The human nervous system remains of primary reference for feedback phenomena in language use, since neither linguistic competence nor linguistic performance are mere abstract entities, but are mediated by the physical structure of the human brain (Puppel, 1992). Program and feedback to become assessed for human neuro-behavioral priority, universalist tendencies in linguistics are analyzed with concern to natural language permanence and standards. Language behavior to require the physical parameter of speech and writing, human sensory processing opens the consideration on the role of feedback in language use.
3.1. Sensory signal processing by the brain
The brain works on sensory signal in a parallel-distributed manner. Sensory tissue converts impulses into graded and action potentials to be sent to input consolidating areas. The biological code the brain operates during processing differs materially from the input signal with which it corresponds. Integrating inputs, the brain does not translate its processing code back into the stimulus quality, compound brain codes to account for perception (Vander et al., 1985).
The difference between a sensory impulse and a transmission code compares with that between sensory alteration and perception. Afferent impulses of no conscious correlate most often become discarded, the term perception to apply to conscious recognition from neural input. Brain signal transfer is inseparable from signal interpretation; relayed processing splits input into aspects communicable to specific neural sets (ibidem).
For visual processing, brain frontal lobes integrate information on object identity to have arrived via temporal tissues; object spatial component has inputs from brain occipital and parietal areas. Retinal inputs reach brain destinations simultaneously, lateral geniculate nuclei to be important relay centers that assist focus. The nuclei support the thalamic function, brainstem and cerebellar patterns for eye and head coordination, fixation of gaze, and pupil constriction. Pupillary response can be an indicator for processing workload (Zimmer, 1993).
Relayed processing allows cognitive detachment from motor behavior: thinking alone neither forbids nor requires bodily movement. Brain distributed manner uses multiple feedback paths, afferent sites to favor proximity with efferent locales. Of the cortical structures that synchronize distributed signal, angular gyri are notable in object identification and naming (Puppel, 1992). The gyri neighbor on brain visual, auditory, as well as tactile specialized locales. Inclusive of speech and language, human sensory processing can be presented as in Figure 5.
Figure 5. A feedback model for human sensory processing (compare Vander et al., 1985).
Human visual focus emerges with re-afference, acquired ontogenetically in feedback with the vestibular system. Active palpation physiologically does twine in place with tactile receptiveness. Hearing is unique in its use of efferent pathways of no learned component. The paths project from the brainstem to the cochlea and end on both the hair cells and afferent terminals. The function is not certain; surgically deprived animals showed impediment in discriminating signal from noise. Ancillary mechanisms for isolating nearby sound from background might work also in humans (Vander et al., 1985).
3.2. Pathway length and efficiency
Parietal inner and outer regions are prominent in neural path scope for transfer. The outer areas neighbor on primary sensory cytostructures directly. The inner work on compound modality data, for pattern identification and permanence. This is inner parietal integration to afford the relatively sustained sense for verticality, in head changed positions. For neural path length and speed, parieto-limbic linkage are worth of note, able to bring highly processed signal of emotional eminence, over neural long distance and in short time (Vander et al, 1984). For speech and language, path quality would be yet in efficient expanse.
Looping with the thalamus and the amygdalae, limbic paths can alter homeostasis, decision making, memory, and lexical access (ibidem). “Emotional hijacks” would even imply an ability by the brain to establish “express” links in response to psychological or physical distress (in Goleman, 1997). There is yet no “emotional system” in the brain, override on frontal scopes to eventuate limitation in intellectual and linguistic aptitude, thus denying terms of advantage.
Quillian’s experiments on neural processing suggested pathway length for directly proportional to the time of signal interpretation. Reflection on human language processing yet solicited varied “weight”, for individual nodes in his network models for memory (Kurcz, 1992). In the light, the “rule of force” (in Puppel, 1992) invites a reservation on behavior priority: even if instructed with statistics, potential for universality of behavior has inspired disputes among psychologists and physicians (Goleman, 1997).
■More:
3.3. The speech act; 3.4. Inner speech; 3.5. Orienting response of linguistic component; 3.6. Module autonomy theories; 3.7. Universalist theories for language; 3.8. Feedback phenomena and cognition; 3.9. Language standard development or change; 3.10. Conclusions.
TERESA PELKA.COM 