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/