The previous analyses have drawn a sharp line:
value is not meaning; the body is not a semiotic system.
Two immediate objections follow.
Does this collapse protolanguage into value?
If gesture is not semiotic, why is speech—given that both are bodily?
These objections are not peripheral.
They test whether the framework can maintain its distinctions under pressure.
1. Protolanguage Is Not Value
It may appear that the reanalysis of gesture and posture as value undermines the status of protolanguage.
It does not.
A distinction must be enforced.
(a) Protolanguage Proper
Protolanguage, in its original formulation, is:
a semiotic system
bi-stratal (meaning ↔ expression)
microfunctional
It involves:
the construal of meaning
the organisation of expression in relation to that meaning
It is not yet language.
But it is already:
semiosis.
(b) Bodily Activity in Adults
What was previously described as “protolinguistic body language” includes:
gesture
posture
affective stance
alignment
These are:
structured
interactive
effective
But they do not:
construe meaning
organise symbolic relations
instantiate a semiotic system
They are:
configurations of biological and social value.
2. Emergence Without Continuity
The relation between the two can now be stated precisely:
protolanguage emerges from a value-structured substrate, but is not reducible to it.
There is:
continuity in development
discontinuity in kind
Protolanguage is not “value in an early form.”
It is:
the emergence of semiosis from value.
3. The Vocal Tract Objection
A second objection follows:
if gesture is not a semiotic system, why is speech—given that both are bodily?
The objection assumes symmetry.
There is none.
4. Material vs System
Both gesture and speech involve bodily activity:
movement of limbs
movement of the vocal tract
But bodily activity is not the relevant criterion.
The relevant distinction is:
whether a semiotic system is organised through that material.
5. Speech as Realisation
In speech, the vocal tract functions as:
the primary realisation pathway of a semiotic system.
Language is organised across strata:
semantics
lexicogrammar
phonology
These are realised through:
articulation
airflow
vibration
The body does not generate meaning.
But it:
realises a system that does.
6. Gesture as Participation
Gesture, by contrast:
does not instantiate a stratified semiotic system
does not organise meaning independently
It may:
align with language
participate in construal
enact epilinguistic systems
But in all cases:
the semiotic system is located elsewhere.
Gesture:
participates in semiosis without constituting it.
7. No Symmetry
The apparent symmetry between gesture and speech is therefore misleading.
Both are bodily.
Only one is:
systematically organised as the realisation of a semiotic system.
8. The General Principle
The clarification can be generalised:
semiosis is not located in the material substrate, but in the stratified system realised through it.
From this it follows:
not all structured behaviour is semiotic
not all coordinated activity is meaningful
not all bodily expression is communication
9. Final Position
The two objections can now be resolved:
protolanguage remains a semiotic system, emerging from but not reducible to value
the vocal tract does not make speech semiotic; it realises a system that is already semiotic
And the central claim holds:
the body is the site of coupling across strata, not the source of meaning.
10. What This Secures
These clarifications are not minor adjustments.
They secure the framework against two common collapses:
reducing semiosis to value
inflating all bodily activity into meaning
Holding this line allows the analysis to proceed without drift:
meaning remains specific; value remains distinct; and their coupling remains the object of explanation.
No comments:
Post a Comment