ACQ Vol 11 No 1 2009

23 / 68

ACQuiring knowledge in sp eech, language and hearing, Volume 11, Number 1 2009 21
MULTICULTURALISM AND DYSPHAGIA
gap within the field. A conceptual model of language
illustrates what we believe language is, and is therefore
essential to be able to talk about the links between language,
literacy and cognition.
Our journey has also revealed that speech pathologists use
the term language to refer to a complex collection of phenom­
ena. Speech pathology needs a more accurate definition (or
definitions) of language that reflects its biological, psycho­
logical, behavioural, material, symbolic, propositional and
social facets. Language is necessarily all of these and we need
more accurate terms for distinguishing these various facets
and for distinguishing between language and other related
constructs. The term internal language system as used by
professions other than speech pathology should be further
considered.
The journey has been exciting, fruitful and professionally
stimulating. Articulating our personal conceptual model of
language has provided a clear and solid basis for all aspects
of our professional practice. However, the model remains in
draft form as it continues to be refined with new information,
and readers’ feedback is welcome. The model may never be
formally “completed” and the journey to understand
language fully may never end.
Acknowledgements
Funding for the Literacy Outcomes and the Role of the
Speech-Language Pathologist (LORS) project was provided
by the Queensland Department of Education, Training and
the Arts. The author would like to thank speech pathologists
Kelly Stassi (travelling partner) and Gaenor Dixon (travel
consultant), without whose support and contributions this
journey might never have taken place.
References
Apel, K. (1999). Checks and balances: Keeping the science in
our profession. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in
Schools, 30, 98–107.
Clark, A. (2006). Material symbols. Philosophical Psychology,
19 (3), 291–307.
Camarata, S., & Nelson, K. E. (2002). Measurement and the
diagnosis and treatment of language disorders in children.
Peabody Journal of Education, 77 (2), 106–116.
Duchan, J. (2006). How conceptual frameworks influence
clinical practice: evidence from the writings of John Thelwall,
a 19th-century speech therapist. International Journal of
Language & Communication Disorders, 41 (6), 735–744.
Education Queensland. (2008). Enhancing literacy outcomes:
the benefits and issues of including SLPs in the literacy team .
Retrieved June 2008 from
deliver/content.asp?pid=32262
Flavell, J. H., Miller, P. H., & Miller, S. A. (1993). Cognitive
development , 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Gribbin, J. (2005). Deep simplicity: Bringing order to chaos and
complexity. Hawthorne, Victoria: Penguin Books.
Kamhi, A. G. (2004). Ameme’s eye view of speech-language
pathology. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools , 35 ,
105–111.
Leitão, S. (2001, 27 August). A question of literacy: how can we
be effective? Speech Pathology Australia National Tour
Videoconference Workshop, Brisbane.
Ley, R. G. (1983). Cerebral laterality and imagery. In A.A.
Sheikh (Ed.), Imagery: Current theory, research, and application
(pp. 252–287). New York: Wiley.
n Does dynamic assessment best fit a dynamic system such
as language?
n What do tests of cognition assume about language?
n Is stimulating the organisation of the internal language
system the “main game” in intervention?
n Can I use this model to explain my role in relation to
literacy, behaviour management, learning, and so on?
Chaos theory
While the conceptual model was in development, a short side
journey alerted me to the potential of chaos theory in
understanding and defining language. Chaos theory (more
properly called non-linear dynamic systems theory) supports
investigations into the existence of order and organisation
within complex systems (Sardar & Abrams, 1999).
Chaos theory explains how extremely complex systems
create and maintain order: such systems are self-organising,
are open and part of their environment, attain and maintain
structure in changing conditions, are creative, have parts so
numerous that simple causal relationships do not exist, and
have components interconnected by networks of feedback
loops (Sardar & Abrams, 1999). The theory is being applied to
diverse areas of study and provides new insight into complex
systems such as the stock market, population changes in
animals and the functioning of the human brain (Gribbin,
2005). It provides a model much more closely representative
of real life by incorporating feedback, “turbulence”, multiple
causal chains, environmental impacts and so on. Prior to
chaos theory, models of complex systems omitted many
details and complexities in order to simplify the subject under
study, but these models have proven to be inadequate. For
example, for many years the brain was viewed as a machine
for processing input and directing behaviour, even though
theories about the brain based on this mechanistic model
simply failed to correspond to empirical evidence. With a
model of brain function based on chaos theory, however,
better understanding and significant research advances have
been achieved (Gribbin, 2005). Within this perspective, the
human brain is conceived as a complex, non-linear
functioning, feedback-based, self-organising system (Sardar &
Abrams, 1999).
This view of the human brain sounded very similar to the
concept of language that we had developed and leads to my
proposal for an alternative definition:
Internal language is a complex, non-linear, feedback-
driven, self-organising system of symbol repre­
sentations in the brain.
We had arrived at a point on our journey where it seemed
inevitable to look for separate definitions for the internal
language system and its material counterparts in the spoken
and written form of language. The common definitions of
language used by speech pathologists (discussed earlier) refer
to the latter only, and fail to provide a strong foundation for
productive professional discussions about the links between
language, literacy and cognition.
Summary
This article has followed a personal professional journey to
define language , taking up Duchan’s (2006, p. 741) challenge,
“We should be not only examining and reporting on the
methods we use, but also asking ourselves about the
conceptual underpinnings of those methods.” Our journey
revealed that speech pathology lacks a widely used con­
ceptual model of language, which in our opinion is a significant