This paper is on the refutation of “scientific” notion of creative speaking/hearing subject with zero history a la Chomsky or rather on the falsification of this metanarrative of “ideal” speaker-hearer. The counter-hypothesis, in a nutshell, describes the correlation between empty linguistic organism and human malleability -- that is, creative speaking subject is a myth (in the Bartheian sense of the term). The idea is to investigate the traces of outside sociality in the mental linguistic algorithm as non-contaminated Language Acquisition Device (LAD) does not exist. The author calls this phenomenon as psi-(psycho-social) property of human mind. In this paper, the author wishes to discuss briefly three basic as well as interrelated problems in relation with linguistic cognition in general. The problems are as follows: I. Is there any relationship between “empty linguistic organism” and “social malleability”? Or, what are the effects of socio-linguistic externally to psycholinguistic internally? Do we really have human-object in such a raw state as posited by Chomsky without being constrained or manipulated by the outside sociality? II. What is the matching condition between human cognition and computational algorithm? Or, what is identity in difference (bhedābheda) in computational cognition and human cognition? III. How does we recover perceive and recognize the deleted portion of a sentence or a word when we are perceived sentence?
This third question is related to the unique capacity of human cognition, that negates even the possibilities of the second question and the second question is a derivative of social condition depicted in the first problem. Providing this small clue, I would like to discuss these three problems in the following three separate sections, which are further divided into different subsections. The sections of the paper are as follows: Section 1 poses the problems with the notions of Internalized and externalized language Thus, in the Section 1 of this paper the problem regarding the speaking subject’s body as well as language will be presented. Section 2 concentrates on the facts and fictions. Thus it deals with these “fictitious” facts taken from different types of literature. Section 3 attacks Chomskian hypothesis within the gharana within his inherited enlightenment project. This section also briefly introduces the theories, which are not within the purview of Chomskian schooling. This section inter-/rupts/-pretes the “facts” (as presented in Section 2) and two diagrams (as presented in Section 1) with the help of divergent theories. I am strategically smuggling my voice, as a sub-altern local intellectual, into the voices of Sahibs as we cannot do without sahibs. Thus this section accounts for different schools of thought to subscribe the problem as presented in Section 1. Section 4 concludes that the meta-narrative of speaking subject is a “myth” in Bartheian sense of the term and puts forward the hypothesis of “crippled creativity” or “end of dialogue.” The problem arises in this stable situation, when different scholars from different schools of thoughts are trying to search out an “ideal speech situation.” These scholars are ranging from Marxist, Existentialist, Hermeneutician, Psychoanalysts, Critical Theorist to Post-structuralist and some Third-worId activists. Why are they striving for language? Is there something wrong with our language? Do we not create infinite sets of sentences out of finite sets of words despite the fact that we are living within the behavioral world of manipulation? What happens to our competence or our internalized Language? If we do not face problems of language generation, there would be no question of proposing “ideal Speech situation” or “intersubjective interaction” between speaker and hearer on the part of Habermas or Third world activists. This striving for “ideal speech situation” is preceded by suffering, which, according to Freud is “obvious” “common know/edge” to us (Freud, 1930: 94) and it is not an illusion (or persecutory paranoia) that can be eradicated by technical intervention or inducing medicine. The different domains of state apparatuses, school, prison, army, bureaucracy use behavioral technique to manipulate body-object.