Ah very good. It is similar to but distinct from a notion of language as conveying power differences.
Or one that I am more familiar with, language games.
If you ever work with animals or children, play is extremely focused and pointed. There are rules to follow or break. There is dominance and submission. Winners and losers. Players and non-players.
We continue to play as adults but we call it by more fancy names.
Oh I don’t feel badgered at all. I don’t use those words to trivialize the seriousness of language but to elevate the nature of play itself.
However, knowing your context I’ll work on refraining from that usage.
I studied play once upon a time and I see it as crucial to the construction of language and communication. But I know it has a standard meaning of frivolity.
Oh sorry. Connectionism is the idea that there are many parallel processes that happen simultaneously and they interact with each other through several layers and from that emerges the patterns and rules.
Ah, I’m sorry. It’s something I’ve known my whole adult life along with computing and I’ll have to think or find a way for it to be more concrete.
I believe they are the most common. They are similar in that Chomsky has reduced language to several algorithms, and Pinker has elevated language to human nature.
Ok. I just wanted to be sure about context. I was more influenced by Michael Tomasello’s ideas ultimately than Chomskian.
Michael Tomasello has done a lot of work with children and near-human animals such as chimpanzees and orangutans to understand social learning across species and evolution.
I’m simply establishing background distinctions, not attempting to change your stance.
I can move around in a Chomskian world as I can in George Lakoff (Embodied Cognition / metaphors) as I can neural networking / emergence, as I can evolutionary / child cognitive development (Tomasello).
They’re all distinctive and have their strengths and weaknesses. I just wanted to understand where yours is so that I don’t start talking in the wrong context.