Language and Human Cognition: Understanding Meaning

This assignment delves into the complex relationship between language, cognition, and meaning. It discusses how human beings utilize language to create a sense of order and understanding in their world, and how this process is influenced by cultural context and abstract systems. The assignment draws on theoretical frameworks from linguists and philosophers, highlighting the importance of language in shaping our perception of reality.

Running Head: LANGUAGE AS A SYSTEM
Language as A System
Name of Student
Name of University
Author note

1LANGUAGE AS A SYSTEM
Some notable findings in Semantics argue that the entire purpose and objective of
language is to make some sense; that is to be meaningful in the context of conversations.
Languages around the world are developed and structured accordingly to meet the
communication requirements in all aspects. What makes the study of language so difficult and
abstruse is the variety and multifariousness of human communication that is subjected to
perpetual changes with evolving cultures. Language has traditionally been defined as the
expression and instrument of thought, although this interpretation is too narrow for something as
vast as the subject is. Expressing thought is one of the several functions that language performs
in daily life and eventful circumstances. The idea of language as an abstract system appeared
initially in the linguistic theory of Ferdinand De Saussure. The idea that the process of using
language involves choosing from a specifiable set of actions, which is established in Semiotics
by Saussure (Mick, 1986). His concept of value and signs in a system, reveals how diplomatic
linguistic theories are their abstract dimension of meaning. This essay examines the studies
conducted on the meaning in language and determines how semiotics and linguistics must be
able to account for both language usage and language as an abstract meaning system.
The objective of using language for communication revolves around the development of
the desired meaning. If an individual knows a language, he/she knows whether the linguistic
expression is meaningful or meaningless, if it has more than one meaning, if two linguistic
expressions have the same meaning or if that expression refers to the real or the imaginative
world and also whether it is true or false. All of these are rooted in relativity and that is precisely
what linguistic scholars over the ages have termed as ‘play in meanings’. Language is used both
literally and non-literally, depending on the context of usage and the message it intends to
convey. The popular non-literal usage of language include literary devices like metaphor,

2LANGUAGE AS A SYSTEM
metonymy, Synaesthesias and sychendoche (Marchalik and Nortom, 2015). These non-literal
devices often makes use of substitution or similarity for expressing an implicit meaning within
the subtext of language. Another crucial element of meaning is sense, it refers to the manner in
which an expression presents the reference of the word or a sentence. Sense signifies the
relationship between the different expressions of language. This can be explained better with the
example of lexical relations in language like synonyms and antonyms. Synonyms are words or
expressions that have the same meaning in same contexts while antonyms are words that are
opposite in meanings. It is because a certain word means exactly the same as another, sense
suggests that there must be words that are the exact opposite of it. The relationship between the
different expressions are comprehended through the interplay of differences.
For referring to language as a whole unit, linguistics also uses the idea of language as a
system. according to Jelebki, language is a multi-dimensional system, open to multiple
interpretations. The results of the notion of system as used by several experts in semiotics, who
consider linguistics as a systems that furnishes the foundation for structural elements. The
opinions of Halliday suggest that unlike a system in the similar sense in which eminent linguist
used it was a conception only found in the theories of preliminary linguistics. Under this system,
any feature of language, grammatical or structural are considered to be understood best when
described as groups of actions (Halliday., 2013). Therefore, the most theoretical categories of the
grammatical description or the systems together with their alternatives are methodically different
in terms of grammar and syntax. Halliday’s in his early works considered the treatment of
language as a system to be one of four essential categories for theorizing grammar as a system.
The remaining three aspects being class, unit and structure. The viewing of language form a
systematic perspective, the functional aspect of linguistics becomes rather a 21st than a 20th

3LANGUAGE AS A SYSTEM
century reaction against atavistic approaches to signs. In system thinking, the relations an object
has to other units backed up by relevant theories defines the objective of the study., this is
termed as a trinocular perspective in systemic functional linguistics . The category of descriptive
system has to be defended from three other different perceptions: from what it is interpreted to
be, the effect it has on a context of usage, and how this particular outcome is comprehended.
The postmodern studies in language suggest that there cannot be a singular, fixed
meaning of words, the formation of meaning is wholly dependent on the use of language as an
abstract system (Nelson., 2014). If meaning resides in the relations between different words, then
the assortment of words is placed accordingly to make some sense out of it, or to convey a
particular meaning. It must be recognized at the outset that meaning is twofold: the obvious
corresponding meaning associated with the word and the grammatical or the structural meaning
that the sentence carries with it. For instance, the sentences “the woodcutter fell off the tree and
the cat fell off the tree are different because woodcutter and cat are different words conveying
different meanings. Similarly, the sentences “the girl loves the dog” and “the dog loves the girl”
bear dissimilarities even though both the sentences have the same words. The difference in
meaning is due to the order in which the words are used. The different order of placing the words
distinguish what can be conventionally designated as the object and the subject. The traditional
resources of languages to make distinctions in the structural and grammatical meanings of
sentences suffer limitations by two aspects: the restricted span of memory of the human brain
and the linear dimension of speech. Pictures and diagrams utilize two dimensions of expression
while writing relives the span of memory restrictions by visual marks that are indelible. Written
text and oral pronunciation are completely divorced from each other, therefore the length and
complexity of sentences are often stretched to extremes as observed is many legal and legislative

4LANGUAGE AS A SYSTEM
documents. The linear restrictions distinguishes some of the primary uses of language. All
languages employ different structures of sentences for asking questions (interrogative), stating
facts (declarative), to order for getting some action done (imperative). Although language uses
the resources of expression differently for different purposes, each of the usages have an equally
flexible structure. The multiple possibilities of giving expression to structural meanings are a
vital aspect of any language (Evan., 2013). This is acquired simultaneously with the learning of
first language in early stages of childhood and then learned slowly, with a little difficulty while
mastering a second language or other languages. These resources are thoroughly analyzed by
scholars for developing a comprehensive understanding of the functions of semantics executed
by means of many of these resources.
Languages maintain their flexibility with the help of lexical resources. The same words or
expression can be used derogatorily or as a means of praise. Some principles of the Politeness
Theory can be taken as examples to elaborate on this. G.Leech refers to politeness as the
considered and thoughtful use of ordinary language. It starts from simple actions like
maintaining proper social conduct and tactful consideration of others. However, linguistic
politeness is a more technical term, it refers to the choice of linguistic expressions in light of
relationship with interlocutor. These discourses is a lot dependent on social hierarchies, power
relations and culture. Leech suggests in his Principles of Pragmatics that people follow
politeness principles and maxims for reducing chafing in subjective and individual interaction.
Some of the markers of persuasive speech include modesty, tact, generosity, approbation,
sympathy, compassion and agreement. In Some Universals in Language Usage Brown and
Levinson defines politeness as “a redressive action taken to counter-balance the disruptive effect
of face threatening”. Chinese anthropologist Hu Hsien Chin introduced the notion of Face to

5LANGUAGE AS A SYSTEM
Western thought in 1944. The theory was later promoted by E.Goffman who equated the face
with public self-image. The face is the social and emotional sense of self that everyone has and
presumes everybody else to acknowledge (Goffman., 2017). Politeness is demonstrating an
awareness of and the consideration and respect for another person’s face. Positive interaction is
based on cooperative attitude and building rapports for avoiding threats.
The discussion on the topic of language as an abstract meaning system is incomplete
without referring to the Relevance Theory. The precursors of the theory are Deirdre Wilson and
Dan Sperber. The central idea of the Relevant Theory is that the human cognitive system works
so as to maximize the relevance with respect to communication (Sperber and Wilson., 2015).
Relevance is therefore responsible for recovery of both the implicit and the explicit content of an
utterance. It can also be seen as a subcomponent of the ‘theory of mind’. The main postulation of
the concept is that humans are gifted with the naturally rooted facility to maximize the
significance of incoming incitements (this may include linguistic sounds or communicative
conduct). This is intrinsically related with the use of language and how individuals exercise them
for their purpose (Dalsimer., 2016). The biological endowment of perceiving meaning is the
result of the progression of the structural design and complication of the human mind and part of
a universal human capability to exemplify one’s and other people’s opinions and intents.
Although relevance regulates communication, speakers and listeners need not know the
principles of relevance in order to communicate successfully. Since relevance is part of our
cognitive abilities the principles of relevance can neither be followed nor be violated. It is rather
at the heart of people’s understanding than something they add to their system of understanding
utterances. Above all, what needs to be kept in mind that human cognition tends to be geared to

6LANGUAGE AS A SYSTEM
the maximization of relevance. The effects of understanding include strengthening of an existing
assumption or generating a new conclusion from the combination of the different information.
The worlds that human beings reside in, is in parts created by language. Although there
are multiple existing words that contain bits of the mortal world and the extraterrestrial. For
example, star, cloud, stone, air and so on are words that are not limited to a specific realm of
existence. Different words are used for classifying similar things with certain characteristic
difference. On the other hand, the association of time with vocabulary does not serve to
segregate the different segments of reality but enforces a sense of order or an agreement with the
other elements that comprise existence, on the progression of the observed changes in the world.
Some meanings of words are even culture-bound, leaving them hard to translate. Translations
gets all the more harder with the movement towards culture that all more remote, since it
requires a “unification of cultural context”.
Everyone with vocal abilities are extensive users of language, they speak, read, write and
listen. A plethora of linguists and philosophers have dedicated their researches into finding the
accountability that language users have with their preferred and used language. Many of these
theoreticians consider language as an abstract system which is characterized either by an
axiomatic structure (theoretical) or a group of grammatical rules. The relationship between
speakers and the abstract system that create their spoken language is determined in terms of
knowledge. The linguistic beliefs of a speaker seem to be entirely isolated for his/her remaining
beliefs and desires. How a speaker comprehends the discourses he/she encounters is the central
aspect of the topic. The discussion makes clear how a complete study of meaning in language
must be able to accont both for the usage of language and language as an abstract system. The
age of post-modernism views all aspects of human life and experience as a system. The referred

7LANGUAGE AS A SYSTEM
theories in the discussion is a concrete representation of the experience of language and how it is
used systematically by people for clarity in expression.

8LANGUAGE AS A SYSTEM
References and bibliography:
Culler, J. (2014). On deconstruction: Theory and criticism after structuralism. Routledge.
Dalsimer, A. M. (2016). AJ Greimas and the nature of meaning: linguistics, semiotics and
discourse theory. Routledge.
Evans, V. (2013). Metaphor, lexical concepts, and figurative meaning construction. Cognitive
Semiotics, 5(1-2), 73-107.
Goffman, E. (2017). Interaction ritual: Essays in face-to-face behavior. Routledge.
Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (2014). Theory and practice of writing: An applied linguistic
perspective. Routledge.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. (2013). Halliday's introduction to functional grammar.
Routledge.
Marchalik, R., & Norton, S. (2015). The nevus in literature—more than a mark. JAMA
dermatology, 151(11), 1212-1212.
Mick, D. G. (1986). Consumer research and semiotics: Exploring the morphology of signs,
symbols, and significance. Journal of consumer research, 13(2), 196-213.
Nelson, K. (2014). Concepts and meaning in language development. In Biological and
behavioral determinants of language development (pp. 99-126). Psychology Press.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (2015). Beyond speaker’s meaning. Croatian Journal of
Philosophy, 15(2 (44)), 117-149.
Wilson, D. (2016). Reassessing the conceptual–procedural distinction. Lingua, 175, 5-19.