Show Summary Details

Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 21 October 2019

Abstract and Keywords

This article examines the rhetorical conflict between the so-called ‘formal linguistics’ and ‘functional linguistics,’ arguing that there is no inconsistency in advocating (and practicing) both modes of explanation. A ‘formal’ explanation in linguistics derives properties of language structure from a set of principles formulated in a vocabulary of nonsemantic structural primitives, whereas a ‘functional’ explanation derives properties of language structure from human attributes that are not specific to language. This article begins by discussing the properties of formal explanation and functional explanation, along with their respective strengths and weaknesses. It then proposes criteria by which an explanation might be considered ‘formal’ or ‘functional.’ It argues that both explanations have their place in a full account of the properties of linguistic structure and have their role to play in linguistic theory.

Keywords: formal linguistics, functional linguistics, formal explanation, linguistics, language structure, functional explanation, language, linguistic structure, linguistic theory

Access to the complete content on Oxford Handbooks Online requires a subscription or purchase. Public users are able to search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter without a subscription.

Please subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you have purchased a print title that contains an access token, please see the token for information about how to register your code.

For questions on access or troubleshooting, please check our FAQs, and if you can''t find the answer there, please contact us.