Nominalizations in FDG, with some reflections on SFL (original) (raw)

Terms, clauses and constructions in functional grammar

Language Sciences, 2003

This article offers a critical evaluation of Functional Grammar (Dik, 1997a,b) by focusing on the main theoretical constructs of the theory, namely clauses, term phrases and complex constructions (clauses, noun phrases and complex sentences, respectively, in standard linguistic terminology). Emphasis is laid on the assessment of the descriptive apparatus of the theory, as well as on its genesis and latest developments, which are oriented towards discourse. Apart from the critical revision of the theory and its partial comparison with other functional models, the main conclusion that is reached is that Functional Grammar should consider-along with constructing and identifying reference-a third category of localizing reference (including spatial reference and temporal reference) that would provide for the generation of referential adverbials.

Linguistics The lexicon in Functional Discourse Grammar Theory typology description

This paper discusses the treatment of the lexicon in Functional Discourse Grammar (FDG) and serves to provide a general introduction to the theoretical framework and its formalizations, in particular for readers who may not be intimately familiar with it. After outlining the general architecture of the model, we discuss the position, content and function of the FDG lexicon in more detail. The FDG lexicon is often called the Fund, as it contains more than just a collection of lexemes. The Fund is conceived of as a storehouse containing all unpredictable linguistic knowledge in the form of various types of primitives. In addition to a lexicon proper this includes structural and grammatical primitives that feed the grammar, such as: pragmatic and semantic frames, functions and operators; morphosyntactic and phonological templates and operators; and suppletive forms. The " lexicon proper " contains grammatical morphemes and suppletive forms in addition to lexemes; the collection of frames and templates is sometimes called the " structicon " ; and operators and functions constitute what may be called the " grammaticon ". The division of labor between the Fund and the Grammar is illustrated by showing how FDG treats lexeme, word and frame formation: lexeme formation is located in the Fund, word formation is located in the Grammar, and frame formation may be located in either, depending on the particular frame or the approach of the analyst. We then discuss the form and content of lexical entries. This has been a topic of some discussion recently, and several of the contributions to this special issue contain proposals in this area. The central question here is how best to capture the existence of common or even default associations between primitives at different levels of representation while still allowing for the occurrence of mismatches. Mismatches allow us to account for phenomena like coercion and other creative uses of the linguistic apparatus available to the language user. Next we address the construction of lexical meaning, showing where FDG draws the line between semantics on the one hand and pragmatics, contextual factors, and conceptua-lization on the other hand. Here again, different points of view coexist and several contributions contain proposals for how to represent lexical meaning. Our final section briefly introduces the other contributions to this special issue.

On the Interaction of Linguistic Typology and Functional Grammar (2002)

Functions of Language 9-2 (2002), 209–237., 2002

Research conducted within the wider theoretical framework of Dik’s Functional Grammar has resulted in important contributions to linguistic typology, and, vice versa, empirical facts from a wide variety of languages have significantly improved the theory of Functional Grammar, especially regarding its typological adequacy. This article discusses the following contributions to Linguistic Typology: the development of a sound sampling methodology, classification of noun categories (Seinsarten), an account of (so-called) number discord, the introduction of the new grammatical category of ‘nominal aspect’, a new typology of classifiers, and a universal concerning the occurrence of adjectives as a distinct word class. Conversely it will be shown that facts from many different languages have played an important role in the development of a layered model of the noun phrase in Functional Grammar and how currently these facts are used to test hypotheses concerning parallels between NPs and clauses.

(book) The Noun Phrase In Functional Discourse Grammar (2008)

2008

Aims and Scope The articles in this volume analyse the noun phrase within the framework of Functional Discourse Grammar (FDG), the successor to Simon C. Dik's Functional Grammar. In its current form, FDG has an explicit top-down organization and distinguishes four hierarchically organized, interacting levels: (i) the interpersonal level (language as communicational process), (ii) the representational level (language as a carrier of content), (iii) the morphosyntactic level and (iv) the phonological level. Together they constitute the grammatical component, which in its turn interacts with a cognitive and a communicative component. This comprehensive approach to linguistic analysis is also reflected in this volume, which contains rich and substantial contributions concerning many different aspects of the noun phrase. At the same time, the analysis of a major linguistic construction from various perspectives is an excellent way to test a new model of grammar with regard to some of the standards of adequacy for linguistic theories. The book contains several papers dealing with matters of representation and formalization of the noun phrase (the articles by Kees Hengeveld, José Luis González Escribano, Jan Rijkhoff and Evelien Keizer). Other contributors are more concerned with the practical application of the model with regard to discourse-interpersonal matters (Chris Butler, John H. Connolly), whereas the chapters by Dik Bakker and Roland Pfau and by Daniel García Velasco deal with morphosyntactic issues. In all, the variety of issues addressed and the range of languages considered prove that one of the important advantages of the FDG model is precisely the fact that grammatical phenomena can be treated from a semantic, pragmatic, morpho-syntactic, phonological or textual perspective in a coherent fashion.

Afterword: Nominalizations in syntactic theory

Lingua, 2011

This afterword constructs a working typology of nominalizations, based on but not restricted to the papers collected in this special issue. The typology is based on what we call the Functional Nominalization Thesis (FNT), a version of the model of “mixed projections” proposed in Borsley and Kornfilt (2000) which claims that nominal properties of a nominalization are contributed by a nominal functional projection; above that projection the structure has nominal properties, below it, verbal properties. We argue for four possible levels of nominalization, CP, TP, vP and VP. We show that certain internal syntactic phenomena are characteristic of different levels of nominalization: genitive subjects of nominalization at TP and below, genitive objects of nominalization at vP and below. We suggest that the inventory of categories implicated in nominalization is quite restricted: D, and nominal counterparts of ‘light’ verbal categories. We examine two alternatives to the FNT, the framework of Panagiotidis and Grohmann (2009) and Bresnan's (1997) head-sharing approach, and argue that our treatment is more appropriate under a minimalist approach, as it accommodates the facts within an independently motivated inventory of functional categories, without positing a special type of category limited only to nominalizations. We counter Bresnan's objections against a syntactic derivation of nominalizations by showing that a word's lexical integrity can be successfully violated by “suspended affixation” in syntactically derived nominalizations in Turkish while such integrity has to be respected in lexically derived nominalizations.

The interaction of components in a Functional Discourse Grammar account of grammaticalization

This paper is a draft of a chapter published in Kees Hengeveld, Heiko Narrog and Hella Olbertz (eds.) 2017, "The Grammaticalization of Tense, Aspect, Modality and Evidentiality - A Functional Perspective" (De Gruyter Mouton). Please do not cite without the author's permission. The main goal of this paper is to show how the usage-based nature and pragmatic motivations of grammaticalization can be felicitously accommodated within the framework of Functional Discourse Grammar (Hengeveld and Mackenzie 2008), a typologically-based theory of language structure that conceives the grammar as one component of a wider model of verbal communication, constantly interacting with a Conceptual and a Contextual Component. Starting from the idea that grammatical meaning diachronically results from the gradual conventionalization of an invited inference (Traugott and Dasher 2002; Heine 2002), the paper suggests that the successive stages into which this process can be broken down differ from each other as to the role played by each component in the selection and interpretation of the grammaticalizing construction. Taken together with Functional Discourse Grammar’s capacity to formulate separate clines of grammaticalization for each grammatical level (pragmatics, semantics, morphosyntax, phonology), the proposed model offers a systematic and formalized account of the entire grammaticalization process: from the synchronic inferential mechanisms that trigger it to the ultimate outcomes of the functional and formal evolution of the grammaticalized item. The workings of the model are illustrated through the analysis of concrete cases of grammaticalization, with special focus on TAM markers.