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).

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 …