**3. The bio-syllable: from typological models in iconicity and instantiation**

## **3.1 The phonological-prosodic (lexical) model of iconcity in English and Tachelhiyt Berber**

We should first emphasize that we deal with iconicity in English and Berber from a phonological/prosodic perspective. English phonosthemes [51] belong to phonotactic clustering at the interface of phonological and prosodic derivation processes. They represent important clues for the lexicon (distinctiveness for instance), although they cannot be considered as morphs and they are not represented as such [52], they occur

that map the Mirror Neurons onto the Mirror system. We reproduce herein Arbib's

On the other hand, conceiving a grammar as the one called construction grammar by the model to address semantic operations of action and the mirroring implies for us, or better said for the model I seek to anchor in biolinguistics, the distinction between phonological/prosodic processes (analysis) of the syllable as being its proper form/structure (iconicity) and the semantic schematization (motivation) of structure-

It exists separately from acquisition and its MNS (mirror neuron system) thanks both gestural/computational and taxemic orientation of the syllables (class/inventory relations) embodying the potential catalysis and content placement in formantization. Thus, based on a neurocognitive model of an internal syllabary [41], we would like to term the bio-syllable that map the mirror system on both sequencing/phasing representations and their semantic instructions for both lexicon and syntax. In this case, the bio-syllable in the brain is the instantiation of the underlying scheme by mirror neurons enabling the semantic structure to imitate the

Furthermore, the mirror model for the syllable suggests not only gestural/segment representation and lexical-semantic schematization but rather a gestural lexicon model of mirroring we will exemplify later on within English onset-coda clusters (/spl/, /zl/) or reduplication patterns in Berber, for instance (cacbv1c<sup>0</sup>

The interaction between analysis/catalysis and recognition is based on the interactions of Working Memory/Long term Memory. It enables us to think out both acquisition/recognition models as an interaction between computational and conceptual/ cognitive components. Input/output relations rely on imitation models partly

discussed by Billard and Arbib [42] that require a schematic assemblage (in our case, a

bv1).

to-meaning predisposition. We face, in this case, two hypothetical processes:

*2.1.3 Structure imitating structure*

phonological/prosodic structure.

*2.1.3.1 An acquisition/recognition model*

**110**

model [40]:

*Cognitive and Intermedial Semiotics*

at phono-morphological errors across potential sensitive allomorphic processes. Furthermore, dealing with Berber [53] reduplication iconicity, we should first pinpoint the reason why we would not apply a morphological auto-segmental model proposed by McCarthy and others [54, 55] to study templatic languages. We consider the semitic root [56, 57] as a category to study Berber reduplication, emphasizing nonetheless that this last has been adapted [58] by early berberologists under the influence of semitic epistemology and not from an internal point of view.

**3.2 Iconicity and instanciators**

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89943*

ters and Berber sequences.

*3.2.1 English typological processes*

*3.2.1.1 English 2/3 C and O/2.3*

gestural scores (subsegment) and syllabic structure:

that enable segment insertion models in iconicity:

• The gestural scores for word initial <spell>:

• Featural/prosodic structure /spell/

**113**

Our approach, whose frame we have presented earlier, grounds in iconicity defined as form/structure imitation and form/structure schematization of meaning from a non-morphological perspective. We would henceforth adopt the framework of gestural scores and phonological-prosodic representations of both English clus-

*The Biolinguistic Instantiation: Form to Meaning in Brain/Syllable Interactions*

We focus in the following both phonosthemic rules from the perspective of

We adopt the approach of articulatory phonology considering gestures as potential units of sub-segmental events [61–63]. We thus describe gestural taxemes

• 2/3 cluster rules (T1 (O)): inventory example (/sp/ in <spell>)

Moreover, reduplication has been posited by the grammars rather as a reconstruction method widely interested in defining the morphological structure of the root/scheme of the verb (biliteral/triliteral roots), leading to a heterogeneous dealing between the definition of the etymon (diachronic, non-analytical object) and the verbal root lacking morpho-semantic thematicity unlike Arabic and Hebrew morphology (Hebrew Binyanim and Arabic awzān). Thus, what have been called Berber roots are, in our consideration, verbal individual consonantal templates of a formative principle (formantization) enabling flectional and reduced derivational processes. An example from this heterogeneous fact is the following table:


From which we can conclude that Berber reduplication [59] (except expressivity driven forms) is purely iconic in the sense that a segment of the lexical template undergoes a semantic process that implement its meaning or motivates it across its phono-lexical constituents (describing the process, the case in its aspectual nature, intensity, result, etc.). Henceforth, we will deal with lexical intra-reduplication patterns on their CV skeletons as following:


If this reduplication could be defined as an example for iconicity (or analytical one), in the sense of Downing and Stiebels [60], phonosthemes present stable quantitative syllabic-prosodic patterns on phonotactic levels (onset/coda positions or on both) based on the following rules:


*The Biolinguistic Instantiation: Form to Meaning in Brain/Syllable Interactions DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89943*
