antonomy of syntax

Edith A Moravcsik edith at CSD.UWM.EDU
Mon Dec 20 18:56:54 UTC 1999


Johanna Bubba has suggested that the most problematic aspect of Chomsky's
view of language is the notion of autonomy of syntax. But I cannot see how
this could be an important issue of divisive force.

If the claim that syntax is autonomous means that it can be described
without reference to meaning (and function), then the claim is almost
true by definition and thus I do not believe even functionalists would
take issue with it. The claim is necessarily true in the sense that any
object in the world that includes recurrent parts and/or
properties can be described in terms of the distribution (selection and
arrangement) of these basic elements. Sentences are analyzable into
recurrent parts - such as words - and thus sentences can be given a
distributionally based description without reference to the meaning of
these parts. To claim the opposite - that sentences can be described
unless we consider meaning - would be like saying that, while the
structure of a string of beads can be described in terms of the choice and
order of the beads, as soon as this string serves the purposes of a
rosary, the former structural description becomes invalid and a valid
description can be constructed only if it is known which bead stands for
which prayer. This is, of course, not so.

As I think was suggested by several people earlier in this discussion,
the difference between functionalism and formalism seems to exist not on
the descriptive but on the explanatory level; but even there, it is
less than categorical. Functionalists claim that most or all structural
features of sentences can be explained in terms of meaning (or function).
Formalists in turn claim that most - but not necessarily all - structural
characteristics are subject to form-related (i.e., non-semantic and
non-functional) explanations - which in turn may or may not be ultimately
functionally-based themselves. If this is a correct characterization of
the difference between the two persuasions, the differences is not a huge
one.

Edith M.

   ************************************************************************
                         Edith A. Moravcsik
                         Department of Foreign Languages and Linguistics
                         University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
                         Milwaukee, WI 53201-0413
                         USA

                         E-mail: edith at uwm.edu
                         Telephone: (414) 229-6794 /office/
                                    (414) 332-0141 /home/
                         Fax: (414) 229-2741



More information about the Funknet mailing list