Part ofa series on
Linguistics
Outline History Index
General linguistics Diachronic Lexicography Morphology Phonology Pragmatics Semantics Syntax Syntax–semantics interface Typology
Applied linguistics Acquisition Anthropological Applied Mathematical Computational Conversation analysis Corpus linguistics Discourse analysis Determinism Distance Documentation Ethnography of communication Ethnomethodology Forensic History of linguistics Interlinguistics Neurolinguistics Philology Philosophy of language Phonetics Psycholinguistics Sociolinguistics Text Translating andinterpreting Writing systems
Theoretical frameworks Formalist Constituency Dependency Distributionalism Generative Glossematics Functional Cognitive Construction grammar Functional discourse grammar Grammaticalization Interactional linguistics Prague circle Systemic functional Usage-based Structuralism
Topics Autonomy of syntax Compositionality Conservative and innovative language Descriptivism Etymology Iconicity Internet linguistics LGBTQ linguistics Origin of language Orismology Orthography Philosophy of linguistics Prescriptivism Second-language acquisition Theory of language Terminology
Portal
v t e

Functional linguistics is an approach to the study oflanguage characterized by taking systematically into account the speaker's and the hearer's side, and the communicative needs of the speaker and of the given language community.^{[1]: 5–6 [2]} Linguistic functionalism spawned in the 1920s to 1930s fromFerdinand de Saussure's systematicstructuralist approach to language (1916).

Functionalism sees functionality of language and its elements to be the key to understandinglinguistic processes and structures. Functional theories of language propose that since language is fundamentally a tool, it is reasonable to assume that its structures are best analyzed and understood with reference to the functions they carry out. These include the tasks of conveyingmeaning andcontextual information.

Functional theories of grammar belong tostructural^[3] and, broadly,humanistic linguistics, considering language as being created by the community, and linguistics as relating tosystems theory.^[1][4] Functional theories take into account thecontext where linguistic elements are used and study the way they are instrumentally useful or functional in the given environment. This means thatpragmatics is given an explanatory role, along withsemantics. The formal relations between linguistic elements are assumed to be functionally-motivated. Functionalism is sometimes contrasted withformalism,^[5] but this does not exclude functional theories from creating grammatical descriptions that aregenerative in the sense of formulating rules that distinguish grammatical or well-formed elements from ungrammatical elements.^[3]

Simon Dik characterizes the functional approach as follows:

In the functional paradigm a language is in the first place conceptualized as an instrument of social interaction among human beings, used with the intention of establishing communicative relationships. Within this paradigm one attempts to reveal the instrumentality of language with respect to what people do and achieve with it in social interaction. Anatural language, in other words, is seen as an integrated part of thecommunicative competence of the natural language user. (2, p. 3)

Functional theories of grammar can be divided on the basis of geographical origin or base (though it simplifies many aspects): European functionalist theories include Functional (discourse) grammar and Systemic functional grammar (among others), while American functionalist theories include Role and reference grammar and West Coast functionalism.^[5] Since the 1970s, studies by American functional linguists in languages other than English from Asia, Africa, Australia and the Americas (like Mandarin Chinese and Japanese), led to insights about the interaction of form and function, and the discovery of functional motivations for grammatical phenomena, which apply also to the English language.^[6]

The establishment of functional linguistics follows from a shift from structural to functional explanation in 1920ssociology. Prague, at the crossroads of western Europeanstructuralism andRussian formalism, became an important centre for functional linguistics.^[1]

The shift was related to theorganic analogy exploited byÉmile Durkheim^[7] andFerdinand de Saussure. Saussure had argued in hisCourse in General Linguistics that the 'organism' of language should be studied anatomically, and not in respect with its environment, to avoid the false conclusions made byAugust Schleicher and othersocial Darwinists.^[8] The post-Saussureanfunctionalist movement sought ways to account for the 'adaptation' of language to its environment while still remaining strictly anti-Darwinian.^[9]

Russian émigrésRoman Jakobson andNikolai Trubetzkoy disseminated insights of Russian grammarians in Prague, but also theevolutionary theory ofLev Berg, arguing forteleology of language change. As Berg's theory failed to gain popularity outside theSoviet Union, the organic aspect of functionalism diminished, and Jakobson adopted a standard model of functional explanation fromErnst Nagel'sphilosophy of science. It is, then, the same mode of explanation as in biology and social sciences;^[1] but it became emphasised that the word 'adaptation' is not to be understood in linguistics in the same meaning as in biology.^[10]

Work on functionalist linguistics by the Prague school resumed in the 1950s after a hiatus caused by World War II and Stalinism. In North America,Joseph Greenberg published his 1963 seminal paper on language universals that not only revived the field oflinguistic typology, but also the approach of seeking functional explanations for typological patterns.^[11] Greenberg's approach has been highly influential for the movement of North American functionalism that formed from the early 1970s, which has since been characterized by a profound interest in typology.^[11] Greenberg's paper was influenced by the Prague School and in particular it was written in response to Jakobson's call for an 'implicational typology'.^[11] While North American functionalism was initially influenced by the functionalism of the Prague school, such influence has been later discontinued.^[11]

The term 'functionalism' or 'functional linguistics' became controversial in the 1980s with the rise of a new wave ofevolutionary linguistics.Johanna Nichols argued that the meaning of 'functionalism' had changed, and the terms formalism and functionalism should be taken as referring togenerative grammar, and theemergent linguistics ofPaul Hopper andSandra Thompson, respectively; and that the termstructuralism should be reserved for frameworks derived from thePrague linguistic circle.^[12]William Croft argued subsequently that it is a fact to be agreed by all linguists that form does not follow from function. He proposed that functionalism should be understood as autonomous linguistics, opposing the idea that language arises functionally from the need to express meaning:

"The notion of autonomy emerges from an undeniable fact of all languages, 'the curious lack of accord ... between form and function'"^[13]

Croft explains that, until the 1970s, functionalism related to semantics and pragmatics, or the 'semiotic function'. But around 1980s the notion of function changed from semiotics to "external function",^[13] proposing aneo-Darwinian view of language change as based onnatural selection.^[14] Croft proposes that 'structuralism' and 'formalism' should both be taken as referring to generative grammar; and 'functionalism' tousage-based andcognitive linguistics; while neitherAndré Martinet,Systemic functional linguistics norFunctional discourse grammar properly represents any of the three concepts.^[15][16]

The situation was further complicated by the arrival ofevolutionary psychological thinking in linguistics, withSteven Pinker,Ray Jackendoff and others hypothesising that the humanlanguage faculty, oruniversal grammar, could have developed through normalevolutionary processes, thus defending anadaptational explanation of theorigin and evolution of thelanguage faculty. This brought about a functionalism versus formalism debate, withFrederick Newmeyer arguing that the evolutionary psychological approach to linguistics should also be considered functionalist.^[17]

The terms functionalism and functional linguistics nonetheless continue to be used by the Prague linguistic circle and its derivatives, includingSILF,Danish functional school, Systemic functional linguistics and Functional discourse grammar; and the American frameworkRole and reference grammar which sees itself as the midway betweenformal and functional linguistics.^[18]

Since the earliest work of the Prague School, language was conceived as afunctional system, where termsystem references back to De Saussure structuralist approach.^[1] The term function seems to have been introduced byVilém Mathesius, possibly influenced from works in sociology.^[1][2] Functional analysis is the examination of how linguistic elements function on different layers of linguistic structure, and how the levels interact with each other. Functions exist on all levels of grammar, even in phonology, where thephoneme has the function of distinguishing between lexical material.

• Syntactic functions: (e.g.Subject andObject), defining different perspectives in the presentation of a linguistic expression.
• Semantic functions: (Agent,Patient,Recipient, etc.), describing the role of participants in states of affairs or actions expressed.
• Pragmatic functions: (Theme and Rheme,Topic andFocus,Predicate), defining the informational status of constituents, determined by the pragmatic context of the verbal interaction.

In the functional mode of explanation, a linguistic structure is explained with an appeal to its function.^[19] Functional linguistics takes as its starting point the notion that communication is the primary purpose of language. Therefore, general phonological, morphosyntactic and semantic phenomena are thought of as being motivated by the needs of people to communicate successfully with each other. Thus, the perspective is taken that the organisation of language reflects its use value.^[1]

Many prominent functionalist approaches, likeRole and reference grammar andFunctional discourse grammar, are alsotypologically oriented, that is they aim their analysis cross-linguistically, rather than only to a single language like English (as is typical of formalist/generativism approaches).^[20][21]

The concept of economy is metaphorically transferred from a social or economical context to a linguistic level. It is considered as a regulating force in language maintenance. Controlling the impact oflanguage change or internal and external conflicts of the system, the economy principle means that systemic coherence is maintained without increasing energy cost. This is why all human languages, no matter how different they are, have high functional value as based on a compromise between the competing motivations of speaker-easiness (simplicity orinertia) versus hearer-easiness (clarity orenergeia).^[22]

The principle of economy was elaborated by the French structural–functional linguistAndré Martinet. Martinet's concept is similar toZipf'sprinciple of least effort; although the idea had been discussed by various linguists in the late 19th and early 20th century.^[22] The functionalist concept of economy is not to be confused witheconomy in generative grammar.

Some key adaptations of functional explanation are found in the study of information structure. Based on earlier linguists' work,Prague Circle linguistsVilém Mathesius,Jan Firbas and others elaborated the concept of theme–rheme relations (topic and comment) to study pragmatic concepts such as sentence focus, and givenness of information, to successfully explain word-order variation.^[23] The method has been used widely in linguistics to uncover word-order patterns in the languages of the world. Its importance, however, is limited to within-language variation, with no apparent explanation of cross-linguistic word ordertendencies.^[24]

Several principles from pragmatics have been proposed as functional explanations of linguistic structures, often in atypological perspective.

• Theme first: languages prefer placing the theme before the rheme; and the subject typically carries the role of the theme; therefore, most languages have subject before object in their basic word order.^[24]
• Animate first: similarly, since subjects are more likely to beanimate, they are more likely to precede the object.^[24]
• Given before new: already established information comes before new information.^[25]
• First things first: more important or more urgent information comes before other information.^[25]
• Lightness: light (short) constituents are ordered before heavy (long) constituents.^[26]
• Uniformity: word-order choices are generalised.^[26] For example, languages tend to have either prepositions or postpositions; and not both equally.
• Functional load: elements within a linguistic sub-system are made distinct to avoid confusion.
• Orientation: role-indicating particles including adpositions and subordinators are oriented to their semantic head.^[27]

There are several distinct grammatical frameworks that employ a functional approach.

• The structuralist functionalism of thePrague school was the earliest functionalist framework developed in the 1920s.^[28][29]
• André Martinet's Functional Syntax, with two major books,A functional view of language (1962) andStudies in Functional Syntax (1975). Martinet is one of the most famous French linguists and can be regarded as the father of French functionalism. Founded by Martinet and his colleagues,SILF (Société internationale de linguistique fonctionnelle) is an international organisation of functional linguistics which operates mainly in French.
• Simon Dik'sFunctional Grammar, originally developed in the 1970s and 80s, has been influential and inspired many other functional theories.^[30][31] It has been developed into Functional Discourse Grammar by the linguistKees Hengeveld.^[32][33]
• Michael Halliday'ssystemic functional grammar (SFG) argues that the explanation of how language works "needed to be grounded in a functional analysis, since language had evolved in the process of carrying out certain critical functions as human beings interacted with their ... 'eco-social' environment".^[34][35] Halliday draws on the work ofBühler andMalinowski, as well as his doctoral supervisorJ.R. Firth. Notably, Halliday's former studentRobin Fawcett has developed a version of SFG called the "Cardiff Grammar" which is distinct from the "Sydney Grammar" as developed by the later Halliday and his colleagues in Australia. The link between Firthian and Hallidayan linguistics and thephilosophy ofAlfred North Whitehead also deserves a mention.^[36]
• Role and reference grammar, developed byRobert Van Valin employs functional analytical framework with a somewhat formal mode of description. In RRG, the description of a sentence in a particular language is formulated in terms of its semantic structure and communicative functions, as well as the grammatical procedures used to express these meanings.^[37][38]
• Danish functional grammar combinesSaussurean/Hjelmslevianstructuralism with a focus onpragmatics anddiscourse.^[39]
• Interactional linguistics, based onConversation Analysis, considers linguistic structures as related to the functions of e.g. action andturn-taking in interaction.^[40]
• Construction grammar is a family of different theories some of which may be considered functional, such as Croft's Radical Construction Grammar.^[41]
• Relational Network Theory (RNT) or Neurocognitive Linguistics (NCL), originally developed bySydney Lamb, may be considered functionalist in the sense of being ausage-based model. In RNT, the description of linguistic structure is formulated as networks of realizational relationships, such that all linguistic units are defined only by what they realize and are realized by. RNT networks have been hypothesized to be implemented bycortical minicolumns in the humanneocortex.

• Theory of language
• Functional grammar (disambiguation)
• Thematic relation
• Morphosyntactic alignment
• Linguistic typology

• Van Valin Jr, R. D. (2003)Functional linguistics, ch. 13 inThe handbook of linguistics, pp. 319–336.

• Grammar frameworks
• Theories of language
• Systems theory
• Cybernetics

• CS1 errors: ISBN date
• Articles with short description
• Short description is different from Wikidata