memory possibly to partake in inner feedback. Stimulation, as a unidirectional influence, would be incapable of feedback functions.[7]

Behaviorist approaches can be doubted also on grounds of the inner heterarchy carry-over of endophasia. For human language skill overall, feedback as sustained in neural pattern build would allow verification as well as change in language existent neural compass, and provide for the neuro-motor-articulatory feedforward. All natural languages permanence is relative, to include phonology along syntax and semantics, in the notion of a language standard.

“Mind modularity”, “language universals”, or “notional matrices” cannot account for the language pool phenomena of the Warrens experiment. It would be feedback-mediated attainment of language information thresholds to explain the results: the masked component concealed actual phonemes. Not only on these grounds, feedback reliance can be considered a neuro-behavioral priority for natural language. Open-loop sequences or routines would be formed to encourage neural economy and thus make more allowance for feedback and related responsiveness, as proved by Ladefoged. Grammars would be projects by individual minds flexibly to apply within personal linguistic strategies.

Feedback intrinsicality becomes a sound conclusion with regard to permanent hindrance, as well. Re-orienting would follow natural feedback compensation in persons of inborn and acquired sensory impediment. Remedial in mental language processing always solicits personal awareness and language egocentric feedback. Behavior validity may never become negotiated in the learning deficient, without autonomous concordance. The extreme of the “fragmented thought” of schizophrenia implies defects in intrinsic timing to express in phonologically driven discourse.

These are not only human cognition and language to need natural inner feedback. Human DNA depends on cellular feedback for active protein, in the course of the human endeavor to comprehend own structure, this being already Lamarck to note on organism adaptation (The New Oxford Dictionary of English, 1998). Human endurance under feedback impoverishment has been reported lower than for fasting, and of sensory expression (Lindsay and Norman, 1991).[8] Parallel-distributed information processing by human brains holds in standard as well as non-standard contexts, yet impediment, obstruction, or deficit cannot prescribe on norm.[9] Therefore, the role of feedback in language processing can be posited to approximate a drive.

Psychologically, a drive is an inner urge to stimulate response, incite or repress action, as well as a basic and instinctive need (Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, 1989). The instinctual nature of feedback reliance would be strongest in neural, inner extents, interference or limitation potentially to induce biological search for variables. In environmental scopes, dependence on feedback would lessen with language maturation and personal independence.

Not connoted with stress or fear in civilized circumstances, speech and language always remain a basic human need, and as such relate to self-sustainment. Natural feedback in language thus would have the role of an initiating, mediating, and modeling factor. This would be the self-preservation instinct to promote individual flexibility and competence[10] for progress and advancement.

Final comment

The structure, In the course of the human endeavor to comprehend own structure, this being already Lamarck to note …, was marked as an error, at my defense.

I preserve the original for fairness, and to explain that time also has had linear representations. Compare the world history timeline, illustration James Logan AP World History Website —

World history timeline

Viewing developments as on a line, I think I do not have to mark antecedence. Further, I do not consider myself participant in the development (Lamarck’s study), or imagine some generally course or current of time everyone would be part in, and that I believe also was a factor to encourage the temporal reference.

Feel welcome to my grammar course, 🙂

document translation

[1] The phrase to give someone feedback means to provide an opinion, an informed view. Only solicited opinion in standard verbal form may work as feedback.

[2] Cybernetics: theory of control in biology, mechanics, and electronics.

[3] The degree of uniformity as in medical sciences, where the doctor tells the standard heart rate or respiratory capacity, would not apply for language. Some people speak volumes, some prefer written language activity, and some hardly get involved with language. There is no ground to term any of the predilections abnormal.

[4] Already individual ways to shape letters of the alphabet vary. The neural patterns to mediate handwritten (ɑ) or (e) can differ from those to mediate (a) or (ε). Please compare chapter 3.6 for graphemic variance.

[5] Please compare chapter 2.8.

[6] Please compare chapter 2.4, on the role of circular reactions.

[7] Even low-level verbal stimulation could not provide for inner language.

[8] Please refer to chapter 1.8 and the pool model for internal balance preservation. With partial deprivation only, the endurance was about 48 hours (Lindsay and Norman, 1991).

[9] An approach to have deprivation for a measure would have us developing innumerable “drives”. Naturally, a figure of speech as a drive for knowledge could sound natural. “A drive for a good cup of coffee” would not, unless humorous.

[10]The term competence follows Noam Chomsky’s notion that all humans have language competence and performance. The use is not to imply school assessment.