**4.4 Instantiation as functional modularity**

We consider dual stream models as the expression of an epistemic link between consciousness (proto-consciousness) and functional anatomy, more specifically, brain streams and circuitry. This expression, let us say its heuristic robustness, is in considering lateralization and brain anatomical mapping as a set of interpretive networks for language and speech processing. Two recent approaches of dual stream have been dealing with theoretical/empirical (including normal/pathological speech behavior) with the significance of dual distribution for phonology/semantics or for the bidirectional conditions of the representation. We will in the following scrutinize the functional networks of DIVA-model (Direction into Velocities of Articulators), and the Dual Stream Model of Language (dorsal-ventral) before scrutinizing their functional networks:

Node:

Edge:

considerations:

network, Conc: conceptual network.

How to read out this modularity?

lexical connectivity.

**129**

We could then consider the modularity of the dual stream model, thus also a certain conceptualization of the internal language based on the aforementioned

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

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

Ar: articulatory network, SM: sensorimotor interface, Pho: phonological network, ST: spectrotemporal analysis, Vlex: lexical interface, Comb: combinatorial

We consider first connectiveness of physiological (brain-anatomy/motor control) and physical (physical/acoustic mapping) as determined by an isolated edge the network. Moreover, the links between nodes are more important within: first, dorsal processes than between ventral processes. The functionality of articulatoryphonology-lexical nodes is more specific and less hypothetical than the articulatory-

This modular structure, or the internal gestalt verifies our first postulate of a "de-squared" object between phonological/phonetic and lexical/semantic process of meaning. Isomorphic processes between content form and expression form are covering the real gestalt object which is a world/structure of an embodied language. Therefore and targeting the specific case of iconicity, we think that the complexity of the object and its points of view orientate us toward a biological mode of

Based on our previous discussion of instantiation as being a point of view grounded in the relation of the linguistic gestalt to itself and to the world, we could, within the debate of iconicity referring to the Plato-Aristotle discussion and to its

meaning within a third order beyond nature and culture: the bios.

*4.4.1 Some conclusions on iconicity and biolinguistic instantiation*

relevance for us, hypothesize these following levels:


Beyond Instantiation, both models suppose a complex functional modular and anatomic modularity when connectivity is a map that enables us to read out what we call "the internal gestalt of language." We will deal henceforth with the purpose of modularity/connectivity<sup>4</sup> [111, 112]. We should emphasize the fact that brain relies on a complex gestalt organization ranging from randomness, small worldness to modularity [113].

The dual stream model of speech is fairly well designed based on a clear modular organization with graphs and nodes specifying edge relations, interests in speech processing involve regions and linkedness of highly important notions.

Mathematically speaking, a modular structure could be conceptualized throughout Poisson's Model of distribution (Reference … .) based on the following equation:

$$P(X = x) = \frac{\lambda^{\varkappa} e^{-\lambda}}{\varkappa!} \tag{4}$$

*x* is a sequence: x = 0, 1, 2, 3 … ; *λ* = number of the occurrences in the interval; and *e* = Euler's constant ≃ 2*:*71828*:*

Connectivity is also the probability of a node event that could be either added or deleted on the network:

<sup>4</sup> We use the term modularity to refer to the gestalt A with a specific task, processing, ruling function, innately anchored, neurally defined and not assembled.

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

Edge:

**4.4 Instantiation as functional modularity**

*Cognitive and Intermedial Semiotics*

functional networks:

• Dorsal-ventral stream (DSM) • Control system (feed-forward/ feedback) (DVM)

Semantics • Ventral stream (DSM)

to modularity [113].

and *e* = Euler's constant ≃ 2*:*71828*:*

innately anchored, neurally defined and not assembled.

deleted on the network:

**128**

**Field/ pattern**

Phonetics/ phonology

We consider dual stream models as the expression of an epistemic link between consciousness (proto-consciousness) and functional anatomy, more specifically, brain streams and circuitry. This expression, let us say its heuristic robustness, is in considering lateralization and brain anatomical mapping as a set of interpretive networks for language and speech processing. Two recent approaches of dual stream have been dealing with theoretical/empirical (including normal/pathological speech behavior) with the significance of dual distribution for phonology/semantics or for the bidirectional conditions of the representation. We will in the following scrutinize the functional networks of DIVA-model (Direction into Velocities of Articulators), and the Dual Stream Model of Language (dorsal-ventral) before scrutinizing their

**Principle Brain articulation model Brain interface**

• High order networks/ articulatory

phonological networks —conceptual ( (DSM) • Circuitry (DVM)

• Combinatorial network

• Conceptual network

processing involve regions and linkedness of highly important notions.

*P X*ð Þ¼ ¼ *x*

Beyond Instantiation, both models suppose a complex functional modular and anatomic modularity when connectivity is a map that enables us to read out what we call "the internal gestalt of language." We will deal henceforth with the purpose of modularity/connectivity<sup>4</sup> [111, 112]. We should emphasize the fact that brain relies on a complex gestalt organization ranging from randomness, small worldness

The dual stream model of speech is fairly well designed based on a clear modular organization with graphs and nodes specifying edge relations, interests in speech

Mathematically speaking, a modular structure could be conceptualized throughout Poisson's Model of distribution (Reference … .) based on the following equation:

*x* is a sequence: x = 0, 1, 2, 3 … ; *λ* = number of the occurrences in the interval;

<sup>4</sup> We use the term modularity to refer to the gestalt A with a specific task, processing, ruling function,

Connectivity is also the probability of a node event that could be either added or

λ*xe*�<sup>λ</sup>

(DSM)

(DSM)

**models**

• Interfacing sensorymotor links • Mapping (DVM) • Conceptual interfacing

• Lexical interface • Wide

*<sup>x</sup>*! (4)

**Brain topology**

• Lateralization (left-dominant/ bilateral (DSM)

distributed (DSM) • Weak left hemisphere bias

We could then consider the modularity of the dual stream model, thus also a certain conceptualization of the internal language based on the aforementioned considerations:

Ar: articulatory network, SM: sensorimotor interface, Pho: phonological network, ST: spectrotemporal analysis, Vlex: lexical interface, Comb: combinatorial network, Conc: conceptual network.

We consider first connectiveness of physiological (brain-anatomy/motor control) and physical (physical/acoustic mapping) as determined by an isolated edge the network. Moreover, the links between nodes are more important within: first, dorsal processes than between ventral processes. The functionality of articulatoryphonology-lexical nodes is more specific and less hypothetical than the articulatorylexical connectivity.

How to read out this modularity?

This modular structure, or the internal gestalt verifies our first postulate of a "de-squared" object between phonological/phonetic and lexical/semantic process of meaning. Isomorphic processes between content form and expression form are covering the real gestalt object which is a world/structure of an embodied language.

Therefore and targeting the specific case of iconicity, we think that the complexity of the object and its points of view orientate us toward a biological mode of meaning within a third order beyond nature and culture: the bios.

#### *4.4.1 Some conclusions on iconicity and biolinguistic instantiation*

Based on our previous discussion of instantiation as being a point of view grounded in the relation of the linguistic gestalt to itself and to the world, we could, within the debate of iconicity referring to the Plato-Aristotle discussion and to its relevance for us, hypothesize these following levels:

## *4.4.1.1 The structure from within or the embodied representation*

Deriving from our previous modular discussion, we understand both dynamic onto-biology and proto-consciousness as the condition upon which the structure is instantiated mapping the organic network on the representational/analytical network and these lasts on production/perception. The modular internal gestalt, desquared and complexified, along with the articulartory-phonatory topology provide a good understanding of the way language has been adopting an evolutionary inclusion principle that enables, beyond semiotic articulation, the instantiation of external structures by internal ones. Far from being a simple faithful neural instantiation of a schematic construct, it is rather the instantiation of a world/structure and a structure/structure principle whose good example we can encounter in the relation between language faculty and competence/performance. If instantiation is not a mechanistic enaction, a fortiori its biolinguistic point of view, it can be considered as a trace-bearing point of view that shapes both the surfacing forms and the link between points of view creating the perspective of world-structure, structure-structure links.

### *4.4.1.2 Iconicity is a sub-case of a biolinguistic projection*

We should, first of all, retake our former postulate relating to iconicity as being distinct from motivation. Iconicity supposes a mode of articulation that could not be regarded as an "abnormal" link between *distinctiveness* and *significativeness* -though relying on the lexicon—it is a proper mode of schematizing structure-to-structure processes. Back to my Berber case, semantics of reduplication, both language and cognitive frame semantics considered, the reduplication event—likewise clusteringpoints out the gestalt principle of the lexicon as both intersection and hierarchy of multiple components: the probable adjustment of the internal sensory-motor computation to a twofold model of neural and gestural coordination on the lexical level indicating the relation of the event (internal spatial-temporal network) to a signifying function. Iconicity would be then, more than a rhetorical relation within world-structure resonances; the specific selection of a sequencing organization patterned as a biolinguistic projection.

#### *4.4.1.3 The real object is a complex internal-external structure (a Gestalt)*

Our epistemic aim, with the framework of the point of view, is to emphasize the role of proto-consciousness as a biological symbolic system underlying the philosophical-psychological consciousness in the evolutionary integration of sensitive world schemata and sensory-motor principles. The existence of the analyticalrepresentational (computational) dimension of both language faculty and its semiotic principle as an object-method, partly embodying the recognition of biolinguistic structures or supposing the logical-formal deduction is one point of view of the analytical faculty (Universal Grammar/competence) grounded in biolinguistic schemes. The mutual projection relations (their bidirectional links) between this hypothetical object and what we call the real object defines also the complex relations between language immanence and manifestation. On the other hand, modular relations on the internal language level suggest modular relations between the points of view on the object.

**Author details**

University of the People, Pasadena, United States of America

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

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

\*Address all correspondence to: bakrim\_noureddine@yahoo.fr

provided the original work is properly cited.

© 2020 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,

Noury Bakrim

**131**

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