Is grammar derivable?

Christer Platzack Christer.Platzack at NORDLUND.LU.SE
Tue Mar 9 09:05:07 UTC 1999


In a posting to this list 3/5/99, Östen Dahl wrote:

"In a recent Swedish introduction to generative grammar, it is said that
generative grammar, in the miminalist version, postulates an "internal
grammar", acting as an independent cognitive module. The author then goes on
(my translation): "There are other current theories of grammar that do not
assume an independent internal grammar, such as functional grammar,
according to which grammar is derivable from language use..., and cognitive
semantics, according to which grammar is derivable from meaning...."

It would be interesting to know whether FUNKNET subscribers agree with these
characterizations."

The introduction mentioned is
Christer Platzack
Svenskans inre grammatik - det minimalistiska programmet. En introduktion
till modern generativ grammatik
(The internal grammar of Swedish - the minimalist program. An introduction
to modern generative grammar)
Studentlitteratur, Lund 1998
ISBN 91-44-00834-1

Being the author of this textbook, I like to comment on Dahl's question.
What I had in mind, writing the lines cited by Dahl, was to condense
statements like the following ones:

"The chapter will argue that syntactic island constraints can be derived
through an interaction of the Spatialization of Form Hypothesis with a
general theory of attention". (Paul Deane, Grammar in Mind and Brain.
Explorations in Cognitive Syntax. Mouton de Gruyter: Berlin, New York 1992,
p. 4.)

"What is controversial is whether these structures and abilities are unique
to language, possibly constituting a separate modular package with special
properties not reflective or derivative of others, more general cognitive
functions." (Ronald Langacker, Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1.
Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford University Press, Stanford 1987, p. 13.

"Functionalists maintain that the communicative situation motivates,
constraints, explains, or otherwise determines grammatical structure, and
that a structural or formal approach is not merely limited to an
artificially restricted data base, but is inadequate even as a structural
account." (Johanna Nichols, Functional theories of grammar. Annual Review
of Antropology 13: 97-117; the quotation is found on page 97)

"Crucial evidence for choosing a functionalist over a traditional Chomskian
formalist approach would minimally be any language in which a rule-governed
relationship exists between discourse/cognitive functions and linear order.
Such languages clearly esist." (Doris Payne, What counts as explanation? A
functionalist approach to word order. In Functionalism and Formalism in
Linguistics, vol. 1. General Papers, ed. by Michael Darnell, Edith
Moravcsik, Frederik J. Newmeyer, Michael Noonan, and Kathleen Weatley,
135-164. John Benjamins, Amsterdam 1998; the quotation is found on page
155).

As is clear from these quotations, functionalists of various kinds do talk
about the relation between function, semantics and grammar, and they even
sometimes use the verb "derive" (see Deane and Langacker above), whereas
others use words like "motivate", "constraint", "explain" "determine",
"rule-governed relationship" and so on and so forth. Consider also David
Tuggys response to Dahl's question (3/5/99):

     What on earth would "derivable from" mean in such a statement?

     For what it's worth, I'd easily say that grammar is "established
     by" language use and "modified by" changes in usage, and that it
     "functions for the purpose of" systematically structuring
     meaning. I might even say it "consists of" systematic
     structurings of meaning-form combinations. But "derivable
     from"???

It is obvious that Tuggy does not like the word "derive" (in my book I used
the Swedish word 'haerleda' with roughly the same meaning). But what is the
big issue?

I included the lines under discussion in my book to inform the readers that
there are other ways to look at grammar/language in addition to the
generative view. In addition, in the final chapter, where I discuss the
place of an internal grammar in relation to language as such, I suggest
that such a formalist view of syntax may be fruitfully combined with
cognitive approaches to semantics (Lakoff, Langacker).

Christer Platzack



More information about the Funknet mailing list