Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Dell Hymes, Geoffrey Leech, and Deborah Schiffrin have commented on the differen
ces between formal and functional theories in a nutshell in their works. For exa
mple, Leech (1983) in his Principles of Pragmatics distinguishes four important
differences which are discussed below. The formal approach studies language as an
autonomous system whereas the functional approach studies language as a social
system and the cognitive appro ach as a conceptual system.
The formal approach (e.g., Chomsky) explains the acquisition of language by a child
due to a built in capacity to learn a language. Functionalists (e.g. , Halliday) explain
it in terms of the development of the child's communicative needs and abilities in
society. Again, there is contradiction with respect to th e acquisition of language:
formalists support "nature" and functionalists "nurtu re".
Dell Hymes (1974) in his article "Why Linguistics needs the Sociolinguist" discu sses
some of the important problems not answered by the formalists and lists the m in
seven points as explained below:
The structural (i.e. formalist) approach considers the structure of lang uage (code)
as grammar whereas the functional approach considers the structure o f speech
(act, event) as ways of speaking. In other words, the structural approa ch focuses on
language as a formal autonomous system of phonology, syntax, and s emantics. As
such it is independent of the purposes or functions which these for ms are used to
serve in human affairs. The functional approach on the other hand considers
language as language in use which consists of speech acts, events, an d situations
and so dependent on the purposes or functions which these forms are designed to
serve in human affairs. Hence, there is an opposition in these view s: independent
Vs dependent.
Use merely implements what is analyzed as code and the analysis of code should be
prior to the analysis of use this is the formalist view of language structure and use.
The functionalist view is opposite to this view: analysis of use should be prior to the
analysis of code because organization of use disclose s additional features and
relations. In the functionalist view, use and code are in an integral (dialectical)
relation - note the spelling of dialectical derive d from dialectic: it is not dialectal
which is derived from dialect, one variety of language. In the formalist view, they
are in a sort of linear relation. Henc e, both the views are contradictory in their
premises.
As language has not only formal but also functional properties, we need a theory
that can accommodate both these properties. However, in view of the differences in
their theoretical premises, it is difficult to combine both the paradigms and try to
account for the formal and functional properties of language together in an eclectic
approach. Even if there are no two explicit options required to trigger a response
bias, t here is always an inherent set of options to do or not do an action and as
such there will always be a response bias for an action and consequently a
dispositio nal bias to trigger the response bias and finally a dispositional basis and
disp osition (personality) to create the dispositional bias.
What is more, every action is not a mere patterned structure but it has another
important dimension to it: it has a function as well. In fact, form, meaning, fu nction,
and disposition (personality) are also interconnected-interrelated-inter dependent
by the Principle of Radial Reciprocal Interaction:
e] Result Experience.
In other words, there are two dimensions to every action: form and function. In our
real life, we come across mainly two types of action: 1.formal-functional ac tion; 2.
functional-formal action:
(5)
action procedes from a conceived function to form (e.g., a car (form) is created
Applying this concept to language formation, we can say that meaning is abstract
as differentiated awareness of this and that and it manifests itself in concret e form
via symbolization, (i.e., semiotic representation) and this symbolization requires a
system or a pattern which is phono-lexico-syntax [sound (phonetics) evolving into
lexis and lexis evolving into syntax]. Finally, this pattern is ma terialized as sound
manifests it in the form of speech. However, the desire to c reate a language as well
as its design are generated, specified and directed by the disposition (personality)
of the language community.
(6)
As a language such as English or Arabic is not already there in the formative st ages
of its evolution, we can say that a language is a functional-formal creatio n. Of
course, as it is transmitted to a child as it grows up, it is transmitted as a formal-
functional product: the child makes use of an already existing syste m.
The creation of the language system is an action and as such it follows equation (4)
and therefore function and form are interrelated-interconnected-interdepend ent in
a radial relationship. Furthermore, its cognition is also a part of the w hole process.
Language process is more complex than the construction of a house and as such th
ere are so many other factors involved in its formation. These include the inclu sion
of the cognitive, the sociculturalspiritual, the contextual actional, and a ctional
planes of action on the one hand and the individual-collective standardi zation of
the language, atomic-holistic functionality of phonemes-words-sentence s-
discourse-action-result-experience to construct the dispositional reality of the
human beings. But the point is that all these factor s are parts of the whole process
where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts and even beyond the whole.
All the same, as a language is created, it is c reated functional-formally and so form
and function are interrelated-interconnec ted-interdependent.
If language is innate or cognitive or social action, then it is difficult to acc ount for
both the internal and external variation in language on the one hand an d the
extensive expansion of language in its variety, range, and depth. The empi rical
evidence we get from all the levels of language from phonetics to semantic s; from
pragmatics to discourse points out the role of choice in language. Where ver there is
a choice, there is a response bias and a causative dispositionalbia s and disposition
(personality) behind it:
Response Bias
Choice
Variation
Lingual Action
If we look at language from a process and product perspective, historical lingui stics
points out that in the formation and use of language there is an interconn ected-
interrelated-interdependent networking of
1. cognitive abilities;
2. phenomenal knowledge;
3. living demands;
5. experientiality
out of which only the cognitive abilities are genetically inherited and disposit ional
creativity is genetically inherited but contextually harnessed. The remain ing two
are externally anchored. Every word that came into existence would not h ave come
into existence without the networking of all the four factors. It is im possible for a
human being to create vocabulary without phenomenal knowledge of the real,
possible, or imaginary worlds; or without creativity; or without the d ispositional
functional pressure to fulfill his desires; or getting the experien ce of the desired
results without using language. Such linguistic creation depe nds on the
dispositional social semiotic cognition of action and therefore such action is
decisively not innate. So also it is not social even though society pl ays the crucial
role of individual-collective-contextual standardization and tra nsmission of
language but not the actual creation of language. It is so because it is a creative
phenomenon and requires individual intellectual initiative to c ommunicate with
others by using such intellectual principles such as superimposi tion, etc.
References