In a bout of dubious scientific romanticism, Quine, in Word
and Object, conjures up the beginning of language learning by positing an
extra-linguistic anchor, a physical stimulus, to get us over the bridge from
babble to the noun. Quine’s piece on the baby learning the word Mama takes the
then fashionable behavioralism of Skinner and embeds it into theory of the
onto-genesis of language:
“The
operant act may be the random babbling of some thing like 'Mama' at some moment
when, by coincidence, the mother's face is looming. The mother, pleased at
being named, rewards this random act, and so in the future the approach of the
mother's face succeeds as a stimulus for further utterances of 'Mama'. The
child has learned an occasion sentence.”
Coincidence
plays a hinge role here. The presentation of Mama’s face –its looming – makes this
a bit more primitive than Mama pointing at her face, but the logic is the same:
there is the extra-linguistic world, the presentation, the coincidence with
utterance, and the occasion sentence. The set up here has been remarkably
consistent in Western philosophy of language since Augustine’s De Magistro, in
which Augustine instructs his illegitimate son on the semiotic constitution of
language – words as signs – by reference to charades, the language of gesture
of the deaf, mime, and mostly, the pointing finger. Adeodatus accepts the
significance of signs, but then gets stuck on what we would call the social
construction of reality: how does one ever get out of the world of signs?
Adeodatus:
But even a wall, as our reasoning shoedd, cannot be shown without a pointing
finger. The holding out of the finger is not the wall but the sign by means of
which the wall is pointed out. So far as I can see there is nothing which can
be shown without signs/
Augustine:
Suppose I were to ask you what walking is, and you were to get up and do it, wouldn’t
you be using the thing itself to show me, not words or any other signs?
Adeodatus:
Yes, of course. I am ashamed that I did
not notice so obvious a fact.”
Adeodatus
concedes, of course, too quickly, since it is not clear why you can’t use the
thing in itself as a sign, just as it is unclear why Mama’s face is the thing
in itself, and not already the sign, this is Mama.
Signs
are a labyrinth. We are continually promised that the labyrinth has an exit,
but we are continually deflected from its discovery once we’ve made our fatal
entrance.
However,
though the metaphysical divide between the word and the object in Quine is
definitely arguable, Quine does, properly, take up the issue of divided
reference as an issue that cannot be delayed until language is learned.
Another
word for divided reference is wise-assery. The smart aleck, the wise ass, the
joker – from my earliest memories, I was always like that. And I am amazed and
pleased, most of the time, that Adam is also a mocker.
A
couple of nights ago, Adam made up his first pun, when we showed him how to
roll spagetti on a fork and he pronounced it a pasta-fier.
As
well, he has found out how much fun it is to imitate himself. Sometimes, he
will pretend cry and pretend tantrum for the fun of it. To, as Quine would put
it, stress the context of stimulation in which he has been placed. Or, as I
would put it, to both entertain and tease his parental units.
Teasing
stretches a long way. It is rooted in the animal world – not only among humans,
but among other social animals – and it goes all the way into literature, which
is, at base, simply a long form of teasing. There are writers who must have
been aggressive teasers when they were young – like Nabokov – and others who
were, perhaps, more ambiguous about the phenomenon – like Kafka. Teasing isn’t
a necessary derivative of sign using – I’m not sure anyone has ever caught an
ant or a bee teasing, although perhaps we have just not looked hard enough –
but sign using is certainly a prerequisite of teasing. I’m learning to enjoy
this all over again with Adam.
Although
… to give Augustine and Quine their due, when it comes to distinguishing the sign from the thing, Adam
seems more in their camp. Thus, when I ask Adam, once he has jumped up and down
and laughed while seeing a superhero, if Adam is a superhero, he will
invariably reply, no, Adam is Adam. Adam is always Adam. At least for now, he’s
having no truck with deconstruction.
No comments:
Post a Comment