Abstract:Agree in morphology, on the other hand, is extravagance, at least linguistically. We could go on like this forever. The fact that a language does not express a certain feature in its Physical Form does not mean that it is absent from its Logical Form: • The fact that Russian does not have a copula in the present tense, does not mean that a clause like Boris glup ‘Boris [is] stupid’ lacks tense and finiteness. • The fact that e.g. Japanese, Russian, Estonian and Finnish have no articles does not mean that they lack definiteness (cf. Lyons 1999; see also e.g. Chesterman 1991 on definiteness in Finnish and Hiietam 2003 on Estonian definiteness). • The fact that e.g. the Germanic languages have no future tense inflection of verbs does not mean that these languages lack future tense in clauses like John leaves on Saturday. • The fact that PRO-infinitives in e.g. English have no overt marking of tense or person does not mean that these features are semantically absent from English PRO-infinitives. And so on, and so forth. In spite of the Chomskian ‘cognitive revolution’, linguistics is still heavily burdened by the positivist heritage of 20 century pre-Chomskian structuralism. In science, however, it is not a virtue to only believe what one ‘sees’. We do not ‘see’ atoms, electrons or quarks, black holes or antimatter. Linguists are accustomed to the ‘Saussurean arbitrariness’ of the soundmeaning pairing at the lexical level. We do not generally assume that Italian tavola relates more naturally or directly to the meaning ‘table’ than Russian stol. In contrast, many linguists seem to strongly believe in ‘sensible morphology’. However, there is no such thing. Morphology is radically ‘nonsensical’ in the sense that it never expresses any underlying LF differences between languages. The reason is simple: there are no such differences. 5 In contrast, of course, meaningful distinctions often relate to morphological distinctions language-internally. Such language-internal relations are similar to those between diseases and symptoms: even though diseases often have diagnostic symptoms some diseases have no clear symptoms, and, also, many symptoms are common to two or more diseases. See the discussion of case from this perspective in Sigurðsson (in press a). 6 Evidently, linguistic extravagance is socially important, depending on factors we have very little knowledge of.

Formalism and functionalism in linguistics

El Lenguaje Natural como Lenguaje Formal

The Functional Equivalence

Formal Language Theory Meets Modern NLP

Analyzing simple past tense through a functional and a formal perspective

Artificial grammar learning meets formal language theory: an overview

Towards a new functional anatomy of language

Super Linguistics: an introduction

On the analytical vs.synthetic approaches in linguistic research

The Interaction and Rhetorical Conflict Between Systemic Linguistics and Generative Linguistics

On Functionalism in Understanding of Chinese: The Modem Inspiration of Humboldt's Thinking of Chinese

“METAFUNCTIONS OF LANGUAGE” IN SYSTEMIC FUNCTIONAL LINGUISTICS: A FRAMEWORK FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF MEANING OF TEXT IN SOCIAL CONTEXT

A Paradigm Change for Formal Syntax: Computational Algorithms in the Grammar of English

Abstractions and Idealisations: the Construction of Modern Linguistics

Behaviorism, Innatism, Cognitivism: Considering the Dominance to Provide Theoretical Underpinning of Language

Criticism of linguistics discourse analysis methodology

The Silence Principle.

Introduction to Functional Grammars

Constructing a Consensus on Language Evolution? Convergences and Differences Between Biolinguistic and Usage-Based Approaches

On defining modality again

Meaning and interpretation: The semiotic similarities and differences between Cognitive Grammar and European structural linguistics