Functionalism is/n't formalism: an interactive review of Darnell et al. (1999) Michael Darnell, Edith Moravcsik, Frederick J. Newmeyer, Michael Noonan & Kathleen M. Wheatley (eds.), Functionalism and formalism in linguistics, vol. I: General papers & vol. II: Case studies (Studies in Language Companion Series 41 & 42). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1999. Pp. iv+514 (vol. I) & pp. iv+407 (vol. II).

Abstract

SETTING: The University of Arizona's idyllic desert campus. As in many colleges across the United States, ‘formalist’ linguistics is implicitly understood to be at cross-purposes with ‘functionalist’ linguistics. The Linguistics Department's only course on non-minimalist syntax is famously nicknamed ‘Bad Guys’. Although the linguistics department forms a unified front, malcontent quietly simmers across campus as functionalist sociolinguists, discourse analysts, grammaticalization specialists and linguistic anthropologists outnumber formalists, though they roam within their own language-department fiefdoms. Politeness and cooperation reign among senior faculty linguists, who have realized that antagonism only hurts students and programs in all the language sciences. The junior faculty are more brash: they work hard, publish a lot, and speak loudly to get tenure as respected form/functionalists. They socialize together and joke about each other's positions, but don't talk very much serious shoptalk. Until now …

Subject expression in L2 Spanish: Convergence of generative and usage-based perspectives?

“…The topic of this special issue – convergence and divergence between formal and functional approaches – is an invitation to dialogue between research traditions that are often seen as incompatible. A similar type of dialogue has been taking place in linguistics for many years (see Carnie and Mendoza-Denton, 2003; Darnell et al, 1999; Newmeyer, 2010), with the goal of enhanced mutual understanding of each approach as well as an appreciation for the diversity within formalism and functionalism. As Croft (1999) eloquently points out, ‘dialogue between conflicting theories is an opportunity for each side to examine the nature of language as well as particular grammatical analyses, and strengthen the arguments for their positions’ (p. 88).…”