Gestalt Linguistics vs Structuralist Linguistics

I've always been interested in the umwelt concept ever since I came across it in my readings on semiotics and linguistics. "Umwelt" was first mentioned and defined in the works of Jakob von Uexküll and Thomas Sebeok. It may be summarized in this statement:

[The notions of umwelt are based on the] "biological [and psychological - mine] foundations that lie at the very center of the study of both communication and signification in the human [and non-human] animal" (Sebeok, Thomas A. (1976). "Foreword". Contributions to the Doctrine of Signs. Lisse, Netherlands: Peter de Ridder Press. p. x. ISBN 0-87750-194-7)

Gestalt psychology, itself, was a counter to the, at the times, prevalent British empiricism, which gave birth, ultimately, to structuralism that believed in these three fundamental philosophical pillars:

1. "atomism," also known as "elementalism," the view that all knowledge, even complex abstract ideas, is built from simple, elementary constituents
2. "sensationalism," the view that the simplest constituents—the atoms of thought—are elementary sense impressions
3. "associationism," the view that more complex ideas arise from the association of simpler ideas. (Gestalt psychology - Wikipedia)

Unwittingly or not, these three axioms of the structuralist program have had (in my view) a huge negative, impact on the teaching of Inuit language in Nunavut (and, perhaps on all aboriginal communities of Canada and beyond) - at least in a flawed and indiscriminate application of analytical version of de Saussure's structuralism.

I've had a long career as a commentator on Inuit language and education and as an on-and-off Inuit language instructor. I've tried to remain as faithful as I can to the Nunavut Arctic College Inuit Language Programs and yet be able to express my views on (an alternative) predicate plus obligatory arguments grammar as quietly and non-disruptively as I could manage.

The current Inuit language instruction for college students in Nunavut, unfortunately, does not make any distinction between predicate verb phrases, subordinate, relative, and complement clauses, and subject and object noun phrases. A theory-free morphological treatment of verb phrases (VP) and noun phrases (NP) that are possible in the Inuit language rules the day rather than being regarded as a major pitfall to understanding and linguistic competence that it really is. 

Person, number and verbal moods that are built into the subject and object pronominal NPs are coached in terms of "1st person singular"; 2nd person dual"; and "3rd person plural" naive patterning principles (ie, not as "I am..."; "you are..."; and "she/he/it is...") and this really screws up and confuses the discernment and understanding of grammatical and ungrammatical constructs that the student has naturally acquired at home and community. Most students pass the current  "linguistics" courses offered in Nunavut simply because they are severely watered down and do not require any deep thinking and understanding (ie, the terminology can be rote memorized even if they do not make sense to the students and the exam tasks are always closed questions).

In my current position, I am involved in curriculum and educational resources development projects. This has provided me the opportunities to participate in intellectually satisfying discussions amongst knowledgeable education experts, and this allows me to pursue further research and advocate for alternative approaches to Inuit language pedagogy.

I've decided to call these alternative approaches to language instruction "gestalt linguistics" with a view of using minimal university-level linguistics terminology and a heavier emphasis on text-based language arts approach where analysis forms only a half of a re-synthesis programming based on well-formedness of Inuktitut grammar. My philosophy of language is based on the gestalt insights founded on the subsequent axioms of the premise: "the whole is more than the sum of its parts".

Gestalt linguistics tries to incorporate the best of both gestalt and structuralist psychologies and insights rather than coaching them in terms of warring factions or worldviews.

I will sign off with this quote from van Gogh in order to leave no nagging doubt of the Gestalt approach:

There are laws of proportion, of light and shadow, of perspective, which one must know in order to be able to draw well; without that knowledge it remains a fruitless struggle, and one never creates anything.

(van Gogh's personal correspondence to his brother, Theo)