Language is a window into the human mind. Not only because it allows us (speakers) to let others know what's going in our mind. It also allows us (scholars) to study how the mind is configured. And we can do this in different ways.
For example, we can study words and how they relate to concepts; or we can study the formal properties of language and explore whether they differ from the properties of other cognitive capacities.
I'm mostly interested in what the configuration of the universal spine might tell us about the configuration of our mind. That is, up until recently, I was mainly interested in exploring the categories that define the spine, including categories that regulate language in interaction.
I was mainly intersted in the linguistic reality of such categories. From a cross-linguistic point of view, as well as from the point of view of language universals, and hence the human language faculty.
I'm still interested in this quesiton. But I'm now also interested in the cognitive reality of the spine. This interest is leading me in several directions. Because language relates to several other cognitive capacities. And the universal spine allows for a unique way of approaching the question regarding the nature of this relation.
Language and knowledge
- There is a curious property of language, which I have recently discovered (I think).
Language and emotions
When we talk to others, we give them a glimpse into our thoughts, but we also allow them to see a bit of our emotions (consciously not).
There are various ways in which language allwos for the expression of emotion (we can yell in anger or whisper lovingly).
What is striking is that there does no position on the spine which is dedicated for the expression of emotion (there is no EmotivePhrase).
I'm currently entertaining the hypothsis that language and emotions are configured in the same way (by the spine). And that's why they are in complementary distribution.
Embodied language
Classic grammatical theory is concerned with how words, morphemes, and abstract features are configured to create a sentence.
But in interaction we typically use more than just words. We use tone of voice, eye-gaze, gestures, postures, smiles, .... The use of our bodies appears to be systematic and systematically corelated with spoken language.
The (interactional) spine allows for a new way to think about embodied language: I currently pursue the hypothesis that these embodies forms of communication associate with the spine just like other units of language.
The significance of neuro-diversity
I have begun to think about the significance of the particular language profiles of people with neuro-diverse profiles (schizophrenia, autism spectrum, aphasia, alheimer's). This is in collaboration with Wolfram Hinzen, and his GracLab, at UPF.
Following Hinzen's uncartesian ideas according to which language configures thought, it follows that the language of people with different types of thoughts will have different language profiles.
I am currently developing a formal typology for language variation that is based on variation in properties of the spine (including the interactional spine) rather than merely in the properties of UoLs (as is the case with language variation in neuro-typical populations).
The Interactional Spine Hypothesis provides us with an ideal framework as these neuro-diversities are typically characterized as displaying differences in language and social cognition. At the same time, exploring language in neuro-diverse populations allows us to ask questions about the cognitive underpinnings of the (interactional) spine.
Papers
Martina Wiltschko. Language is for thought and communication. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 7(1).
Hinzen, Wolfram & Martina Wiltschko. 2022. Modelling non-specific linguistic variation in cognitive disorders. Journal of Linguistics.
Martina Wiltschko. Under review. Language and the emotions. The view from grammar.
Martina Wiltschko. Under review. Do eyes make words? Do words see them? The grammar of multi-modal interaction.
Martina Wiltschko (Under review). Knowledge is basic. Evidence from linguistic markedness.
Martina Wiltschko (Under review). Knowledge is basic. Evidence from linguistic markedness.
Talks
- The grammar of knowing. Some lessons from cross-linguistic patterns of markedness. Comparative Syntax Meeting Leiden University Center for Linguistics, May 20, 2021
- How to be emotional with language (and despite it). Colloquium, University of Manitoba. April 9 2021
- How to build common ground, one syntactic layer at a time. CRISSP seminar, Brussels, Belgium, March 24th, 2021
- Do eyes make words? Do words see them? Dutch Linguistic Day, January 29 2021
- The grammar of emotions and the absence thereof. Oslo, Colloquium Superlinguistics. November 6, 2020
- Language as an instrument of thought and communication. Evidence from interactional language. Colloquium, Linguistic circle, University of Edinburgh. October 15, 2020
- On the relation between language, thought and communication. Interactional language as a window into the human mind. Colloquim in the Linguistics seminar at CUHK, Hong Kong, September 2020.