FORMAL – FUNCTIONAL – COGNITIVE – KA:RMIK LINGUISTIC PARADIGMS:

A CRITIQUE OF IMPORTANT CONCEPTS AND PRINCIPLES

Chilukuri Bhuvaneswar, CIEFL, Hyderabad, Bharath (India)
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.
1. 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 ka:rmik approach studies language as a ka:rmik (
dispositional) system.
In an autonomous system, the system is studied in terms of the system only – so
language is studied in terms of the form of language only. In a social system, t
he system is studied as a product of the society serving social functions – so l
anguage is studied in terms of how society creates language and how it is used t
o perform the societal functions. In a cognitive system, the system is a product
of conceptualization – so language is studied as a product of cognition and how
it evolves through its use. In a ka:rmik system, the system is a product of exp
erience and it is used to construct experience – so language is studied as a pro
duct of karmaphalabho:gam (the experiential principle of cause-effect reality wi
thout the underpinnings of religious dogma); and how it is gradually evolved by
the dispositionally generated, specified, qualified, and materialized sociocultu
ralspiritual lingual action through its cognition in context.
2. To explain it further, according to the formalists such as Chomsky, lang
uage is as it is because of a common genetic linguistic inheritance of the human
species from which language universals are derived. So there is a language facu
lty or programme already wired up in the human brain as a human being is born. A
nd according to the functionalists such as Halliday, language is as it is becaus
e of the universality of the uses to which language is put in human society from
which language universals are derived. So there is no language faculty or progr
amme already wired up in the human brain as a human being is born but it evolved
socially as human beings conducted their living. As a result, language is as it
is because of what it has to do. In other words, the formal and functional appr
oaches to language are diametrically opposite in their fundamental premise of ho
w language is created: formalists view language as genetic; and functionalists a
s social.
The cognitivists view grammar as conceptualization and consider language as it i
s used. The ka:rmik linguist believes that language evolved as dispositional act
ion from a ka:rmik processing of language.
3. The formalists (e.g., Chomsky) regard language primarily as a mental phe
nomenon whereas the functionalists (e.g., Halliday) regard it as a societal phen
omenon. Again, there is a contradiction in the conceptualization of language. Fr
om this perspective, according to the formalists, language is a psychological ph
enomenon whereas according to the functionalists, it is a social phenomenon. To
explain it further, language is an internal phenomenon according to the formalis
ts and the social and cognitive functions of language do not impinge on the inte
rnal organization of language. On the other hand, according to the functionalist
s, language has functions that are external to the linguistic system itself and
most importantly the external functions influence the internal organization of t
he linguistic system. Therefore, there is another contradiction in these two the
ories with regard to the influence of external forces: formalists say that exter
nal forces do not influence the internal organization of language while the func
tionalists say that they do.
4. 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:
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. According to the formalists, language is referential in its function wit
h fully semanticized uses as the norm whereas the functionalists deal with the g
amut of stylistic or social functions. In other words, formalism is concerned wi
th the sentential meaning while functionalism with the utterance meaning.
4. Elements and structures are analytically arbitrary (in a cross-cultural
or historical perspective) or universal (in a theoretical perspective) in formal
ism while they are ethnographically appropriate in functionalism.
5. There is a functional equivalence of all languages in formalism while th
ere is functional differentiation of languages, varieties, and styles in functio
nalism. All languages are essentially (potentially) equal in the formalist parad
igm while they are not necessarily existentially (actually) equivalent.
6. Formalism studies language in terms of a single homogeneous code and com
munity ("replication of uniformity") while functionalism studies it in terms of
the speech community as the matrix of code-repertoires or speech styles ("organi
zation of diversity).
7. Formalism takes for granted or arbitrarily postulates fundamental concep
ts such as speech community, speech act, fluent speaker, functions of speech and
of languages whereas functionalism considers them as problematic and therefore
to be investigated.

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 an
d try to account for the formal and functional properties of language together i
n an eclectic approach.
The basic principle of Ka:rmik Linguistic Theory is based on the fundamental ass
umption that all action is dispositionally specified and directed. Lingual actio
n is also no exception to this since it is one type of action human beings perfo
rm. In this view, disposition (personality) is at the base of all activity and a
ny action springs from disposition (personality) as follows:
(1) Disposition (personality) - Effort – Action – Result – Experience.
Again, whenever an action is performed, it is performed by a choice as follows:
(2) Disposition (personality) – Dispositional Bias – Response Bias – Choice
– Action.
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.
In addition, any type of action is hierarchically evolutionary in its structure
as follows:
(3) Concept (Process) evolving into Pattern evolving into Structure
where the concept and pattern are abstract (in the form of imagination) and the
structure is material (in the form of sound). In systems thinking also such a vi
ew is held. According to Fritjof Capra's New Synthesis Model, the structure embo
dies the pattern and the pattern embodies the process. For example, a house is c
onceived (concept) by an engineer and its blue print (pattern) is visualized and
made on a drawing paper and finally materialized by the construction of the hou
se with cement, bricks, etc. However, the desire to construct a house and its de
sign are generated, specified and directed by the disposition (personality) of t
he engineer.
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:
(4) Disposition (personality) – Function – Action [Meaning – Pattern – Structur
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 : Formal – Functional or Functional –Formal.
In formal-functional action, action procedes from an already existing form by gi
ving it a function (e.g., in firewood, already existing wood (form) is endowed w
ith a function of creating fire by burning it) and in functional-formal action,
action procedes from a conceived function to form (e.g., a car (form) is created
out of a function to transport people).
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) Disposition (personality) - Semantics -Phono-Lexico-Syntax (Grammar or S
yntax in the Traditional Sense) - Speech or Language
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 (as
the ka:rmik 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. In Ka:rmik Linguistic Theory, form, function, cognition, and
disposition (personality) are all integrated in a hierarchical evolutionary str
ucture through the five realities posited in the evolution of ka:rmik reality as
follows:
(7) Ka:rmik Reality – Dispositional reality – Socioculturalspiritual Reality -C
ognitive Reality – Contextual Reality – Actional Reality
and then
(7) Disposition (personality) – Desire – Function – Form [ Meaning-Pattern-S
tructure] –Action.
Therefore, Ka:rmik Linguistic Theory is holistic in its framework and tries to a
void the pitfalls of the formal and functional theories.
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:
(7) Disposition (personality) Disposition (personality) Bias
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;
4. dispositional creativity; and
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
Bhuvaneswar, Chilukuri (2005). On Shedding “Crocodile Tears”: A Ka:rmik Linguist
ic Analysis. Hyderabad: The Proverbial Linguistic Group Desktop Publications
Leech, G.N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. New York: Longman
Schiffrin, Deborah (1994). Approaches to Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell