Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T04:32:27.050Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

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).

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 July 2003

ANDREW CARNIE
Affiliation:
University of Arizona
NORMA MENDOZA-DENTON
Affiliation:
University of Arizona

Extract

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 …

Type
Review Article
Copyright
© 2003 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The authors would like to thank Heidi Harley, Mike Hammond and an anonymous JL referee for their comments, and especially Maggie Tallerman for her boundless patience. The authors blame each other for any mistakes or misrepresentations that are in this review, especially ones that will get them in trouble with their own camp. We would like to note that although each paragraph is attributed to a particular author, we frequently wrote each other's parts. We leave it as a challenge to the reader to figure out which sections were actually written by whom.