Functional Approaches to Grammar

Meichun Liu 交通大學外文所

Linguistics program, NCTU 1

Outline

• Functional vs. Formal approaches – What is grammar? Why is there a grammar? – Functional motivations

• Application to TEFL – Why are there the rules we memorized?

• Application to TCFL – How to solve the problems of Chinese

2

Grammar as formal structure?

• Givon (1993, Foreword) It is the linguists who came up with the myth

of formal structure: Grammar as an arbitrary, autonomous mechanism whose prime function was to govern the construction of well-formed sentences. Grammar that was about grammar.

3

Is there a grammar?

• Yes, grammar does exit and it does have rules. But no, grammar is not about grammar and grammar is not arbitrary. Grammar is our path to concise, coherent expression.

• In grammar as in music, good expression rides on good form. Metaphorically and literally, grammar – as musical forms - must make sense!

4

What is grammar?

• Givon (1993, Introduction p. 1) – Grammar is not a set of rigid rules that must be

followed in order to produce grammatical sentences. Rather, grammar is a set of strategies that one employs in order to produce coherent communication.

– Human language is a purposeful instrument designed to code and communicate information

– Its structure is not divorced from its function.

5

Two analogies (Givon 1993:2) • Language as biological organ

– In biology, the study of structure would be meaningless without the parallel study of function.

– Grammar is a unique and complex coding system, which includes the coding devices (structure) and the coded messages (function).

• Language as logic machine – The machine and its various parts abide by

exceptionless, law-like rules, regardless of what function they perform.

6

Form and Function

FORM

What is the rule?

FUNCTION

Why is there the rule?

Language Communication

• Structure and function are two sides of the same coin:

7

Functional Approaches (Big 1996)

• The basic tenet of the functionalist approach is that forms are derived from functions. – In contrast with the formalist position which treats

forms as independent of function. – It challenges the conventional dominant view of

linguistic symbolization that grammar is an arbitrary, autonomous, self-contained formal system.

8

Functional vs. Formal approaches

A case study: Passive The question: Why is there such a marked form? John was hit.

It is formally derived from structural constraints

It is used to perform special functions

Pragmatic: topicalization Semantic: agent demotion Patient promotion Event stativization

The trigger: Passive morphology ( ) BE V-en John

Case filter+ Theta marking NP-movement

9

Functional Explanation

Passive Form • Non-agent topic

and subject • Agent is hidden • Patient as subject • The verbal form: BE + P.P.

10

Passive Function • topicalization • Agent demotion

•Unimportant •Unknown •Stereotypical

• Promotion of a non-agent

• Stativization • De-transitivized

John was hit.

Conservative to radical approaches

Syntax is correlated with Semantics and Pragmatics

Discourse/usage shapes

Grammar

11

• A continuum of different stands:

Givon: function-based Lakoff : cognitive semantics Lanagcker: spatial concept Sweetser: image schema Jackendoff: locative Goldberg: Construction Grammar

Thompson/Hopper: emergent grammar Du Bois: info. flow Chafe Bybee: usage-based Boas

Semantics underlines structure

Functional Explanations • Categoriality:

– Prototype effect: non-discrete, fuzzy boundaries – Gestalt theory

• Cognitive-semantic : – Metaphor/metonym – Conceptual structure

• Discourse-pragmatic – Topicality – grounding – Information status: given vs. new

12

Transitivity • NP V NP • Prototypical (Givon 1993)

– Agentivity +Perfectivity +Affectedness

• 10 semantic factors (H &Th 1994) – Participants, Kinesis, aspect,

punctuality, mode Volitionality, Agentivity,, affirmation

– Individuality of O, affectedness of O

• Foreground vs. Background

13

Syntax

Semantics

Discourse

10 Parameters

High transitivity

Low transitivity

1. Participants 2 or more 1

2. Kinesis action Non-action

3. Aspect telic atelic

4. Punctuality punctual non-punctual

5. Volitionality volitional non-volitional

High transitivity

Low transitivity

6. Affirmation affirmative negative

7. Mode realis irrealis

8. Agency agent high in potency

agent low in potency

9. Affectedness of object totally affected not affected

10. Individuation of object

highly individuated

non-individuated

Prototypical Transitive Verbs Creation built a house/wrote a book. Destruction smashed the glass. Change of physical state enlarge the room

chopped wood. Change of location They moved the desk. Change of surface condition

washed/painted the car Change of internal property I heated/chilled the pot. Manner and Instrument incorporated: murder/smash/shred/knife 16

Less-Prototypical Transitive Verbs

1. Dative-Subj (Conscious, but non-active) See/Feel/Hear/Understand • Can be used in Imperative: Feel the motion See for yourself • Taken as having some degree of agent-control 2. Dative-Obj (internal, mental effect) They insult her. She spoiled the child. He amused them.

17

3. Patient-Subj Cause (as human-causer) Dative-Obj The idea amused him. The news surprised him.

cf. Curiosity killed him. 4. Instrument-Subj (responsible for the event) The hammer smashed the window. The bomb killed him. 5. Locative-Obj (as if affected) She approached him. They entered the house.

18

6. Cognate Patient-Obj (as created product of the event) sang a song/dance the rumba/gave a speech

cf. made a left turn made an error took a leap had an idea made a circle took a risk 7. Incorporated Patient (overt patient is locative or dative) He fed the cow. (gave food to the cow) He stoked the furnace. (put wood into it)

19

8. Associative-Obj (co-agent as affected patient) Henry met Sally. I joined them for lunch. 9. Verbs of possession (patient-or Experincer-Subj) She has a big house. The house got a nice master. I got an idea. 10. Unspecified Obj (stereotypical, habitual, predictable, and non-

referring) I ate/drank/drove/taught.

20

mode mode

Which is more transitive?

1. Susan left. (high) Kinesis: action Aspect: telic Punctually: punctual Volitionality: Volitional

2. Jerry likes beer. (low) Participants: Two

What is the ergative case marking?

Nominative

Accusative

Ergative

Absolutive

Him run.

He hit him.

A

S

O

Discourse Basis for Ergativity

• I-erg saw a man. • A-role is set apart from the other two due to

discourse-level considerations: • Preferred argument structure:

– Given A constraint • A-role is preserved for given, non-lexical information

– One lexical argument constraint • Only one lexical argument is used per clause

23

Competing motivations

• Information flow: – Initial position is for given information. – Ergative case marking

• Topicality:

– Subject (A and S) is most topical – Nominative case marking

24

Semantic change and grammaticalization (Traugott)

• Grammaticalization: – Change in semantic and grammatical status – Unidirectional: more lexical to more grammatical – Eg. A lot of, a bit of, in front of

Re-association of form and meaning

• Constructionalization

25

Cause of semantic change (Heine)

• Metaphorically-based and Contextually-induced:

• The case of ‘since’: – Temporal:

• She worked hard since she moved here.

– Temporal+ causal: • She has been sick since he left.

– Causal: • She is sick since he doesn’t love her.

26

Grammar-external forces

• Discourse reveals a kind of fluid patterning, which apparently can effectively shape the relatively regidified patterns of grammar. (Du Bois 1988:1)

• Linguistic structure is shaped by the structure of the

real world, as conceptualized by the language user and the linearity of human speech, shaped by memory capacity, processing strategies and interactional principles. (Big 1996 :97)

27

Functional approaches

• Look for grammar-external, cognitive or discourse explanations:

• Functional scholars are interested in: – The way particular structures are used, – How their meanings interact with their uses, – how the grammatical patterns in one language

relate to those serving similar functions in other languages,

– How grammatical patterns are related to discourse patterns.

28