**1. Introduction**

The recent project of unifying biolinguistics and theory of language expresses the endeavor to both understanding how evolution has led to internalized structures bearing pronounceable/comprehended forms and how these forms are not mere projections but precisely innate acquisition models encountering performance and intentionality. Therefore, *represented representation* within a much larger semiotic principle predisposes the way language is instantiated on output forms based on the *event structure*. Henceforth, we consider the internalization of a dynamic ontological principle as correlated to bio-physiological-cognitive and social structures unifying the framework of explaining iconicity-motivation (within the linguistic strict distinction of form and meaning) and the semiotic function between expression and content levels of the semiotics-object. Moreover, empirical verifiability is increasingly reshaping our consideration of relevant levels on the linguistic structure.

The study of language is then orientating us toward a new scientificity within both verifiability and structure interfacing (internal/external): this new episteme includes the consequence of redefining not only the object of language but also its relations to its supplements, to evolution and brain impairments. Thus, the tensions arising between the real object and its analytical components, more specifically the discrepancies between bidirectional representation and analytical geometries, imply a new consideration of the linguistic event, its hierarchies and the instantiation. We will in the following chapter present our results stemming from both empirical data and theoretical development on both linguistic and semiotic inquiries of the relation between form—meaning and consciousness.

structuring language referring to its immanent laws. Secondly, catalysis considered within the distinction between the empirical process and the theoretical system is the analytical component of the syntagmatic chain supposing both the deepest level of taxemes (deeper than class and feature) and a surface (in praesentia), underlying scheme (in absaentia) in a double constitution of the linguistic text. Hence, the structural point of view is the differential gap between analysis and catalysis on

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

Representation within the gap between perception (analysis) and apperception [5], articulation/production but also the gap between recursivity [6] and reflexivity (meta-linguistic, etc.) is the cognitive (also memory-based) and recognition condition of language faculty oriented by an internal interpretability principle that mediates the relation between hierarchical levels and merge operations of input-output dynamic. Both conceptual-semantic and phonological-phonetic (acoustic) representations interact grounding in the "need" to open computational modules by

The perspective of the use as a level of manifestation has not been entirely embedded in the realm of language sciences, Hjelmslev formants have been sporadically defined as the material expression of morphemes (content level). Let us assume that some purposes related to this issue have been split between concrete and non-distinctive but obligatory features [7, 8] who attributed the first to the norm and the latter to the use. Furthermore, more recent accounts are divided between a new acquisitional constructivism, a non-generativist theory of acquisition [9–11] and sociolinguistic theories such as cognitive sociolinguistics. Greimas and Courtes [12] consider formants as figures of the expression chain corresponding to a unit of content level which enable it to be full sign (lexical morpheme or word), the latter within semiosis. Moreover, Chomsky's formatives [13] are minimal syntactic units that could be derived into lexical and grammatical

morphemes represent on the surface level the realization of a specific performance that obey strict phonological rules mapped on the phonetic string (deleting/

It is the distinction between lexicon (conceptual component) and the computa-

• First, the articulation of frame/content theory in its evolutionist account for the syllable emerging from organic gestures (we will later ground in an articulatory phonological approach) [15–17] enables to think out the segmental content within a precedence of the gestural syllable as put by McNeilage [17], a hierarchical level grounding in facial/Jaw and mandible gestures acting as pre-

(articulatory phonology considers indeed the difference between gestural and

motor gesture, pointing the possibility of their sub-segmental aspect

featural levels as the basis of segment analysis) [18].

tional component that emphasizes formative output rules as extrinsic ordering depending on merge operations binding both components. Henceforth, formation rules including emptiness/invisibility rules but also extrinsic ordering and adjustment rules imply the mapping of lexicon on the surface and the mapping of this latter on the use. Free selection (sometimes called monemes by Martinet) has the

manifestation level.

inserting) [14].

**107**

*1.2.2 The point of view of representation*

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

cognitive ones (acquisition for instance).

*1.2.3 The point of view of formantization*

following implications for our consideration:
