FORMAL vs FUNCTIONAL LINGUISTIC Approaches

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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 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.

In addition, any type of action is hierarchically evolutionary in its structureas 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 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:

(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

Leech, G.N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. New York: Longman

Schiffrin, Deborah (1994). Approaches to Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell