But before doing this we need to look in ' 1 greater detail at the systematic expression of this instinct namely the language system itself, Summary I have attempted to illustrate In dtis chapter die use fulness of the Whiteheadian notions concrescence actual occasion and 'subjective aim' in describing the processes involved in the attainment of specific communicative purposes within one particular type of discourse frame.
The ' ' basic unit is thus teleologically organized, constraining the largely indeterminate input1 to what is relevant for the attainment of its purpose and resulting in a determinate, unitary output, which may uol salisfy the aim entirely but will objectify it maximally tor future occasions along the life line of the individua.. These units combine both afferent and efferent processes and may thus reflect psychological processing rather more realistically than models which divorce comprehension and production from each other and do not allow for their interlinked overlap ' in actual discourse.
(PDF) Process Ontologies | Johanna Seibt - essparongescha.ga
The way the subject of an actual occasion here a speaker at any one moment in time sets about trying to attain the satisfaction of his or her aim is through combining relevant varieties of the basic experiential process of prehension which ranges from simple physical perteption up to highly abstract acts of judgment How particular aims trigger particular types of prehension to attain their ends has been illustrated through a constrained game situation in order to simplify the demon strati on, but the principles involved can be extended, it is relatively clear in such a framework what information the participants need to absorb in order to keep their respective mental models of ' ' ' 1 , ' 1.
Both reflect essential aspects of discourse behaviour and yet have proved difficult to com bine in the past. The felicity and well-formedness of utterances can then be described in terms of felt prehensional matches rather than o! This is something not so easy to achieve following monoplanar approaches which do not regard social norms or conventions and the working out of individual on-line purposes as conceivable input to one and the same process. This perspective contains the further potential benefit to speech act theory of allowing the limited array of illocutionary acts available within a given language as reflected in its systematic coding to be placed within the broader field of intentional language use.
Indirect speech acts in context can be analysed in terms of hybrid prehensions' fbasec on shared norms and expectations as well as physical contiguity plus specific conceptual reversions1 afforded by the given situation: what is called forth from a vague shared background' to solve isd hoc communicative needs is in most cases a blend of known patterns of behaviour and novel insight. In fact, this suggests that not only language-as-pat tern but also logic is emergent: what we see in the game token analysed in this chapter is an ongoing process whereby player B is learning from experience, abstracting useful strategy types from heuristic attempts to fuliil his game-defined purpose.
The general approach could fruitfully be extended into other specific areas of discourse analysis and modelling. An investigation of a variety of different ' ' ' ' 1 , ' ' 1. The chaining and ;iLi;i pens ion oftuinplox intemion;v. Natural logic in action, rational algorithmic reflecting the type of inference and judgment that takes different situation a I frames, can be investigated from this angle witlmuL I he help of the kind of diagramming I have proposed in this but not place in with or chapter.
Shop Pattern And Process A Whiteheadian Perspective On Linguistics Human Cognitive Processing 2002
Symbols arc islands of relative certainty in a sea of meaning - although determinate in shape and " 1 extent themselves, their coastlines are infinite to invoke a Chaos Theory image. They are the hard currency of thought.
Linguistic signs may not only activate various kinds of images and schemata, they may also be replaced by other words or paraphrases at various levels of abstraction or speeifieity. In the following sections 1 shall concentrate on the systematic relationship between the levels and units of linguistic codes as such, and their relationship to the broader Whiteheadian world of nexus organized in societal levels.
This is possible - and efficient - because of their digital relational nature they consist of combinations of a limited set of contrasting units. Iking opaque, such a cbrain code could not consciously be used by its users at all, it would just operate at some inscrutable level: like genes. This ' ' may be somewhat of a dead horse these days, but infelicitous uses of the words code and "language1 still slip batk into use. These Whitehead would never have conflated in terms 1 ' ' ' ' ' of symbol ism. Let me focus tor a while on the 'form' side ol the classical Saussurean ' structural notion of the dual coding of the linguistic sign - strings of phonemes corresponding to strings of meaning-bearing morphemes composed of the formei- on the content side.
I shall endeavour to show how this slots into a White headi an 'pattern and process1 view of language as regards phonology and then morphology. One important difference should be pointed out immediately however, and that is; whereas the Saussurean 'sign1 combines 'sigiufic and 's mfrm? He certainly viewed 'causal efficacy as more course-grained than presentational immediacy the latter being an emergent prerequisite of symbolic behaviour , but course-grained is not equivaient to amorphous. J ' ' should emphiuiize once again that in both chapters but especially in the present one I shall be presenting my own interpretation of Whiteheads basic ideas as applied to the arena of language: he did not spell very much of this out in detail himself, let alone relate it to contemporary linguistics as such.
In this he is closer in spirit to Jakobsont for whom linguistic synchrony reflected in hiugae is not a static but a dynamic reality one that contains a multiplicity of sub-codes or styles K and for whom the phoneme - by virtue of its meaning-distinguishing function within morphemes - is itself a functional dynamic unit, whose abstract invariance nnt st always be seen against a background of variation f jakobson ; ff.
Similar books and articles
It can nevertheless be stated that language viewed as a system of structural oppositions or contrasts harmonizes well with Whitehead s view of how eternal objects relate to each other another matter I shall return to in Chapter y. Their ingression in actual instances of use corresponds to the Jakobsonian view ' ' 1 ' of the interdependence between laugue and parole.
The question of immediate interest here is the status of phonological units and rules from an extrapolated VVhitehead ran perspective. This he did in terms of distinctive features' the Atoms' of which its more abstract phonemic molecules consist. From a Whiteheadian process viewpoint, both the acoustical-perceptual and the articulatory-motor aspects of ' 5 56 Pattern and Processi phonological coding are essential and complementary lust as speech production and comprehenMon in general they are not just mirror images the one of the other, as generalivists tend to view the relationship.
The context as circumscribed by the subjective aim of the concrescence will successively remove by negative prehensions all aspects of the signal that are not relevant to that abstraction process.
Pattern and Process: A Whiteheadian Perspective on Linguistics (Human Cognitive Processing)
One is reminded here of buhler's 'principle of abstractive relevance1 fBtihler ff. In production mode, the phonological representation of the utterance to be produced using the same phonemic coding as lexical representations in memory will activate the relevant articulatory motor agendas for its production Irrespective of the acoustical nature of the signal which the hearer must in turn analyse.
The acoustical signal may in turn be monitored by the speaker as ongoing feed back fin order to fine time production. Spoken words - or rather the individual morphemes of which they consist may be regarded as societies ol phonemes, which can be defined in terms of distinctive features a species of eternal objects that can hardly themselves be regarded as constituting a still lower form of society Bear in mind that ] am talking here of tokens rather than the corresponding types. Kor Whitehead fas for Jakob son the role of context - the relational essence of linguistic form is critical If he had specific a My addressed the question of the speech signal, he would quite probably have talked in terms of vowel-plus-consonant combinations i.
They are thus both abstract and psychologically real, which is just what the generativists would want - but this is also what Sapir already claimed for his general phonetic elements1 Sapir 54 ff. More than one level of abstraction may be - ' ' H 1 ' ' psychologically relevant ioi hingijagei with highly complex phonologies like Danish , but speakers of all languages must surely abstract relevant phonetic contrasts-in-contexts across nil manner of variation on at least one approximately equivalent level of analysis.
Moving up a level in our brief purview of kinds of linguistic generalization! Whether it makes sense to speak of a distinct societal sub- level of morphemes which are organised into whole words at a still higher societal level depends on language type - obviously it is not particubrly relevant for thorough-going isolating languages ' At the interface between this and the preceding phonological level there is a special type of generalization that can be made about relations between the two levels levels, note, not autonomous modules , namely morphophonological ones.
These state the alternation in phonemic form of the morphemes ingredient in the words of the higher level, according to context phonological or otherwise. Also purely phonological rules may depend on lexical information from an entirely different level1, for example the stress-assignment rules for English distinguish between native Anglo-Saxon and borrowed 1 Latmate1 words.
They may also be affected by discourse context cf allegro style elisions of schwa in l:rench, etc. They may al o he in a slate of diachronic flux, in which case there maybe widespread redundancy between abstracted generalizations and representations of individual lexical variation. Redundancy of this kind in any case no problem for a Whiteheadian approach since it does not seek to separate strictly the synch ionic from the diachronic; both kinds ofgeneralization 'rules' and historical processes leaving their residue in synchrony can coexist within the same complex 'society-of-societies'.
In the actual generation or comprehension of speechH however, it follows from the Whiteheadian framework that processes at the various stages of ' ' " 5 Partcm iiitd Pi'octss produL-uon on analyiis of a speech signal cannot bo clearly isolated one from ttw other, although the difterent societal levels1 jnvoKred are distinct enough. This ' is because higher level context is almost always oing to be relevant to lower levels and we vcrw - and all levels ultimately leak1 and interact.
Processes leading to the recognition of chains of phonemes in a speech signal, for example, cannot he seen in isolation from processes leading to the recognition of meaningful units - morphemes - behind such chains, or indeed from still higher level processing. This can he reiterated at successively more abstract levels f from phoneme to syllable to word, etc.
Thus at the level of the phoneme, variation of pitch anc. In speech production, in turn, one can easily envisage forward planning at the highest level in the form, for example, of a rough sketching out of an overall syntactic template around a predicate frame or lemma1 , which is gradually rilled in and modi tied as the chain of speech is elaborated at lower levels.
As for the meshing of Whitehead's system with an overall theory of semiotics, there are suitable places for Peircean indices and icons as well as for symbols in various blends in the complex semiotic web that is language from a Whiteheadian viewpoint. Another important Peiicean notion that finds its natural counterpart in Whitehead's system is that of the Intej-pretant tlie conceptual meaning mediating between sign and referent complementing the basic Saussurean dichotomy at signific and sigtufiatit. This is particularly important in the case of symbols sin e they are dependent on social convention- Symbols may be interpretants of indices, which in turn may be interpretsnts of icons.
Both philosophers lay emphasis on the contextually determined interpretive processes involved i. A degree of imagistic' iconicity in language is to be expected if the same LpropositionaI instinct' lies behind the perception of images and the verbal expression of propositional relationships. To summarise the three-way distinction in While he ad Kin terms: grasping an icon is a matter of recognizing a similarity to some pattern previously 1 experienced, as achieved by an imaginative prehension, say - essentially a negative matter of precluding other possible but less salient similarities but not resulting in any funher interpretation.
The relationship to simple conceptual valuation is still rather close. Finally, grasping a sign as a symbol involves recognizing an arbitrary standing for relationship - essentially metaphorical - between the sign and the intended referent. Symbols fall into mutual patterns amongst themselves [their 'sense1 according to Krege Ifi92 largely independent of their referential potential for denotation - As types 'species of sounds' they relate to Whiteheadian eternal objects, which can be directly prehended by conceptual prehensions or be read off nexus [e.
Their stepwise origin in indexical-iconic perceptual reality is now 'shortcircuited as it were. Note that the existence of allomorphy requires the typetoken distinction also at this level; the 'same morpheme or word can be ' 1 ' L 1 ' , ' ivpiT-. There is also psycholinguistic evidence for the centrality of the word: it represents the basic level1 of linguistic signs, reinforced again and again by constantly repeated useh whereas higher level units are much more extempore and creative and lower level ones arc not even necessarily activated in comprehension [MacKay 19fi7; I23f.
Learning a language is learning the systematic relations between words, not just their individual reference indexical bundle;! Reference in the narrow sense of denotation, on the other hand, is a matter of the indicative prehension of logical subjects in higher propositional prehensions. Reference in the broader sense relevant to any kind of sign icon, index or symbol could be said to reflet 1 their genesis as specific products of transmutation i. Hut sym- bolic reference1 introduces a higher-order world-creating tool largely freed from external perception - in fact the multiple indexical associations leading to it must in a sense be forgotten' or repressed cf.
The diagram below sketches the most basic 'societal levels1 on which grammars of individual languages pattern. Each level is defined in terms of its 1 ' ' own formal units, and each has its own content as indicated within the pyramid. This is in a sense the inverse of the Functional Grammar layered ' 1 ' " structure of the clause model, which concentrates on levels of content built up from basic predicates and in which form is consigned to a final level of'expres1 sion rules often taken for granted in actual analyses.
Andersen 9. That is a matter of form and purpose, not content in the present sense. The level of texts refers of course to the products of discourse in all its modalities, including the spoken. The diagram as a whole represents pure potential pattern and should not be understood as saying anything directly about processes, either top-down' or 'bottom-up The ' ' ' 1.
It is here that - in terms of process - the speech sigral is modulated for attitude and subtle perlocutionary ends often by intonation and other prosodic means - Strictly speaking, only the rule-1 ike, socially sanctioned aspect of pragmatics belong here in the language system. The same indication of indeterminacy is shown at the base-line, where the involvement of specific neural populations in speech organ activation can likewise be taken as at least partially indeterminate.
Like all regularities in Whitehead s world, these ' 1 ' must also he species of eternal objects, forms of definiteness1 potentially abstractable by conceptual valuation and reversion from concrete data. I hey are ' ' " 1 not real in the sense of'actual1 here and now in the manner of actual occasions - but nor are phonemes: they are only real in the sense that patterns that are ' manifest in and between actual occasions are real 1. Phono logical and morphosyn tactical regular ilies Whitehead had nothing at all to say concerning specific linguistic rules - as regards phonology in particular he displayed a broad take care of the sense and ' 1 the sounds will take care of themselves attitude.
- Electronic Health Record: Standards, Coding Systems, Frameworks, and Infrastructures?
- Ebook Pattern And Process: A Whiteheadian Perspective On Linguistics (Human Cognitive Processing).
- Weird Ways of Witchcraft;
- Holding China Together: Diversity and National Integration in the Post-Deng Era.
There are also purely distributional regularities, but these too may have a certain synchronic dynamism1 in so far as they may need to be applied to new lexical items like loan wrords. The question as to whether any such rule displays 'psychological reality1 must surely be answered in terms of specific concrete psychological processes in which they might or might not be directly ingredient - e.
Now, as it happens, the rules mentioned above do have a direct bearing on verbal productions in so far as Mure to act upon them would lead to ill-formed speech stringi.