by Thomas Scarborough
The way that we use language does not fit with the way that we theorise about it. Linguistics professor Michael Losonsky writes, ‘Language as human activity and language as system remain distinct focal points despite various attempts to develop a unified view.’
I have been shaping a manuscript, in which linguistic observations play a major role. Friends have encouraged me to describe a complete theory of language. Naturally, it can only be done too briefly in 700 words.
Language, as we know it, is assembled from a range of basic elements: morphemes, words, phrases, and so on. These we arrange according to certain rules: semantic, syntactic, morphological and more. Language, therefore, is seen as a constructive enterprise.
Take a simple example, ‘This city is green.’
‘This city’ is the subject.‘is green’ is the predicate, which completes an idea about the subject.‘This’ is a determiner—which identifies this particular city.‘is’ is the verb—which, among other things, points back to the subject.
We assemble these pieces, then, to produce a meaningful communication with another language user, or users. This is the standard view.
I propose that language is quite the opposite. Rather than beginning with basic elements, with which we assemble the ideas we communicate, language begins with the whole world. The function of language then is to begin with this whole, and reduce it.
Again, the simple example, ‘This city is green.’
‘City’ greatly reduces the whole, now encircling only cities.‘This’ narrows these cities to one particular city.‘green’ narrows it to just one aspect of one city.‘is’ reduces the time window to the present.
In fact, we may note that we do much the same with the scientific method. The scientific method minimises unwanted influences on independent variables. It begins with the whole world, then screens things out until only independent variables are left, undisturbed by outside influences.
A holistic view of language should have various consequences, if it is true. There are certain things we would expect to ensue. Here are just a few:
• Since language is a reduction of the whole, even as we reduce it, our words will retain some involvement in the whole. This, in fact, is the case. In the words of the philosopher Max Black, our words 'trail clouds of implication'.• Since our language reduces the whole, we may expect to run into problems which one associates with partial views. Everything we put into words, because it is reduced, will overlook critical aspects of the world. The statistician George Box put it simply, ‘All models (which are reductions) are wrong, but some are useful.’
• Language originates in the whole, therefore no part of the whole can be focal. A holistic view of language will exclude origins or central ideas -- at least as a valid means of establishing truth. We shall avoid all such schemes as, in the words of Jacques Derrida, 'return to an origin'.
• Since language is a reduction of the whole, the rules of language -- semantics, syntax, inflections, and so on -- will represent a tool by which we efficiently reduce the whole. Since there are various methods of reduction, we would expect that there would be various grammars. This, too, is the case. In the words of Max Black, ‘Grammar has no essence.'
• Since both ordinary language and science represent a reduction of the world, we would expect them both to work in the same way. This should enable us to unite our ordinary language and science. In fact, the philosopher Stephen Toulmin notes that, both in the common affairs of life and in our scientific pursuits, 'we use similar patterns of thought'.• The scientific method, being a reduction of the whole, would be tested not primarily by falsification within its own bounds, but by something I shall call ‘invalidation’ in the context of the whole. The success of science (or otherwise) would be assessed within the context of the whole.• Different cultures have different physical and social worlds in their minds. As they reduce this whole through language, it seems impossible that they could say anything partial which would contradict the whole. Therefore even snippets of one's language will be a reflection of one's outlook on the world.
