A new architecture for functional grammar

Trang 3

Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A new architecture for functional grammar / edited by J Lachlan Mackenzie, Maria de los Angeles, Gomez-Gonzalez

p em, — (Functional grammar series ;'24) Includes bibliographical references and index ISBN 3-11-017356-5 (pbk : alk paper)

1 Functionalism (Linguistics) 2 Discourse analysis I, Macken- zie, J, Lachlan — lí GómezGonzáles, Ma de los Angeles (Maria de los Angeles) III Series P147.N478 2004 401'.1'8—de22 2004049946 ISBN 3-11-017356-5

Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Bibliothek

Die Deutsche Bibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data is available in the Internet at <http://dnb.ddb.de>

including photocopy, recording or any information storage and retrieval system, without

Trang 4

Preface vii Abbreviations xii The Architecture of a Functional Discourse Grammar Kees Hengeveld Q HH Hhh 2e ra 1 Functional Grammar from its inception Matthew P Anstey 23 Behind the scenes: Cognition and Functional Discourse Grammar

Carlos Inchaurralde ——cccccesccsccscscesseessesocsecstseeneeseneeenseectsasserensens 73

The question of discourse representation in

Functional Discourse Grammar

John Connolly NNNn" 89

Focus of attention in discourse

Francis Cornish 117

The complementarity of the process and pattern interpretations of Functional Grammar

Michael Forl€SCH chen te 151

Functional Discourse Grammar and language production

J Lachlan Mackenzie

Comment clauses, Functional Discourse Gram- mar and the grammar-discourse interface Peter Harder — HH KH HT H010 1111 197 Functional Grammar and the dynamics of Discourse María de los Ângeles Gómez-GonzáÌeš 211 179

The problem of subjective modality in the

Functional Grammar model “

Trang 5

Remarks on layering in a cognitive-functional language production model

0 8

Discourse structure, the Generalized Parallelism Hypothesis and the architecture of

Functional Grammar

Ahmed Moutaoudkil cả chao

Trang 6

This volume arises indirectly from the Ninth International Conference on Functional Grammar (ICFG9), which was held at the Universidad National de Educacién a Distancia (UNED), Madrid, from 20 to 23 September 2000 Some of the chapters derive from papers given there, others have been spe- cially commissioned This book addresses, and offers solutions to, 4 problem that was keenly felt at that conference: Functional Grammar (FG), the model of the organization of human languages proposed by the late Simon Dik, was failing to achieve one of its central ambitions, to account for regularities of form that are attributable to the use of language in dis-

course

The first chapter of this volume, by Kees Hengeveld of the University of Amsterdam (Netherlands), proposes that the solution to the problem lies in turning the original model on its head He rejects the bottom-up approach, which started with the individual predicate and worked upwards to a fully specified underlying representation, in favour of a top-down approach, which takes the speaker’s intention to communicate as its starting point At the same time, he develops suggestions in Dik’s posthumous work that a FG should have a modular architecture, proposing three levels of analysis for each discourse unit to be analysed: the interpersonal, the

representational and the expression levels Within each of these levels, the

nesting of layers which came to be the trademark of FG in the nineties has been preserved Hengeveld sketches various ways in which this architecture, to be known as Functional Discourse Grammar (FDG), is more adequate than the previous model, by showing how it can account for phenomena involving interactions between levels

Trang 7

FDG brings grammar closer to cognitive science in introducing a Cognition module In his chapter, Carlos Inchaurralde of the University of Zaragoza (Spain), assesses the cognitive adequacy of FDG While stressing the impenetrability of cognitive processes, he points out various ways, for example in a language like Japanese with morphosyntactic marking of speakers’ awareness of social roles, that cognition impacts linguistic form in a manner that can be modelled within FDG

The following chapter, by John H Connolly of the University of Loughborough (United Kingdom), turns to another module of FDG, that for the Communicative Context He details the multiplicity of contextual factors that can influence the form of a discourse, and proposes a notation for representing contextual information He distinguishes carefully between information which belongs to the contextual module and that which is miore properly assigned to the interpersonal level The chapter contains a detailed application of Connolly’s proposals to an invented mini-discourse

Discourse analysis is also central to the chapter by Francis Cornish, of the University of Toulouse (France), but his data are all taken from attested language use His purpose is to show how the new FDG architecture provides a sound environment in which to account for phenomena of topic and focus in-discourse He achieves this-aim-by.confronting FDG-with work from the Columbia School of Linguistics (CS), which he finds to lack the tools needed to deal with the flow of discourse; on the other hand, incorpo- ration of CS’s concern with attention and accessibility would further strengthen FDG treatments of language use

Michael Fortescue, of the University of Copenhagen (Denmark), ob- serves a certain contradiction in the fact that FDG mimics language production while remaining a grammar His position is that we need to address both Process and Pattern in a complementary fashion He illustrates this thesis with data from Nootka, a language whose structures are heavily controlled by considerations of discourse pragmatics Fortescue concentrates on Focus, showing that in languages like Nootka it belongs to both Process and Pattern; in a language where Focus is not encoded grammatically, it will be absent from the account of Pattern For FG, the conclusion might be to retain the traditional architecture for Pattern and adopt the new for Process

Trang 8

interpersonal component analyses the Move as a sequence of Acts, each of which is composed of temporally successive Subacts The role of the representational component, in this view, is that of a declarative grammar, providing semantic frames which organize focal and topical units into propositional form

Peter Harder, of the University of Copenhagen (Denmark), welcomes Hengeveld’s three-tier model, sharing Fortescue’s view that we need to recognize both the ‘cooking’ and the ‘recipe’, as Harder has it, even at the cost of a certain duplication of information He concentrates on constructions in which there is a mismatch between the two, with especial reference to cases where the main clause serves to ‘hedge’ the content of the subor- dinate clause, as in I'm afraid John is ill

In the chapter by Marfa de los Angeles Gémez-Gonzalez, of the Univer- sity of Santiago de Compostela (Galicia, Spain), it is again FDG’s potential for treating the dynamics of discourse and of clause construction that is central She confronts Hengeveld’s proposals with other recent developments in cognitively oriented linguistics, bringing them together in her model of Incremental Discourse Cognitive Grammar She shows how clauses with complex beginnings result from the speaker’s incremental manipulation of the addressee’s focus of attention

Modality has long been a crucial issue in FG Its treatment in FDG is the subject of the contribution by Jean-Christophe Verstraete, of the Uni- versity of Leuven (Belgium) The chapter concludes that the new architecture offers an improvement in this respect, allowing ~ as Ver- straete’s new data demand — a four-way distinction such that both epistemic and deontic modality (analysed as tensed and tenseless at the representational level) can be either subjective (located at the interpersonal level) or objective (and located at the representational level)

The ambition of a Functional Discourse Grammar is comparable in many ways to the scope of Functional Procedural Grammar as developed by Jan Nuyts, of the University of Antwerp (Belgium) In a chapter which shares Verstraete’s concern with modality, he provides a critical review of FDG, arguing that layering is properly situated in cognition, and not in the grammar itself Nuyts asks grammarian to be content with dealing with grammatically coded distinctions, and not to dabble in the study of concep- tualization, which is non-linguistic, but hierarchical

Trang 9

struc-ture of the word Moutaouakil proposes a Generalized Parallelism Hy- pothesis which entails that all products of linguistic activity, from text to word, are to be seen as richly layered discourses, with the proviso that the realization of the many layers is increasingly constrained as one descends to ever smaller units

The final reaction to Hengeveld’s proposal takes the form of a substan- tial chapter by Dik Bakker, of the University of Amsterdam (Netherlands), and Anna Siewierska, of the University of Lancaster (United Kingdom) Unlike their colleagues, they concentrate on the expression level, imple- menting proposals for an incremental, dynamic view of the morphosyntax of utterances They propose a formalism that works top-down, left-to-right and depth-first and permits constrained inheritance and percolation They then return to a central issue of this book, the relation between grammar and production, between pattern and process, arguing that FDG offers a model of the speaker’s actual processes of production, and backing this up with a detailed analysis of a few lines of transcribed speech

This volume closes with an Epilogue by Kees Hengeveld, in which he gives various responses to issues raised in the preceding chapters and then refines the model originally proposed This chapter can thus be read as representing the current status~questionis in FDG Hengeveld begins~by identifying FDG as a pattern model: although the structures of languages reflect the processes of communication, FDG does not model those processes Yet he indicates his sympathy with dynamic implementations of the model He goes on to welcome the various contributions to clarification of the cognitive and contextual components of the model and ends by offering an expanded version of FDG

The editors hope that this book will give a lively impression of the de- bates currently being conducted about the architecture of FDG As Anstey says, now “FG could do with more engineers and builders” The current volume can be seen as a blueprint for the work of those labourers

Trang 10

Our gratitude goes to Susanna Hop MA for her invaluable assistance with word-processing Last but not least, we wish to thank the authors of the various chapters for their contributions, and for their patience as they : awaited the appearance of this book

J Lachlan Mackenzie Marfa de los Angeles Gémez-Gonzélez

Trang 12

LIPOC Lic ly La: M MNLU NewTop NLU NVC OSI Pagar Para POS Pr PredFoc PrP Language Independent Preferred Order of Con- stituents language of knowledge representation logical language for logical reasoning language of underlying representations move; manner; message Grammatical Module of Natural Language User New Topic Natural Language User non-verbal communication

Trang 13

Grammar Kees Hengeveld

1 Introduction

Since the beginning of the nineties, a significant part of the research carried out within the Functional Grammar framework has been directed at the expansion of Functional Grammar (FG) from a sentence grammar into a discourse grammar.' There are several reasons why FG should aim at such a development First of all, there are many linguistic phenomena that can only be explained in terms of units larger than the individual sentence: discourse particles, anaphorical chains, narrative verb forms, and many other aspects of grammar require an analysis which takes the wider linguistic context into consideration Secondly, there are many linguistic expressions which are smaller than the individual sentence, yet function as complete and independent utterances within the discourse This requires a conception of utterances as discourse acts rather than as sentences, as has been shown in Mackenzie (1998)

Hannay and Bolkestein (1998) argue that the proposals’ which have been developed aiming at the expansion of FG into a grammar of discourse represent two different approaches In the first, the discourse level is cov- ered by additional hierarchically superordinate layers This approach, called the upward layering approach in Hannay and Bolkestein (1998), is exemplified by Hengeveld (1997) and Moutaouakil (1998) In the second approach, the discourse level is handled by a separate component, linked to the grammatical component through an interface Hannay and Bolkestein (1998) call this the modular approach, examples of which are Van den Berg (1998) and Vet (1998)

Trang 14

vari-ous levels of analysis are necessary The model of a Functional Discourse Grammar (FDG) presented here is thus both hierarchical and modular A major feature of the model is that it works in a top-down fashion, that is, decisions at higher levels and layers of analysis determine and restrict the possibilities at lower levels and layers of analysis This feature of FDG will be treated first, in Section 2 Section 3 then presents a general outline of the model, focusing on the various levels of analysis and the complex interfaces linking them to one another The layers to be distinguished at the various levels are presented in detail in Section 4 Section 5 looks at the dynamic top-down construction of basic linguistic expressions within FDG by analyzing a series of illustrative examples More complex examples which involve intricate interactions between the various levels of analysis are discussed in Section 6 The paper is rounded off in Section 7

2 Top down

In Levelt (1989) the speech production process is described as a top-down process, running from intention to articulation His analysis suggests that the speaker first.decides.on a communicative purpose, selects the information most suitable to achieve this purpose, then encodes this information grammatically and phonologically and finally moves on to articulation Levelt shows that there is ample support in psycholinguistic research for this conception of speech production

The speech production model used in FG (Dik 1997a: 60) has a quite different orientation It starts out with the selection of predicate frames that are gradually expanded into larger structures, which when complete are expressed through expression rules In view of Levelt’s (and many other psycholinguists’) findings, this organization of the grammar runs counter to the standard of psychological adequacy that FG should live up to (Dik

1997a: 13-14)

Trang 15

3 Outline of the model

Figure 1 gives the basic outline of FDG It shows that FDG distinguishes three interacting levels: the interpersonal level, the representational level, and the expression level, in that hierarchical order The presence of these three levels as separate modules within the model is the major difference from earlier upward layering proposals

Layering applies at each level separately, ic each level is organized hierarchically, as will be shown in the next section This hierarchical organization of the model is the major difference from earlier modular proposals

Mapping rules link the interpersonal to the representational level, in those cases in which semantic content is necessary for the transmission of a certain communicative intention Expression rules then link the interpersonal and representational levels to the expression level In cases in which only pragmatic content has to be transmitted, expression rules directly link the interpersonal to the expression level The various linking mechanisms may be interpreted as interfaces which define the possible correspondences between layers at different levels

The three levels interact with a cognitive component and with a communicative component The cognitive component represents the (long- term) knowledge of the speaker, such as his communicative competence, his knowledge of the world, and his linguistic competence The speaker draws on this component at each of the three levels

Trang 17

4, Levels and layers 4.1 Introduction

As was mentioned in the previous section, each level of analysis in Figure 1 is organized hierarchically In this section I will first of all review each of the levels separately Then I will present the full model and compare it to the earlier layered sentence model, as presented in Hengeveld (1989)

4.2 The interpersonal level

The hierarchical structure of the interpersonal level is presented in Figure 2 (Mr [Au BLL ps Pada (Cu [PD (Rd (Cd) (AD) (MD)

Figure 2, The interpersonal level

Note that this representation is non-exhaustive, in the sense that there are higher levels of discourse organization which are not captured here In 4.6 I will return to this point

At the interpersonal level a central unit of analysis is the move (M), defined in Kroon (1995: 66), following Sinclair and Coulthard (1975), as “the minimal free unit of discourse that is able to enter into an exchange structure” As such, the move is the vehicle for the expression of a single communicative intention of the speaker Examples of such communicative intentions are inviting, informing, questioning, threatening, warning, rec- ommending, etc

Trang 18

communi-cated content the speaker may have to execute one or more ascriptive acts (T) and one or more referential acts ®: it is the speaker who refers to entities by using referring expressions,’ and it is the speaker who ascribes properties to entities by applying predicates to these referring expressions

4,3 The representational level

The hierarchical structure of the representational level is presented in Fig- tre 3 (pị: [e;: [fu) œ0] (e2)1 (bị)

Figure 3 The representational level

Note that, again, this representation is non-exhaustive There are higher levels of semantic organization which are not captured here (see Section

4.6)

In transmitting his communicative intention the speaker will in most cases have to fill his utterance with basic’ semantic content, i.e with de- scriptions of entities as they occur in the non-linguistic world These entities are of different orders: third-order entities or propositional contents (p); second-order entities or states of affairs (e); first-order entities or indi- viduals (x); and zero-order entities or properties (f) Within the maximally hierarchical representation given in Figure 3 the propositional content (p:) contains the description of a state of affairs (e;), which contains the description of a property (f,) and the description of an individual (x;) Note, however, that all entity types may also be expressed directly, i.e non- hierarchically, through lexical items

4.4, The expression level

The hierarchical structure of the expression level is presented in Figure 4

(Parai: [(S¡: [(CH¡: [ŒrPi: [Lexi)] (PrP) (RPx: [Œex2)] (RP))] (CY) Sp)] ŒPara,))

Figure 4 The expression level

Trang 19

expression possibilities, which lead to different expression units in their grammars It is simplified, since the expression possibilities of a single language are generally much more refined than in the example I have given here This simplified example will suffice, however, to illustrate the points I want to make in this chapter It is a representation of constituent structure which starts at the level of the paragraph (Para), which may consist of one or more sentences (S), each of which may contain one or more clauses (Cl), which may contain one or more predicate phrases (PrP) and referential phrases (RP), cach of which may contain one or more lexemes (Lex)

It is important to note that the expression level corresponds with what in Levelt’s production is the product of grammatical and phonological encoding Articulation, the final step, is not a level within the grammar, but the actual output of the grammar

4.5 Integration

The levels and layers discussed so far are given in Figure 5 The elements in boldface at the interpersonal and representational levels in this figure correspond to units that were present in the layered representation of clause structure defended in Hengeveld (1989) and its upward-layering elaboration in Hengeveld (1997) The correspondences may be listed as follows:

M Move M Move

E Speech Act A Discourse Act

TLL Hlocution ILL Tilocution

Py Speech Act Participant Py Discourse Act Participant

x Propositional Content p Propositional Content

e State of Affairs e State of Affairs

x Individual x Individual

⁄ Property or Relation ⁄ Property or Relation

Figure 5 Hengeveld (1989/1997)

The major differences at the interpersonal and representational levels, then, concern the presence of the variables C, T and R at the interpersonal level In other words, a major feature characterizing the current proposal is downward layering at the interpersonal level I will now briefly discuss each of these variables in contrast with their representational neighbours Examples will follow in Section 5

Trang 20

speaker, and the entity type which is described within this act of ascription Often the speaker will use the description of a zero-order entity (f) to give content to his ascriptive act, but he might also use, for instance, a first- order entity (x) in a classifying or identifying construction Similarly, the variable R allows for a systematic distinction between the act of referring on the one hand, and the entity type referred to on the other Frequently the speaker will use the description of a first-order entity to give content to his referential act, but reference to other types of entity is equally possible

The introduction of the variable C opens up a way to distinguish the information communicated in a discourse act from the nature of the entity type the description of which is used to transmit that information As a result, it is no longer necessary to assume that every discourse act contains a propositional content, i.e a third-order entity In many circumstances it is sufficient, for instance, to communicate information by simple reference to a first-order entity

A further difference between Hengeveld (1989, 1997) and the current proposal concerns the presence of the Expression Level in the model The major motivating factor for the introduction of this level is the existence of meta-linguistic expressions (Sweetser 1990) or reflexive language (Lucy

1993) This phenomenon will be illustrated in Section 6

4.6 Upward layering

Trang 22

5 Making choices at the interpersonal level

Within the model proposed here, the construction of linguistic expressions can be interpreted as a decision-taking process on the part of the speaker This process applies in a left-right and top-down fashion

Left-right decisions apply at the interpersonal level only For instance, only after deciding on the communicative intention Warning for a certain move may the speaker select, for instance, the appropriate discourse acts Vocative, and Imperative Only after deciding on the discourse act Voca- tive does the necessity to execute a referential act become obvious, etc The result might then be something like (1):

(1) George, watch out for that tree!

Top-down decisions are of a more complex nature These concern the decisions the speaker makes with respect to (i) the semantic content necessary to successfully execute an interpersonal act, and (ii) the expression category necessary to successfully transmit his communicative intentions

In what follows I will restrict myself to some examples of this decision- making process In order to facilitate the interpretation of the representa-

tions l use tables in which the various levels correspond with rows: the first row contains the interpersonal units, the second row the representational units, and the third row the expression units Furthermore, I concentrate on the representation of the relevant part of the example under consideration Within the example this part is printed in italics; within the representation it is separated from the remaining part by means of vertical lines

Trang 23

The next example concerns a lexical R If the speaker wants to draw the attention of someone present in the speech situation he may simply call his name Here we have a referential act which makes use of a lexical item (Lex) which does not have semantic content, but only referential content Therefore, the speaker may move directly from the interpersonal to the expression level again: (3) John! (Au [VOC (Pr)sp (Pa)aaar (Cy: [ (Rp LC) A»)

Now consider a case in which the speaker draws on the representational level in order to transmit his communicative intention The content communicated (C) here is the description of a third-order entity (p) expressed in a clause (CI): (4) The Plaza Santa Ana is the best place to go (Au [DECL (Pi)sp (P2)aaae (Cy) 1(Ay) (pi) (Ch)

The same propositional content (p), expressed as a clause (Cl), may occur as the vehicle which the speaker uses to execute a referential act (R):

(3) I want to know whether the Plaza Santa Ana is the best place to go (Ar: [DECL (Pi)gp (Pa)agar (Cy: [ Ry) 1C)1 An) (pd) (Cli)

This may be contrasted with a case in which a referential act (R) again refers to a propositional content (p) but is expressed by means of a referential phrase:

Trang 24

(Au IDECL (Pu)sp (Pa)aaar (Cr: L Ry) 1(CĐ1(AU) (ppd (RP)

Ascriptive acts (T) often make use of the description of a zero-order entity (f) and are then expressed by means of a lexeme (Lex), as in the next example: (7) The Plaza Santa Ana is wonderful, don’t you think? (Ai: [DECL (Pi)sp (Pa)acar (Cu: £ Œ) LC) (Ay) (fy) (Lexy)

But the speaker may also decide on a first-order entity (x), expressed as a referential phrase (RP) to transmit the same kind of information, as in the following example: (8) The Plaza Santa Ana is a wonderful place, don’t you think? (Ar [DECL (Pi)sp (Pa)agar (Ci: £ (By) (Cy) (Ad) GD (RP)

The examples just given serve to illustrate how linguistic expressions may be seen as the product of a top-down decision process on the part of the speaker, with a certain independence, within limits, of the three levels distinguished within the model

6 Complex interactions between levels 6.1 Introduction

Trang 25

these units reappear within the representational level In this way we may account for constructions like the following:

(9) a Ifyou behave well, I'll let you read my poems

b 7s that a threat or a promise?

(10) My brother-in-law, if that’s the right word for him, is a poet

In (9b) the demonstrative that refers to the preceding move In (10) it refers to the preceding lexeme brother-in-law These examples thus illustrate that elements from both the interpersonal and the expression levels are available for later reference once they are produced, i.e they may become part of the representational level in ensuing communication Reference to elements from the interpersonal and expression levels will be studied separately below In order to account for these cases the model presented here (Figure 7 below) allows for the copying of elements from the interpersonal and the expression levels to the representational level via the communicative context

Trang 27

6.2 Referents from the interpersonal at the representational level

In this section I will discuss two construction types that can only be properly understood if we allow units from the interpersonal level to enter the representational level: hedged performatives and identity statements

Consider the following examples from Spanish:

Gi) a (Me) temo que Juan esté enfermo

to.me Lam.afraid that Juan is SUB ill

‘I'm afraid that Juan is ill.’

b Me temo que Juan esiá enfermo

to.me Lam.afraid that Juan is IND ill

‘I'm afraid that Juan is il’

In (11a) the speaker simply expresses his state of mind The embedded clause, in which the subjunctive is used, represents what he fears might be the case In (11b) the indicative is used in the embedded clause This sentence, unlike (lla), is an example of a so-called hedged performative (Fraser 1975), in which the embedded clause represents the actual information the speaker wants to transmit, but which he ‘hedges’ since he thinks the addressee might not like what he has to say In cases like these the actual communicated content (c) is hidden in the embedded clause (Cl, which itself is the expression of a referential act (R), so that this sentence may be represented as follows: (Au: PDECL (Pu)sp (Pa)aaae (Cr: E (R) we] (Cl (Ay) (C2) (CL)

A second case in which units from the interpersonal level figure at the representational level concerns so-called identity statements (Declerck

1988, Hengeveld 1992, Keizer 1992) as illustrated in (12):

(12) The Morning Star is the Evening Star

Trang 28

(Au [DECL Pi)sp Pa)adar (Ci: [ (Ry) J €1) (2) (RP)

This representation states that in (12) the speaker executes a referential act by making reference to a referential act (1), which is expressed as a referential phrase (RP)

6.3 Referents from the expression level at the representational level

Units from the expression level may enter the representational level as well I will discuss two cases here: metalinguistic conditionals and direct speech

An example of a metalinguistic conditional is given in (13):

(13) This concert, if you want to call it that, isn’t exactly what I was waiting for

The word that refers to the preceding word concert, which is a case of reference to the code rather than to the message Thus there is a referential act (R) in which reference is made to a lexeme (lex) which is expressed as a lexeme (Lex), as indicated in the following representation: (Au: [DECE (Pi)gp (P2)aaae (Ci: [ (Ry) 1 (Cy) (Ad) (lex) (Lex;)

A second case in which reference is to the code rather than to the message concerns đirect speech Reporting đirect speech may be interpreted as a form of mimicry (Clark and Gerrig 1990), where direct speech can be seen as imitated code This is evident from the fact that direct speech reports respect the original language and/or dialect, as in:

(14) He said: “;Cémo estas?”

and that direct speech reports may contain meaningless noise, as in: (15) He said: “gagugagugagu”

The latter example furthermore shows that the imitated code can be any part of the expression level

In (14) the speaker refers (R) in the second argument of the verb say to a previous sentence (s) which in the actual expressionis‘reépeated through

imitation This example imay thus be represented as follows"!

3 :

Trang 29

(Au [DECL (Pos (Pa) agar (Ci: L- (Ry) 1 Cy Ad) (si) (Sv 7 Conclusion

In this chapter I have presented a basic outline of FDG and illustrated its appropriateness by analyzing a number of construction types that would have been difficult to handie in earlier versions of FG Many aspects of FDG require further elaboration These aspects can be grouped together into five categories: (a) (b) () @ ()

What are the restrictions on left-right decisions within the production process, i.e what are the systematic restrictions on the internal constitution of the interpersonal level?

What are the restrictions on top-down decisions within the production process, i.e what do the interfaces between the three levels of grammar look like?

What is the internal structure of the cognitive component and how does it interact with the three levels of grammar?

What is the internal structure of the contextual component, particu- larly with respect to the representation of the non-linguistic context, and how does it interact with the three levels of grammar?

None of these questions is new to FG I hope that the model of FDG presented here will provide the basis for an integrated approach to these central issues in linguistic theory

Notes

1 This chapter is the product of long and lively discussions with a great num-

ber of people The Amsterdam FG-DISCO group has met at inegular intervals over the last few years, and has been a very inspiring environment for discussion of the topics dealt with in this chapter I am indebted to the members of this group, Machtelt Bolkestein, Mike Hannay, Caroline Kroon, Lachlan Mackenzie, Rodie Risselada, and Co Vet, for the many open- minded and inspiring discussions we have had A special word of thanks goes to Mike Hannay, for a revival of the group’s activities when the time was there; and to-Lachtan Mackenzie for joining this revival Outside the FG-D SEWENG PAM OAVOGKE Bie period, Thave had countless

TRUNG TÂM HỌC LIỆt £.09 244

Trang 30

discussions with Gerry Wanders about the topic of this chapter, in which she has manifested herself as a critical and generous sparring partner J am grateful to her for her help Given the extensive interaction with all of these colleagues over a long period of time, it is hard to do justice to their individual contributions to the contents of this chapter As a result, 1 do not want to claim originality for many of the ideas presented in this chapter, only for the way these are put together

2 See Van den Berg (1998), Connolly (1998), Connolly et al (1997b),

Crevels (1998), Gémez Solifio (1996), Hengeveld (1997), Jadir (1998), Kroon (1997), Liedtke (1998), Mackenzie (1998, 2000), Moutaouakil (1998), Rijkhoff (1995), Steuten (1997, 1998), Vet (1998)

3 I take a broad view of coded illocution here, in that among the encoding

possibilities 1 include not only sentences types, but also prosodic encoding, morphological encoding, and conventionalized lexicalization patterns

4 This slot may alternatively be occupied by a performatively used speech-act

verb

5 Cf Lyons (1977: 177): “ the speaker invests the expression with refer-

ence by the act of referring”

6 Cf Lyons (1977: 161): “For example, in saying of a particular flower that it

is red, we ascribe to it the property of redness, but we predicate of it the

predicate ‘red’”: somes °

References

Berg, Marinus E van den

1998 An outline of a pragmatic functional grammar In: Mike Hannay and

A Machtelt Bolkestein (eds), 77~106 Clark, Herbert H and Richard J Gerrig

1990 Quotations as demonstrations Language 66: 764-805

Connolly, John H

1998 Information, Situation Semantics and Functional Grammar In: Mike

Hannay and A Machtelt Bolkestein (eds), 167-190

Connolly, John H., Anthony A Clarke, Steven W Garner and Hilary K Palmen

1997a A functionally oriented analysis of spoken dialogue between indi-

viduals linked up by a computer network In: John H Connolly, Roel M Vismans, Christopher S Butler and Richard A Gatward (eds), 33-58

Connolly, John H., Roel M Vismans, Christopher S Butler and Richard A Gat- ward (eds)

1997b Discourse and Pragmatics in Functional Grammar Berlin and New

Trang 31

Crevels, Mily

1998 Concession in Spanish In: Mike Hannay and A Machtelt Bolkestein

(eds), 129-148 Declerck, Renaat

1988 Studies on Copular Sentences, Clefis and Pseudo-clefts Leuven:

Leuven University Press and Dordrecht: Foris Dik, Simon C

1997a The Theory of Functional Grammar Part I: The Structure of the

Clause (K Hengeveld, ed.) (2d rev.] Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter

19976 The Theory of Functional Grammar Part II: Complex and Derived

Structures (K Hengeveld, ed.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter

Fraser, Bruce

1975 Hedged performatives In: Peter Cole and Jerry L Morgan (eds),

Speech Acts (Syntax and Semantics 3) New York: Academic Press Gómez Soliño, José S

1996 La organizacion jerarquica de los textos desde una perspectiva fun-

cional In: M Teresa Caneda Cabrera and Javier Pérez Guerra (eds), Os Estudios Ingleses no Contexto das Novas Tendencias Vigo: Uni- versidade de Vigo

Hannay, Mike and Machtelt Boikestein

1998a Introduction In: Mike Hannay and A Machtelt Bolkestein (eds),

vii~xii

Hannay, Mike and Machtelt Bolkestein (eds)

1998b Functional Grammar and Verbal Interaction Amsterdam and Phila-

delphia: Benjamins Hengeveld, Kees

1989 Layers and operators in Functional Grammar Journal of Linguistics

25: 127-157

1992 Non-verbal Predication: Theory, Typology, Diachrony Berlin and

New York: Mouton de Gruyter

1997 Cohesion in Functional Grammar In: John H Connolly, Roel M

Vismans, Christopher S Butler and Richard A Gatward (eds), 1~16 Jadir, Mohammed

1998 Textual cohesion and the notion of perception In: Mike Hannay and

A Machtelt Bolkestein (eds), 43-58 Keizer, M Evelien

1992 Reference, Predication and (In)definiteness in Functional Grammar

Trang 32

Kroon, Caroline

1995 Discourse Particles in Latin: A Study of nam, enim, autem, vero and

at Amsterdam: Gieben

1997 Discourse markers, discourse structure and Functional Grammar In:

John H Connolly, Roel M Vismans, Christopher S Butler and Richard A Gatward (eds), 17-32

Levelt, Willem J M

1989 Speaking: From Intention to Articulation Cambridge, MA: MIT

Press Liedtke, Frank

1998 Wlocution and grammar: a double level approach In: Mike Hammay

and A Machtelt Bolkestein (eds), 107-128 Lucy, John A (ed.)

1993 Reflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metapragmatics Cam-

bridge: Cambridge University Press Lyons, John

1977 Semantics 2 Vols Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Mackenzie, J Lachlan

1998 The basis of syntax in the holophrase In: Mike Hannay and A

Machtelt Bolkestein (eds), 267-296

2000 First things: first: towards an Incremental Functional-Grammar Acta

Linguistica Hafniensia 32: 23-44, Moutaovakil, Ahmed

1998 Benveniste's récit and discours as discourse operators in Functional

Grammar In: Mike Hannay and A Machtelt Bolkestein (eds), 25— 42

Rijkhoff, Jan

1995 Bystander and social deixis: some programmatic remarks on the

grammar/pragmatics interface Working Papers in Functional Grammar 58 Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam

Sinclair, John M and Richard M Coulthard `

1975 Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English Used by Teachers

and Pupils London: Oxford University Press Steuten, Ans A G

1997 Business conversations from a conversation analytical and a

Funcytional Grammar perspective In: Connolly et al (eds), 59-73

1998 Structure and coherence in business conversations In: Mike Hannay

and A Machtelt Bolkestein (eds), 59~75 Sweetser, Eve E

1990 From etymology to pragmatics: metaphorical and cultural aspects of

Trang 33

Vet, Co

1998 The multilayered structure of the utterance: about illocution, modal-

Trang 34

Matthew P Anstey

1 Introduction

Hengeveld’s chapter (this volume) was written with two purposes in mind.! On the one hand, it is the latest attempt within Functional Grammar to for- mulate an explicit model for the detailing of natural language phenomena On the other, it is a manifesto for those working within the Functional Grammar movement, a framework wherein scholars may locate their contribution to the general theory This new architecture, therefore, is not only a design for a theoretical ‘space’ It is also, metaphorically speaking, a design for a collective, academic space, a conceptual meeting-place for those working in the many divergent subdisciplines of the linguistic sciences who wish to identify themselves to some degree with Functional Grammar

Accordingly, this chapter is an evaluation of Hengeveld’s proposal in light of these two purposes, as seen from the perspective of the evolution of Functional Grammar Three important questions will be addressed As a framework for Functional Grammar, what is its relationship to previous models? Does it address the objections raised against previous models? As a framework for Functional Grammarians, does it create sufficient space for the Functional Grammar academic community to continue to share one roof?

2 Preliminaries

2.1 Chronological Overview

Trang 35

into five periods Each FG, refers not only to the period but also to its ca- nonical FG publication FG,, however, refers to both the period and Hengeveld’s Functional Discourse Grammar (a) (b) (€) @) (e) FG, covers the period prior to 1978, the central work being Dik’s dissertation (1968) on coordination;

FG, covers 1978 to 1989, beginning with the publication of Func- tional Grammar (Dik 1978a);

FG, covers 1989 to 1997, beginning with the publication of The The- ory of Functional Grammar (Dik 1989b);

FG; covers 1997 to September 2000, beginning with the publication of the two volumes of The Theory of Functional Grammar (Dik

1997a; 1997b);

FG, extends from the ninth International Conference on Functional Grammar (Madrid, Spain) onwards, where Hengeveld’s (2000) Functional Discourse Grammar was first presented

Trang 36

IFGo 1968-1978 IDik 1968, Coordination Dik 1977 Stepwise lexical decomposition FG, 1978-1989

Dik 1978 Functional Grammar

Dik 1980 Studies in Functional Grammar

Hoekstra et al 1980 Special edition on Functional Grammar Glot 33—4)

Bolkestein et al 1981 Predication and expression in Functional Grammar Martin Mingorance 1981 Translation of Dik 1978 into Spanish

°82: Functional Grammar workshop during 13th Int Congress of Linguists, Tokyo, Japan Dik 1983 Advances in Functional Grammar

P84: ist Functional Grammar conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

'85: Functional Grammar symposium on predicate operators, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Bolkestein et al 1985 Syntax and pragmatics in Functional Grammar

Bolkestein et al 1985 Predicates and terms in Functional Grammar

['86: 2nd Functional Grammar conference, Antwerp, Belgium

| $7: Functional Grammar symposium on the computer, Amsterdam, The Netherlands fuyts and de Schutter 1987, Getting one's words into line

an der Auwera and Goossens 1987 Ins and outs of the predication '88: 3rd Functional Grammar conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

IƑG› 1989-1997

Dik 1989 The theory of Functional Grammar

Moutaouakil 1989 Pragmatic functions in a Functional Grammar of Arabic

P90: 4th Functional Grammar conference, Copenhagen, Denmark

fuyts et al 1990 Layers and levels of representation in language theory

(Hannay and Vester 1990 Working with Functional Grammar: descriptive and compute- ional applications

Siewierska 1991 Functional Grammar

P92; Sth Functional Grammar conference, Antwerp, Belgium

Keizer 1992 Reference, predication and (in)definiteness in Functional Grammar IRijkhoff 1992 The noun phrase: a typological study of its form and structure Fortescue et al 1992 Layered structure and reference in a functional perspective

’'94: 6th Functional Grammar conference, York, England

Engberg-Pedersen et al, 1994 Function and expression in Functional Grammar °95: Simon Dik dies after three years of illness

Kroon 1995 Discourse particles in Latin

|'96: 7th Functional Grammar conference, Cérdoba, Spain

iDevriendt et al 1996 Complex structures A functionalist perspective

ingberg-Pedersen et al 1996 Content, expression and structure: Studies in Danish Func- ional Grammar

Butler et al 1997 A fund of ideas: recent developments in Functional Grammar

(Connolly et al 1997 Discourse and pragmatics in Functional Grammar

PGs 1997-2000

Dik 1997 The theory of FG Part I: the structure of the clause Dik 1997 The theory of FG Part II: complex and derived structures

'98: 8th Functional Grammar conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

bertz et al 1998 The structure of the lexicon in Functional Grammar

Hannay and Bolkestein 1998 Functional Grammar and verbal interaction

Faber and Usén 1999, Constructing a lexicon of English verbs

Martin Arista et al 1999 Nuevas perspectivas en Gramdtica Funcional

IFGs 12000 onwards

POO: 9th Functional Grammar conference, Madrid, Spain

Aackenzie 2000 First things first Towards an Incremental Functional Grammar

Pérez Quintero 2001 Special edition of Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses Challenges and Developments in Functional Grammar

02: 10th Functional Grammar conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

lackenzie and Gémez-Gonzélez 2003 A new architecture for Functional Grammar

Trang 37

2.2 Central Problems

In addition to the evolution of FG, we wish to pay attention to several re- current problems that emerge These provide various perspectives from which to evaluate Hengeveld’s proposal It is beneficial to articulate them at this stage.*

(a) PRI The problem of structure — what place, if any, does constituent

structure have in the grammar?

(b) PR2 The problem of underlying representations - what do the un-

derlying representations (URs) actually represent and how should they be interpreted?

(c) PR3 The problem of verbal interaction — how does FG relate to

communication as process?

(d) PR4 The problem of functional primitives ~ how are the primitives

defined and applied? How many are needed?

(e) PRS The problem of discourse — how does FG account for linguistic

phenomena beyond the sentence level?

() PR6 The problem of psychological adequacy — what does psycho-

logical adequacy mean and does FG fulfil it?

(g) PR7 The problem of formalization — how should the notation for-

mally and explicitly represent language structure?

3 FGo - prior to 1978

3.1 Publications prior to FGo

Trang 38

trans-formational component of generative grammar can make to general linguistic theory” (Dik 1966: 410)

Secondly, the only published evidence of Dik’s familiarity with Prague School linguistics is in a book review wherein he first mentions “functionalism’” (Dik 1967a) Dik approves of Jakobson’s view of the ‘means-ends model’ of language, writing “(t]his means that each fact of language is evaluated not only with respect to the system as a whole, but also with respect to the ultimate function it fulfils in the larger setting of extra- linguistic reality” (Dik 1967a: 87) These two basic meanings of ‘functional’ appear in all of Dik’s writings

Of more interest is Dik’s criticism of the Prague School’s theme-rheme analysis He argues that their analysis is “arrived at impressionistically” and lacks scientific rigour “In the first place”, he writes, “it is rather mis- leading to subsume it under syntax and treat it as a part of grammar Rather, it should be regarded as a phenomenon depending on the interpretation of the utterance in context and situation and thus already presupposing the grammatical (and the semantic) structure of the utterance In the second place, if the distinction is really to be workable, there should be some principled basis for finding theme and rheme in any given sentence” (Dik 1967a: 86) This is the view now widely advocated in Functional Graramar (cf Bolkestein 1998),

3.2 The theory

Dik presents (proto-)Functional Grammar (FGo) as a chapter in his 1968 dissertation on coordination He was motivated to provide an explanation of coordination that could overcome the problems in the approach advocated by generative grammar Moreover, Dik thinks that the problems are not just with how generative grammar explains coordination but with the theory itself Although Dik provides nine points of divergence of FGo from “any version of ‘restricted’ constituent structure grammar” (1968: 199), two are central and will come to characterize all FG models These are the “independent introduction of grammatical functions” and a “different notion of ‘derivation’”

Trang 39

distin-guishable part of a construction type in relation to other parts of the same construction”.°

What precisely then is a ‘grammatical function’? Dik writes that “ grammatical functions are irreducible aspects of grammatical structure, which can be partly correlated to formal features ., but cannot possibly be completely reduced to these” (1968: 154) His argument is essentially one of explanatory power: if we assume that a grammatical system has “grammatical functions’, then such a system provides a superior account of linguistic data However, the axiom of functional primitives is- itself not

verifiable."

It is clear, moreover, that psychological adequacy is already a motif in his thinking: “And we can explain the general features of human language if we can show them to be conditioned by general features of the human constitution, in particular, human mental and physiological properties The latter kind of explanation, however, is not as such within the competence of the linguist, but should rather be explored by close collaboration between linguists and psychologists” (Dik 1968: 11-12)

Dik’s “different notion of ‘derivation’” is the forerunner to the ‘avoid transformations’ constraint found in FG; onwards “The basic (negative) property of-a functional-grammar”, he writes; “ -is that it does-not include transformational rules” (1968: 163) To achieve this Dik posits a monostratal underlying representation of the functional, categorial, and constitutional elements of each linguistic expression

More specifically, FGo has three basic components: constituents (that is, lexical categories) such as verb, noun, adjective, article; categories such as noun, pronoun, noun phrase; and functions such as subject, object, predica- tor, modifier, indirect object, question How then does one select the necessary functions to describe a language? Dik provides the following stipulation, anticipating in many respects the central philosophy of FG, : “At least so many functions are set up for a language as there are grammatical (not semantic) differences between the linguistic expressions of that language which cannot be correlated to differences in constituency and/or in categorization” (1968: 176)

FGp distinguishes four sets of rules that relate constituents, categories, and functions together to form an ‘independent linguistic expression’ The application of these rules results in a single UR that combines functional (CAPITALS), categorial (normal) and constituent (italic) elements For example, the sentence (1) has the underlying structure (2) (Dik 1968: 198):’

Trang 40

(2) ile( (Sdea (SUBJ (np (apsy (DET (art(the) )+HEAD (n,, (man) ) ) ) )+PRED (EV £Vinee (EVinee past (EVinte past 3d ps ›g(C2/09) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Dik considers the various possible relationships between semantics and grammar and concludes, along the lines of Weinrich (1966), “[i]n my opin- ion these various developments point to the possibility that [grammar is dependent on semantics] might finally prove to the right one” (1968: 293) This revealing quotation underlines the grammatical nature of the functions Dik posits “Perhaps we could even go further”, he continues, “and include the full semantic description of a linguistic expression in its grammatical specification” These are, however, “speculations which have little more than a programmatic value They might, however, provide interesting possibilities for a further elaboration of the theory of functional grammar”

(1968: 293)

Thus, for Dik FG is an exclusively grammatical, non-semantic system, yet it includes ‘functional primitives’ The semantics of a language is a different matter This bracketing out of semantics from the system of grammar will change in subsequent FG models, where the UR is interpreted as conveying grammar and meaning

Matthews’s (1969: 350) review of Dik’s dissertation is noteworthy He views the dissertation positively but has grave doubts about FGp Although modelled after tagmemics,Š FGo, unlike tagmemics, has no primitive that corresponds to syntagmeme (or to Halliday’s structure) Matthews takes this oversight as problematic to the whole concept of FGo: “But until he does so, his present formalization is literally not worth a moment’s consideration” (1969: 358) In other words, this is the first sign of the problem of structure (PR1) Matthews’s observation boils down to asserting that the URs of FGo contain insufficient information to generate (via expression rules) the correct surface form Bakker and Siewierska (2000), over thirty years later, conclusively demonstrate that this problem remains; but see Bakker and Siewierska (this volume).°

4, Dik’s writings between 1968 and 1978

The “interesting possibilities” that a semantically based grammar could of- fer occupied Dik for the rest of his life In particular, the decade after his dissertation was spent on eclectically combining various components to as- semble FG, Three of his publications in this period are illustrative

Tiêu đề	A New Architecture for Functional Grammar
Tác giả	J. Lachlan Mackenzie, Maria de los Angeles Gómez-Gonzalez
Trường học	Truong Dai Hoc Ngoai Ngu - pH QGHN
Chuyên ngành	Functional Grammar
Thể loại	edited volume
Năm xuất bản	2004
Thành phố	Berlin

Định dạng
Số trang	401
Dung lượng	20,64 MB