Just because science has to be extraordinarily rigorous doesn't mean that we cannot use the power of imagination. Is it fantasy? Is it delusion? Is it blissful ignorance? Is it a combination of all these? Whatever it is, in my opinion, we should not divest ourselves from this innate capacity that we humans have. So long as we are able to separate non evidence-based / hard logically-driven knowledge from mental flashes, I am convinced that there is no harm in doing so. As a matter of fact, I find it far more damaging to one's personal development suppressing such thoughts than encouraging them. I just so happen to think of this in terms of potentially new neural connectivity, one that has to be kept on its on realm of happy speculation, but alive nonetheless.

Professor Dan Everett says there are no such things as intuitions (, only inferences, but I will use this term here as this is the common non-technical use and sense of the word that everybody understands ("the meaning of words is its use").


How do we know if a pattern is a system or a coincidence (systematic or coincidental)? (coincidence understood as random events that simply cluster here and there because they have to end up somewhere, not because they had to be right there where we see them...).

So, for instance, prototypical transitivity (seems to me) is given by the natural constrains of the world we live in, not by some mental universal (I'm not saying there are no mental universals, but we should not deem everything that happens universally an innate mental universal).

Take for instance "pyramids"; we were not born with a chunk of brain designed to build pyramids, but given the constraints of the physical world in which we live, they just so happen to be one of the most common structures around the world, but that structure is just a coincidence imposed by the laws of physics and resources available to human beings.

Correlación, causalidad o casualidad

(correlation, causality or coincidence)


What is language?

You cannot teach English if you don’t first define what language is.

First of all, our definition of language relies upon a prototype of “definition”: what is the definition of “definition”? Secondly, we have an unconscious prototype of “language,” which determines our definition of “language” without us being aware that this prototypical definition coexists in our minds with other less central conceptions of language.

The number one (prototypical) definition that we give to language is “means of communication,” which is already heavily influenced by the conduit metaphor: “means,” “medium,” “channel,” “intermediary,” “avenue,” “route,” “path,” etc.

A secondary, less often discussed, yet comparably important definition that we hold in our minds is a “conceptualization system.” That is, a system to think about the world, a system that “builds our reality,” a system that “structures our reality” (how and what we think the world is).

A third conception of language is a “social construct.” In this definition, language is what it is only relative to its role in the formation and maintenance (sometimes destruction) of social bonds. Language is “whatever is shared by the members of a society” (common ground, mutual understanding, meaning negotiation, etc.).

A fourth meaning associated with language is “set of linguistic symbols.” This places an emphasis on the symbolic nature of language. Different definitions of “symbolism”/”symbolization” come into play though. Some would go as far as to tell that human beings are “symbolic creatures,” which is not untrue, but these latter definitions start leaning to a more sort of ethereal, spiritual tone or shade of language. Others are more technical and define symbolism as arbitrary units of mental representation (fully detached “signs” for the representation of referential (and non-referential, abstract) objects of conception).

A fifth idea linked to language is “words.” This is probably the, ironically, least self-conscious definition of language. Nobody would deny that language has words; yet, not many would be willing to give such a seemingly barbaric definition; however, in practice, our daily experience with language is an experience with words (which is what you are reading right now (funnily enough)). So, it is just fair that we have this unaware conception of “language as words.”

Finally (for this non-comprehensive personal review), our conception of language depends upon the ideas we indoctrinate ourselves with from our favorite authors. The more I read and the more I agree with a certain author, the more I will tend to define language in her or his own terms.

Within this general perspective thus, language is liable to different conceptions and definitions. Different metaphors can be evoked to try to and organize these different ideas into one coherent prototype. The one that seems most comfortable and practical (both conceptually and didactically) to me is the “radial metaphor,” in which we have a central core definition of language (the prototype); and then from there, other definitions extend outwards towards the periphery:

An alternative metaphor that I like to use in order to think of definitions is the “reticular meaning” metaphor (Gontier, 2016). In this metaphor, meanings overlap to a far more reaching extent than we normally are aware of. The following picture is a simplistic illustration of what “reticulate” tries to refer to.

On the left side, different meanings of a prototype branch out separately; on the right side, meanings interact with one another.

A third alternative metaphor is the “wave metaphor”:

In this metaphor, different aspects of meaning can peak or valley at different times in our brains.

So, what is language? I do not intend to deal with phenomenological or ontological issues. This is just a witggensteinian approach (the meaning of words is its (conventional?) use). I simply want to point out two facts: 1) Those of us who work as English as a foreign language teachers cannot teach (or at least are very unlikely to succeed and are much more ineffective) if we do not even know or ask ourselves what language is; and 2) our conception of language is not one single monolith.

My very personal, most favorite definition is that “language is the evolutionary mechanism that humans developed to achieve ‘shared cognition’ (a common consciousness with the others).” But that is something to be discussed at some other moment with much more theoretical machinery from the cognitive neurosciences that define the underpinnings and differences between sensation, perception, and conception.

Gontier, N. (2016). Guest-editorial introduction: converging evolutionary patterns in life and culture. Evolutionary Biology, 43(4), 427-445.

Accidental notes:

El nivel de esquematización es brutal. ¿Cómo le haces para dar una definición que tome en cuenta todos los espacios-tiempos en los que el lenguaje habita? [The level of schematization is brutal. ¿How do we give a definition that takes into account all the spaces-times in which language inhabits?]

Symbolic symbolism?

Final note:

I did not tackle the "language is grammar" conception for this seems to me way too reductive. I am quite open, though, to discussing this as a possible component of the conceptual prototype of what language is.