formal vs. functional account

[Angus Grieve-Smith]

On 12/23/2013 12:38 AM, Martin Haspelmath wrote:
> Lise says that "a psycholinguistic/diachronic account doesn't obviate 
> the need for a formal account", but Dan's original question was about 
> human language *in general*. So I don't quite agree with her:
>
> I'd say we need "formal accounts" (schemas/constructions like Bruce's 
> three-foot constraint) at the language-particular level, but 
> functional accounts at the general level, to account for 
> cross-linguistically general phenomena. So it's not about "different 
> folks" having different preferences. It's about different problems 
> requiring different solutions.

     I don't quite agree with either of you! ;-)

http://grieve-smith.com/blog/2013/11/im-an-instrumentalist-are-you-one-too/

     From an instrumentalist perspective, no theory (or type of theory) 
is *required* as long as there's another theory that can fulfill the 
same function.  Formal accounts may be the best thing we've found so far 
for capturing the way particular communities use their language, but 
that doesn't mean that nothing better is possible.

     As an analogy, I'm currently replacing my Brita water filter. In 
the past I've always bought Brita branded filters because those were the 
only ones I ever saw that fitted, but recently I saw some store-brand 
filters and bought them.  So this problem required a particular solution 
- until it didn't.

-- 
				-Angus B. Grieve-Smith
				grvsmth at panix.com