ACQ Vol 11 No 1 2009

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 http://www.learningplace.com.au/ 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

ACQ uiring knowledge in sp eech , language and hearing , Volume 11, Number 1 2009

21