Language Flow: Opening the subject

Abstract

Analysis of lioguistic foims does not danfy experitme of language. Pursuing this, the paper tums to dynamics and, using examples, introduces language flow. It is suggested that sensory peiception uses movement that can be independendy descnbed (from diffetent perspectives). Next, using Barbieri's model of protein synthesis, attention tums to how expeiience is possible. It is suggested tfaat, in ptindple, the Operations of orgatuc coding may have intetactional countetparts. By analogy, prosodic 'contextualization' becomes feit reaction that influences real-time response. Ulis parallek how antidpatory gaze is used to graerate reading aloud. Finally, using neurosdentific work on intersubjectivity, it is suggested that notms and rewards may reconfigure neural processes that use expedence of perception-action in sensing what is meant On this view, Lmguage identifies how we use collective practices to integrate verbal pattems, the events of flow, and lived experience. Thm is nothing that stands to language in the re/ation that language stands to eveiything ebe (Low 2007: 705). The problem with languageThere are many ways of applying language. With some trepidation, therefore, I begin with a view that may seem radical. To understand how people Interpret and make linguistic signs, it is argued, we need to scrutinise the events of language flow. These result from the Hme evolution of plysicalprocesses and are thus literally dynamic!^ In language, physical events link chronological structure with experience. Talking and reading (or writing) give us a sense of (kairos) time. For Applied to language, dynamus refers, in the first instance, to continuous ardcuktory and visible movements. We examine not 'pure' dynamics (physics) but real-time biomechanics (viz. how physics constrains biology) and, specifically, how this operates under (unctional constraints.