Dialectics of Language patterns

The following paragraphs on how social action relates to language, patterns, social structure and history were triggered by watching Caetano Veloso interviewing Fernando Haddad link . This put me on the track of connecting pattern languages to language patterns with social action and positions.

Language Patterns are the basic patterns of human language. Noam Chomsky is one of the leading experts on human language, and he has pointed to the recursive and generative aspects of human language as symbol processing activity.

Symbol processing enables Thinking and communication as a form of Social Action.

Once established what is yours and what is mine, language differentiates what is more important: are you more important than I am, or am I more important than you are? Is your position different from mine, is your position more important than mine, or vice versa?

And if I say I am right and you are not, does this differentiate what I said as more important than what you said, even if it is not true?

And what do these differences mean for the importance of my symbolic processing or yours? And who is right or not (already a dichotomous simplification)? The question begs for answers. It is generative.

A narrative may be controlled and differentiated as the leading one, or the only true and good one. Then Ideology enters the stage, and Oppression begins.

And it does not matter whether the ideology is capitalist, liberalist, socialist or Marxist. It is seizing the leading narrative, so easily generated by language use that sets the scene (litterally). All ideologies do it.

All humans do it.

All language does it.

Joseph K. was denounced and arrested because of it, even if he had done nothing wrong.

The essential characteristic of language may be that it creates differences that make a difference. And in communication in its essential characteristics, language creates I, You, and We: what is mine, what is yours, what is ours, and what is theirs.

Whatever the answer (yes or no), answering the question inevitably means that the narrative is set in the conversation.

If language patterns are repetitive bursts and closed against interpretation or being challenged, they may be seen as data. They impose themselves, are ' fire and forget'.

If they are pings intended or open to dialogue, questioning, learning, they could be seen as information perhaps. As a difference that makes a difference. As something that creates something new.

Language patterns that change into new combinations use both feedback and feedforward as cybernetic mechanisms in the communicating system. We could say they are generated in an ecosystem. And the ecosystem grows and develops according to its principles.

Biological and ecosystems expand and give rise to new ones. They form an ecology, and make the ecosystem grow.

I owe the idea of linking ecosystems to human values to Peter Robertson, fellow systems scientist and member of ISSS.

In the paragraphs above, I have combined my practical experiences of political and ideological debate on sustainable development, Neurolinguistic Programming (NLP), Marc Pierson who introduced me to Christopher Alexander's Pattern Languages, Chomsky's linguistic work on generative linguistics, Hegelian dialectics, Franz Kafka's story of Joseph K. in "The Process', Haddad's neo-Marxist interpretation of Chomsky in which Haddad pointed to human relationships as the basis of alienation, as opposed to the economic relationship between the workers, capitalists and capital, and Peter Robertson's work on organizational and human ecosystems and values.

Back to Language Patterns