*1.2.3 The point of view of formantization*

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/ inserting) [14].

It is the distinction between lexicon (conceptual component) and the computational 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 following implications for our consideration:

• 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 premotor gesture, pointing the possibility of their sub-segmental aspect (articulatory phonology considers indeed the difference between gestural and featural levels as the basis of segment analysis) [18].

• Secondly, the overlap and competition between gestures plays in both approaches the role of a lexical device of distinctiveness in the representation. Beyond the debate between C/F theory and articulatory phonology, the precedence of the gestures implies the role of content or the segment as less deeper unit in the representation than gestures/syllable frame. From another perspective, namely the forming form (forma formans), formantization belong to the mapping of the enunciative-predicative meta-linguistic operations on the syntagmatic chain.

the structure. Put in its semiotic frame, more precisely the frame of asymptotic semiosis (peircian iconicity) [21], prosodic [22] and linguistic iconicity [23, 24], though metaphorized by the firstness mode are nonetheless not overlapping the Peircian sense, that is to say the positivity of the presence in virtue of a certain first impression of world/perception analogy. Hence, Jakobsonian iconicity refers to the form miming form, or the form miming the meaning (exophoric vs endophoric terms of W.Nöth). linguistic iconicity relates doubly to other concepts and apprehension modes given the fact that the link between language (as a semiotic principle) and natural languages but also the link between natural languages and their proper actualization is not saturated, not entirely covering iconicity knowing that it relates variably to world references (virtual or actual ones) and to uttering/use

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

relating to the orientation/schematization of the structure.

*2.1.1 The gestural/articulatory postulate*

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

*2.1.2 The neuronal postulate*

*Communication and cognition*).

**109**

**2.1 The gestural/neuronal mapping and schematization of the syllable**

Based on the theoretical frame of both gestural/articulatory phonologies [25, 26], we consider that the syllable relies on both a gestural frame, discrete oppositions analyzed under schematic scores of natural classes upon which segmental content is realized. On the other hand, lexical access draws on gestural frames for the representation of distinctiveness suggesting dynamic parameters of articulatory events that could be relevant for typological selections (formants and possible specific contrasts) from the point of view of the target/pointing schemes of the tongue. Evidence from acquisition but also neurobiological evidence (McNeilage) will be addressed in the following purpose. On the other hand, the fairly evidence of *C-center Effect* [27] of consonant initial phasing with the vowel and their counter coda (anti-phasing, intra-clustering and only postvocalic phasing of the first consonant) shows a clear gestural organization of syllable patterns producing the phonotactic structure but more widely suggesting that the computation of this phasing is to be found in both neural mirroring effect and dual stream models of speech processing.

The discovery of Mirror neurons in Monkeys (F5 premotor and parietal area) by

Beyond the good links between the MNS and current biolinguistic theories,<sup>2</sup> we would like to evoke two aspects relying on the distinction between *neural scheme* (signified) and the MNS (the signifier). Moreover, MNS hypothesis is the epistemological result of Arbib's Schema theory [38], it grounds neurocognition in a symbolic schematism of a sensory-motor component (or perceptual/active models). The model suggested by Arbib et al. may introduce the schematic basis embedded in its brain circuitry. Instantiation, likewise merge operations of the minimalist program [39] in its biolinguistic component, is a combination/assemblage of instances

<sup>2</sup> We should nonetheless notice some criticism coming from one of the two founding scientists of dual stream model of speech, namely Hicock, in the *Myth of Mirror Neurons: the Real Neuroscience of*

Rizzolati and Arbib [28] has led to the discovery of a system (MNS) or mirror regions supporting imitation and mapping of action onto cognition, important consequences on both motor/gestural systems have been found. Moreover, evidence stemming from pathological impairment perspective based on theoretical/ epistemological considerations is to be emphasized. To refer to some of the major

contributions in this field, we can consider the following list: [29–37].

### *1.2.4 The point of view of instantiation*

We refer herein to a distinction between analysis/structure and instantiation where the immanent/computational structure referring to its own abstraction/ articulation levels is schematic/system-based and instantiation is its counterpart, a formal system dynamics inscribing the world in the structure. Stated in these terms, instantiation is the condition of the double significance (Benveniste's semantic and semiotic significances) which would mean: first, syntactic determination (syntagmatic rules) and enunciative-predicative world/situation regulation. Secondly, systems enabling the formal presentification of the structure (social, biological, physical, etc.). On the other hand, beyond ontological-praxeological constitution of any signification [19] instantiation is not an active use of the structure oriented by pragmatic-communicative intention or causality but rather a mediation between a manifestation level and its state of the world [20] understood in a nonreferentialist, non-causal perspective. It is the dynamic interpretable object of a semiotic utterance principle determined by both representation and regulation. In our morpho-dynamic approach, this mediation relates the continuous and the discontinuous as a *forming form* linking intentionality/bios and/or the unconscious to the structure. We assume that the presence of the structure does not depend on itself as for analysis/catalysis (derivation/deduction) but on these specific elements:


Henceforth, we will refer to the biolinguistic instantiation as the biophysiological *symbolic* and *formal* dispositive in both its extra/intra-structural presence based on a hypothesis of schematization (predisposition/disposition).
