Search

Since their onset more than 50 years ago, both psycholinguistics and neurolinguistics have provided crucial breakthroughs for understanding the cognitive bases of language. Despite their major contributions, however, both fields have been undermined by a tradeoff between ecological validity (i.e., the degree to which tasks reflect the conditions of everyday communication) and experimental control (the manipulation of fine-grained variables, which is typically achieved by matching lists of decontextualized words and sentences). Specifically, most extant research sacrifices the former requisite in pursuit of the latter, or vice versa, but both are rarely met in combination. To overcome this problem, we have relied on Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) and designed a protocol for constructing carefully matched but fully naturalistic narratives usable in experimental settings. First, we describe the limitations of mainstream language experiments and their poor ecological validity. Second, we introduce an SFL-based protocol that allows constructing naturalistic stories that differ in one critical target variable while guaranteeing statistical comparability in multiple other factors. Third, we illustrate how the protocol has been successfully implemented in two groundbreaking studies exploring the links between biological motor systems and lexico-semantic processing. Finally, we discuss the potential gains springing from future collaborations between SFL and experimental language research. • Language experiments rarely achieve both ecological validity and statistical control. • This tension can be resolved designing naturalistic yet statistically matched texts. • Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) offers useful tools to this end. • We describe a relevant text-construction protocol anchored in SFL notions. • We illustrate its successful application in two published high-impact studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mackenzie (2020) is a defense of the position adopted by the architects of the standard model of Functional Discourse Grammar (FDG): namely that the model cannot (and even could never) be considered a 'grammar of discourse'. The article examines the arguments given for rejecting the 'discourse' dimension from the FDG model, proposes an independent account of discourse, and suggests a means of dovetailing it within a model of the wider utterance context. On the one hand, the author's arguments are in the main valid: for 'discourse', as characterized in section 3, is not a formal, clearly delineated object amenable to systematic treatment within a grammatical model of a given language. Yet on the other, it is arguable that even the presence of the term 'discourse' in the model's name is not in fine justified. Notwithstanding, in order to include the 'discourse dimension' (section 3), it is argued that the Core FDG model could be integrated with a broader model of the utterance context involved. This would enable it to account more adequately, for example, for the ways in which indexical reference, the lexicon and adjectival modification operate in actual texts. In turn, it would influence certain of the other characterizations independently assigned within the Core model. • For its architects , Functional Discourse Grammar could never be a discourse grammar. • For discourse is not amenable to systematic treatment within a formal grammar model. • Yet in fact even the term 'discourse' in the model's name is not fully justified. • A solution: complement the model with one dealing with the broader context of use. • This in turn will impact on certain of the characterizations yielded by the Core model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper provides a description and analysis of a number of English sequences of pronoun and noun (phrase), such as we teachers , you guys, you fools and them people . On the basis of a close examination of the formal and functional behaviour of authentic examples, it is shown that despite the superficial similarity among these sequences at least four types of construction can be distinguished. One of these types, it is argued, is best regarded as a subtype of apposition, as its members (e.g. we teachers ) exhibit both the formal features and the discourse functions of close appositions. The other three construction types are subsequently characterized as expressions of second person plural (e.g. you guys ), vocatives (e.g. you fools ) and expressions with a pronominal determiner (e.g. them people ). Finally, a Functional Discourse Grammar analysis is provided which reflects the distinctive formal and functional properties of each type of construction, while at the same time bringing out the similarities between each of these constructions and other types of nominal construction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The default definition for a double object construction (DOC) is almost invariably ‘a construction like the give-construction’. While the GIVE-construction may be a cross-linguistically representative example of such constructions, within Cantonese, the construction certainly displays syntactic behaviour that is anomalous. One such anomaly is that, in the GIVE-construction, the theme-object immediately follows the verb, while the recipient-object is the argument that is the furthest away from the verb. This order of objects is quite rarely found across languages. It should, however, be noted that Cantonese as a language does not have an exceptional order of non-subject arguments in DOCs, the verb bei ‘give’ in this language, and this verb only , does. The syntax of the GIVE-construction patterns with that of all other DOCs in many other respects. Proposals, couched within the Lexical-Functional Grammar framework, are offered to capture these facts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The Functional Discourse Grammar model has a twofold objective: on the one hand, to provide a descriptively, psychologically and pragmatically adequate account of the forms made available by a typologically diverse range of languages; and on the other, to provide a model of language which is set up to reflect, at one remove, certain of the stages the analyst assumes the speaker would go through in producing such forms, in terms of the types of discourse acts that may be performed in so doing. The article argues that these goals do not sit easily the one with the other. In practice, the whole emphasis of the levels, components and modules provided by the grammar is designed to achieve only the first of the two objectives. The Contextual component is restricted to representing only those aspects of the context of a given utterance which have a systematic influence on the form of that utterance. So in practice, the analytic approximation to the speaker’s performance of discourse act types is far removed from the complexity of the contextual factors which impinge on his or her actual utterance acts in some specific context. The problem is compounded by the lack of any systematic differentiation between considerations relating to the language system, and those having to do with the use of that system in some context. The need to provide for such a distinction is motivated here by a consideration of various types of indexical reference (specifically, “anadeixis” and anaphora) within a discourse. Here an important distinction is made between the nature of the indexical referring procedure being applied, and the particular expression types being used to carry it out. In fine, the article argues that it is only by attempting to subsume the grammatical apparatus of the modular FDG system within a model of the wider utterance context in which it may be used by a speaker, that the problems raised earlier may be satisfactorily resolved. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: The aim of the article is to propose an outline of a model of the representational lexicon in Functional Discourse Grammar. Some problems with the mainstream account of the lexicon are discussed in the context of prior work by . It is proposed that structure building, including the choice of an appropriate predication frame, is mediated through the selection of lexical items to realise the concepts the language user wishes to express, and that although decompositional accounts of the lexicon need enrichment to account for lexical competence, they are still required, though at the conceptual level. It is then proposed that the link between lexical items and the Conceptual Component of the model should take the form of pointers from lexical items to a conceptual ontology, and that this ontology should be language-neutral across a range of culturally-related languages. It is shown that the FunGramKB system of ontology and lexica, developed in association with the Lexical Constructional Model, can be adapted for use in Functional Discourse Grammar. The article then discusses the handling of alternations, collocations and lexical variation with situational content. Suggestions are also made for the treatment of prefabricated expressions which combine grammatical and lexical characteristics. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: This epilogue addresses the most important topics and challenges for the Morphosyntactic Level in Functional Discourse Grammar that have been raised in the articles in this Special Issue. We begin by exploring the differences between the Morphosyntactic Level in FDG and the treatment of morphosyntactic phenomena in other linguistic frameworks. We then concentrate on the relevance of typological work to the construction of the formalism and to the organization of the Morphosyntactic Level. We conclude that one of its main advantages is its flexibility in accounting for the morphosyntactic diversity of the languages of the world. This flexibility is the result of three main aspects: the distinction between a configurational and a hierarchical ordering of units, the influence of external factors such as iconicity, domain integrity and functional stability, and compatibility with general observations on human language processing and production which result in a dynamic implementation of the Morphosyntactic Level. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: The aim of this paper is to compare the treatment of syntactic functions, and more particularly those traditionally labelled as Subject and Object, in Functional Discourse Grammar and Role and Reference Grammar. Relevant aspects of the overall structure of the two theories are briefly described. The concept of alignment between levels of the grammar in Functional Discourse Grammar is introduced and the role of syntactic functions in the morphosyntactic type of alignment is explained. The arguments put forward in Role and Reference Grammar against the adoption of Subject and Object and in favour of a single language-specific and construction-specific privileged syntactic argument are then discussed. The arguments against Subject are found to be persuasive, those against the need for any secondary syntactic function (in place of the traditional Object) rather less so. It is therefore proposed that Functional Discourse Grammar should abandon the notions of Subject and Object as valid categories in those languages which can be demonstrated to need syntactic functions, and should make it explicit that grammatical relations are specific to particular languages and even to constructions within those languages, while making appropriate generalisations wherever possible. The role played by syntactic functions in the two theories is then discussed in rather more detail, and it is concluded that while the Role and Reference Grammar system makes stronger predictions about the relationships between syntax and semantics, the Functional Discourse Grammar concept of alignment has greater overall scope and generality. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: This article inquires into the nature of ‘attributive’ prepositional phrases from a Functional Discourse Grammar (FDG) perspective. On the basis of the observation that such prepositional phrases can easily be separated from their host noun phrases by extraposition or extraction, it is argued that they do not belong to the noun phrase syntactically, as discontinuity is vital in determining the constituency boundaries. The idea that attributive prepositional phrases are really independent clause-level modifiers goes counter to what is generally assumed in most syntactic frameworks, but it can be shown that the arguments that are traditionally given in favour of shared constituency do not adequately distinguish between syntactic, semantic and pragmatic association between language units. The layered structure of the FDG model, on the other hand, makes it possible to tease those different types of association apart, so that we can recognise the semantic link at the Representation Level, while at the same time accounting for the loose syntactic connection between the noun and the prepositional phrase at the Morphosyntactic Level. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: An essential task for the morphosyntactic level within the grammatical component of Functional Discourse Grammar (FDG) is the handling of constituent ordering. This area of grammar, which is known as positional syntax, constitutes the subject of the present paper, in which the ordering of constituents is examined within the framework of a dynamic implementation of the FDG model. First of all, an analysis is presented of how FDG differs from its predecessor, Functional Grammar, in the treatment of constituent order. Next, attention is focused upon the question of how a dynamic FDG-based account of positional syntax may be developed. A linearisation mechanism is proposed which reflects the basic principles of FDG theory, and the working of the mechanism is illustrated in relation to the positional syntax of the English Clause. Some problems are then discussed, and avenues are explored towards their solution. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: It follows from the ordering principles that are applied in Functional Discourse Grammar that the positional possibilities of markers of agreement and those of crossreference are different. Markers of crossreference are predicted to occur closer to the verb stem, while markers of agreement would occupy peripheral positions. This paper tests these predictions using data from a variety of languages, and shows that for these languages the predictions indeed hold true. In demonstrating this, the paper furthermore proposes a new treatment for markers of agreement/crossreference in languages in which these optionally co-occur with a corresponding noun phrase. These markers are on a language-specific basis classified as either Contextual Agreement Markers or as Appositional Referential Markers. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Functional Discourse Grammar (FDG), as a theory of the organization of natural languages, seeks to attain pragmatic, typological and cognitive adequacy. The attempt to achieve cognitive adequacy has been fraught with problems stemming from the vagueness of the concept and the difficulty of adapting to trends in psycholinguistics. Specifically, while FDG has seen every utterance as an entirely novel creation by an individual language user, developments in cognitive science have emphasized the extent to which aspects of utterances are primed by earlier occurrences in the context of dialogue involving two or more interlocutors. It is possible to develop a dialogic view of FDG in which the Contextual Component is re-interpreted as an implicit common ground and as a conduit for the interactive alignment of grammatical processes. In such a view, morphosyntactic alternations are defined by their potential for mutual priming. The analysis of dialogue data shows that authentic linguistic expressions, examined in their discourse context, can be described as being determined either by priming or by functional factors, with several instances of dysfunctionality being attributed to the influence of priming. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: The aim of this paper is to challenge the generally accepted claim in descriptive and theoretical linguistics that English anaphoric proforms replace constituents (semantic or syntactic units) in underlying representation. On the basis of authentic examples, it is shown that the anaphoric use of the predicative proforms one and do so, the demonstrative pronouns that and those, and some use of the personal pronouns he, she and they often requires hearers to retrieve lexical information that does not form a unit at any level of representation. A definition and analysis of proforms is proposed within the framework of Functional Discourse Grammar which does not depend on the presence of an antecedent in the form of a linguistic unit. It is argued that this approach does not only allow for a unified treatment of all anaphoric proforms, but can also be applied to deictic and other non-phoric proforms. The paper also contributes to the further development of the theory of Functional Discourse Grammar by providing an analysis of proforms at the Interpersonal, Representational and Morphosyntactic Levels of organization. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: his paper examines the distribution and interpretation of manner adverbs in Japanese. We explore the division of labor between the syntactic, semantic and discourse constraints involving the adverbial modification. After having observed manner adverbs potentially produce the ambiguity between the complement and the adjunct interpretation, we offer an explicit account for the apparently elusive paradigm, ascribing such properties to the dual analysis of complements and adjuncts for the correct characterization of manner adverbs in the language. We then show that the proposed analysis can be easily integrated into a Lexical–Functional Grammar (LFG) formalism. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

In many linguistic approaches and theories, a distinction is made between adverbs that are propositional (representational, ideational, referential) and adverbs that are non-propositional (interpersonal, (inter)subjective, evaluative, parenthetical); i.e. between what is said (the proposition expressed) and a speaker's stance on what is said (e.g. the speaker's attitude towards, evaluation of, or commitment to the message conveyed). As is well-known, however, the latter group, including such diverse adverbs as briefly , frankly , sadly , allegedly , hopefully , probably , obviously and cleverly , differ substantially in terms of their discourse-pragmatic or semantic function, truth-conditionality and syntactic and prosodic behaviour. This paper addresses the question of whether, given this functional and formal heterogeneity, it is helpful, or even possible, to recognize a category of stance adverbs. It is argued that our understanding of these adverbs will benefit from a stricter application of very specific functional and formal criteria, allowing for the distinction of a number of well-defined subclasses of adverbs with partly overlapping, but nevertheless defining functional and formal properties. Subsequently, it is demonstrated how the theory of Functional Discourse Grammar (FDG), a theory characterized by a "form-oriented function-to-form" approach (Hengeveld and Mackenzie, 2008: 38–39), making use of different levels and layers of linguistic analysis, can be used to bring out both the similarities and the differences between the various subclasses of stance adverbs without having to resort to a single dichotomy (e.g. ideational vs. interpersonal; truth-conditional vs. non-truth-conditional, propositional vs. non-propositional; parenthetical vs. non-parenthetical). In addition, it is shown how important concepts and distinctions in the literature on (inter)subjectivity, such as the distinction between semantic and pragmatic subjectivity, and between subjectivity and intersubjectivity, can be dealt with within the framework of FDG. • There is no such thing as a well-defined class of stance adverbs in linguistic theory. • Different types of stance adverbs can be distinguished on the basis of clear criteria. • FDG allows us to tackle the heterogeneity of stance adverbs by offering a unified analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]