Language. Yo. What is THAT? (A cognitive perspective)

I want to pick up on a conversation started elsewhere with DW because one of the things that I see as having vast, vast differences between the field and the laity is the concept of language, what it is, what it's for. I realize this blog is dedicated to education, and that's even more reason for discussions of these language questions, because, as I hope to persuade any skeptics, all thinking (at least conceptual thinking) is done in a language; and since education on every level must have sometime to do with the development of conceptual thinking, all education is in a very real way language education. (Notice that the achievement gaps between native English speakers and nonnative English speakers is just has high in math is in English...) These may be big claims, but they are entirely supportable. (I'm still trying to keep these posts shorter!)

So what is language? Surely we use language to communicate ideas with one another, but most linguists would probably put communication pretty low down on the list of what human language does. I'm with them. Let's consider two domains: cognitive and social. First, in line with the claim above that (conceptual) thinking and language are one, one of the points of language is individual cognitive development. Language is not just interpersonal, but intrapersonal as well. We think in language, make our decisions, wrestle with ideas, with identities--all of this is done in internalized language (Vygotsky's work comes to mind here). Psycholinguists have a really hard time proving this claim in an experimental way because the fact is that no human is raised outside of a language system--except for very rare cases of abuse and abandonment, which indeed have been studied. But the very fact that we are conceptually thinking beings and that we simply don't exist as humans outside of a language system (which all people, barring physiological disorders, acquire as a matter of nature), that is, the fact that we can't think of a refutation for this while attempting to silence our "inner monologue" serves as some weighty proof in itself. But there is of course more.

Pidgins and Creoles

Some other evidence comes from the transition from pidgin to creole languages--at least from what some theorists argue. A pidgin is a language used purely for transactions, among people who come from different languages to a place where they need to do business with one another. Hawaii is a example; early in the 20th Century it was a place where people from many different languages settled and need a communication system in order to do business with one another. This happens all over the place though. Pidgins can grow to be fairly complex, but one thing that keeps them from being defined as languages is that they have no native speakers. Once the generations of children born to the pidgin speakers begin to internalize the language, they need more than just the communicative functions; they need a language to do all the cognitive work that a full linguistic system does (see John S. Mayher), and so what was once a pidgin, over time, gets developed into a creole, which is a language formed from combining two or more other languages. The major lesson here is that children need a fully developed linguistic system, not just a pidgin, and they will even create one if needed. (Another reason why people who resist the ways in which the younger generations shift aspects of our language are misguided in their anxiety; this is just how languages work.)

I think there is a lot to be learned from the pidgin/creole distinction, especially in education/language education, because my concern is that if we realize--on a cognitive level--what students need language for, but if we treat language purely for is communicative functions--as I think so much of schooling does--then I think we are robbing them of a rich education. This is a point I am sure I'll come back to because it relates a lot to some of my points about writing assessment.

Okay, that was a brief glimpse of the cognitive domain. But at this point, for at least the past 30 or so years, the social functions of language have really come to the fore in terms of the role it plays in human affairs and development. I'll save that for a new post though. Anyone want to fight about any of the claims made so far??

Science! Yo. What is it?

Here's my attempt at a definition:

The development and revision of theory based upon [systematic] observation of worldly phenomena (psychical, mental, and social), then the application of the theory back to the worldly phenomena in an effort to explain, *or* predict, or otherwise understand them. And repeat.

I would add one more clause as well: ... with the overall intention of improving life quality.

Within this definition there is *room for* experimentation, falsifiability, etc., but I argue that these only mark certain paradigms of science, not science itself. So the goal here is to create a definition that will cover all, or the most possible, forms of science within one definition. Similarly, some science seeks to explain but not necessarily predict, hence the "or".

Who's game? Let's define this thing.

[My reason: In education right now, there are constantly calls for more scientific research, which is great. However, since this terms is so undefined, what I see is more like an excuse to ignore any research (particularly more humane research) one wants on the basis of it being "unscientific". Very easy to do if we have no real definition of science, and if it's research we'd rather not deal with anyway.]

Please post your best definition of science!