We are made of words …
… or so Annie Ernaux is quoted as saying. From a linguist’s point of view there may well be more to it than meets the eye. In the first instance, one can always quote the Bible’s ‘in the beginning was the word …’ and apply this to more than mankind. On a more scientific basis, there has been much ado about the presumed ‘embodiment’ of language what with fMRI based research on action verbs, whereby when reading or articulating an action verb, the lights go on in the motor areas of the brain where such action is actually processed – and of course in the language area of the brain. This match of language and motor skill is then entitled ‘embodiment’. What conclusions can one draw? That language evolved from bodily actions and functions via the so-called mirror neurons? While largely discredited, those who still nod enthusiastically face two major problems: one, what about all the non-action words like ‘think’ (unless you ascribe all verbs as ‘active’), two, what about primates who perform actions all day long but have never acquired language?
There is however another way of looking at this conundrum, namely the Chomskyan idea of bio-linguistics whereby language obviously arises from the brains of people, following the laws of nature as far as we know. Chomsky postulates a genetic mutation some 100-150,000 years ago which allowed the brain to compute an iterative merging of categories (e.g. words into phrases), resulting in an infinite output potential. This allows us to comprehend and/or make up expressions we have never heard or read before. – which, by the way, is anathema to AI which relies on statistical matching of everything that has been said or written and collected in a data base (big data). While it may be the case that some of what is being said and written has been said or written before, the resulting data base would be still astronomical, hence AI can only approximate when writing an essay for an undergraduate student in the department of economics. The point being that there are any number of thinkers/speakers/writers who come up with expressions and ideas nobody has ever heard of before. AI does not have the slightest idea what an individual's contextual experience is.
Which brings me to my hobby horse, namely the claim that thought equals language, and if we apply the Cartesian ‘cogito, ergo sum’ we land at the doorstep of Annie Ernaux. Alternatively we land at the doorstep of the Bee Gees who famously sang ‘it’s only words but words is all I got’. Seriously though, since language is a uniquely human trait, this is what makes us human (notice the circular argument). Linguists who want to explain what language is are confronted with the paradox that ‘language’ is just another word, and when you say/write it or read/hear it when attached to a fMRI machine, it triggers a kaleidoscopic lightshow in your brain that baffles neuroscientists as much as you and me. There is, I believe, after all a kernel of truth in the biblical story whereby Eve wanting to eat from the tree of knowledge (= language in my book) would result in the impossible situation of becoming a godhead that knows what language is. Chomsky’s idea is more prosaic as it involves a proposed genetic mutation of unknown (perhaps unknowable) processes that must, however, be subject to the laws of nature, which by no means have been all figured out yet. Maybe we can only quote another good idea, or so I believe (whatever ‘believe’ means), namely Engels’ ‘leap from quantity to quality’ whereby our billions of neurons in the brain made the jump from grunts to words. Note that certain people who lack such an advanced cognitive apparatus tend to resort to ‘mindless’ violence, as can be witnessed throughout history to this very day. The only vain hope is that the pen is mightier than the sword and that the likes of Annie Ernaux will save the world from destruction.
