Evolution, and 'functional' + 'social'

[Jaakko Leino]

Sherman Wilcox wrote:
>
> On 12/8/02, Dan Everett said:
>
> >If functional linguistics is right to believe that (most of) syntax is
> >motivated by communicative needs
>
> I would hope that functional linguists don't believe this. I would
> no more claim that "syntax is motivated by communicative needs" than
> an evolutionary biologist would claim that structure is motivated by
> functional needs.

But then, language--including, but not limited to, syntax--has a user,
one with intellect, needs, intentions, creativity, and the like.
Evolution may not (although this, apparently, remains a matter of a
certain religious debate, taken broadly enough). Therefore, it just
might not be as straightforward as the comparison with evolutionary
biology implies.

Furthermore, I don't suppose "motivated by communicative needs" means
"motivated by communicative needs alone". Surely there are other factors
which shape and re-shape syntax and distort the "100% motivated"
picture. But that need not falsify the claim that there is motivation,
and by looking closely enough, it can be found all over syntax.

--
Jaakko Leino
University of Helsinki
Department of Finnish