Is there room for language at the research table?

I ask this title question, “Is there room for language at the table” for several reasons: 1) Language is often not considered as a set of learning processes but as a static set of structures so it is not considered as having any influence on the outcomes of research; 2) Research is often conducted on animal models other than humans, animal models that don’t have human language processes; 3) Research is often viewed as an experimental vs control manipulation of stimuli and the resulting static measurement of the results does not consider ongoing cognitive use of language by the subjects; and 4) If language is a set of processes, then it is affected and will affect the outcomes of human research but is seldom listed as a bias within the research. I want to expand on each of these elements.

First, language exists pragmatically as a way to communicate the mind to the hearer but the hearer interprets the communication in the way the hearer thinks. Therefore this process is dynamic. Each message is its own representative message interpreted as having value by the way the hearer receives it (check out Charles S. Peirce’s ideas about signs or Pragmaticism Methodology). So, for example, I test children on their reading of letters and the production of sounds. One child gets 20 out of 100. That child is guessing at the answers based on some clues from their studies. Another child gets 20 out of 100 and is sure of their answers. A third child obtains a 20 out of 100 and is a non-native English speaker. And a 4th child scores 20 out of 100 and has been trying to memorize the sounds and letters for 3 years. I would contend that based on what we know about language, each of these scores, although numerically the same, mean something different to each of these individuals. All numbers do not mean the same thing.

Let’s go to the second issue. Animal models provide scientists with lots of information about basic science. This basic science can then be applied to research on humans. But, using these models to explain human learning functions without understanding how language is a key element in human learning can be problematic. For example, mice are put into a Morris Barrell of water and their ability to “remember” a resting spot on a raised platform is measured in terms of learning. Then this learning is applied to humans such as believing that humans can learn more quickly if they repeat the task over and over. But, when language is put into the equation about human learning, then humans have many different reasons for looking for a way out of a barrel. Furthermore, humans have language that allows them to problem solve in a way that does not require repetition. Repetition is affected by how meaningful the task might be to the subject. Increase meaning, and the person learns more quickly. Long term learning is semantically or language based. Animals outside of Homo sapiens do not have the same type of complexity in their communication systems and therefore have access to long term memory not accessed through repetition.

The third argument to support the consideration of language in the research of human tasks has to do with the underlying assumptions of experimental vs control methods. Whenever humans are involved in research there are also various cognitive styles used with language to approach a task, differences in backgrounds resulting in various levels of conceptualization involving the tasks, as well as various levels of language function involving the task. For example, one PH.D. candidate was on a neuroscience funding grant. Her research work centered around finding a test that would differentially diagnose individuals with learning differences—AD/HD, autism, dementia, etc. The test the candidate developed was based on retelling story material, and then standardizing the story retells on differential groups. After explaining this very complicated, computerized evaluation of the language of the story retell for diagnosis, the candidate was asked if she had considered that not all of us process incoming auditory input in the same way? The candidate had not considered any of the following ideas: Some of us might be able to make sense in the form of mental visuals regarding the spoken story therefore we would retell what our own images about the story told us, others of us interpret the story based on our own past experiences therefore we might retell more of our experience rather than the actual word for word retell, and some of us might be able to phonographically repeat the story suggesting that we didn’t really listen to a story but repeated the patterns of what we heard with little comprehension. The candidate’s assumption was that people who could imitate more of the language of the story had higher levels of functioning. The candidate had not considered that this type of repetition might not hold any meaningful understanding for some people. And instead of repetition being good might actually be a sign of not being able to “process” what was heard.

Finally, I would like to address the difference between consideration for language function and language grammar or structures. The way I use the term “ language function” refers to the levels of displacement, semanticity, productivity, flexibility and efficiency (linguistic principles) of the thinking behind the spoken or signed language. Language meaning (semantics) of communicative (pragmatics) intention (semiotics) is tied to these linguistic principles which reflect the cognitive representation through language. If language function is not considered in an experiment then the research is measuring what the person can do with a task without consideration for thinking or for the human capacity to uniquely respond to a task. Therefore, I contend that language function should always be considered as a variable in research or testing of humans.

So, why did I ask this question? Well as I read about education programs, the development of curriculum, the use of “evidence based” data, I have wondered what does collected data mean that is based on misconceptions about thinking, learning, language? And, is the “referred to” research actually based on valid constructs of how humans learn to think and use language? Or is the research based on what we assume to be valid constructs? While you ponder those questions, I will take a break and write more later.