Scholarlink

<p>This reply clarifies the role of “Threshold Conditions” in a five-axis model of linguistic understanding. I argue that the two contested thresholds, Normative Repair and Embodied Anchoring, should be interpreted as constitutive-normative conditions: they specify minimal requirements for understanding as an answerable practice, without committing to biological essentialism or reducing the thresholds to empirical checklists. Normative Repair is explained as reason-responsive governance of commitments across breakdown cases, distinguishing it from prompt-driven causal accommodation. Embodied Anchoring is reframed as practical exposure to stakes, consequences, and vulnerability, compatible with phenomenological elaboration. I also indicate how “dynamic integration” functions as a constitutive, temporal-regulatory principle rather than a merely descriptive map.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Reply to the Commentary on “From Multi-Axial Mapping to Dynamic Integration: Unpacking the Thresholds of Linguistic Understanding”

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年2月28日

查看全文
  • Yongho Choi

摘要

This reply clarifies the role of “Threshold Conditions” in a five-axis model of linguistic understanding. I argue that the two contested thresholds, Normative Repair and Embodied Anchoring, should be interpreted as constitutive-normative conditions: they specify minimal requirements for understanding as an answerable practice, without committing to biological essentialism or reducing the thresholds to empirical checklists. Normative Repair is explained as reason-responsive governance of commitments across breakdown cases, distinguishing it from prompt-driven causal accommodation. Embodied Anchoring is reframed as practical exposure to stakes, consequences, and vulnerability, compatible with phenomenological elaboration. I also indicate how “dynamic integration” functions as a constitutive, temporal-regulatory principle rather than a merely descriptive map.