H. Stephen Straight

Processualism in linguistic theory and method

Publisher Summary This chapter reviews processualism in linguistic theory and method. The importance and tenacity of this structural view of the nature of language can scarcely be exaggerated. Over the years the term language structure has come to include a variety of types and levels of systematic relation between linguistic forms and their meanings, and among subparts of form and also meaning. From the standpoint of ontology, then, the autonomous field of linguistics derives from the assumption that such orderly relations of form and meaning exist. From the standpoint of methodology, this assumption entails the assumption that language structure can be abstracted from language processes and language functions as these interact in actual language use. Now functionalism in recent years has been motivated by recognition that structure without function is sterile. To the extent that they reject structuralism, the functionalists risk rediscovering that Function without structure is blind. Perhaps a renewed unity in the discipline could be achieved by the adoption of what can be called processualism (cf. Straight, 1986). Instead of defining language as a set of structures-signs, sound/meaning correspondences, recorded utterances, grammatical sentences, or pairings of deep and surface structures- it can be define as a pair of processing mechanisms, one for the interpretation and the other for the creation of linguistic forms, and instead of defining language as a set of functions- referring, narrating, negotiating, explaining- it can be defined as the processes whereby these functions are achieved in acts of saying and construing.

To immortalize without destroying

My favorite American English dictionary, The American Heritage, provides no fewer than eight definitions of the verb translate (see table). These eight definitions are suggestive of the range of considerations that may come up in translation theory and practice, even where ‘translation’ is understood strictly as ‘The act or process of translating . . . from one language to another’ (Morris, 1969, p. 1364).

GOALS, METHOD, AND THEORY IN LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION

The present paper addresses three very different questions about language instruction. First, WHY is there language instruction? A review of the variety of reasons why people might have a use for learning a language leads to the conclusion that a very great variety of methods of language instruction should be employed.