Human Language and Sensorimotor Contingency

Stephen Cowley

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-05107-9_16

Human Language and Sensorimotor Contingency

Stephen Cowley

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Book chapter › Research › peer-review

Abstract

Using the monumental work of figures like Bloomfield (1933), Harris (1951) and Chomsky (1965), scientific linguistics has often been centrally concerned with verbal patterns. Yet such views have even older roots. Ever since writing systems first arose in Sumeria, what people do as they talk has gradually been standardised in ways that eventually gave rise to the electronic use of artificial codes. First, iconic signs became ideographic or alphabetic. Then, in Europe, mediaeval scribes introduced spaces between units (and written words) and, in the aftermath of new technologies, there came dictionaries, grammars, printing and, yesterday, computers. As a result, written language bias (Linell, 2005) has dominated philosophy, linguistics and classic cognitive science. Languages are seen as verbal systems whose words and rules are, in some sense, separate from people. Even talk is often modelled around transcriptions that invite comparison with ways of construing verbal sequences. This can be highly misleading. In fact, while ideographic and alphabetic symbols are unsponsored, speech and hearing are coordinated human activity. Language is intrinsic to action and thus partly constitutive of experience: for Sartre (1945), self must be mirrored by others. Although this is a commonplace, many explanatory models reduce doing things with language to how linguistic forms are ‘used’ and/or ‘represented’. In what follows, I adopt the distributed perspective (see, Cowley, 2011b), to offer an alternative.
Contemporary Sensorimotor Theory Contemporary Sensorimotor Theory Look
Inside

MyCopy Softcover Edition

24.99 EUR/USD/GBP/CHF
Other actions

Reprints and Permissions
Export citation
About this Book
Add to Papers

Share
Share this content on Facebook Share this content on Twitter Share this content on LinkedIn

Original language	English
Title of host publication	Contemporary Sensorimotor Theory
Editors	John Mark Bishop, Andrew Owen Martin
Publisher	Springer
Publication date	2014
Pages	235-251
ISBN (Print)	978-3-319-05106-2
ISBN (Electronic)	978-3-319-05107-9
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05107-9_16
Publication status	Published - 2014

Series	Studies in Applied Philosophy Epistomology and Relational Ethics
ISSN	2192-6255

Documents & Links

10.1007/978-3-319-05107-9_16

SDU Link

Check access to the material in SDU Library's search engine

Cite this

@inbook{50042b9e58024f6baa765bd5766821f4,

title = "Human Language and Sensorimotor Contingency",

abstract = "Using the monumental work of figures like Bloomfield (1933), Harris (1951) and Chomsky (1965), scientific linguistics has often been centrally concerned with verbal patterns. Yet such views have even older roots. Ever since writing systems first arose in Sumeria, what people do as they talk has gradually been standardised in ways that eventually gave rise to the electronic use of artificial codes. First, iconic signs became ideographic or alphabetic. Then, in Europe, mediaeval scribes introduced spaces between units (and written words) and, in the aftermath of new technologies, there came dictionaries, grammars, printing and, yesterday, computers. As a result, written language bias (Linell, 2005) has dominated philosophy, linguistics and classic cognitive science. Languages are seen as verbal systems whose words and rules are, in some sense, separate from people. Even talk is often modelled around transcriptions that invite comparison with ways of construing verbal sequences. This can be highly misleading. In fact, while ideographic and alphabetic symbols are unsponsored, speech and hearing are coordinated human activity. Language is intrinsic to action and thus partly constitutive of experience: for Sartre (1945), self must be mirrored by others. Although this is a commonplace, many explanatory models reduce doing things with language to how linguistic forms are {\textquoteleft}used{\textquoteright} and/or {\textquoteleft}represented{\textquoteright}. In what follows, I adopt the distributed perspective (see, Cowley, 2011b), to offer an alternative. Contemporary Sensorimotor Theory Contemporary Sensorimotor Theory Look Inside MyCopy Softcover Edition 24.99 EUR/USD/GBP/CHF Other actions Reprints and Permissions Export citation About this Book Add to Papers Share Share this content on Facebook Share this content on Twitter Share this content on LinkedIn ",

author = "Stephen Cowley",

year = "2014",

doi = "10.1007/978-3-319-05107-9\_16",

language = "English",

isbn = "978-3-319-05106-2",

series = "Studies in Applied Philosophy Epistomology and Relational Ethics",

publisher = "Springer",

pages = "235--251",

editor = "Bishop, \{John Mark\} and Martin, \{Andrew Owen\}",

booktitle = "Contemporary Sensorimotor Theory",

address = "Germany",

}

TY - CHAP

T1 - Human Language and Sensorimotor Contingency

AU - Cowley, Stephen

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - Using the monumental work of figures like Bloomfield (1933), Harris (1951) and Chomsky (1965), scientific linguistics has often been centrally concerned with verbal patterns. Yet such views have even older roots. Ever since writing systems first arose in Sumeria, what people do as they talk has gradually been standardised in ways that eventually gave rise to the electronic use of artificial codes. First, iconic signs became ideographic or alphabetic. Then, in Europe, mediaeval scribes introduced spaces between units (and written words) and, in the aftermath of new technologies, there came dictionaries, grammars, printing and, yesterday, computers. As a result, written language bias (Linell, 2005) has dominated philosophy, linguistics and classic cognitive science. Languages are seen as verbal systems whose words and rules are, in some sense, separate from people. Even talk is often modelled around transcriptions that invite comparison with ways of construing verbal sequences. This can be highly misleading. In fact, while ideographic and alphabetic symbols are unsponsored, speech and hearing are coordinated human activity. Language is intrinsic to action and thus partly constitutive of experience: for Sartre (1945), self must be mirrored by others. Although this is a commonplace, many explanatory models reduce doing things with language to how linguistic forms are ‘used’ and/or ‘represented’. In what follows, I adopt the distributed perspective (see, Cowley, 2011b), to offer an alternative. Contemporary Sensorimotor Theory Contemporary Sensorimotor Theory Look Inside MyCopy Softcover Edition 24.99 EUR/USD/GBP/CHF Other actions Reprints and Permissions Export citation About this Book Add to Papers Share Share this content on Facebook Share this content on Twitter Share this content on LinkedIn

AB - Using the monumental work of figures like Bloomfield (1933), Harris (1951) and Chomsky (1965), scientific linguistics has often been centrally concerned with verbal patterns. Yet such views have even older roots. Ever since writing systems first arose in Sumeria, what people do as they talk has gradually been standardised in ways that eventually gave rise to the electronic use of artificial codes. First, iconic signs became ideographic or alphabetic. Then, in Europe, mediaeval scribes introduced spaces between units (and written words) and, in the aftermath of new technologies, there came dictionaries, grammars, printing and, yesterday, computers. As a result, written language bias (Linell, 2005) has dominated philosophy, linguistics and classic cognitive science. Languages are seen as verbal systems whose words and rules are, in some sense, separate from people. Even talk is often modelled around transcriptions that invite comparison with ways of construing verbal sequences. This can be highly misleading. In fact, while ideographic and alphabetic symbols are unsponsored, speech and hearing are coordinated human activity. Language is intrinsic to action and thus partly constitutive of experience: for Sartre (1945), self must be mirrored by others. Although this is a commonplace, many explanatory models reduce doing things with language to how linguistic forms are ‘used’ and/or ‘represented’. In what follows, I adopt the distributed perspective (see, Cowley, 2011b), to offer an alternative. Contemporary Sensorimotor Theory Contemporary Sensorimotor Theory Look Inside MyCopy Softcover Edition 24.99 EUR/USD/GBP/CHF Other actions Reprints and Permissions Export citation About this Book Add to Papers Share Share this content on Facebook Share this content on Twitter Share this content on LinkedIn

U2 - 10.1007/978-3-319-05107-9_16

DO - 10.1007/978-3-319-05107-9_16

M3 - Book chapter

SN - 978-3-319-05106-2

T3 - Studies in Applied Philosophy Epistomology and Relational Ethics

SP - 235

EP - 251

BT - Contemporary Sensorimotor Theory

A2 - Bishop, John Mark

A2 - Martin, Andrew Owen

PB - Springer

ER -