Keynotes from the International Conference on Explanation and Prediction in Linguistics (CEP): Formalist and Functionalist Approaches

Eastern linguistics has been less influenced by the neglect of meaning that was characteristic particularly of early Generativism. Here, the unity of language form and language content has never been questioned even in highly formalized approaches like the Meaning-Text-Model (e.g., Mel’čuk 1974). The emphasis on the functions of languages was, of course, most prominently pronounced in the eastern strands of structuralism, namely in the Kazan School, the internationally poorly recognized trailblazer of structuralism, and in the Prague School. Functionalist ideas traveled to Western Europe and North America in the luggage of the most prominent representative of Prague functionalism, Roman Jakobson. There they could synthesize, for instance, with Franz Boas’, Edward Sapir’s and Benjamin Whorf’s anthropological linguistics. The St. Petersburg school of language typology is another continuation of Eastern functionalist structuralism.

The functionalist endeavor has witnessed extreme growth and enrichment in the 21st century, particularly with the advent of various strands of Construction Grammar, the most influential of which include Adele Goldberg’s (1995) approach and William Croft’s Radical Construction Grammar (2001). The interaction between functionalist and formalist frameworks is, however, still absent or fruitless (cf. Haspelmath 2000).

The present volume is the result of extremely interesting and stimulating discussions. They were not linguistic wars, but peaceful and consensus-oriented scientific debates, in which truth, and not ideologies, played the biggest role. We hope that this volume will serve to spread our belief that it is expedient to take both approaches seriously; not as a contradiction, but as different strategies and attempts to grasp the phenomenon of language in a mutually supportive way.

It was not the purpose of the conference and the present volume to find a common ground or denominator in terms of terminology because, at this point, no common metalanguage between functional and formal work has been established. Instead, the main objective of the conference was to bring together researchers from different linguistic fields and subdisciplines and to gather different perspectives, understandings, methods, and theories dealing with issues of linguistic explanation and prediction. Consequently, we did not attempt to homogenize different points of view. On the contrary, the papers present their results as they exist in the current state of the discipline.

The topic of asymmetry plays a crucial role also in the paper by Anna Maria Di Sciullo (UQAM & SUNY) entitled “Maximize Asymmetry, Minimize Externalization and Interface Asymmetries”. The co-founder of the international network in biolinguistics and expert in asymmetry in morphosyntax shows how and why interface asymmetries arise when syntactic constituents are interpreted at the semantic interface but not at the phonetic interface. Such phenomena are challenging for any linguistic theory aiming to provide an explanation for them. The author focuses on simple coordinate Noun Phrases (NPs) in English and derives differences in externalization interpretation. The analysis proposed by Di Sciullo relies on the interaction of simplest MERGE with principles of efficient computation, namely Maximize Asymmetry and Minimize Externalization. This contrasts with traditional approaches to coordinate NPs, and, since it is motivated independently, it can be integrated into a truly explanatory linguistic theory, namely the simplest theory deriving linguistic phenomena and meeting the criteria of language acquireability and evolvability.

Peter Kosta (University of Potsdam) tries to unify different constructions with affinity to Voice—such as analytic (personal) passive, synthetic (impersonal) reflexive passive, adversative transitive impersonals, unergatives, unaccusatives anti-causatives and causatives—under a generalized Voice Phase Hypothesis, showing, explaining and predicting that these head Voice-related constructions with different functions are determined by their specific argument-predicate hierarchy and the overt or covert expression of the subject Theta Roles.

The last paper by Nirmalangshu Mukherji (Delhi University) “On Sound-Meaning Correlation” gives a most stimulating insight into the evolution of natural languages. Mukherji compares the generativist hypothesis that sound in language—and therefore, communication—is ancillary (the SAH-hypothesis, in his terms), that is, only a secondary function of language, to Charles Darwin’s account of the evolution of language. Contrary to the generativist assumption, Darwin assumed that language evolved via a mutually reinforcing exchange between sounds (words) and mental concepts. Mukherji concludes that the generativist SAH hypothesis is questionable for evolutionary reasons outlined previously by Darwin.

When compiling the volume, we realized that it was not possible to harmonize contributions to such an extent that a homogeneous picture would have arisen, nor would this have been desirable. We are nevertheless convinced that, despite the diversity and heterogeneity in the field, the present volume offers an insightful read to linguists interested in discussions across frameworks.

The contributors are ultimately responsible for the content of their papers.

The papers presented here have undergone a strict double-blind reviewing process. We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable work.

The Editors

Falkensee/Heidelberg, May 2021