Functional Discourse Grammar

The functional discourse grammar ( FDG for short ) or engl. Functional Discourse Grammar is a newer grammar theory . It was developed by leading representatives of the Functional Grammar (FG) from 2000, especially in Amsterdam, as a further development of the FG. There are different opinions about the status of this grammar theory: Some regard it as a further development of the Functional Grammar by Simon C. Dik (1978; 1997) without an independent status, while others and also the main representatives of the FDG regard it as an independent grammar theory because of many differences : "FDG diverges from FG in so many ways that by now it should be considered a theory in its own right, and it has been recognized as such." (Hengeveld / Mackenzie 2008: xi).

To the origin of the theory

The beginnings of the FDG go back to the lecture “The architecture of a Functional Discourse Grammar” by K. Hengeveld in 2000. The addition "discourse" was the expression of a heightened awareness of integrating phenomena of the act of discourse more strongly into the theory of the FG. The most important aspect of this conference contribution was the distinction between three hierarchically arranged levels, the interpersonal, the representative and the morphosyntactic level (see below).

In the following years, the basic idea of this work was further researched (see Mackenzie / Gómez González 2004, Groot / Hengeveld 2005, García Velasco / Rijkhoff 2008). K. Hengeveld and J. Lachlan Mackenzie finally presented the new theory in a comprehensive introduction published in 2008 (hereinafter abbreviated as "HM").

The term “Functional Discourse Grammar”

In the term “Functional Discourse Grammar”, “functional” stands for the functionalist approach within linguistics that the FDG shares with the FG. The key message of this approach is that grammar and especially syntax are not an autonomous domain, but rather are dependent on the domain of the language function, i. H. Semantics and pragmatics apply.

Typical functional theories, in addition to the FG, are the Role and Reference Grammar and the Systemic Functional Grammar . The classical formal theory of the opposite direction is the generative theory .

Then, "Discourse" means that for this theory of Diskursakt ( "discourse act") is the smallest unit of linguistic analysis and not the set (HM: 4).

The FDG sees itself not only as a functional grammar theory, but as “a form-oriented function-to-form approach” (HM: 38 f.) - “form-oriented”, because it only uses such material on the interpersonal and representative level consider that given a morphosyntactic and phonological form; “Function-to-form”, because the communicative function is considered first and only then is its individual language forms examined. Thus, the FDG stands between extremely formal and extremely functional theories.

Relation to the functional grammar

With the FG, the FDG shares a basic linguistic insight, according to which language is a structured entity that functions as a means of communication between human individuals. Furthermore, both theories are characterized by a striving for “maximum typological neutrality” (HM: xi).

On the other hand, there are considerable differences: On the part of the FDG, this includes the distinction between an interpersonal and a representative level as independent linguistic areas and also the emphasis on the independence of morphosyntax and phonology in the form of autonomous description areas. Finally, the direction of description “from top to bottom” is also specific to the FDG.

According to HM (p. 37 f.), The main difference lies in the way in which the process of linguistic understanding is presented as a model in both theories: Accordingly, the choice of linguistic units stands at the beginning of the model of the FG. In the further communication process, these would be semantically differentiated into predicates (in the logical sense) to which terms would be assigned. These are then assigned syntactic functions and then pragmatic functions. Because of this order, the pragmatics in FG seems to act like an appendix to the semantics and syntax, which runs counter to the principles of functionalism. In the FDG, on the other hand, pragmatics, in the form of the interpersonal level, is at the beginning of linguistic communication and is therefore much better integrated.

Basics of the theory

At the center of the FDG theory is a model of the origin and development of linguistic utterances (HM: 3–25). This takes linguistic and extra-linguistic aspects into account, even if the former is of primary interest. The model distinguishes between

Levels (such as the representative level)
Components (one grammatical and three extra-linguistic, see below)
Processes (e.g. morphosyntactic coding)
and kits of basic units (“primitives”).

The four levels of description

The four levels (HM: 14–18) are all linguistic, hierarchical and also single-lingual , which means that the pragmatic and semantic categories are not universally valid.

On the interpersonal level (“interpersonal level”; HM: 15, 46–127), the focus is on the communicative situation of the discourse act, including the people involved in the discourse, the communicative participants. In addition, the basic unit of “moves”, which includes one or more acts of discourse, the illocutive intention and the communicative content are important.

On the representative level (“representative level”; HM: 15 f., 128–281) the linguistic units are denoted by terms of semantic categories, such as B. propositional content, type of (semantically defined) states of affairs, one or more properties.

These first two levels are the levels of formulation (“formulation”) on which the linguistic unit takes linguistic form.

On the morphosyntactic level (“morphosyntactic level”; HM: 16 f., 282-420) the linguistic unit is broken down into syntactic constituents, the largest unit being the linguistic expression (“linguistic expression”) and from there the analysis Subclauses and phrases running down to words.

The phonological level (“phonological level”; HM: 17 f., 421–462) comprises the segmental and the suprasegmental representation of the linguistic unit.

These last two levels are the levels of coding ("encoding") on which the linguistic unit in the linguistic sign system is encoded.

The four components

In addition to the grammatical component, the FDG also has three extra-linguistic components (HM: 6–12):

The first extra- linguistic component is the conceptual component . It includes not only the communicative intention, but also psychological reactions to certain events in the outside world, but only those that lead to an intention.

In the contextual component , the second extra-linguistic component, the linguistic utterance is considered in the context of the discourse act, which is considered “multifaceted” (HM: 9).

The third extra-linguistic quantity is the output component . In it, the end products of the linguistic utterances are converted into an output, which means that they are converted into phonetic sequences in the case of oral speech, and in orthographic sequences in the case of written speech. In addition to the phonetic sequences, there can also be body gestures that are only constitutive for sign languages. Here a conversion of the digital into analogue takes place. This means that the linguistic signs are not always categorically unambiguous, but rather become statistically approximate.

Example of a formalization according to FDG

Taken as a whole, this linguistic model is an attempt to analytically capture the entire complex process of linguistic communication. The sequence from pragmatics (interpersonal level) through semantics (representative level) to syntax (morphosyntactic level) is typically functional, which in this intensification goes well beyond the model of the forerunner FG.

This can be seen in the following example:

IE: (+ id RI)
RE: (prox m xi: [(fi: / bəˈnɑːnə / N (fi)) (xi) Φ])
ME: (Npi: [(Gwi: this-pl (Gwi)) (Nwi: / bəˈnɑːnə / -pl (Nwi))] (Npi))
PE: (PPi: [(PWi: / ðiːz / (PWi)) (PWj: / bəˈnɑːnəz / (PWj))] (PPi))

This formalized spelling can be explained as follows: On the interpersonal level (IE, 1.) the constituent is characterized as something that has a referential function (R). In addition, the speaker assumes of him that he is identifiable for the listener / reader (id). On the representative level (RE, 2.) the constituent is characterized as one who more than (m) designates an individual with the property (f) and in expressions the position of the referent (prox). The property (f) is specified by the nominal (N) lexeme / bəˈnɑːnə /. On the morphosyntactic level (ME, 3.) the constituent is characterized as a noun phrase (Np), which consists of a grammatical word (Gw) and a nominal word (Nw). An operator is introduced at this level, here marked by “this”, which acts as a placeholder for the syntactic function. The representative operator (m) is here converted into the morphosyntactic operator Pl (ural), which occurs twice because it has to be expressed in both parts of the noun phrase. On the phonological level (PE, 4.) the corresponding plural forms are introduced, in the case of nouns by adding the corresponding plural suffix, in the case of the determinator by selecting a supplementary form. This level consists of a phonological phrase (PP), which consists of two phonological words (PW).

Typological adequacy

Like the Functional Grammar, the FDG also claims to enable the description of many typologically different languages (“typological adequacy”). The typological claim is expressed on the one hand in the English subtitle “a typologically-based theory of language structure”, on the other hand in the more than 160 languages that are included in the HM's evidence.

The authors confess that the theoretical form of the FDG owes much to typological research. At the same time, they understand their theory as a frame of reference for further individual typological research. The FDG could function as a “basic linguistic theory” as it was called for by R. M. W. Dixon (1997: 128-138) for typological work, even if this well-known typologist understood it to be more of a modified traditional grammar. Since the theory of the FDG is not only descriptive-descriptive, but also has a rich analytical potential, it is an ideal candidate for this role of a “basic linguistic theory”. At the same time, the theory of the FDG will certainly be further developed, especially with the inclusion of typological findings.

applicability

Hengeveld and Mackenzie (HM, p. 41 f.) Understand the FDG as a structured linguistic framework within which linguistic hypotheses can be formulated and tested. With more practical ambitions, this theory is particularly suitable for comparative language work, be it for typological and contact linguistic studies, or for contrastive comparisons.

literature

Kees Hengeveld, J. Lachlan Mackenzie: Functional Discourse Grammar. Oxford University Press, Oxford 2008, ISBN 978-0-19-927811-4 .
Simon C. Dik: Functional Grammar . Dordrecht 1978.
Simon C. Dik (edited by Kees Hengeveld): The Theory of Functional Grammar . Volume 1: The Structure of the Clause / Volume 2: Complex and Derived Constructions . Berlin / New York 1997.
RMW Dixon: The rise and fall of languages . Cambridge 1997.
Daniel García Velasco, Jan NM Rijkhoff (Ed.): The Noun Phrase in Functional Discourse Grammar . Berlin 2008.
Caspar de Groot, Kees Hengeveld (Ed.): Morphosyntactic Expression in Functional Discourse Grammar . Berlin / New York 2005.
Kees Hengeveld: Layers and operators in Functional Grammar. In: Journal of Linguistics. Volume 25/1, 1989, pp. 127-157.
Kees Hengeveld, J. Lachlan Mackenzie: Functional Discourse Grammar. In: Keith Brown (Ed.): Encyclopedia of language and linguistics . Volume 4, 2nd edition. Oxford 2000, pp. 669-676.
Kees Hengeveld: The architecture of a Functional Discourse Grammar. In: J. Lachlan Mackenzie, María A. Gómez González (Eds.): A New Architecture for Functional Discourse Grammar . Berlin 2004, pp. 1–21.
Anna Siewierska: Functional Grammar . London 1991.