Threesology Research Journal: The Language Narrative
A Language Narrative
page 22

Flag Counter
Progressive Thinkers as of 12/1/2022

Language Narrative Series
~~~ Aesop's Fables ~~~
Preface 1 Preface 2 Preface 3
Prologue 1 Prologue 2 Prologue 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31 32 33      
Standard Cognitive Model series:
Page (#37) is most recent:
37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29
28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20
19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2
Old numbering system(Hence, oldest writings)
1b 1c   1d 1e

A singular theory of language has fallen short for explaining what, why, where, when and by whom it came into being because it is not a singular entity. For example, what an apple is does not explain why, where, how or when it first occurred. The emergence of an apple could be accidental and not necessarily an intentionality or an "emergent property". Nor does an object have to necessarily remain in a fixed state of existence. It could well pass through phases of development that is either unidirectional, reversed, or even exist at times as simultaneous variations such as in the case of a triple point of matter, presenting us with a "law of correspondence" relative to the phenomena we are describing as language, leaving us with a situation perhaps best described as a blind men and elephant scenario which we are seeing with respect to language theorizing. There is no rule which states that the phenomena of language be one thing nor that it is a primary state of existence, since some people are mute. While Language may be interpreted to be in a solid/fixed state of existence because most people do speak, the fact that we have multiple languages suggests it is also fluid and that its loss or absence due to illness, injury or birth suggests a rather gaseous state because it is not immutable as one might suggest the recurring development of a heart, brain or lungs as an assigned necessity for viability. Such organs must occur but language does not need to be present.

While language occurs due to certain physiological conditions as lungs and vocal cords, because these are present in apes but apes do not speak, suggests the brain's development along a certain corridor of evolutionary expression plays a greater role than some would like to accept as a prerequisite for the activity of language to take place and be noted as a species-specific characteristic. However, this alone does not suffice to explain language as being other than an emergent property, if we view language as... for example... a symbiotic feature much in the manner where particular organelles remained together in cells, with animal and plant cells showing distinct differences along with similarities, as we also note in the physiology of apes and humans. Another consideration, though we at this present stage of evolution can not readily see it, is to view language as an organ that will one day be developed and linger like a vestigial organ. While its usage is quite viable at humanity's current stage of evolution under present environmental pressures, this is not to say humanity's ability (s) of communication will not evolve to the point where the present "language organ" falls into disusage either incrementally or by some more prominent measurement.

On the topic of symbiosis as it might be relatedly applied to language, whereas we say that a language can be acquired in terms of one culture's language set against another culture's particular type of language, we do not customarily say language itself as a phenomena is acquired. More-so it is thought that humans are born with the means to acquire what we define as a language and not that such an ability is somehow due to a symbiotic characteristic which has latched on to humans as we might think of in terms of organelles. In other words, language is not seen as something which exists as a possibility due to some former application of a "language organelle" having deposited itself at sometime on human physiology. Like a vestigial organ in reverse, one might illustrate it. Language emerges during a critical or sensitive period only because the environment is ready-made for the emergence of language to rear its head. Take away the environmental cues which necessitate the generation of language and it does not appear, or appears very primitive and animalistic, such as the sounds emitted by feral children. However, this example as an attempted explanation of what I am thinking may not suffice for some to grasp what I am proposing. Hence, another way is to view the human as a cell upon which has been attached an organism, or if you prefer... a process like any you might see in a cell's compliment of organelles. Organelles as such are sometimes thought of as previous organisms or processes which for some reason got either scooped up with, trapped with, or sought sanctuary with other entities that we call organelles.

Whereas very many may disagree with the idea of one or more language organs as we would describe the heart, kidney, lungs, brain, eye, liver, skin, etc..., language gives the impression of being a property of one or more organs. Noted that we view some parts of the body as being necessary for the generation of speech, and that speech might well be discontinued if we removed one of more of these parts, it is not customary to claim such parts as a collective representing a "language organ" nor that such parts represent a collective amalgamation as we might describe the organelles of a cell. Nonetheless, let us consider how far the processes of a cell would function as a cell if one or more of its organelles were removed. Would the cell still be able to "speak" the language of a normal cell or would we be confronted by what might be described as a mute... with a cell functioning as if it were muted? How would such a cell then communicate? By some form of writing or other means of communication comparable to what we might understand because of its correlation to a muted form of communication a human might have to turn to? If indeed organelles of a cell were "adopted" as types of symbiotic behavior, could not the faculty of language share a similar origination and attached it to human physiology as an emergent (emerged) property of exercising its ability(s) in much the same way as an organelle expresses itself as a functioning part of a cell?

Indeed, though philosophically speculative, one might suggest that language incorporates three characteristics or two variabilities in keeping with the patterns we seen in other anatomical features. In other words, is it to be described singularly with a word such as heart, brain, eye and the like, or viewed doubly as a heart with two sides, a brain with two lobes, having two eyes, or as a three-part structure such as distinguishing a tricuspid and bicuspid valves, a three-lobed and two-lobed lung, or three-parts to the eyes labeled as cornea- iris- pupil? Given the fact that we can pay witness to a recurring pattern-of-three frequency in anatomy (List of threes in human anatomy), one might want to think that the "language organ" also has a three-part structure, unless it is a new, an add-on feature that is developing along a 1-2-3 maturational trek but is either in a 1-model or 2-model form. (1 or two pieces as one might describe the development process undergone by the Germ layers which suggests that evolution created distinct instances of a one-germ layer life form as it does two-germ layer life forms and the most complex life forms exhibit a three-germ layer expression currently in evolution.) Whereas using the term "language organ" or "organs of speech", let us view the usage of such an idea in the further context of anatomical descriptions where basic numerical formulas can be found as repeating sequences of biological activity involving small number arithmetical sequences such as 1, 1-2, 1-2-3, 1-2-3 to 1, or four, though we pay note of the existence of five fingers and the assigned comparative anatomy feature called the Pentadactyl limb, involving more basic enumerations closer to the context of development biology and genetics.

Divisions of the human body described by a Homunuclus

In a compositional Narrative of Language as I am pursuing the topic, it is of need to reaffirm that the focus being undertaken is more broad than that which one might expect dealing solely with verbal expressions as the single most determinant of what is meant by the word "Language". Vocal expressions are not the only form of language to be concerned with. In view of such a declared statement acting as a preliminary definition, let it be noted that this assessment involves the idea for the inclusion of multiple other forms of language such as the:

  • Symbolic: Primarily dealing with the sense of sight. (signs, symbols, art, sculptors, mechanical...
  • Auditory: Primarily dealing with the sense of hearing. (let us include all non- verbal sounds)...
  • Somatosensory: Basically anything perceived by all the other senses such as touch, taste, smell (but not the category referenced as "Extra-sensory").

When we think of the senses and how they are referenced by the brain, it may be of interest for some to take a look at the figure called a Homunculus which references the two divisions called Somatosensory and Motor:

Homunculus of party parts

Unless you are specifically looking for such a reference as the Ear and hearing related to Language, you might easily overlook the absence of it being mentioned in the above characterization. You have to go to another profile description of the brain in order to find a reference:

Functional areas of the human brain

The cerebral cortex has three somatosensory areas:

  1. The primary sensory area occupies the post-central gyrus immediately behind the motor strip and receives input from the ventrolateral thalamus.
  2. The secondary area is above the Sylvian fissure, behind the secondary motor area, and receives somatosensory input from the lateral part of the thalamus and also auditory and visual input from the medial and lateral geniculate nuclei.
    • (The primary and secondary areas are reciprocally connected.)
  3. The supplementary area is in the upper part of the parietal lobe on the medial surface of the hemisphere, just behind the primary area.

The parietal lobe, posterior to the central sulcus, is divided into three parts:

  1. The postcentral gyrus: The postcentral gyrus receives sensory input from the contralateral half of the body. The sequential representation is the same as in the primary motor area, with sensations from the head being represented in inferior parts of the gyrus and impulses from the lower extremities being represented in superior portions.
  2. The superior parietal lobule: The superior parietal lobule, located caudal to (that is, below and behind) the postcentral gyrus, lies above the intra-parietal sulcus. This lobule is regarded as an association cortex, an area that is not involved in either sensory or motor processing, although part of the superior parietal lobule may be concerned with motor function.
  3. The inferior parietal lobule: The inferior parietal lobule (composed of the angular and supramarginal gyri) is a cortical region involved with the integration of multiple sensory signals.

The frontal lobe, the largest of the cerebral lobes, lies rostral to the central sulcus (that is, toward the nose from the sulcus). One important structure in the frontal lobe is the precentral gyrus, which constitutes the primary motor region of the brain. When parts of the gyrus are electrically stimulated in conscious patients (under local anesthesia), they produce localized movements on the opposite side of the body that are interpreted by the patients as voluntary. Injury to parts of the precentral gyrus results in paralysis on the contralateral half of the body. Parts of the inferior frontal lobe (close to the lateral sulcus) constitute the Broca area, a region involved with speech.

In both the parietal and frontal lobes, each primary sensory or motor area is close to, or surrounded by, a smaller secondary area. The primary sensory area receives input only from the thalamus, while the secondary sensory area receives input from the thalamus, the primary sensory area, or both. The motor areas receive input from the thalamus as well as the sensory areas of the cerebral cortex.

The temporal lobe, inferior to the lateral sulcus, fills the middle fossa, or hollow area, of the skull. The outer surface of the temporal lobe is an association area made up of the superior, middle, and inferior temporal gyri. Near the margin of the lateral sulcus, two transverse temporal gyri constitute the primary auditory area of the brain. The sensation of hearing is represented here in a tonotopic fashion—that is, with different frequencies represented on different parts of the area. The transverse gyri are surrounded by a less finely tuned secondary auditory area. A medial, or inner, protrusion near the ventral surface of the temporal lobe, known as the uncus, constitutes a large part of the primary olfactory area.

Each cerebral hemisphere supplies motor function to the opposite, or contralateral, side of the body from which it receives sensory input. In other words, the left hemisphere controls the right half of the body, and vice versa. Each hemisphere also receives impulses conveying the senses of touch and vision, largely from the contralateral half of the body, while auditory input comes from both sides. Pathways conveying the senses of smell and taste to the cerebral cortex are ipsilateral (that is, they do not cross to the opposite hemisphere).

In spite of this arrangement, the cerebral hemispheres are not functionally equal. In each individual, one hemisphere is dominant. The dominant hemisphere controls language, mathematical and analytical functions, and handedness. The non-dominant hemisphere controls simple spatial concepts, recognition of faces, some auditory aspects, and emotion.

On an embryological basis the cerebellum is divided into three parts:

  1. The Archicerebellum, related primarily to the vestibular (Inner Ear: Equilibrium) system.
  2. The Paleocerebellum, or anterior lobe, involved with control of muscle tone.
  3. The Neocerebellum, known as the posterior lobe. Receiving input from the cerebral hemispheres via the middle cerebellar peduncle, the neocerebellum is the part most concerned with coordination of voluntary motor function.

The three layers of the cerebellar cortex are:

  1. An outer synaptic layer (also called the molecular layer).
  2. An intermediate discharge layer (the Purkinje layer).
  3. An inner receptive layer (the granular layer).

Sensory input from all sorts of receptors is conveyed to specific regions of the receptive layer, which consists of enormous numbers of small nerve cells (hence the name granular) that project axons into the synaptic layer. There the axons excite the dendrites of the Purkinje cells, which in turn project axons to portions of the four intrinsic nuclei and upon dorsal portions of the lateral vestibular nucleus. Because most Purkinje cells are GABAergic and therefore exert strong inhibitory influences upon the cells that receive their terminals, all sensory input into the cerebellum results in inhibitory impulses' being exerted upon the deep cerebellar nuclei and parts of the vestibular nucleus. Cells of all deep cerebellar nuclei, on the other hand, are excitatory (secreting the neurotransmitter glutamate) and project upon parts of the thalamus, red nucleus, vestibular nuclei, and reticular formation.

The cerebellum thus functions as a kind of computer, providing a quick and clear response to sensory signals. It plays no role in sensory perception, but it exerts profound influences upon equilibrium, muscle tone, and the coordination of voluntary motor function. Because the input and output pathways both cross, a lesion of a lateral part of the cerebellum will have an ipsilateral effect on coordination.

Receptors are biological transducers that convert energy from both external and internal environments into electrical impulses. They may be massed together to form a sense organ, such as the eye or ear, or they may be scattered, as are those of the skin and viscera. Receptors are connected to the central nervous system by afferent nerve fibres. The region or area in the periphery from which a neuron within the central nervous system receives input is called its receptive field. Receptive fields are changing and not fixed entities.

Receptors are of many kinds and are classified in many ways. (An example of a dichotomous fashion is):

  1. Steady-state receptors, for example, generate impulses as long as a particular state such as temperature remains constant.
  2. Changing-state receptors, on the other hand, respond to variation in the intensity or position of a stimulus.

Receptors are also classified in a Trichotomous fashion:

  1. Exteroceptive (reporting the external environment). Exteroceptors report the senses of sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch.
  2. Interoceptive (sampling the environment of the body itself). Interoceptors report the state of the bladder, the alimentary canal, the blood pressure, and the osmotic pressure of the blood plasma.
  3. Proprioceptive (sensing the posture and movements of the body). Proprioceptors report the position and movements of parts of the body and the position of the body in space.

Receptors are also classified according to the kinds of stimulus to which they are sensitive:

  • Chemical receptors, or chemoreceptors, are sensitive to substances taken into the mouth (taste or gustatory receptors), inhaled through the nose (smell or olfactory receptors), or found in the body itself (detectors of glucose or of acid-base balance in the blood).
  • Receptors of the skin are classified as:
    1. Thermoreceptors
    2. Mechanoreceptors
    3. Nociceptors: Being sensitive to stimulation that is noxious, or likely to damage the tissues of the body.

Date of (series) Origination: Saturday, 14th March 2020... 6:11 AM
Date of Initial Posting (this page): 9th January 2023... 11:34 AM AST (Arizona Standard Time); Marana, AZ.