Abstract
AbstractIn this paper, I outline a grammar of lifting (i.e., resistance training) and compare it to that of language. I approach lifting as a system of generating complex meaning–form correspondences from regularized elements and describe the levels of mental representations and relationships between them that are involved in full command of this system. To be able to do so, I adopt a goal-based conception of meaning, which allows us to talk about mappings from complex goals to complex surface outputs in systems of intentional action, signaling and non-signaling, interactive and non-interactive, in a unified way, and show how it applies in lifting. I then proceed to argue that the grammar of lifting is architecturally very similar to that of language. First, I show that both involve stable (idiomatized/lexicalized) pairings of regularized forms with regularized meanings. Second, I argue that in both lifting and language, meaning–form mapping is mediated by syntax, which, crucially, operates on non-linearized hierarchical structures of abstract objects that include both content morphemes and functional morphemes. I conclude, following and expanding on some insights from prior literature and offering further evidence for them, that neither of these architectural phenomena (idiomatized meaning–form pairings and abstract syntax) is specific to language, with both of them likely emerging in skilled action that does not necessarily involve social interaction, due to considerations of repeatability and reusability of elements in new contexts.
Funder
H2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Linguistics and Language,Philosophy
Reference29 articles.
1. Charnavel, I. (2019). Steps toward a universal grammar of dance: Local grouping structure in basic human movement perception. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1364. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01364.
2. Chomsky, N. (1956). Three models for the description of language. IRE Transactions on Information Theory, 2(3), 113–124. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.1956.1056813.
3. Chomsky, N., & Halle, M. (1965). Some controversial questions in phonological theory. Journal of Linguistics, 1(2), 97–138. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700001134.
4. Cohn, N. (2020). Your brain on comics: A cognitive model of visual narrative comprehension. Topics in Cognitive Science, 12(1), 352–386. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12421.
5. Esipova, M. (2019). Towards a uniform super-linguistic theory of projection. In J. J. Schlöder, D. McHugh, & F. Roelofsen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd Amsterdam Colloquium (pp. 553–562). https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/004905.