A formal-functional analysis of language, with an application to Ibanag (review)

Given its 2002 publication date, this presentation of Fr. Verstraelen’s theory of grammar is an unusual work. It is not clear when it was prepared for publication, but an earlier article presenting aspects of the theory appeared in 1964, and the theory is, in many respects, an intellectual descendant of Noam Chomsky’s 1957 Syntactic structures (The Hague: Mouton). A glance through the references reveals that no works of general linguistics dating after the mid-1960s are cited (e.g. Chomsky’s 1965 Aspects of the theory of syntax (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press) is absent).

V’s approach makes use of rewrite rules and transformations, but to each constituent in a rewrite rule he adds a ‘label’ that indicates the syntactic role of the constituent. For example, the constituents of Cebuano (central Philippines) balay ni Maria ‘house of Maria’ are balay Noun F/gMod1/ and ni Maria Genitive F/gMod2/, where F is ‘form’ and gMod1 and gMod2 are labels meaning ‘modificate’ and ‘modifier’ (300). (Neologisms like ‘modificate’ are frequent.) The meaning of the prefixed ‘g’ in the labels is unclear, and this reflects the lack of a general listing of the many abbreviations used. Inputs to transformations are pairings of constituent and label, and this, V claims, simplifies transformations. The name V gives to his theory, formal-functional analysis, refers to this pairing of constituent and label which, in his view, reflects the form-function nature of the symbol (1).

Ch. 1, ‘Language in general’ (231–57), sets out the broad theory as a set of definitional statements, for example, ‘I.1 A language symbol is a conventional functional form’, or ‘IV.1 The functionatum of the reflexive function is the symbol itself; it is the form itself as distinguished from other possible forms’. Some statements are followed by an explanatory paragraph, itself formal in style and reminiscent of a treatise in logic (it is no coincidence that there are several references to Carnap). Ch. 2, ‘Natural language’ (258–88), is a set of statements about phonology and grammar, similar in style and approach to Ch. 1.

Ch. 3, ‘A theoretical model of language analysis’ (289–324), is an outline of the form of a formal-functional analysis, its notational conventions, and the kinds of rewrite rules and transformations that V uses to describe ‘major syntax’ and ‘minor syntax’, that is, syntax and morphology. The examples are drawn from Cebuano.

Ch. 4, ‘A formal-functional analysis of Ibanag’ (325–93), is an extensive set of rewrite rules and transformations for Ibanag (northern Philippines). It embodies the analytic approach that V has presented, especially in Ch. 3, and, unsurprisingly, it resembles the analyses of the 1960s that were based on early transformational grammar. I have to confess that, like those analyses, I found it rather opaque, despite some familiarity with Philippine grammars. Examples are provided, but they are minimal and lack morpheme-by-morpheme glosses. The last six pages of the chapter are occupied by an Ibanag text with rough (but not morpheme-by-morpheme) interlinear glosses, which allow at least a Philippinist reader to parse the text.