See more Functional theories of grammar articles on AOD.

Powered by
TTSReader
Share this page on
Article provided by Wikipedia


( => ( => ( => Functional theories of grammar [pageid] => 11669 ) =>

Functional theories of grammar are those approaches to the study of "language that see functionality of language and its elements to be the key to understanding "linguistic processes and structures. Functional theories of language propose that since language is fundamentally a tool, it is reasonable to assume that its structures are best analyzed and understood with reference to the functions they carry out. Functional theories of grammar differ from "structural linguistics or formalist language theories, in that the latter approaches seek to define the different elements of language and describe the way they relate to each other only as systems of formal rules or operations, whereas the former additionally takes into account the context where linguistic elements are used and studies the way they are instrumentally useful or functional in the given environment. This means that functional theories of grammar tend to pay attention to the way language is actually used in communicative context. The formal relations between linguistic elements are assumed to be functionally-motivated.[1]

Contents

Frameworks[edit]

There are several distinct grammatical frameworks that employ a functional approach.

Dik characterises the functional approach as follows:

In the functional paradigm a language is in the first place conceptualized as an instrument of social interaction among human beings, used with the intention of establishing communicative relationships. Within this paradigm one attempts to reveal the instrumentality of language with respect to what people do and achieve with it in social interaction. A "natural language, in other words, is seen as an integrated part of the "communicative competence of the natural language user. (2, p. 3)

Because of its emphasis on usage, communicative function, and the social context of language, functional grammar differs significantly from other linguistic theories which stress purely "formal approaches to grammar, notably Chomskyan "generative grammar. Functional grammar makes much use of "corpus linguistics and "linguistic typology to provide material.

Grammatical functions[edit]

Functions exist on all levels of grammar, and even in phonology, where the function of the "phoneme is to distinguish between lexical material.

  1. Semantic function: ("Agent, "Patient, Recipient, etc.), describing the role of participants in states of affairs or actions expressed.
  2. Syntactic functions: (e.g. "Subject and "Object), defining different perspectives in the presentation of a linguistic expression.
  3. Pragmatic functions: ("Theme and Rheme, "Topic and "Focus, "Predicate), defining the informational status of constituents, determined by the pragmatic context of the verbal interaction.

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Nichols, Johanna (1984). "Functional Theories of Grammar". Annual Review of Anthropology. 13: 97–117. "doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.13.1.97. [Functional grammar] analyzes grammatical structure, as do formal and structural grammar; but it also analyzes the entire communicative situation: the purpose of the speech event, its participants, its discourse context. Functionalists maintain that the communicative situation motivates, constrains, explains, or otherwise determines grammatical structure, and that structural or formal approaches are not merely limited to an artificially restricted data base, but are inadequate even as structural accounts. Functional grammar, then, differs from formal and structural grammar in that it purports not to model but to explain; and the explanation is grounded in the communicative situation. 
  2. ^ Newmeyer, Frederick. (2001). The Prague School and North American functionalist approaches to syntax. Journal of Linguistics vol. 37. 101 - 126
  3. ^ Novak, P., Sgall, P. 1968. On the Prague functional approach. Trav. Ling. Prague 3:291-97. Tuscaloosa: Univ. Alabama Press
  4. ^ Dik, S. C. 1980. Studies in Functional Grammar. London: Academic
  5. ^ Dik, S. C. 1981. Functional Grammar. Dordrecht/Cinnaminson NJ: Foris.
  6. ^ Hengeveld, Kees & Mackenzie, J. Lachlan (2010), Functional Discourse Grammar. In: Bernd Heine and Heiko Narrog eds, The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 367-400.
  7. ^ Hengeveld, Kees & Mackenzie, J. Lachlan (2008), Functional Discourse Grammar: A typologically-based theory of language structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  8. ^ Halliday, M.A.K. forthcoming. Meaning as Choice. In Fontaine, L, Bartlett, T, and O'Grady, G. Systemic Functional Linguistics: Exploring Choice. Cambridge University Press. p1.
  9. ^ Halliday, M. A. K. 1984. A Short Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold
  10. ^ See David G. Butt, Whiteheadian and Functional Linguistics in "Michel Weber and Will Desmond (eds.). Handbook of Whiteheadian Process Thought (Frankfurt / Lancaster, Ontos Verlag, 2008, vol. II) ; cf. Ronny Desmet & Michel Weber (edited by), Whitehead. The Algebra of Metaphysics. Applied Process Metaphysics Summer Institute Memorandum, Louvain-la-Neuve, Les Éditions Chromatika, 2010.
  11. ^ Foley, W. A., Van Valin, R. D. Jr. 1984. Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press
  12. ^ Van Valin, Robert D., Jr. (Ed.). (1993). Advances in Role and Reference Grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  13. ^ Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth; Michael Fortescue; Peter Harder; Lars Heltoft; Lisbeth Falster Jakobsen (eds.). (1996) Content, expression and structure: studies in Danish functional grammar. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
) )