| Annotation Metadata
|
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Tywvq5yavr","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ2Ӻ","startOffset":3277,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ2Ӻ","endOffset":6051°Ӻ,"quote":"However, you can also raise your sweetest voice and call: “Darling, would you come into the garden!” That, too, is interaction, but doesn’t always work. If it is successful, this may be due to one of three things: \n1)\ta history of calls and reinforcements that has conditioned Sue to go to daddy at the stimulus “Darling”, much as a well-trained spaniel comes when called; \n2)\ta history of interactions that has led Sue to parse the sequence “come into the garden!” as one of many possible combinations of signals which, in particular contexts, require a specific motor action; \n3)\ta history of interactions that has led Sue to interpret the utterance as an expression of something that’s in daddy’s head; something that must itself be interpreted through re-presentation of past experiences with daddy’s expression of wishes, with his tendency to say “garden” when he intends “vegetable garden”, with the path to it, etc., etc.) and must be evaluated in relation to other possibilities, and which, in this instance, leads to the decision to do as requested. \nThe way I see it (because that’s the way I have made it), this illustrates four types of interaction. Only the last one has the components I require to use the word “language” in the sense I want. \nPushing or pulling others, dragging or carrying them, are no doubt social interactions. As such, they may be modified by all sorts of conventions; but, even if they are, I would not call them “language”. \nThe conditioned response springs from a link the experiencer has established, a link between a sensory experience and a motor action. Even if the stimulus is a “word”, because the stimulator (and others) consider it thus, I would not call the interaction “language”. \nThe complex utterance that requires parsing in a context, is “linguistic” in just that respect. Yet, because the outcome of the parsing is still no more than a fixed connection to a sensory-motor pattern, a trigger for a specific way of acting, I would still not call it “language” in the full sense of the term. \nOnly in the last instance, where the utterance calls forth re-presentations, the replay of past experiences in the receiver’s mind, only in that case is the interaction truly different from all other forms of social interaction, and the difference is an exclusive characteristic of “language”. \nThe crucial difference, for me, is this: Whatever is called forth by the piece of language, the items it refers to, are items that have been abstracted from experience. They may, but need not, have any immediate link with sensory-motor experience that is going on, nor any link with present or future manifest behavior. Yet, what is said or heard is not without effect. But the effect is on the language users’ acts of representation.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321050942115504034122":^°°,^"jQuery321050942115504034122":^°°,^"jQuery321050942115504034122":^°°,^"jQuery321050942115504034122":^°°,^"jQuery321050942115504034122":^°°,^"jQuery321050942115504034122":^°°,^"jQuery321050942115504034122":^°°,^"jQuery321050942115504034122":^°°,^"jQuery321050942115504034122":^°°,^"jQuery321050942115504034122":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","order":"mw-content-text","category":"Argumentation2","data_creacio":1569855620696°
|
