20 / 68
18
S
p eech
P
athology
A
ustralia
MULTICULTURALISM AND DYSPHAGIA
periods of reflection and integrating new information or
experiences as they came to hand. It involved explicitly
representing our existing but tacit beliefs about language,
which were based on our professional experience as much as
on research findings. Over a two-year period, we gradually
developed what we have called our Conceptual Model of
Language and Related Constructs (Walsh, 2007; Walsh &
Stassi, 2007) (Figure 5 on page 20). The model is necessarily
complex, reflecting the nature of language. The following
sections explore individual aspects of the model.
The internal language system
Within our model, the internal language system in the brain is
considered as a constantly self-organising, extremely complex
system of symbolic representations that carry all information
about an individual concept. Language development pro
gresses over time from early single idiosyncratic symbols with
some lexical (word) features, to symbols grouped according
to certain lexical features, to conventional symbols within
complex (and overlapping) hierarchies, to multiple and
complex linking within hierarchies and other organisational
systems, as illustrated in figure 2.
disconnected from the real world. He also said that even
commonly used terms for which professionals think that they
share definitions are used with a range of meanings and
applications. Wilson went on to suggest that debates about
precision and accuracy in definitions are often dismissed as
“nit-picking”.
Stage one of our journey concluded with recognition that
language
was used variably within the profession, either because
it refers to a complex multifaceted phenomenon, or because it
refers to a group of different phenomena. A single sentence
definition may not be possible for something so complex. We
began to consider whether a conceptual model may be a
better tool to explore possible definitions of language.
Conceptual models of language
Conceptual models represent and delineate the facets of
complex constructs, and relationships between these facets. Con
ceptual models provide a framework for reasoning. While they
are idealised and abstract, they are evaluated on the basis of
their coherence with experience and their usefulness in explain
ing the world (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2006).
Wilson (2005, p. 73) stated: “What we do is driven by how we
think, and how we think is largely determined by the con
cepts we use.” Each individual’s conceptual model underpins
what they do and what they believe their role is (Wallach &
Ehren, 2004). Figure 1 represents the importance of conceptual
models for practice and the role of the professional.
Role
Practice
Conceptual
model
Concepts and beliefs
Behaviour and outcomes
Expectations and
satisfaction
Figure 1. Conceptual model and professional practice
The second stage of the journey, therefore, was to look for a
conceptual model which precisely articulated all the facets of
language. Searches through speech pathology and related
professional literature yielded a number of processing models
(which explained “how” language worked), but these models
did not explain “what” language actually “was”. Eventually we
foundDuchan’s (2006, p. 736) illuminating statement: “Conceptual
frameworks are easy to ignore; like the air we breathe, their
presence is everywhere, once they are looked for. Yet they are
often taken for granted, underestimated and under-examined.”
It seemed, as Duchan suggested, that the speech pathology
profession had perhaps taken for granted and not sufficiently
examined one of its central concepts. The only viable next
step on our journey was to articulate and examine our own
conceptual model of language.
Articulating our personal
conceptual model of language
Articulating our personal conceptual model was an extended
stop-start process involving long stimulating discussions,
Time and increasing complexity
Figure 2. The internal language system organisation over time
As a child develops, more “information” is built into the
symbolic representation for a concept (Shelton & Caramazza,
1999). Over time, visual, tactile, semantic, morphemic, likely
occurrence, situational, syntactic, pragmatic, spoken word
features (phonological), written word features (orthographic)
and other features are added. The addition of new information
allows the continual creation of new and/or more complex
organisational systems of symbols. In other words, a major
reorganisation of storage and links between symbols takes
place. Our conception of the internal language system is
therefore quite unlike a static filing system or a dictionary.
In figure 2, each shaded rectangle represents a concept. In
early life, each concept is stored as a single entity without
organisation, but as the number of concepts/words grows,
basic organisation takes place: grouping words into, for
example, semantic categories, i.e., “horse” is an animal, or
“horse” is linked with concepts of situational co-occurrence
(“horse” + “in the field” but not “in the lounge”); (Yeh &
Barsalou, 2006). Over time, hierarchical and/or parallel
organisation takes place, so that words are stored with
preferential links to other words (Shelton & Caramazza,
1999), e.g., “horse” may be linked to a farm animal category,
or links are developed between appropriate “noun + verb”
combinations (e.g., horse + neigh). Over time these conceptual
reorganisations and preferential links are influenced by newly
learned features of the word, such as information about how
a word/word class is pluralised. As the child grows, phono
logical awareness influences organisation. For example, “horse”
might be preferentially linked or organised into a group of
words with the onset /h/ or those with the rime /
Os
/. As the
child develops and interacts with the world, lexical
organisation is based on environmental demands and priorities.
For example, learning to spell influences organisation; once a
child has learnt sufficient written words, the brain undergoes
a “lexical reorganisation” to favour retrieval of words accord