FUNCTIONALISM AND GRAMMAR; Dedication; Title page; Copyright page; Table of contents; Preface; 1. Prospectus, Somewhat Jaundiced; 1.1. Historical notes; 1.1.1. Antecedence and antecedents; 1.1.2. The legacy of structuralism; 1.1.3. Direct descent; 1.2. From faith to theory; 1.3. Naive iconism and the reality of formal structure; 1.4. The mess inbetween discreteness and graduality; 1.5. Clear distinctions and partial overlaps; 1.6. Taking cognition and neurology seriously; 1.7. Typological diversity and language universals; 1.8. Methodology; 1.8.1. Intuition and its limits
1.8.2. Induction and quantification1.8.3. Deductive reasoning; 1.8.4. Community; Notes; 2. Markedness as Meta-Iconicity:Distributional and Cognitive Correlatesof Syntactic Structure; 2.1. Introduction; 2.1.1. Markedness and explanation; 2.1.2. Brief historical note; 2.1.3. The context-dependence of markedness; 2.1.4. Criteria for markedness; 2.2. Markedness of discourse types; 2.2.1. Oral-informal vs. written-formal discourse; 2.2.1.1. Structural complexity; 2.2.1.2. Frequency distribution; 2.2.1.3. Cognitive complexity; 2.2.2. Human-affairs vs. abstract-academic discourse
2.2.3. Conversation vs. narrative/procedural discourse2.3. Markedness of clause types; 2.3.1. Preamble; 2.3.2. Main vs. subordinate clauses; 2.3.2.1. Complexity and finiteness; 2.3.2.1.1. Finiteness in subordinate clauses; 2.3.2.1.2. Finiteness in conjoined main clauses; 2.3.2.2. Frequency distribution; 2.3.2.3. Cognitive complexity; 2.3.2.4. Other substantive considerations; 2.3.3. The markedness of speech-act types; 2.3.3.1. Structural complexity; 2.3.3.2. Frequency distribution; 2.3.3.3. Cognitive complexity; 2.3.3.4. Other substantive considerations
2.3.4. Markedness of affirmative and negative clauses2.3.4.1. Structural complexity; 2.3.4.2. Frequency distribution; 2.3.4.3. Cognitive complexity; 2.3.5. Markedness of active and passive voice; 2.3.5.1. Structural complexity; 2.3.5.2. Text frequency; 2.3.5.3. Cognitive complexity; 2.3.5.4. Other substantive considerations; 2.4. Markedness of nominal modalities; 2.4.1. Preamble; 2.4.2. Case-role and markedness; 2.4.2.1. The topic hierarchies; 2.4.2.2. Structural complexity; 2.4.2.3. Frequency distribution; 2.4.2.4. Cognitive complexity; 2.4.3. Referentiality and individuation
2.4.4. Definiteness2.4.4.1. Structural complexity; 2.4.4.2. Frequency distribution; 2.4.4.3. Cognitive complexity; 2.4.5. Anaphoric status; 2.4.5.1. Structural complexity; 2.4.5.2. Frequency distribution; 2.4.5.3. Cognitive complexity; 2.4.6. Topicality and referential continuity; 2.4.6.1. Continuous vs. discontinuous topics; 2.4.6.2. Structural complexity; 2.4.6.3. Frequency distribution; 2.4.6.4. Cognitive complexity; 2.5. Markedness of verbal modalities; 2.5.1. Suggested markedness values; 2.5.2. Structural complexity; 2.5.3. Frequency distribution; 2.5.4. Substantive considerations
This book is Prof. Givón's long-awaited critical examination of the fundamental theoretical and methodological underpinnings of the functionalist approach to grammar. It challenges functionalists to take their own medicine and establish non-circular empirical definitions of both 'function' and 'structure'. Ideological hand-waving, however fervent and right-thinking, is seldom an adequate substitute for analytic rigor and empirical responsibility. If the reductionist extremism of the various structuralist schools is to be challenged on solid intellectual grounds, the challenge cannot itself be
Functionalism and Grammar
Erschienen:
1995
Verlag:
John Benjamins Pub. Co, Amsterdam/Philadelphia
This book is Prof. Givón's long-awaited critical examination of the fundamental theoretical and methodological underpinnings of the functionalist approach to grammar. It challenges functionalists to take their own medicine and establish non-circular...
mehr
Universitätsbibliothek der Eberhard Karls Universität
Fernleihe:
keine Fernleihe
This book is Prof. Givón's long-awaited critical examination of the fundamental theoretical and methodological underpinnings of the functionalist approach to grammar. It challenges functionalists to take their own medicine and establish non-circular empirical definitions of both 'function' and 'structure'. Ideological hand-waving, however fervent and right-thinking, is seldom an adequate substitute for analytic rigor and empirical responsibility. If the reductionist extremism of the various structuralist schools is to be challenged on solid intellectual grounds, the challenge cannot itself be
