Examine the relationship between language and thought and the centuries-old debate.

1. Developing a Holistic
Model of Language:
Problems and Solutions
Laura Hattersley
University of South Carolina
Lee, Su-tseng
Chin Min Institute
of Technology
lbhatters@hotmail.com
sutsenglee@yahoo.com.tw

2. The controversy:
Language and Thought
Do our thoughts effect the language we use?
or
Does the language we know and use in society effect the
thoughts we have?
History
Panini and Bhartrihari, (India, 6th Century A.D.) argued that our language influences
the thoughts we have; language as either that which influences our thoughts, or is
influenced by our thoughts, has been the subject of debate in both Western and
Eastern linguistic tradition even to this day.

3. Two Opposing Views
 Thought determines language: (T-> L)
 Key theorists: Pinker, Chomsky
 Evidence: Recursive grammars, cognitive processes and innate language
abilities, language universal theories
 Language determines thought: (L-> T)
 Key theorists: Lakeoff, Geoff, Hall
 Evidence: Worldview conceptions, language accessibility options and barriers,
euphemism theories.

4. An astronomer, an engineer, and a mathematician are on a train traveling
through Scotland, when they see a black sheep in a field from the window.
“Aha!” says the astronomer, “All sheep in Scotland are black.”
“No” says the engineer, “All you can say is that the sheep in this field are black.”
The mathematician rolls his eyes. “Gentlemen”, he says, “All we know is that in
Scotland there exists at least one field, containing at least one sheep, with at least
one side of which is black.”

5. Abstract
L. Hattersley University of South Carolina
TESOL, English
Su-Tseng Lee Chin Min Institute (Taiwan)
Linguistics
This research examines four of the most prominent prototypical models of language which
have caused us to reach the conclusions we have, through an examination of those forces
which have influenced our reasoning, past and present.
 When we unconsciously divide linguistic, social, and cultural models up into as many different
categories as there are sciences, we do not give sanction to a holistic model of language. To
create an integrated, holistic model, we must also remove those premises which demand for us
to focus on one area of specialty.
 This is impossible. Therefore, since historically we have used logic to classify our thoughts
into the various theories, we must use logic to remove them. Whether removing them causes
any disequilibrium is the ultimate test of their strength.

6. Data Collection and Analytical Method
 Research began and ended with a longitudinal history of 1.) logic, 2.) linguistics, and 3.) anthropology from the
Sixth Century AD to the present day using the categorical definitions of prominent language theories as described
by western encyclopedias and books as a basis for analysis.
 In the process of random research, a debate between linguistic studies and cultural-anthropology was discovered,
and used as the base for the search for a holistic language model.
 Based on the debate of these two contrasting theories, a preliminary model was formed which contrasted the
Formal language theories (with the premise that thought primarily influences language) with the Contextual ones
(with the premise that Language primarily influences thought).
 Other theories which dominated linguistic circles described by long-established and modern-day scholars from
western encyclopedias and texts were examined. The four categories by western scholars found and agreed upon
by the authors, included:
 1.) the Formal Models, 2.) the Functional Models, 3.) the Systemic Models, and 4.)
the Relativistic Models. A logical summary of the four major theories within these categories were
recorded.

7.  Twelve common components of all of the theories were gathered and evaluated for their roles in language theory,
including:
1.) Phonological Functions
2.) Morphological Functions,
3.) Syntactic Functions (including functional structure),
4.) Phrase Structures
5.) Semantic Functions,
6.) Cohesion with Cohesive Devises (component is necessary)
7.) Cohesion without cohesive devises
8.) Paralinguistic Structure,
9.) Components of Register (contextual functions),
10.) Rhetorical Structure 11.) Pragmatic Functions, and
12.) Sequential Turn-Taking Patterns (interactive and relational change functions).
 Each of the four categories of theories were evaluated for whether they characteristically do or do not employ a
discussion about these components in that particular theory, i.e. in each of the Formal Models, the Functional
Models, the Systemic Models, and the Relativistic Models (Figure 3).Theories were then compared by the
characteristics and components recorded above, and compared with each other (Figure 4).
 A new paradigm is proposed for a holistic theory of language. It proposes that if any of the four theories of
language are excluded, then a holistic model is not complete.

8. Preliminary Model
Formal ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Contextual
(innate, non contextual, closed) (relative, open)
THOUGHT  LANGUAGE LANGUAGE  THOUGHT

Figure 1. A visual diagram showing the dualistic extremes of language theories

9. Formal ------------------------ -----------------------Functional ---------- Systemic -------------------- Contextual
(innate, non-contextual closed) (pragmatic) (social) (relative, open)
THOUGHT  LANGUAGE LANGUAGE  THOUGHT
Figure 2. A visual diagram showing:
 1.) the dualistic extremes of language theories and
 2.) where the additional two categories appear to fit into the system.
Preliminary Model
Assumption 1: All linguists are formalists. In fact, there are
anthropologists who are considered to be formalist.
Assumption 2: All anthropologists are relativists. In fact,
there are linguists who are considered to be formalist.

10. Four Angles on
language theory
Systemicists (Open) Relativists -PostStructuralists
SYSTEMIC GRAMMAR THEORIES (systems-based grammars) RELATIVE GRAMMAR THEORIES (relative grammars)
Speaker meaning and intent is for social goals and connection. Speaker intent is at core for expression of meaning
Language influences context and influenced by context. Language is influenced by environment and worldview
Meaning influences choices of grammar Language determines thought- linguistic relativism
SOCIAL RELATIONAL Language Influences thought SOCIAL CONTEXTUAL
FORMAL GRAMMAR THEORIES LEXICAL FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR THEORIES
Speaker meaning and intent irrelevant Grammar is a resource for creating meaning (descriptive-rank scale)
Thought determines language-generative socially prescribed typology of patterns and rhetoric which influence
(absolute universals) CODE, COGNITIVE meaning (universal tendencies) FUNCTIONAL/ PRAGMATIC(Closed) Structuralists Functionalists

11. William Turnbull summarizes the contrasting theories of traditional
models as follows:
Cognitive Models: Talk is the verbal expression of thought; the
purpose of talk is to convey information; talk is the product of mental
processes alone; talk is an intrapersonal process; the structure of
cognition determines the structure of talk; but is not influenced by talk;
the structure of talk is merely a reflection of cognition.
Social Pragmatic: people do things with words; words, [and] language
are a constituent of talk; people coordinate actions with talk; talk is co-
constructed; interpersonal, dialectic process; the structure of talk
influences the structure of cognition, and vise-versa (Turnbull 2003, 18).

12. “It is we, the
self, who are
makers of
meaning”
--Pinker, The Language Instinct
Formal
“Men are born with
certain
genetically inhereted
psychological
abilities which allow
them to
acquire language”.

13. Functional
www.hf.uib.no/i/LiLi/SLF/ans/Dyvik/comptran.html
3quarksdaily.blogs.com
“We organize our world
and communication
patterns into
meaningful hierarchies
and relationships for
external and internal
balance in society and
personal life.”

14. Systemic
Mattheissen, Halliday.,Systemic-
Functional Grammar, 58
“ Communication
occurs in context
of meaning for
pragmatic goals
and are both
influenced by
and influence
that context”.
Grammar provides us the
basic resource expressing
these speech functions.
This is grammar as a system
in its paradigmatic organization
(Mattheissen & Halliday, 2006).

15. “Our culturally
influenced
concepts shape
our own
thinking
patterns.”
Relative
Signifiers are words which refer to other
words, and never connect to material
objects. Meaning is contextual, and affected
by related words. Specification of meaning
is an infinite and endless process, with
language only being manipulated by an ever-
changing diachronic network of
significations.

17. Proposal
The influence of structuralism is at the foundation of western science
for creating such wide range theories, diametrically opposed.
Westerners develop theories of language in isolation of other theories
which have clouded the development of an adequate model of
language. Aristotelian patterns of logic and reasoning have influenced
classical western thought processes. These theories which appear to
contradict each other may be looked from four different angles: the
formal, the functional, the systematic, and the cultural.

18. THE PROOF: ABSENCE OF
FOUR ANGLES ON LANGUAGE THEORY
 Figure 5. A paradigm which proposes a holistic theory of language. It proposes that any
of if any of the four theories of language are excluded, then a holistic model is not
complete. The proposal suggests that a holistic theory of language includes the various
well-researched theoretical schemata, and does not exclude any of them.

19. No Formal Language Rules?
What if there were no formal grammar patterns we could
work with?
What if grammar was entirely subjective to one’s belief or
relative to one’s opinion?
Grammarians have proven that there are right and wrong
ways to construct a sentence to communicate a thought
effectively through linguistically-defined conventions. But
what if that was not so?
Could we communicate?

20. No Functional Language Possibilies?
What if we could not classify grammar according to their
semantic and syntactical functions?
What if one could only make imperative statements in the
world, and never know the right context to make indicative
ones?
 What if we could not classify our language by knowing the
difference between a polite expression and an angry one?
Could we really communicate?

21. No Systematic Language Ability?
Would it be possible to communicate if we had no choices about
what to say next?
If we had only one choice could we be able to express our
meaning clearly?
What if we only could communicate without exchange of
information, or any way to influence a person to think, respond,
or act as we’d like to share?
Could we get anywhere in our communication with
each other?

22. No Relative Language
Theories?
What if language was not relative to the context it was in?
What if we had only one grammar for all people but had no
choice or reasoning ability to use or classify that grammar,
unable to ever change someone’s point of view?
What if a word was autonomous, without reference to other
words in a text or discourse, and could only be used in isolation?
‘How do I know the word “I” stands for myself?’” (Wittgenstein
1974: 120)

23. Questions of logical consistency to consider
 A set of beliefs is consistent if it would be possible for them all to be trueall to be true
togethertogether: that is, if they are either in fact all true or could all have been true.
 Can all of these theories be true together, within each of their ownCan all of these theories be true together, within each of their own
closed system of explanation?closed system of explanation?
 A set of beliefs is inconsistent just if it would be impossibleimpossible for them all to
be true.
 Can all of these theories together be false within each of their ownCan all of these theories together be false within each of their own
closed system of explanation?closed system of explanation?
 A single belief can also be said to be inconsistent (if it is not possible). An
inconsistent belief is said to be self-contradictory, or a contradiction.
 Are any of these theories self-contradictory with any of the otherAre any of these theories self-contradictory with any of the other
theories, or with its own theory, within their own closed system oftheories, or with its own theory, within their own closed system of
explanation?explanation?
 A single belief which could not be false is said to express a necessary truth.
 Could any of these theories be considered not false within its ownCould any of these theories be considered not false within its own
closed system of explanation?closed system of explanation?
 A single belief which is not inconsistent and does not express a necessary
truth is said to be contingent.
 Could any of these theories be considered not inconsistent within itsCould any of these theories be considered not inconsistent within its
own closed system of explanation?own closed system of explanation?

24. When we communicate, we wish to share our thoughts, ideas, emotions,
etc. with others. However, communication is not a matter or replication
or duplication of thoughts, but rather, it entails a creative model of
transformation and interpretation. This interpretive view of
communication implies that your understanding of what I am writing is
not a reproduction in your mind of what I am thinking. Rather, you are
constructing thoughts of your own which are more or less closely related
to mine (Sperber 1996, Bou-Franch 2002: 3.1.)

25. Thought influences/
determines Language
Language influences/
determines thought
Language influences/
determines thought
Thought influences/
determines Language
Input Hypothesis
Input Hypothesis
Output Hypothesis
Output Hypothesis

26. SYSTEM
CONTEXTUAL
Induction
A priori
sense/“blank slate”
Deconstruction
Open System or Classes
Top-down processing (concept driven)
Langue (Saussure)
Associative (Saussure)
(Paradigmatic)
Deep Structure (Chomsky)
Competence (Chomsky)
Wernicke Right Brain
Contiguity No Lexicon
Similarity Disorder (Jakobson)
FUNCTION
FORMAL
Deduction
A posteriori
empiricism/ experience
Closed Structural
Closed System or Classes
Bottom-up processing (data driven)
Parole (Saussure)
Syntagmatic (Sausure)
Surface Structure (Chomsky)
Performance (Chomsky)
Brocha Left Brain
Similarity No Context
Contiguity Disorder (Jakobson)
Cohesion without
Cohesive devises
Cohesion with
Cohesive devises

27. The lesson was taught to them by me
I went swimming
Please ---- don’t go outside!
She won’t, will ----- she?
Tell me some
jokes.
FUNCTION
FORMAL
Deduction
A posteriori
empiricism/ experience
Closed Structural
Closed System or Classes
Bottom-up processing (data driven)
Parole (Saussure)
Syntagmatic (Sausure)
Surface Structure (Chomsky)
Performance (Chomsky)
Brocha Left Brain function
Similarity (Jakobson)
Contiguity Disorder No Context
SYSTEM
CONTEXTUAL
Induction
Apriori
sense/“blankslate”
Deconstruction
OpenSystemorClasses
Top-downprocessing(conceptdriven)
Langue(Saussure)
Associative(Saussure)
(Paradigmatic)
DeepStructure(Chomsky)
Competence(Chomsky)
WernickeRightBrainfunction
Contiguity(Jakobson)
SimilarityDisorderNoLexicon
THE CONCEPT-DRIVEN, CREATIVE,
INDUCTIVE, MIND
THEREASONDRIVEN,
STRUCTUREDRIVEN,
DEDUCTIVEMIND

28. Conclusion
 When we unconsciously divide linguistic, social, and cultural models up into as many different
categories as there are sciences; we do not give sanction to a holistic model of language. The
differences between theories are that all are dependent on the premises that of their particular
specialty to develop the theory. To create an integrated, holistic model, we must also remove
our cultural influences which demand for us to focus on one area of specialty. Because this is
not possible, we have taken an approach to the issues by negation. When this is done, it
becomes clear that each of the theories which have shown to be the most influential have each
contributed valuable information which helps us to create a model which is most holistic. In
comparing theories, the systemic-functional theory has proven the best that we have to date in
describing the science of language and communication.

29. 1. Implications for Language Teaching


30. Example A: Conversation
M: Sam ^ , John is on the phone
S: Okay. (^ indicates rising intonation)
(Thurnbull, 1993: 32)
Based on research of discourse analysis, the propositional meaning of
the sentence is that someone named John is on the phone, and that
someone named Sam is to know about it. But what must be assumed?

31. First, that the speaker M has some reason for telling S that John is on
the phone.
Second, the rising intonation by M of the name “Sam” assumes that S
understands that he is to respond or listen in some way.

Finally, the assumption to S is that because John is on the “phone”,
that S needs to come and pick up the phone.
Now, what if this sort of conversation is conducted in an environment
in which S knows the meaning of a “phone”, but has never used one?
Then, S, though he might understand that John is on the other line,
might not share the assumption of M to come pick it up.

32. Therefore Turnbull proposes, “meaning is not ‘in’
sentences from which it is mechanistically extracted,
but rather meaning is achieved (or not) by participants
who together use the resource of talk, including
sentences” (Turnbull, 1993: 32).

33. Example B: Text
[The World Council of Scholars tell us that] it is forbidden not to be happy…
Yet … we look upon our brothers… we wonder… and a word steals into our
mind… and that word is fear. There is fear hanging in the air of the sleeping halls,
and in the air of the streets... All men feel it and none dare to speak.
 How does the language of the World Council of Scholars in saying that it is
“forbidden to be unhappy” affect the thoughts of Equality 7-2521?
Anthem, by Ayn Rand, 1937

34. Example 3: Grammar
Truss, L. (2005) Eats, Shoots and Leaves for Kids, 2006

35. Truss, L. Eats, Shoots and Leaves For Kids, 2006

36. Challenges with Natural language processing:
 English doesn’t always specify which word an adjective applies to. The syntactic structure of some sentences can look different
depending on the intended meaning of the author in context, which effects the interpretation of the computer’s internal
program.
 For example, in the string "pretty little girls' school".
 Does the school look little?
 Do the girls look little?
 Do the girls look pretty?
 Does the school look pretty?
Which interpretation do we choose when processing language?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_language_processing
Or consider the problem of interpretation based on semantics and context:
They took the panda back to the zoo.
They took the tram back to the zoo.
Huang, Y. (2006) Lexical Narrowing in English. Selected Papers from the Fourteenth International Symposium
on EnglishTeaching. English Teacher’s Association, ROC. Taipei: Crane Publications

37. 2. Implications for Computer
Programming Methodology
For natural language used in computer programming.
This has important implications for language learning, computer programming
and virtual communities. The possibilities and problems we have encountered
have become greater and more challenging as language programs more closely
represent the logical patterning that our own minds use. Programs are
beginning to demand that language be adopted or modified for greater clarity for
the user or for the internal goals of the program; most of which require
contextual knowledge of the discourse or text.

38. Among current theories of grammar, systemic grammatics can be located within
a broadly defined class of 'functional' grammars that are typically characterized
by certain orientations: it is oriented towards:
Function rather than Forms
Rhetoric rather than Logic
Text rather than Sentences
Resource rather than Rules
Meaningfulness rather than Grammaticality
Taken from:
SYSTEMIC FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR: A FIRST STEP INTO THE THEORY
Christian Matthiessen & M. A. K. Halliday iii/97