He was doing so well, but then he said...

[fluffyhamster]

If one were to take an informal survey among non-linguists regarding the primary function of human language, the overwhelmingly most common answer would be, "language is used for communication." This is the commonsense view of what language is for. It might, therefore, come as a surprise to many people that some of the most prominent linguists in the field reject this view and that many others hold that the fact that language may be used for communication is largely, if not completely, irrelevant to its study and analysis. Chomsky, for example, maintains that...

Not all linguists share Chomsky's view, however...

Within contemporary linguistics there is an opposition between functionalists, on the one hand, and formalists, on the other...

The goal of this chapter is to introduce the reader to the basic ideas of functional linguistics and to give an account of how the ideas that today constitute functional linguistics arose. It will also be explained how the majority of professional linguists came to adopt a view of language which is so strikingly at odds with the view held by non-linguists. 1

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 It is often asserted by advocates of Chomsky's view that science leads to results that defy common sense, the prime example being modern physics. However, the counterintuitive results of special relativity and quantum mechanics fall outside the range of human experience, i.e. subatomic particles or objects moving at close to the speed of light. Linguistics does not deal with such phenomena; rather, it deals with what has long been considered the quintessential human phenomenon. Hence it is reasonable to question the denial of the relevance or the importance of the most obvious feature of the phenomenon to be described and explained.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(From the beginning and endnotes of Robert D. Van Valin's chapter on 'Functional Linguistics', in Blackwell's The Handbook of Linguistics, eds Aronoff and Rees-Miller).
===============================================

Obviously Van Valin is trying to stake out and defend his research area much like Chomsky did, but what he said in his endnote there about things falling outside the realm of human experience rather made me aware of why Chomsky held out such promise and attracted such a following in the first place!

And no, I haven't finished the chapter yet!

Any comments or thoughts?

[Andrew Patterson]

I seem to remember Robin Williams in "Dead Poets' Society," saying that the purpose of language (or at least poetry) was to woo women.

[fluffyhamster]

Sexist b*stard (RW not you, Andy! ) - women don't woo men? What about LGBTs (learnt that from the latest Collin's Gem dictionary's update section)? And what of human-rodent relationships?!



Now that we've more or less totally changed the subject, has any one seen The Emperor's Club? (starring Kevin Kline). Is it any good?

[woodcutter]

Ah, weighty matters, furry friend.

1. The study of language without reference to semantics is regarded by many clever types as right daft, and Chomsky has been given a good intellectual thumping by some of them. However, I suppose not many people understand what is actually going on, and sadly and perhaps not all that suprisingly that includes me. I feel as though I want to join in the thumping though.

2. The Emperor's Club is a kind of second rate Dead Poet's Society about a history teacher, but if you have any taste for emotional US school schmaltz (and I'm not immune) it might be enjoyable.