form, function, data, description

[Dan Everett]

Matthew S Dryer wrote:
>
> My claim is that there is very little if any
> description using current or recent formal theoretical frameworks that is
> of value to functional linguists.  I concede that if we go far enough back
> in time, we do find partial exceptions to this, like Bob Dixon's grammar
> of Dyirbal.
>
> Matthew Dryer

This depends on the model. I would agree if you were referring to
Minimalism, an incipient program which is a complete jumble at this
point (or, to quote Paul Simon again, it is a "pocketful of mumbles,
such are promises"). But surely there are important insights that people
of all persuasions have received or could gain from paying careful
attention to Joan Bresnan's work, for example. Maybe not.

But I do agree that in reading the better grammars, e.g. Keren Rice's
work or Bob Dixon's Dyirbal (and his forthcoming Yarawara grammar, his
first Amazonian grammar), it matters little whether the author is a
formalist or a functionalist or, as Bob, neither really.

By the way, Tom Givon suggested to me that Hu Matthews' grammar of
Hidatsa is not the best example. I think he is probably right about
that, come to think of it. The 'grammars' of 'exotic' languages written
under the shadow of Aspects were, with several notable exceptions,
disasters.

Dan

Dan