Holistic vs. analytic approaches

Given an object of cognition of some complexity, the human mind has two ways of accessing it. The analytic approach consists in considering each part of the object and the contribution that it makes to the assemblage by its nature and function, and thus to arrive at a mental representation of the whole by applying rules of composition to its parts. The holistic approach is to directly grasp the whole without consideration of the parts. This can be done if the object itself is already familiar or if, by its contours or its contextual setting and function, it bears an essential analogy to some familar object.

The two approaches complement each other in various ways.

1. If confronted with a familiar object, we tend to take the holistic approach; if confronted with an unfamiliar object, we take the analytic approach.
2. For a given specific object, we can often switch between the two approaches by making a fresh analysis of what used to be familiar or by disregarding compositional parts in favour of the function of the whole.
3. A given complex object may only be analyzed in certain parts or aspects, while the internal structure of other parts remains out of consideration.

To illustrate:

In E1.a the combination of the relational noun approach with its prepositional dependent, and the combination of the transitive verb choose with its direct object, are interpreted by general rules of semanto-syntax.

In E1.b the combination X [takes (Z) approach] to Y constitutes a proper part of the sentence. Its contour and function are analogous to the simpler construction X approaches Y (in a Z way).

E1 thus illustrates the above generalizations:

1. The relatively unfamiliar collocation choose .... approach is construed analytically, while the familiar collocation take ... approach is construed holistically.
2. The collocation choose ... approach could instead be accessed holistically, whereby the specific contribution of choose would essentially be foregone, and the whole would be largely synonymous with take ... approach; and again, the collocation take ... approach could instead be accessed analytically, whereby take would regain a more literal sense (contrasting, e.g., with abandon), and the resulting constructional meaning would be slightly different.
3. The holistic approach treats take ... approach as a proper part of the construction, which it is not in the analytic approach. However, this does not mean that the construction of E1.b is an unanalyzed whole, since we can still integrate the contributions of each of the elements in the slots X, Y and Z with the help of general compositional rules.

The faculty of taking either of the two approaches is wired into the human brain: in right-handers, the left hemisphere is specialized on the analytic approach, while the right hemisphere is specialized on the holistic approach. This neurological foundation guarantees that the two approaches are ubiquitous in human life. They are also constitutive of language.

When a child learns his mother language, he at first does not know the rules. He therefore lacks the presuppositions of taking an analytic approach even to such expressions that a fully competent speaker may analyze. In the initial phase, he therefore takes as unanalyzable wholes all the things that he learns. In the course of further learning, the child does abstract the common schemata from all the expressions which he first stored as unanalyzed wholes (cf. Tomasello 2003). Further incoming expressions of the same kind may then be accessed analytically. The units already learnt may, from there on, be accessed either holistically or analytically.