sign in sign up
<<
Home , Functional linguistics

FUNCTIONAL SYNTAX1

SUSUMOKUNO Harvard University

1. INTRODUCTION

FUNCTIONAL is an approach to analysis of linguistic structure in which emphasis is placed on the communicative function of the elements, in addition to their structural relations (Garvin, 1963). FUNCTIONAL is a subarea of in which syn­ tactic structures are analyzed with emphasis on their communicative func­ tion. Since nothing can be gained in analyzing syntactic structures by ignoring, or being ignorant of, their communicative function, every good syntactician should also be a good functional syntactician. Functional syntax is, in principle, independent of various current models of such as (standard, extended standard, and revised extended standard) theories of , relational grammar, , tagmemics, and so on. Each theory of grammar must have a place or places where various functional constraints on the well-formed­ ness of sentences or sequences of sentences can be stated, and each theory

1 This paper is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant NSF BNS 76 81732. I am greatly indebted to Linda Shumaker, who has read earlier versions of this paper and has given me numerous invaluable comments. 117 Syntax and , Volume /3: Copyright © 1980 by Academic Press. Inc. Current Approaches to Syntax All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISBN 0-12-613513-4 118 Susumo Kono of grammar can benefit from utilizing a functional perspective in analysis of concrete syntactic phenomena. Therefore, in theory, there is no conflict between functional syntax and, say, the revised extended standard theory of generative grammar. Given a linguistic process that is governed purely by syntactic factors, this process will be described in the syntactic com­ ponent of grammar both by pure sy11tacticians and by functional syntac­ ticians. On the other hand, given a linguistic process that is governed by both syntactic and, say, factors, the syntactic aspect will be formulated in the syntactic component, while discourse factors that in­ teract with this syntactic characterization will be described in, say, the discourse component of grammar. Pure syntacticians would concentrate on the former characterization, and functional syntacticians, on the latter. There need not be any disagreement between the two. In actuality, however, there are numerous conflicts between pure and functional syntacticians with respect to how to analyze a given linguistic phenomenon. Disagreements often arise from their respective judgments as to whether a regularity observed for a given linguistic phenomenon should be stated as a syntactic problem or as a nonsyntactic problem. Take, for example, the following set of sentences: (1) a. Did you buy a portrait of Nixon? b. Who did you buy a portrait of? (2) a. Did you buy Mary's portrait of Nixon? b. * Who did you buy Mary's portrait of? Why is (lb) acceptable and (2b) unacceptable? Pure syntacticians' im­ mediate reaction to this kind of data would be to assume that (2b) is ungrammatical due to a violation of some syntactic constraint. They as­ sume that there is a constraint that says nothing can be moved out of a [NP's N Prep X]NP structure. Some of them relate it to a constraint, independently motivated, though on dubious grounds, that says that no rule can apply, with a trigger upstairs, to a constituent within an NP or S that has a specified . More formally stated, this constraint reads as follows (Chomsky, 1973): (3) SPECIFIED SUBJECT CONDITION: No rule can involve X, Yin the structure ... X ...[a . . . Z . . . -W Y V . ..] ... where Z is the specified subject of WYV in a, and a is either NP or S. The same constraint is invoked for explaining the ungrammaticality of