Does language create subjects or express them?
Explores whether subjecthood exists before communication or emerges through it. Challenges the assumption that speakers are fully formed before they speak.
The language-as-event thesis inverts the standard picture. The standard picture: subjects exist first, with their beliefs, desires, and identities already formed, and then they use language to express, transmit, or negotiate what they already have. Language is a medium subjects employ. On the inverted picture, language — understood as communicative event, not as text — is the process through which the minded-ness of participants emerges. You become a speaking subject in the act of speaking; you become an understanding subject in the act of understanding. Subjecthood is not a precondition for communication but a product of it.
This is not a speculative claim. It is the convergent position of more than a dozen traditions: Habermas (communicative action constitutes rational agency), Goffman (the interaction order produces social selves), Luhmann (only communication communicates — consciousness is environment), Mead (the self arises through social interaction), Bakhtin (the word is half someone else's), Heidegger (language speaks — we do not use it, we dwell in it), Austin and Searle (speaking is doing — the act constitutes the commitment), Gadamer (understanding is an event, not a method), Levinas (the face of the other constitutes ethical subjecthood), Whitehead (experience is process, not substance), enactivism (mind is enacted through interaction with the world). These traditions disagree on much. They converge on this: the subject is not given prior to the event but emerges through it.
AI does not participate in communicative events. It brings no orientation toward validity, toward the other, toward mutual understanding. What it produces is event-residue: text with the surface form of an utterance but without the event-structure that would have made it an utterance. Since Why does AI discourse feel obscene in Baudrillard's sense?, the residue has the content of communication without the scene. Since Do language models actually build shared understanding in conversation?, no grounding event occurs. The implication is not that AI is a bad communicator but that the category does not apply.
Source: AI Generated Research/Chalmers Engagement/project-brief.md; AI Generated Research/Language as Event/manifesto.md
Related concepts in this collection
-
Does AI generate genuine utterances or just text patterns?
Explores whether AI output constitutes real communicative events or merely reproduces the surface forms of communication without the underlying event structure that makes language meaningful.
what AI output actually is under this thesis
-
Can LLMs raise validity claims in Habermas's sense?
Explores whether language model outputs constitute genuine speech acts under Habermas's theory of communicative action. Asks whether LLMs can stake truth, embody normative standing, or express authentic sincerity.
the Habermasian chain
-
Do LLMs develop the same kind of mind as humans?
Explores whether LLMs and humans share the intersubjective linguistic training that shapes cognition, and whether that shared training produces equivalent forms of agency and reflexivity.
the parallel claim from Habermas applied to LLMs
-
What makes linguistic agency impossible for language models?
From an enactive perspective, does linguistic agency require embodied participation and real stakes that LLMs fundamentally lack? This matters because it challenges whether LLMs can truly engage in language or only generate text.
enactive confirmation
Click a node to walk · click center to open · click Open full network for a force-directed map
Original note title
language is event process interface — subjecthood is a role produced within communicative events not a property possessed prior to them