Language mapping, a walk-through

The more economical we are managing our grammars, the better we manage our language skills. Everyone thinks, speaks, or writes in real time. There is often no time to consult rules and definitions.


We can use cognitive variables, to manage our language matter.
We can call it our Language Mapping, as we map language cognitively.


The integration here is to gather on the symbolics and visualization for Language Mapping. The visuals are just to help work out flexible linguistic habits. They are not to replace language. This here is our device box.


Please mind that we do not follow the term of the language acquisition device. We stay with language faculties, to refer natural language to human heads. Our devices are strictly linguistic implements or gizmos.


Everyone has one PRESENT, PAST, or FUTURE really. We symbolize this reality as three fields or extents. We can say figuratively that our knowledge is our light. Knowledge needs memory. Our PAST field can be as with a setting sun. We may forget the detail in matters we have not studied in a long time, yet there is shine enough to return to them.
PAST field


We cannot have memories of the FUTURE, but we are capable of planning our study. Our field for the FUTURE can be as with sunrise.
__FUTURE field


It is our PRESENT we have most cognitive powers to shape. We can symbolize the PRESENT as shiny daylight.
__PRESENT field

We view core grammar words, BE, HAVE, and DO
in the Fields of Time (Chapter 1).


In the fields of time, we may notice that the verb WILL can map on the FUTURE already in its PRESENT form (Chapter 2).
WILL mapping on the future

The River of Time is to perceive language patterns. If we focus on the Stones of Time, we may extract general patterns (Chapter 3).

Patterns to show with Stones of Time

Our extracted patterns are the grammatical Aspect.


We can symbolize the first element in the Simple pattern with the lemniscate, that is, the indeterminate or infinity.

Infinity symbol

The lemniscate is to symbolize that the first element in the Simple pattern can be any verb, and natural language is not mathematically calculable. More, everybody begins to learn language knowing only a few words. Our ideas do not come from the Greek Anaximander, but we can compare thought.


Human grammar is not separate from human living and thinking. We can associate our grammar and human natural mapping, as with geography and travel. We people live on Earth. We usually view lands or waters as extents. We give at least psychological borders to areas in which we are. We perceive routes and ways to places. We happen to be at landmarks and places. Such are human natural variables for space, in English. We can use them for grammar (Chapter 4).

__ESSENCE 3 VALUE with patterns

We begin with the values ON, IN, and TO for our mapping variables. There are not and cannot be grammar or other rules to determine how we perceive our living and thinking. We decide on our own, if to say we live somewhere, we are living somewhere, or we have lived somewhere.


We humans naturally use symbols. Humanity has had symbolic representations for feelings, thought, as well as activity. Let us think about a symbolic extent. We can use an ordinary picture of an area.



We can process the picture. The symbolic area would not belong anywhere geographically.

It would symbolize an extent.


We can visualize grammatical Aspects as extents.

Aspect Simple would allow a perspective ON a cognitive extent.



ON the map


Activities IN progress are not entire extents of our cognitive grounds. We select part a cognitive extent.



Link to chapter 4. Value IN

We can tell what has happened TO a time or event we choose to mark. The activities would take a length of a cognitive extent.




TO a place or time

Arrows are very familiar symbols to show or indicate the way (Chapter 5). We can combine our mapping and arrow symbols, to exercise target time. The ability will be vital, if we want to fare with Modal verbs. Modal forms might not tell directly what time the talk is about.




Please mind that our arrows are not shooting arrows. They are symbols to indicate the target time extent. If we make models to exercise and play, we make big models of soft material, especially if there should be little children around.


We never grow too old or mature, to use colors. They can help also advanced language work. We make a color palette, and combine patterns for Expression: the Affirmative, Negative, or Interrogative.




Our symbolic extents can help visualize syntax (Chapter 6).




We learn to keep the head time. Our arrows are mauve, the color of head verbs. Head verbs can head phrases, clauses, or sentences. Auxiliaries always require another verb.


Link to the color code and virtual words


We use time frames, to manage our grammatical time. We keep the frame open for the Perfect, and we close it for the Simple.

We can associate the open frame with the auxiliary HAVE. The frame is open, as there is always another reference in time, when we use the Perfect.


Open time frame


All along, we mind we use concepts and inventions. We do not claim there is anything like time frames or time extents in human heads. Common sense, if we can make wheels, it does not mean we have wheels in our heads.


Our grammar time extents can help manage stative uses for verbs, those for thinking and feeling (Chapter 7). It is up to our choosing, if we give our thought an entire extent (variable {ON}), or only part an extent (variable {IN}). We can refer our ideas to natural language. We might love or hate __Smiley PNGsomeone with our whole hearts as well, after all.




We merge our values TO and IN (Chapter 8).


Perfect and Progressive form merger


We get another mapping value, AT, the Perfect Progressive. We also merge the Progressive and Perfect features on our Simple arrow cue.




We get to manage all Aspects with variables, as we want them.



We can integrate our River of Time


River of time__Integration2


We can map and tell what we have been progressing AT.





All along, we do not change language. We take our examples from the Corpus of Contemporary American English, COCA.


This is a dream come true. And I’m loving every minute of it.

(NBC_Today Sun as in the Corpus of Contemporary American English, COCA).


We can learn to have our value {ON} for our earthling basic variable (Chapter 8.1). The value has got nothing to do with utilities and turning them on or off. Our values can work simultaneously for our grammars, as learned cognitive variables. Astronauts also have learned language ON Earth. Humans are likely to learn ON a planet for an indefinite future.




Modal verbs challenge our arrow cues, on the target time (Chapter 9). We can say Modal forms are grammatically relative, as they do not tell the time reference directly. We can compare.

__FUTURE field

TOMORROW, we COULD sit down to grammar.
We WILL BE able to sit down to grammar TOMORROW.


__PRESENT field

We COULD sit down to grammar NOW.
We ARE able to sit down to grammar NOW.


PAST field

A YEAR AGO, we COULD sit down to grammar whenever we wanted.
We WERE able to sit down to grammar whenever we wanted


We can think about a grammatically relative time, for Modal forms. Our talking with them is about hypotheses more. For a comparison, saying,

Maybe ten minutes,
is not the same as saying
Ten minutes.


Until now, our journey has associated

the auxiliary HAVE with our green, open time frame.

Real time open frame


TO a place or time


With Modal verbs, the auxiliary HAVE will close the time of the hypothesis.


Let us see an example (Chapter 9.2).


41a. I thought the handle MIGHT HAVE / COULD HAVE broken off.

(The time frame in the hypothesis is closed.
We do not wonder any more.)

Relative time closed frame

We make relative time frames, for Modal forms.


We can note that for making theories or talking tentatively, the auxiliary HAVE closes the relative grammatical time, with Modal forms. This means it no longer brings the mapping values {TO} and {AT}.


We can recur to Aspect mapping (for example, in Chapter 8). The values {TO} and {AT} use the auxiliary HAVE for real time, and symbolize the Perfect Simple and the Perfect Progressive.


With Modal verbs, we can have
the auxiliary HAVE for a syntactic anchor,
and not an Aspect. Let us compare.


Maybe you HAVE learned something good. {TO}
Maybe you learned something good. {ON}


A Modal form as
You might HAVE learned something good
does not tell the difference.


It yet will tell our value {IN}.


Maybe you were learning something good.
Maybe you HAVE been learning something good.

You might HAVE been learning something good.


For talking tentatively or making theories, we balance our {ON} and {IN}, building Modal phrases. Our arrow cues continue to work, and in a more economical fashion.
Modal net


We can call it our Modal net. We net (nullify as non-essential) the Perfect, for tentative forms. The length of the cognitive extent is not so important, when the time is theoretical. Our Modal phrases will become much simpler to make, and we remain correct according to classic grammars (!)


(Should we think it is too simple to be true, let us mind there is no natural language to require looking up volumes on philosophy, to make Modal structures. We all speak or write in context, and this is the context to complement the language information that grammar gives.)


However, we keep our written auxiliary HAVE always green, whether it brings an open or closed time frame. Our language faculties should do really well with a simple picture that tells auxiliary verbs from head verbs. Grammar anyway requires thinking, and it would not be a good idea to get dependent on crayons.


Link to the color code and virtual words


We learn to perceive our grammar and notional time as related (Chapter 9.4).

We can view our grammar as logically connected


We observe there is generally Form relativity, in language.
(Chapter 10).




Further journey can help learn closing the frame or leaving it open, dependent on our focus. There is no universal guidance. Of the President quotes below, neither is grammatically incorrect.


If Lincoln were alive today, he’d be (would be) turning over in his grave.
Gerald Rudolph Ford, American President.


More than that, and breaking precedent once more, I do not intend to commence any sentence with these words ― “If George Washington had been alive today”, or “If Thomas Jefferson”, or “If Alexander Hamilton”, or “If Abraham Lincoln had been alive today”…
Theodore Roosevelt, American President


The basic variable {ON} can help manage stative verb uses, as well as forms that classic grammars may name the Conditional or Unreal Past. Most importantly, the variable can help keep the real grammatical PRESENT, PAST, or FUTURE ― the head, notional time.


We do not have to keep our visuals and symbolics forever. We try some independence of them already in Chapter 10.4, with exercise 67.


Please mind, there are no two people with identical language faculties, and there is no point calculating human brains. We have a mildly humorous comment about language and mathematics in the book and here:


We humans never are artificial intelligence. We would not rely on digits 4 or 44 to make associations. We would not add up page numbers 27 and 72 to work out a correlation between making an acquaintance, looking for someone, and meeting him or her. Finally, we would not sum up digits 6 and 4 or 8 and 2 to make our cognitive maps. Computer calculation of page content could not make sense, either.


Book planning is a human capacity. In Part 2, we compare Modal forms on the westerly wind, in exercise 44 and in example 4 of another exercise, to continue the theme. We can read about Jill looking for Chantelle on page 27, and about their making acquaintance on page 72. Mapping integration comes with pages 64 and 82. Book planning can be pleasure and fun (8, 9,10). I hope you neither __Smiley joke PNGhate nor are hating me, for the innocent prank.


Feel welcome to Travel in Grammar


British grammar nazis

Disclaimer: the adjacent — and colored meaningfully yellow — graphic piffle is not intended to mean the Union Jack proper. It is the British Grammar Nazis logo on Facebook.



The logo dubious pulchritude may be seen in its full down here, also with a click.

British grammar nazis headerNow, let me lay out on the fundamentals of orthography. I do not spell the nazis with a big letter. Big letters, though they do not always import reverence, are reserved for proper nouns everywhere except a beginning.


The proper noun Nazis were German nationalists. Their having bombed London during WWII might belong with the semantic field too, and further reasonably connote displeasure on the part of the British people. I mean, I do not have other people’s feelings, but thus I do reckon.


Much has been written about the second world war, including Hitler’s evident lack of linguistic finesse. Therefore, I will do some wondering only, on the British who want to be grammar nazis.


The Daily Mash offers observations.


The way they selflessly dedicate themselves to correct punctuation, for example by pointing out to the staff of a chip shop why the term “chip’s” is a sloppy obfuscation, confirms they are bold and righteous individuals.


Grammar nazis share the article and comment.

This pleases me. A lot!

We are doing a service to the world in helping people be rid of their ignorance!

We knew it all the time!


It is only after a few lines or whiles that thought emerges.

I suspect someone is taking the p*ss.


Grammar nazis do not get irony. Let me think about statistics and implications. Should there be visiting nazis, I promise a brief primer on irony after this indispensable piece of advice about living on the same planet.



The site has about 50 thousand “likes”. Taking the British population alone, that would make about 50 thousand oddly deficient, among about 63 million people.


Some might say it is not so bad. It is not even one percent. Still, it could be better to think literacy, going to England: the guys are permitted to have the UK flag for their capriccio. Such odd types might favor big towns, as London.



Try for a plain passport photo, that is, without brooches, scarves, ties, anything you do not always carry. The piffle shows the guys’ attention to picture specifics.😉


Wave your hand, getting a taxi. It is a simple, therefore legible gesture. Get a map with statues and other tourist attractions in large icons. It is better to take a walk from the National Museum than end up the Piccadilly, owing to small print.😉


In hotels, always tick the boxes. Ask for those straight, should you be provided with a form without boxes to tick.😉


Mailing letters, get the recorded. They have ID strips. Seeking directions, approach people with newspapers. They could be literate. However, never ever leave your books or papers open and unattended. They might be taken for other utilities.😉


Now, the primer on irony. The basics are in the affirmative and the negative. You do not take them for a yes or no merely. Let me quote the Mash:


In no way are any of these people vain, arsey pedants.


This does not have to mean a refutation, Wikipedia explains.


Life cannot be about affirming or denying only. Let me return to the Mash.


The way they selflessly dedicate themselves to correct punctuation, for example by pointing out to the staff of a chip shop why the term “chip’s” is a sloppy obfuscation, confirms they are bold and righteous individuals.


Antonyms and synonyms are the answer. Mind to stay in context.


Laying all that out in detail to a grammar nazi looks discouragingly big a task, hence the handful of thoughts and the primary color, yellow (adjective, reference 3).


Grammar nazis look unable to admit that picking on people’s works has no chance to bring anything creative, sophisticated. They do not offer own blogs or websites, especially with serious language work, for evaluation.

Apples grow on noses: two languages – two minds?

Speaking a second language can change everything from problem-solving skills to personality. It is almost as if you are two people, says Catherine de Lange.


“Mon espirit paratage — My two minds”, appeared in The New Scientist of May 5th, 2012. Ms. de Lange compares monolingual and bilingual children. Washington Post has her article.


Ms. de Lange describes her testing children on syntax. Syntax is about the way we phrase our talk or writing.


Both monolinguals and bilinguals could see the mistake in phrases such as “apples growed on trees”, but differences arose when they considered nonsensical sentences such as “apples grow on noses”. The monolinguals, flummoxed by the silliness of the phrase, incorrectly reported an error, whereas the bilinguals gave the right answer, says Ms. de Lange. 


Monolingual or multilingual, children get to hear or read fairy tales. It does not matter, if the kid speaks one or more languages. It is important that the child comprehends the words, there was a fairy land, a long time ago, where apples grew on noses.


Children learn early that words can have more than one meaning. Figurative thinking does not disturb syntax. Whether in one or many languages ― but dependent on pragmatics ― we could or could not count any noses in picture 1. The Big Apple Corner in picture 2 only might have apples.


Language pragmatics deals with talk in context and work with ambiguity.


Picture 1. Is there even one nose in the picture, if we do not know what noses count?


Picture 2. Do apples grow square, if we have Big Apple Corners?


Thinking the science, the task was most probably deictically misconstrued. The children did not know what noses the talk was about, and thus if to tell the syntax or the pragmatics.


Ms. de Lange says she speaks English and French. If we were to follow Ms. de Lange and interpret her test results for a difference between monolingual versus multilingual mentality, we would risk un mal de tête, a headache.

We would have to imagine monolingual people as unable to take a figure of speech, and carrying shields instead of umbrellas, for heavy rain.

We would have to dread multilingual medics, fearing they would be the people to take cardiac cases for just a matter of opinion


Obviously and fortunately, no such headache naturally can come.


Further, both English and French have spoken and written forms. What we write as bread in English is un pain in French.

Boy eating bread

To a child, a test to neglect semantics might be un mal a l’oreille.

Word forms as bread or pain would not have to be in the test. Also in little children, brains entire work for language tasks.


Frontal lobes help keep the goal in mind. Temporal lobes tend to word sound, and occipital to word shape. Parietal lobes associate this all ― with the lexicon. Words for physical sensations and food are the basic vocabulary.


Ambiguity may provoke “surfing” the language form, especially if the limbic system would detect some emotional discord. When we ignore word sense, go asemantic, distinction between languages becomes much smaller. Pain or bread become mere forms, disagreeable to be mistaken in one language. The forms yet still might be singular or plural, dependent on syntax.


The “surfing” is not a developmental stage. Monolingual or multilingual, very young or more advanced in age, it is enough to learn to “surf”.


To work on syntax, we can use virtual or invented words ― regardless of age. Interestingly enough, we might get no “difference in mentality” between monolingual or multilingual people. We might not confirm Ms. de Lange results.



Virtual words have an advantage. We can use them to exercise speech sounds without the flummoxing that verbal associations might bring.


[th] is the sound in mother;

[th] is the sound in father

[th] is the sound in brother;

[th] is the sound in … pother 😉


A car rolls, a doll dances, a troll hops, and a ball bounces. Toys are things. They can be phimos. Every phimo can bimo. Before long, a kid may tell easy if we are correct saying, The phimo bimo , or if we should say, The phimo bimoes.🙂


Phimos can bimo.

Multilingualism is becoming an everyday thing in more and more countries and cultures. I like that.


I do not like bias about an ability to comprehend, speak, write, read, and communicate in more than one language. I do not like bias about people who speak one language, either. It is not true that monolingual people cannot take a figure of speech. On the other hand, it is not true that multilingualism makes one prone for nonsense.


The experiment by Ms. de Lange was biased. Multilingual kids were showed as disinterested in finding if something was real or true. Monolingual children were showed as unable to tell syntax.
 Multilingualism does not require a “different wit”.


Bread is always bread.

Multilingual people naturally “can surf”, and monolingual people naturally can learn to “surf”. Importantly, whether multilingual or monolingual, we would not “surf” for serious purposes. Work on syntax is better with virtual words, and then the number of languages might not matter at all. This is what I have for truly syntactic.


Another ethical and linguistic concern comes with Ms. de Lange reporting infant brain scans for experimental purposes. There is no way to obtain informed consent from an infant.


Read why I cannot see sense in such scans.