universality of grammatical functions

[kay at cogsci.Berkeley.EDU]

Joan writes:

> Finally, I don't want to oversimply, but if you squint, Construction
> Grammar is just LFG with the f-structures annotated on the c-structure
> nodes, and a few labelling differences with functions (coarser
> functions are used for c-structure positions--cf. my Ch. 6, and
> Optimal Syntax).  

Credit granted for brevity, this is correct at the level of formal
architecture (and could equally accurately have been expressed "LFG is
just Construction Grammar with category and level information factored out
of the feature structures.") But it's not correct at the level of theory,
which seems the more relevant to Rachel's concern.  The theory of CG does
not contain a commitment to the universal prominence of grammatical
functions, unlike LFG (as I understand it). Such a theoretical commitment
could be expressed within the CG architecture, just as one could formulate
a theory within the LFG architecture which lacked commitment to the
universality of grammatical functions.  (Of course one might want to find
a different name for this theory.)

It is useful to distinguish between a formal architecture and a
particular theory, or batch of theories, expressed within it.  The formal
architectures of LFG and CG are very similar -- perhaps identical, viewed
at a sufficiently abstract mathematical level.  This is not necessarily
the same thing -- and to all appearances not the same thing in fact -- as
the substantive commitments of the grammatical theories that have been
constructed within those architectures. 

Paul
__________________________________________________________
 Paul Kay                      Department of Linguistics  
 kay at cogsci.berkeley.edu       University of California  
 www.icsi.berkeley.edu/~kay    Berkeley, CA 94720, USA