We are now in a position to identify the developmental cut.
Not as:
- a gradual shift,
- a statistical trend,
- or a descriptive milestone,
but as:
the first stable instance in which behaviour functions as a construal.
This is the moment at which:
- role emerges,
- binding is achieved,
- and substitution becomes possible.
1. What we are not looking for
We are not looking for:
- increased responsiveness,
- more effective signalling,
- tighter coordination with caregivers,
- or more frequent interaction.
All of these:
- occur prior to the cut,
- remain within value,
- and do not require construal.
2. The critical shift
The shift we are looking for is this:
a behaviour is no longer tied to what it does,but can be used as something.
This is subtle—and easily missed.
Because:
- the behaviour itself may not change,
- the context may remain similar,
- the interaction may look continuous.
What changes is:
its organisation.
3. From effect to function
Before the cut:
- an act produces an effect.
After the cut:
- an act functions in a role.
This means:
- the act is not defined solely by its consequences,
- but by how it is used within the system.
4. The emergence of the “same” act
A key indicator appears at this point.
The system begins to treat:
- different physical instances,
as:
the same act in the same role.
For example:
- variations in vocalisation,
- differences in intensity or timing,
may still be:
recognised and used as the same functional act.
This is:
role differentiation.
5. The first binding
But role alone is not enough.
The decisive step is this:
the role becomes bound to what it construes.
That is:
- the act is used as a construal of something.
Not merely:
- producing a response,
but:
standing in relation to something beyond itself.
6. The minimal case
We can now characterise the minimal case.
An infant produces an act—not simply because:
- a state demands expression,
- or a pattern has been reinforced,
but such that:
the act functions as a construal of a situation.
For instance:
- an act used as requesting,
- not merely as behaviour that results in provision.
This is not:
- cry → food,
but:
act as request.
7. Why this is different
The difference is not in outcome.
In both cases:
- food may be provided,
- interaction may be sustained.
The difference is in organisation.
In the second case:
- the act functions in a role,
- that role is bound to a construal,
- and the system can reproduce this relation.
8. The appearance of substitution
Once this occurs:
substitution becomes possible.
That is:
- the same role can be realised by different acts,
- the same act can appear across different instances,
- variation is organised under functional identity.
This was not possible before.
9. The stability requirement
For this to count as the cut, it must be:
stable.
Not:
- a single occurrence,
- not an isolated event,
but:
- reproducible across contexts,
- maintained across interaction,
- integrated into the system’s organisation.
Without stability:
- binding collapses,
- and construal does not persist.
10. Why this is not learned behaviour
This shift cannot be explained as:
- association between act and outcome,
- reinforcement of successful behaviour,
- or imitation of caregiver patterns.
Because these account for:
- correlation,
- repetition,
- and coordination—
but not:
role–reference binding.
11. The transformation restated
We can now state the transformation cleanly.
Before:
- behaviour is organised by value.
After:
- behaviour can be organised as construal.
This is:
the developmental form of the semiotic cut.
12. The emergence of protolanguage
At this point:
protolanguage becomes possible.
Not as:
- a gradual accumulation of signals,
but as:
a system in which acts function as construals.
The system is still:
- minimal,
- tightly bound to situation,
- limited in scope.
But it is now:
semiotic.
13. What comes next
The next step is to address an immediate objection.
If this transformation is so fundamental:
how can it be explained at all?
Not:
- as accumulation,
- not as learning,
but as:
a reorganisation of the system’s function.
We must now make that claim precise—
and defend it.
Because without that, the cut will be redescribed as growth.
And lost again.
No comments:
Post a Comment