Bridging paradigms: Formal and functional linguistics and the teaching perspective

Christoph Haase

Bridging paradigms: Formal and functional linguistics and the teaching perspective

Vol.1,No.1(2008)

PDF

This contribution focuses on the comprehensive treatment of linguistic theory in a student classroom under particular regard of the formal vs. functional perspective. It focuses on the transparency of both paradigms concerning descriptive and explanatory adequacy and revises the results gained over several decades of work in the respective fi elds. Both paradigms will be sketched against the background of two relatively new contenders, Cognitive Linguistics (CL), which is largely functionally motivated, and Optimality Theory (OT), which is largely generative-formally motivated. This contribution tries to fi nd common ground between formal and functional linguistics with CL bridging the methodological gap. It thus aims at an integrative approach and introduces a notion of motivational adequacy

References

Anderson, S. R., Lightfoot, D. W. (2002) The Language Organ. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Archangeli, D. B., Langedoen, D. T. (1997) Optimality Theory. An Overview. Malden,
MA: Blackwell.

Dawkins, R. (2006) [1976] The Selfi sh Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dekkers, J., van der Leeuw, F. (2000) Optimality Theory. Phonology, Syntax, and
Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dobzhansky, T. (1973) ‘Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.’
The American Biology Teacher 35, 125-129. DOI: 10.2307/4444260

Fanselow, G. (2002) Resolving Confl icts in Grammars. Optimality Theory in Syntax,
Morphology, and Phonology. Hamburg: Buske.

Fill, A. (2001) The Ecolinguistics Reader. Language, Ecology and Environment. London:
Continuum.

Gorrell, P. (2001) ‘Sentence processing.’ In: Wilson, R., Keil, F. C. (eds) The MIT
Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences. 748-751.

Grimshaw, J. (1997) ‘Projection, heads, and optimality.’ Linguistic Inquiry 28, 373-422.

Haspelmath, M. (1999) ‘Optimality and diachronic adaptation.’ Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft
18, 180-205.

Hauser, M., Chomsky, N., Fitch, T. (2002) ‘The faculty of language.’ Science 298,
1569-1579.

Hermans, B., van Oostendorp, M. (1999) The Derivational Residue in Phonological
Optimality Theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Kager, R. (1999) Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Langacker, R. (1977). ‘Syntactic reanalysis.’ In: Li, C. N. (ed.) Mechanims of Syntactic
Change. Austin: University of Texas Press. 59-139.

McMahon, A. M. S. (2000) Change, Chance, and Optimality. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.

McWhorter, J. H. (2001) ‘The world’s simplest grammars are creole grammars.’ Linguistic
Typology 5(2-3), 125-166.

Mühlhäusler, P. (1996) Linguistic Ecology. Language Change and Linguistic Imperialism
in the Pacifi c Region. London: Routledge.

Newmeyer, F. (2005) Possible and Probable Languages. A Generative Perspective on
Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Popper, K. R. (1959) The Logic of Scientifi c Discovery. London: Hutchinson.

Prince, A., Smolensky, P. (2004) [1993] Optimality Theory. Constraint Interaction in
Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.

Smolensky, P., Legendre, G. (2006) The Harmonic Mind. From Neural Computation to
Optimality-Theoretic Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Steedman, M. (2000) The Syntactic Process. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Metrics

216

Views

173

PDF views

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

PDF