Craig correctly points out the difference between a functionalist and a formalist perspective.  

>>> Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> 10/15/2007 6:46 AM >>>
  I don't think it is accurate to say that the functionalists don't use
the tools of linguistics. The primary difference is that they see
language as innately functional, not just a formal system that can then
be put to use in functional ways. 

*********************
The problem with this view of language is that the formal structure of any string does not necessarily say anything about what that string means in a particular context.

In this regard, it is worth noting an observation that Bruce made last week and Craig skipped over.

Bruce noted:

To beat a dead horse: the normal way to request behavior of another person is with an imperative ("Shut the window"), but we can use the yes-no interrogative to inquire about a person's disposition to behave in a certain way: "Will you shut the window?" or a declarative "It's cold in here" or even a wh-interrogative, "How cold does it have to get?" If the syntactic description of the sentence is limited to such sentence types, it is easy to see that Halliday needed another level (meta-) on which to express the actual intent of the question apart from its form.  Hence, at this level (interactive) the three sentences that are used for the same purpose are of the same type.   

***********

Nothing in the grammar of the strings
   a) Will you shut the window?
    b) How cold does it have to get?
    c) It is cold in here!
provides the hearer/reader with the meaning to close the window.  For that, one requires context.

That raises the question about what is "innate" functional in the grammar of a, b, and c that means "close the window."

The formalist perspective I subscribe to says nothing about how a-c can be interpreted, but that does not mean that a theory of interpretation is unimportant.  (I find Grice, or better yet, Sperber and Wilson's Relevance Theory, necessary.  In fact, I have found a theory of interpretation essential for how I respond to my students' writing.)

I would be interested in knowing how a functionalist perspective whose claim is that grammar is about meaning can explain why a-c can MEAN "shut the window."

I don't believe question can be "peripheral or unimportant" to a perspective "that
explores how these structures function in the world."

Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri

 

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/