Bob,
As you no doubt expect, I simply can't resist pointing out that the
expression, "Formalists understand syntax is separate from meaning"
presupposes that formalists are correct, and hence encodes the assertion
that an ongoing debate has been settled. If I can rein myself in enough
not to type things like, "functionalists, unlike formalists, understand
that the brain is a massively interconnected parallel-processing
network," you can hold back on the presuppositions as well.
Of course, I did just type that -- but it was to make social point: the
adherents of linguistic theories are as prone to premature triumphalism
as anyone else, and maintaining a healthy amount of skepticism of *all*
positions is a useful corrective. This is not, in fact, a situation like
that of scientific opinion about global warming -- with 95% percent of
scientists on one side and 5% on the other, and where the pleas for
"even-handedness" from the 5% serve to constitute denial. The formalist
position, broadly speaking (i.e., including theories other than
Chomsky's current one), is dominant in the U.S., but not in many other
places. And the type of statistically pattern-driven models under
development in corpus linguistics is challenging it, and to a certain
extent the functionalist position, further.
Craig's final point about language evolution is not as contentious among
functionalists at you might think, if only because functionalism claims
(note that I'm being polite and avoiding "acknowledges" here) that
multiple cognitive factors affect sentence production, and that the
kinds of patterns you see across world languages are at least to an
extent the result of the fact that as humans, we share a lot of
cognitive traits. We all have limited short-term memories, we're all
predisposed to be more interested in humans than in inanimate objects,
and so forth. And if you're going to bring up Bickerton, balance
suggests that Sampson be brought into the conversation as well, since he
has provided what quite a number of us regard as a rather convincing set
of counterarguments (cf. "The 'Language Instinct' Debate," Continuum
Publishing, 2005).
What we should *most* beware of is letting doctrinal disputes rule out
the use of materials and methodologies that do help students learn. If I
want to explain to an ESL student why and when we tend to use the
passive construction, I'm going to want to talk about things like topic
and foregrounding (without necessarily using those technical terms),
regardless of whether those are located in core syntax or not. As a
linguist, I may care passionately about the theoretical issue of the
status of topic in language processing -- but as an English-teacher, I
don't care where the heck it shows up in the brain. I want to help my
student learn to use passives effectively and appropriately, and I can't
do that without bringing up the question of *why* someone might want to
put the person or thing affected by the action up front in the sentence
rather than after the verb where it usually is.
--- Bill Spruiell
Dept. of English
Central Michigan University
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bob Yates
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 6:43 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Functional grammar definition
Craig's definition of functional grammar is really specific to system
functional linguistics.
The formalist-functionalist split in linguistics is about whether
grammar, more specifically syntax, is separate from meaning. Formalists
understand syntax is separate from meaning; functionalists don't.
There is much in what Craig has written that is not widely accepted,
even in the various strands of functionalism. One of the claims, which
seems unique to systemic functional linguistics and Craig has repeated
here more than once, is the last sentence in the following:
>>> Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> 9/12/2007 8:24 AM >>>
A functional approach allows us to connect what is happening at the
level of the sentence with what is happening through the whole text.
Language gives us resources that help us represent the world. Language
gives us resources that help us establish relationships with a reader or
readers. Language gives us resources that help us carry out work that
extends beyond the boundaries of a single sentence. (Constructing an
argument. Making an apology. Telling a story. And so on)
I think most functionalists would say that language has evolved to
accomplish these purposes.
>>>>
The best refutation of the notion that "language has evolved" to
accomplish those purposes Craig enumerated is in Bickerton, a real
linguist, in his book Language and Human Behavior (1995). Bickerton
writes that anyone who makes the systemic functional linguistic claim
about the evolution of language should answer three questions. The
following is on page 34 in Language and Human Behavior.
Question One: Explain how and why, the inventors of language arranged
things so that "John wants someone to work for" means *John wants a
person such that he, John, can work for that person* while "John wants
someone to work for him" means *John wants someone such that that person
will work for him, John.* State how you yourself learned that reversal
of meaning in the subordinate clause and show how its invention was
culturally and/or biologically adaptive.
Question Two: Discuss the two sentences "Which letters did Bill destroy
without reading" and "Which letters did Bill destroy without reading
them." Given that the inventors of language made the two sentences in
Question One mean different things, describe the benefits those
inventors gained by making the two sentences in this question mean the
same.
[My aside: At this point, consider the notion that grammar is merely a
set of constructions and child language learning is just the result of
learning such constructions. Without reference to any grammatical
categories, identify the construction in the Question One which makes it
possible for pronoun deletion to have a different meaning and the
construction in Question Two which makes it possible for pronoun
deletion to have the same meaning. These two pairs of sentences raise
serious doubts that we learn our grammar from analogy alone.]
Question Three: If the inventors of language made it possible for you to
say "Mary is someone that people like as soon as they see" and "Mary is
someone that people like as soon as they see her," why didn't they make
it possible to say "Mary is someone that people like her as soon as they
see"? Explain in detail how the far-reaching cultural, social, and
economic advantages obtained by allowing the first pair of sentences
would have been frustrated if the latter sentence had been permitted.
*******
Bickerton has a very biting footnote for those who dismiss these
examples as "mere bizarre oddities of English that can be safely ignored
as having no consequence for the great 'communicative' functions of
language. " So that we are not constantly repeating noun phrases and
pronouns in our utterances, there understood constituents, empty
categories, in many grammatical constructions. These understood
constituents are crucial part of making language communicative!
I will share that entire footnote if someone should suggest these
sentences are mere oddities.
I should add that it is not very interesting to dismiss these sentences
as not being "real" but made up ones. For the pairs in questions one
and two, the judgements are very, very clear. If they are not real, why
do we all have the same judgments?
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/
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/
|
