Table Of ContentFUNCTIONALISM AND FORMALISM IN LINGUISTICS
STUDIES IN LANGUAGE COMPANION SERIES (SLCS)
The SLCS series has been established as a companion series to STUDIES
IN LANGUAGE, International Journal,
sponsored by the Foundation “Foundations of language”.
Series Editors
Werner Abraham Michael Noonan
University of Groningen University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
The Netherlands USA
Editorial Board
Joan Bybee (University of New Mexico)
Ulrike Claudi (University of Cologne)
Bernard Comrie (Max Planck Institute, Leipzig)
William Croft (University of Manchester)
Östen Dahl (University of Stockholm)
Gerrit Dimmendaal (University of Leiden)
Martin Haspelmath (Max Planck Institute, Leipzig)
Ekkehard König (Free University of Berlin)
Christian Lehmann (University of Bielefeld)
Robert Longacre (University of Texas, Arlington)
Brian MacWhinney (Carnegie-Mellon University)
Marianne Mithun (University of California, Santa Barbara)
Edith Moravcsik (University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee)
Masayoshi Shibatani (Kobe University)
Russell Tomlin (University of Oregon)
John Verhaar (The Hague)
Volume 42
Michael Darnell, Edith Moravcsik, Frederick Newmeyer,
Michael Noonan and Kathleen Wheatley (eds)
Functionalism and Formalism in Linguistics
Volume II: Case Studies
FUNCTIONALISM
AND FORMALISM
IN LINGUISTICS
VOLUME II: CASE STUDIES
Edited by
MICHAEL DARNELL
EDITH MORAVCSIK
FREDERICK NEWMEYER
MICHAEL NOONAN
KATHLEEN WHEATLEY
JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY
AMSTERDAM/PHILADELPHIA
TM The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements
8 of American National Standard for Information Sciences — Permanence of
Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48–1984.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Functionalism and formalism in linguistics / edited by Michael Darnell ... [et al.].
v. cm. -- (Studies in language companion series, ISSN 0165-7763 ; v. 41-42)
Selected papers of the 23rd UWM Linguistics Symposium. Apr. 18-20, 1996, at the University
of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, sponsored by the Department of English and Comparative Literature
and the Department of Linguistics at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
Includes examples in various languages.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Contents: v. 1. General papers -- v. 2. Case studies.
Spine title: Functionalism and formalism.
1. Functionalism (Linguistics)--Congresses. 2. Formalization (Linguistics)--Congresses. I.
Darnell, Mike. II. Linguistics Symposium of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (23rd :
1996) III. Title: Functionalism and formalism IV. Series.
P147.F8627 1998
410--dc21 98-5867
ISBN 90 272 3044 7 (Eur.) / 1 55619 927 9 (US) (vol. 1 : alk. paper) CIP
ISBN 90 272 3045 5 (Eur.) / 1 55619 928 7 (US) (vol. 2 : alk. paper)
© 1999 – John Benjamins B.V.
No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other
means, without written permission from the publisher.
John Benjamins Publishing Co. • P.O.Box 75577 • 1070 AN Amsterdam • The Netherlands
John Benjamins North America • P.O.Box 27519 • Philadelphia PA 19118-0519 • USA
Table of Contents
Introduction: Syntax, Morphology, and Morphological Alternation 1
EdithA.MoravcsikandKathleenM.Wheatley
PartI:Syntax,Morphology,andMorphologicalAlternation
Mapping So-called “Pragmatic” Phenomena According to a
“Linguistic–Extralinguistic” Distinction: The case of propositions
marked “accessible” 11
MiraAriel
Lexis, Grammar, and Grammatical Change: The Koyukon classifier
prefixes 39
MelissaAxelrod
The Limits of Formal Analysis: Pragmatic motivation in Oromo
grammar 59
RobbinClamons,AnnE.Mulkern,GeraldSandersandNancy
Stenson
Form and Function in Syntax: Relative clauses in Tsez 77
BernardComrieandMariaPolinsky
Formalizing Functionally 93
KeesHengeveld
Representing the Structure-Discourse Iconicity of the Japanese
Post-Verbal Cons truction 107
LizanneKaiser
Between Irregular and Regular: “Imperfect generalizations” in Istanbul
Turkish and the status of phonological rules 131
NicholasKibre
vi TABLEOFCONTENTS
Constraints on Constraints, or the Limits of Functional Adaptation 151
SimonKirby
Structure-preservation and Transitivity: The case of Chinese ba
sentences 175
Feng-hsiLiu
Topicality and Agreement 203
AndréMeinunger
Explanatory Power of Functional and Formal Approaches to Language
Change: The evolution of the passive structure ser+ past participle in
colonial Spanish 221
ViolaG.Miglio
Functional Optimality Theory: Evidence from split Case systems 253
WataruNakamura
Welsh Soft Mutation and Marked Word Order 277
MaggieTallerman
A Functional Journey with a Formal Ending: What do brow raises do
in American Sign Language? 295
RonnieWilbur
PartII:FirstLanguageAcquisition
Formalism or Functionalism?: Evidence from the study of language
development 317
ErikaHoV-Ginsberg
Functional Innateness: Explaining the critical period for language
acquisition 341
JamesR.Hurford
The Holophrastic Hypothesis Revisited: Structural and functional
approaches 365
ElizabethPurnell
Introduction
Edith A. Moravcsik Kathleen M. Wheatley
The papers in this two-volume set were originally presented at the 23rd UWM
Linguistics Symposium, held at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, April
18–20, l996.Entitled “Functionalismand Formalism in Linguistics”,the goal of
the conference was to bring together linguists of opposing approaches to
linguistic inquiry — functionalists and formalists — and determine exactly to
whatextenttheseapproachesdiVerandhowtheymight complementeachother.
The program consisted of 87 papers: some were invited and others were
selected from abstracts; some were presented orally while others in poster form.
Of the 87 contributions, these volumes include 35: 18 in the first volume and l7
in the second. The first volume includes general papers regarding the two basic
approaches; the second volume consists of case studies, many of which draw
upon the strengths of both approaches and thus help bridge the gap between the
two camps.
With two exceptions, the papers in Volume I come from the plenary
sessions of the conference. Their authors were invited to respond to general
issues raised by the conference organizers. The program of the plenary sessions
is given below to show how these papers fit into an overall scheme.
Introduction, by EdithMoravcsik
Syntax
– position papers:
– functionalist paper, by MichaelNoonan
– formalist paper, by HowardLasnik
– discussion of the syntax position papers, by WernerAbraham
2 EDITHA.MORAVCSIKANDKATHLEENM.WHEATLEY
– mutual benefits:
– what can functionalists learn from formalists in syntax? by William
Croft
– what can formalists learn from functionalists in syntax? by Stephen
Anderson
– ergativity:
– from a functionalist perspective, by JohnDuBois
– from a formalist perspective, by AlecMarantz
– discussion of the papers on ergativity, by AliceDavison
– word order:
– from a functionalist perspective, by DorisPayne
– from a formalist perspective, by DavidPesetsky
– discussion of the papers on word order, by KennethHale
Phonology
– position papers:
– functionalist paper, by JoanBybee
– formalist paper, by BruceHayes
– discussionofthephonologypositionpapers,byJanetPierrehumbert
– mutual benefits:
– what can functionalists learn from formalists in phonology? by
GeoVreyNathan
– what can formalists learn from functionalists in phonology? by
MichaelHammond
First language acquisition
– position papers:
– functionalist paper, by BrianMacWhinney
– formalist paper, by NinaHyams
– discussion, by MelissaBowerman
Concluding pape r, by FritzNewmeyer
Allofthesepapersarepublishedinthefirstvolume,withtheexceptionofthose
by MelissaBowerman,JohnDuBois,AlecMarantz,EdithMoravcsik, and David
Pesetsky,whodecidednottosubmittheircontributionsforpublication.Because
of their general nature, this volume also includes Mark Durie’s and Daniel
Nettle’s paper from the parallel sessions.
INTRODUCTION 3
Here is a summary run-down on the contents of the papers.
Thereare eightpapers in thefirstsectionof thefirstvolume on syntax, by
Abraham,Anderson,Croft,Davison,Hale,Lasnik,Noonan,andPayne.Thetwo
position papers on syntax are by Lasnik and Noonan. HowardLasnik sees the
functionalism-formalismdichotomyasholdingbetweenthecategoricalbeliefthat
all formis functionally motivatedand the agnostic stand that some ofform may
be.Heproposesaformalaccount oflocalityconstraints onmovement processes
but concludes that this account does not preclude a functional explanation.
MichaelNoonanprovidesanexplicitlistofattributesofstructuralistsyntax(such
askeepingknowledgeanduseapart,andassumingdiscretecategories)whichhe
then contrasts with opposing attributes of a functionalist model and he notes a
recent convergence between the assumptions of functionalists and formalists. In
his discussion of the two position papers, WernerAbraham criticizes both
Lasnik’sandNoonan’swayofrepresentingtheirrespectivepositions.Hefurther
proposes that the choice between the two orientations is a subjective matter and
thus best left to the temperament of the individual researcher.
Croft and Anderson address the question of what each approach can learn
from the other in syntax. WilliamCroft discusses certain constructs of formalist
syntax which need to be taken into account by functionalists as well (such as
grammatical dependence and constituency) and then highlights points that both
approaches must take to heart, such as the responsible use of the notion of
psycholinguistic explanations and the need to consider a broad range of cross-
linguistic data. StephenAnderson thinks the most important diVerence between
functionalism and formalism is that what is seen as interacting but distinct
systems in the latter are viewed as a unified domain in the former. According to
him, the prime lesson to be derived by formalists from functionalist work is the
recognition of the weaknesses of functionalism.
The two special syntactic topics discussed both from a functional and a
formalistpointofviewarewordorderandergativity.Comingfromthefunction-
alist side, Doris Payne uses mostly data from Wayampi (Brazil) and Panare
(Venezuela)toargueforafunctionalistapproachtowordorderandproposesthat
formalism and functionalism are not complementary and that their diVerences
are philosophical in nature. Kenneth Hale takes issue with Payne’s contention
that “all truth converges” by presenting an example from Navajo morphosyntax
—thirdpersonobjectagreementinclauseswhosesubjectisalsothirdperson—
and demonstrating that two equally true accounts, one functional and the other
formal, can be in conflict. Relying mostly on data from the split-ergative
Hindi/Urdu system, AliceDavison presents both formal and functional accounts
4 EDITHA.MORAVCSIKANDKATHLEENM.WHEATLEY
of ergativity (those of Du Bois and Marantz) and she sees them as equally
contributive to a unified account of ergativity yet to be achieved.
Fivepaperspertaintophonology(section2):thosebyBybee,Hammond,
Hayes, Nathan, and Pierrehumbert. Bybee and Hayes are the authors of the two
positionpapers,withPierrehumbertdiscussingthem.Inherfunctionalistposition
paper, JoanBybee describes how usage-based functionalism can reveal ways in
which language use shapes structure. She proposes six basic principles of
functionalist theory and shows how they apply to phonological analysis. From
the formalist side, BruceHayes points at two formal mechanisms that facilitate
the link-up of formal and functional work in phonology. One is markedness
principles as incorporated in Optimality Theory, the other is an algorithm for
inductivegroundingproposedinthepaper.JanetPierrehumbertseesbothBybee
and Hayes as functionalists and welcomes Bybee’s emphasis on the role of the
lexicon in phonology and both Bybee’s and Hayes’s eVorts to explore how
phonetics projects into phonology.
Hammond and Nathan draw attention to the lessons each camp can draw
from the other’s work in phonology. Based on an experiment he conducted on
rhythmic stress shift in English, Michael Hammond suggests that functional
explanations, such as one making crucial use of lexical frequency, can be
incorporated into formal models of phonology. GeoVrey Nathan proposes two
ways in which functionalism can benefit from formal theories: by retaining the
phonemic-phoneticdistinction,andbyexploringthepsychologicalplausibilityof
sequential rules application, such as assumed in Optimality Theory.
Thethirdsectionofvolumeone,onfirstlanguageacquisition,contains
two papers, by Hyams and MacWhinney. In his functionalist paper, Brian
MacWhinney examines how linguistic form — such as inflections — emerges
from the interaction of diVerent levels of neurolinguistic processing. Formalist
NinaHyams uses cross-linguistic data on children’s telegraphic speech to argue
against a functional account and for a modular approach which separates
grammar from pragmatics and form from function.
The fourth and last section of this volume, global issues, contains papers
byDurie,Nettle,andNewmeyer.MarkDuriedrawsattentiontothefactthatthe
form-function relation is mediated by temporal processes, such as in real-time
language use, language acquisition, diachrony, and phylogeny. He shows how
these relations exhibit both transparency (form-function match) and opacity
(mismatch of form and function), and contends that structural models are not
equipped to do justice to the temporal nature of the form-function relationship.
DanielNettledrawsaparallelbetweenfunctionalexplanationsinlinguisticsand
