Page 42 - A GRAMMAR OF BHOJPURI _ PhD Dissertation 2020 TU

structures, is to describe the complex interaction of forms and functions in the language.
Yadava (2004:268) exhibits focus of this model to be that "formal properties of

language are constrained by communicative functions in verbal interaction".
DeLancy (2019:13) states that the generative linguistics believes there is an
autonomous language "module" in the brain, and that most basic facts about language

are what they are because they are constrained by the structure of this module. It
regards a so-called "main, declarative, affirmative, active clause" as the "'syntactic' deep

structure of all other clause-types" (Givón 2001a:19) to be transformed into under
transformational rules. However, Dryer (2006:208) denies the new generative approach

to be practical as a theoretical framework for describing an entire language.
Similarly, Givón (1995a:9) outlines some parameters that make functionalists

distinct from formalists or transformational-generativists:
(a) Language is a socio-cultural activity.
(b) Structure serves cognitive or communicative function.

(c) Structure is non-arbitrary, motivated and iconic.
(d) Change and variation are ever-present.

(e) Meaning is context-dependent and non-atomic.
(f) Categories are less-than-descrete.

(g) Structure is malleable, not rigid.
(h) Grammars are emergent.

(i) Rules of grammar allow some leakage.
Thus, the formalist theories like structuralism and transformational-generative
grammar that regard language as an autonomous and self-contained system, the

formalists seldom pay attention to the discourse pragmatic functions the functionalists
primarily rely on.

2.2 Functional-typological and adaptive approaches
2.2.1 Functional-typological approach
Though a kind of extremism occurred between formalists and functionalists in

the beginning, a realization about each others have also been exhibited later. Givón
(1984/1990) treats grammar responsibly in terms of both its adaptive motivation and

typological diversity. But an explicit account of the more formal aspects of syntactic
structure is overlooked as an over-reaction to the formalism in those days (Givón

16