FORMAL FUNCTIONAL COGNITIVE KA:RMIK LINGUISTIC PARADIGMS: A CRITIQUE OF IMPORTANT CONCEPTS AND PRINCIPLES Chilukuri Bhuvaneswar, CIEFL, Hyderabad, Bharath (India) Dell Hymes, ces between mple, Leech differences Geoffrey Leech, and Deborah Schiffrin have commented on the differen formal and functional theories in a nutshell in their works. For exa (1983) in his Principles of Pragmatics distinguishes four important 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) Response Bias Choice Lingual Action Disposition (personality) Bias Variation

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. 2. 3. 4. 5.

cognitive abilities; phenomenal knowledge; living demands; dispositional creativity; and 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