File spoon-archives/heidegger.archive/heidegger_2001/heidegger.0110, message 144


From: "Jud Evans" <Jud-AT-sunrise74.freeserve.co.uk>
Subject: heidegger-AT-lists Modal Processant - How IS works.
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 22:21:48 +0100


One: Basic Terminology.
The architecture of language can be broken down in a number of ways,
according to the particular conception of linguistic function that is to be
tested.


The AIT analysis includes a few important neologisms in order to concentrate
upon two distinct sentential or propositional, elements: 1) A word or phrase
that, through the structure of its utterance, announces the existence of
some particular entity or occurrence. 2) A word or phrase that indicates the
modes of the existence of such entities or occurrences. In order to qualify
as a sentence or proposition, any string of words must consist of both these
elements. And although sentences or propositions must themselves depend upon
a combination of semantic and syntactic functions, these can be analysed
according to how they enable this basic structure.


The term Extantal Imbuant is used to identify phrases of the first kind,
which are usually the subject of a statement. In general, if you utter a
single word in a declarative manner, it will tend to have something of this
quality. But with a more complex Imbuant, e.g., "The Queen of Scotland's
hat," the syntactic organisation allows this phrase to announce the
existence of one entity, and not a series of disconnected entities. There
are three other types of Imbuant which will be outlined later.


The term Modal Informant is used to identify phrases of the second kind,
which are usually the predicate clause of a statement. It introduces a mode
or modes of the existence generally not already made explicitly extant
within the Imbuant, to give it a more specific character, state, or manner
etc. As such, it can be either of a temporary nature or some more specific
permanent condition.


This form of analysis produces its most interesting results when it is used
to examine the role played by the various conjugations of 'be.'


Consider a basic sentence like: "Mary is brave."


Here, the existence of Mary is wholly announced within the simple use of her
name. Of itself, the word "is" does not say anything more about the simple
fact of her existence. Rather, it allows her already announced existence to
be attributed or processed into a specific mode of existence. For the
function of 'be' is always to exhibit the mode of existence of the Extantal
Imbuant and never to state the simple fact that it exists.


Thus AIT analyses this sentence down into the following elements:


"Mary [Extantal Imbuant] is [Modal Processant] brave [Modal Informant]."


This introduces the third basic element of AIT terminology.


For AIT the function of the Modal Processant is wholly syntactic. It is a
syntactic enabler distinguished by its purely systematic processing
function. It should however be noted that although, wherever it appears and
in whatever conjugational form it does so, 'be' always equates to the Modal
Processant function, the reverse is not the case. The Modal Processant
function is wholly for enabling admissible sentences - it indicates that the
descriptive element of the sentence is specifically synchronal of the
existent element. It functions in such a way that attention is directed to
what the sentence as a whole states - the particular modality of a
particular extant person or thing. Thus the syntactic organisation allows
the sentence to announce the mode of existence of the entity introduced by
the Imbuant.


The notion of the Processant function as syntactic is based upon the fact
that it does not entail any kind of 'existence reference.' And this leads to
the further conclusion that the Processant function in any language - which
necessarily includes the 'be' conjugation in English - is not that of a
verb. In the classification of 'be' as 'verb of existence,' 'verb' and
'existence' are each implied by the other. In traditional grammar, a verb is
classified as a word that denotes the occurrence or performance of an action
or a process. Where 'be' is classified as a verb, this is takes place upon
the basis of its formal similarity to words that do indeed perform the
verb-function. But since there is no obvious action or process to which it
manifestly refers, it is then taken as referring to the action or a process
of existing. In modern descriptive linguistic analysis, a verb is a word or
group of words that function as the predicate of a sentence or introduces
the predicate or verb phrase. Here, the verb function and the Processant
function are not properly distinguished.


Two: The Functions of the Processant.

Before anything can be specifically stated about the mechanisms that reveal
how the Processant can function as it does, it is important to lay out these
functions with as much clarity as possible.


i) Modal Indication. For AIT, the Processant function cannot be described in
the traditional sense as that of a "copula" for, upon closer investigation,
it does not strictly perform any kind of "joining." This can be seen if one
considers the difference between "The tall man," and "The man is tall." To
some extent one could say that in both "The man" is 'joined' to "tall" but,
in fact, these elements are not so irrevocably joined in the latter as in
the former. In both cases, the man has the individuated or specific mode of
existence "tall," but only in the second case is this mode of existence
specifically held forth as that which the utterance points out. Thus a
string of words that does not contain a specific Processant function, cannot
be said to contain a Modal Informant. And in any string of words where the
Modal Processant appears, attention is specifically drawn to the
particularity of the Modal Informant. Whether or not the mode of existence
is stated as temporarily or permanently belonging to the Imbuant, it is the
indication of the Modal Informant that provides the contextual point of the
utterance. (It is for this reason that in AIT, the Processant is also
referred to as a "Modal Indicant," hence "Analytical Indicant Theory.")


ii) Modal Interrogation. The Modal Processant, in its role of modal
indication, functions such as to exhibit a Modal Informant. This introduces
the next function to be considered, since where a mode of existence is thus
exhibited, it can be examined and hence challenged. A sentence or
proposition is distinguishable from other types of utterance, inasmuch as it
explicitly says something (the Informant) about something (the Imbuant.) But
this something that is exhibited can be detached from the Imbuant, inasmuch
as it is exhibited within the possibility of not being a mode of existence
of the Imbuant. This aspect of the Processant can be seen most clearly
within the role it has within question formation, within the way it allows
the sentence "The man is tall" to be transformed into the question "Is the
man tall?" Here it can be seen that the so-called copuletic function is
inferred from the fact that where a mode of existence is displayed as a
Modal Informant of a particular Extantal Imbuant, it can be effectively
challenged as to its modal informancy, and disjoined from the Imbuant to
which it is presented as pertaining. Thus it is assumed that the possibility
of this disjunction arises out of a previous conjoining of the Imbuant to an
Informant, as opposed to the indication function that AIT proposes.


But more importantly, the Processant function introduces into the structure
of language the question of the veracity of utterances. The cognitive
possibility of 'truth' or 'falsehood' is created out of this particular
syntactic structure. A proposition must make use of the Processant function,
which displays a particular mode of existence. This again can be seen if one
considers the distinction between "The tall man," and "The man is tall,"
which both describe the same modes of existence. The difference is that the
Processant allows these modes of existence to be displayed in terms of a
possible correspondence wherein the Informant pertains the Imbuant.
Obviously, we can then test this proposition, as to whether 'tall' does
indeed correspond to 'the man,' but only because this has been initiated
into a separable pertaining correspondence by the Processant.


It should of course be noted that there are in fact two types of
'correspondence' simultaneously at work here. The first we can call semantic
correspondence. Where someone points to a dog and says "cat," there is no
semantic correspondence between the referent and the standard usage of this
particular word. The question of semantic correspondence does not of course
arise where the referent is not physically present, which is precisely the
case where the referent is made manifest through Extantal Imbuance.
Nevertheless, it is the distinction between the actually perceived referent
and that which is extantally imbued which allows semantic non-correspondence
to be made manifest.


The second type of correspondence, which we can call propositional
correspondence, is directly attributable to the Processant function. Here,
the semantic reference of the Informant is separated from that of the
Imbuant in order to be related back to it. This propositional correspondence
itself depends upon a semantic correspondence between the Informant and a
particular aspect of that to which the Imbuant refers. If both these
semantic correspondences hold, then the proposition itself can be said to be
true. Thus the Processant allows correspondence/non-correspondence to be
introduced into the formal structure of language, in a way that goes beyond
the correct/incorrect use of words upon which semantic correspondence alone
depends.


Three: Some More Terminology.

The Extantal Imbuant is a word or phrase that, in referring to something,
must also instantiate it as existing. That is to say, the Extantal Imbuant
linguistically effects its own referent. This introduces another element of
the AIT terminology, the Extantal Reificant, wherein this process is at its
most marked. An Extantal Reificant is often coincident with an 'abstract
noun,' but more strictly refers to the linguistic process by which such
abstraction is brought about. For example, a word like 'life' functions
perfectly well as a short-hand term that can describe an entity, as in the
verb or adjective 'live.' But in the form of a noun it creates the
impression of having a specific referent, then taken as an 'essence' or
'substance' that has modes of existence of its own. This generally happens
whenever a verb or an adjective is placed as the subject of a sentence and
thus functions as an Extantal Imbuant. Strictly speaking, any Extantal
Imbuant carries out a function of Extantal Reification. But in AIT
terminology, 'Extantal Reificant' is reserved for those cases where a word
or phrase that would be normally descriptive of a mode of existence, is used
in such a way that it can be taken as having a referent of its own.


In many regular sentences however, Extantal Reification is tempered by its
subsequent reference to an Extantal Objectant. For example, the sentence
"Public opinion is that Bill Clinton should not be impeached," can be
analysed as follows.


"Public opinion [Extantal Imbuant/Reificant] is [Modal Processant] that Bill
Clinton should not be impeached," [Modal Informant]


Since the Modal Informant contains the phrase "Bill Clinton should not be
impeached," within which "Bill Clinton" functions as an Extantal Imbuant,
this becomes the object to which the Reificant is referred, and hence the
Modal Informant contains an Extantal Objectant. The Objectant is a secondary
sentential extantialisation, enabled by the standard noun function. But as
an Objectant, the secondary referent is tied to the primary referent,
announced by the Extantal Imbuant, as the object of its mode of existence.
This can be seen in a sentence like "James is eating the apple." Here, the
Extantal Objectant serves to establish that the apple is the object to which
the Imbuant is referred, such that the mode of existence of the Imbuant is
also that of the Objectant.


Thus the sentence can be reversed, to give "The apple is being eaten by
James." This operation, where the Objectant of the first sentence can be
made into the Imbuant of the second, is known as the Modal Switch. Here, the
mode of existence is transformed from active to passive with regard to the
switched Imbuant, in order to preserve the original relation wherein the
Objectant is referred to the Imbuant.


AIT Sept 2000.



     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005