Evelien Keizer

The lexicon in Functional Discourse Grammar: Theory, typology, description

Abstract 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 conceptualization 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.

Idiomatic expressions in Functional Discourse Grammar

Abstract This article addresses the question of how the theory of Functional Discourse Grammar (FDG), with its clear distinction between lexicon and grammar, can deal with semi-fixed constructions by proposing a consistent and cognitively plausible account of idiomatic expressions that can not only deal with the partly unpredictable and partly productive character of these expressions, but also with the variation within the class of idioms. It is argued that, on the basis of both semantic and syntactic criteria, three major types of idiom can be distinguished. Subsequently, an FDG analysis is provided which shows that the syntactic behavior of these types is not entirely arbitrary and unpredictable, but that it can to a large extent be accounted for by the specific functional properties of each of these types. Finally, the article addresses the question of how to represent idioms in the FDG lexicon. It is suggested that the lexical entry of an idiom should take the form of a meaning definition which is associated with a semi-fixed combination of interpersonal and representation frames and morphosyntactic templates specifying the functional and formal constraints on individual idioms, while at the same time accounting for the (different degrees of) syntactic flexibility exhibited by the three major types of idiom. All that is needed for idioms to be integrated in the theory of FDG, it is concluded, is the introduction of a new primitive, the so-called ComPIF (Combination of Partially Instantiated Frames).

Syntax of Dutch : Nouns and Noun Phrases - Volume 2

The aim of this publication is to present a complete synthesis of the available knowledge of Dutch syntax. It is primarily concerned with language description and not with linguistic theory, providing support to all researchers of language and linguistics, including graduate students. The first two volumes in this series, Nouns and Noun Phrases, discuss the internal make-up as well as the distribution of noun phrases, and address the following areas: complementation and modification of noun phrases; properties of determiners (articles and demonstratives), numerals and quantifiers; the use of noun phrases as arguments, predicates and adverbial modifiers.

English proforms: an alternative account

In most theoretical and descriptive treatments of English proforms it seems to be accepted that proforms replace constituents in underlying structure (i.e. phrases or clauses). The aim of the present article is to challenge this assumption. It will be demonstrated that a great many fully acceptable uses of proforms turn out to be quite problematic for the view of proforms as corresponding either to constituents or to semantic and/or syntactic units in underlying representation; nor, it turns out, do proforms necessarily refer to or denote a single (identifiable, retrievable or inferrable) entity. After a brief summary of the relevant literature, the article presents a detailed examination of the actual function and use of English proforms, focusing on a number of frequently used proforms: (i) the indefinite pronoun one , (ii) the predicative proform do so , (iii) the demonstrative pronouns that and those and (iv) certain uses of the personal pronouns we / us and you. On the basis of attested examples, it is argued that these proforms do not necessarily express a unit at any level of underlying representation. Instead an alternative account of the use of proforms is suggested, using the theory of Functional Discourse Grammar, which, with its four different levels of analysis (representing pragmatic, semantic, morphosyntactic and phonological information), possesses the kind of flexibility needed to deal with English proforms in a consistent and unified manner. Finally, an attempt is made to explain some of the constraints on the flexible system proposed.

Structure and substance in functional discourse grammar: the case of the binominal noun phrase

Abstract This paper discusses the relevance of the distinctions made by Hjelmslev ([1943] 1961), between purport, substance and structure on the one hand, and content and expression on the other, for the theory of Functional Discourse Grammar (FDG). It is shown that FDG, as a form-oriented theory, shares a number of aspects with Hjelmslev’s model; at the same time, however, it is argued that, as a function-to-form theory, FDG assigns a much more important role to the notion of substance. Three major differences between the two approaches are identified, concerning (i) directionality in the model (between substance and structure), (ii) motivation (of structure on the basis of substance) and (iii) the difference between “structure” (in the form of more or less stable primitives) and “structuring” (as a process). Subsequently, a corpus-based, diachronic analysis of the use, form and development of a number of related binominal noun phrases with the head noun beast (e.g. a beast of a party) is offered to illustrate the FDG interpretation of the distinction between substance and structure, and to justify the greater importance attributed to the notion of substance. It is concluded that compared to Hjelmslev’s model, FDG is better equipped, both diachronically and synchronically, to deal with the specific features of and relations between the four types of binominal construction discussed in the paper.