1. From where does the ideal speaking subject speak? Where is the locus of ideal speaking subject? What is about the history (childhood configuration, neurotic elements) of such ideal speaking subject? Does the outside influence information of inside (a physical organ, LAD)? What happens to transcendental Cogito (as postulated in Cartesian Linguistics) or the competence of creating infinite sets of sentences, when it is subjected to the outside sociality (threat, violence etc.)? (Here I am inkling towards Psychoanalysis-to the construct of "psyche" rather than that of cogito as I am emphasizing on the society-psyche interface).
2. Chomsky, out of his Cartesian anxiety, considers body as a machine. He deploys technical metaphors ((e.g., The terms like "Computation", 'array" "interface", "parser" etc., or operations like "COMMAND", "SATISFY", "SPELL OUT") for explaining human body. These are not metaphors or case of displacement only, but a case of metonymic transformation of human body as these technical metaphors condense the scope of human (linguistic) potentiality. Does human body follow algorithm only at the moment of speaking? Do we not have extra-/non-algorithmic cognitive ability? (My point is that Cognitive Domain is not algorithmic only.)
3. Chomskian syntax analyzes the algorithm of "normal" "well-formed" sentences only. Apart from the exclusion of institution-body corre(a)lation in the Chomskian hypothesis, this very construction of "natural language" (e.g., the well-constructed written sentences) mercilessly marginalizes the language of so-called non-"natural" madness or folly. How do we know the differences between normal way of speaking and abnormal way of speaking? This question was initiated by Foucault (1968) to beg the premise of Cartesian cogito. Chomsky, who is like an old-fashioned physicist, is interested only in VIBGYOR. However, in the domain of Art (where infinite sets of colors are illuminating) and literature, there is a proliferation of "deviations" from so-called "normal standard" (as constructed by the Ideological State Apparatuses) and without such "deviations" no work of art or literature or any paradigm shift is possible. Is this domain of Art and Literature, a domain of unreason or madness or is it un-"scientific"?
References
Technical Report CHOMSKIAN LINGUISTIC CREATIVITY, CRIPPLED CREATIVITY AND PSI...
Technical Report CAN COMPUTER SPEAK? LANGUAGE AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology