1 / 29

Reference and Ascription in Functional Discourse Grammar

Reference and Ascription in FDG. Aims. Brief introduction to Functional Discourse Grammar (FDG)Application to different types of copular constructions:John is a fool.This is Peter.Dr Jekyll IS Mr Hyde. . . Hengeveld, K. and J.L. Mackenzie (to appear 2008). Functional Discourse Grammar: A t

shelley
Download Presentation

Reference and Ascription in Functional Discourse Grammar

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

    2. Reference and Ascription in FDG Aims Brief introduction to Functional Discourse Grammar (FDG) Application to different types of copular constructions: John is a fool. This is Peter. Dr Jekyll IS Mr Hyde.

    3. Reference and Ascription in FDG Functional Discourse Grammar

    4. Reference and Ascription in FDG Features of FDG FDG has a top-down organization. FDG takes the Discourse Act as its basic unit of analysis. FDG analyses Discourse Acts in terms of four independent, interactive modules, yielding four levels of analysis: Interpersonal Level: pragmatics (use) Representational Level: semantics (meaning) Morphosyntactic Level: morphosyntax (inflection, word order) Phonological Level: phonology (stress and prosody) FDG systematically interacts with three non-linguistic components: a conceptual component an output component a contextual component

    6. Reference and Ascription in FDG The Interpersonal Level (IL) Deals with all the formal aspects of a linguistic unit that reflect its role in the interaction between speaker and addressee Some relevant units: Discourse Act (A) Illocution (F), e.g. Declarative, Interrogative Speech Participants (P1, P2) Communicated Content (C): Subact of AscripTion (T): Speaker’s evocation of a property, e.g. ‘tall’, ‘eat’, ‘car’ Subact of Reference (R): Speaker’s evocation of an entity (a concrete or abstract referent)

    7. Reference and Ascription in FDG Interpersonal frames (1) (p A1: [(p F1: ILL (F1)) (p P1)S (p P2)A (p C1: [ .. (p T1)F (p R1)F .. ] (C1)] (A1)) where: ILL = illocution (declarative, interrogative, etc.) p = operators applying at the different layers, providing grammatically expressed information e.g.: Ascription operator: approximation (‘sort-of’’) Reference operator: identifiability (the vs. a) F = pragmatic function, e.g. Topic, Focus, Emphasis, Contrast

    8. Reference and Ascription in FDG The Representational Level (RL) Deals with the semantic aspects of a linguistic unit; i.e. with descriptions of entities as they occur in some non-linguistic world Some relevant units: Propositional Content (p), e.g. idea Episode (ep), e.g. summary State-of-affairs (e), e.g. meeting Individual (x), e.g. chair Property/relation (f), e.g. colour (cf. Lyons 1977; Mackenzie 1992, 1998)

    9. Reference and Ascription in FDG Representational frames (2) (? e1: [(? f1: lexV (f1)) (? x1)F (? x2)F] (e1)) where: lexV = a lexeme of the category verb p = operators applying at the different layers, providing grammatically expressed information e.g.: State-of-Affairs operator: tense Individual operator: singular/plural F = semantic function, e.g. Actor, Undergoer, Location (3) a. The dog chased the wasp. b. (past e1: [(f1: chaseV (f1)) (1x1)A (1x2)U] (e1))

    10. Reference and Ascription in FDG Types of copular construction a. predicational/classificational sentences: John is a teacher. (where a teacher predicates over/classifies John) b. identificational/labelling sentences: I am Peter. (where a label is attached to an already familiar object) c. identity statements: Venus IS the Evening Star. (where two separate objects are equated)

    11. Reference and Ascription in FDG Standard FG: Dik (1978, 1980, 1989, 1997a) “Referring means pinpointing some entity about which something is going to be predicated; predicating means assigning properties to, and establishing relations between, such entities.” (Dik 1997a: 127) (5) Predication: a. The dog chased the wasp. b. (past e1: [{ (chaseV) } (x1: dog (x1))A (x2: wasp (x2))U] (e1)) predication reference reference (predicate) (argument) (argument)

    12. Reference and Ascription in FDG “By a term we understand any expression which can be used to refer to an entity or entities in some world.” (Dik 1997a: 127; see also Dik 1978: 55; 1989: 111) (6) Term: a. the dog b. (d1x1: { (dogN) } (xi)) predication reference

    13. Reference and Ascription in FDG Predicational copular constructions: (7) a. John is president. b. *John is good president. (8) a. John is president. a’. {(presidentN)} (x1: John (x1)) b. John is famous. b’. {(famousA)} (x1: John (x1)) (9) a. John is the president. b. John is a good president. (10) a. John is the president. b. {(d1x1: president (x1))} (x2: John (x2))?)

    14. Reference and Ascription in FDG Hengeveld (1992a, 1992b) Introduction of the f-variable, designating properties/relations: (11) a. John has bought a blue car and I will buy a green one. b. (i1x1: (f1: car (f1)): (f2: blue (f2)) (x1)) Predicational sentences: (12) a. John is president. a’. {(f1: president (f1))} (x1: John (x1)) b. John is my best friend. b’. {(f1: (d1x1: (my best friend) (x1)) (f1)} (x1: John (x1))

    15. Reference and Ascription in FDG Specification (reversible): {(f1: (x1)} (x1) a. The capital of France is Paris. b. A bachelor is an unmarried man. (Hengeveld 1992b: 89; simplified representations)   (14) Characterization (non-reversible): {(f1: (x1)} (x2) a. Paris is the capital of France. b. A cat is an animal. (Ibid.) Identity statements: (15) a. The Morning Star is the Evening Star. a’. {(f1: (d1x1: Evening Star (x1)) (f1))} (d1x1: Morning Star (x1)) (simplified representation)

    16. Reference and Ascription in FDG Keizer (1992a, 1992b) Predicational sentences: (16) a. John is a fool. a’. {(f1: fool (f1))} (x1: John (x1)) Pronominalization: (17) John is a fool, although he doesn’t look it. which you are not. So is Peter.

    17. Reference and Ascription in FDG Identity statements: (15) a. The Morning Star is the Evening Star a’. (x1) = (x1) “What is intended to be said by a = b seems to be that the signs or names ‘a’ and ‘b’ designate the same thing, so that those terms themselves would be under discussion; a relation between them would be asserted.” (Frege 1892: 56) Not: Asserting a relation between two names Equation of two identical entities But: Equation of the separate discourse entities

    18. Reference and Ascription in FDG Copular constructions in FDG Predicational sentences at IL and RL (Hengeveld 2006: 674): (18) a. Sheila is my best friend. (Ascription of individual: T/x) b. My best friend visited me last night. (Reference to individual: R/x) Or perhaps: (19) a. Sheila is my best friend. (Ascription of property: T/f) b. My best friend visited me last night. (Reference to individual: R/x)

    19. Reference and Ascription in FDG Identity statements and Identificational sentences at IL and RL: (20) The Morning Star IS the Evening Star IL: (R1) (R1) RL: (x1) (x1) “Sentences like [(20)], with a prosodically prominent copula, serve the purpose of stating that the act of referring to an object by using a certain name is equivalent to the act of referring to that same object by another name.” (Hengeveld 2004a: 15) (21) I am Peter IL: (R1) (R2) RL: (x1) (x1) (Hengeveld and Mackenzie (2005: 16); simplified representation)

    20. Reference and Ascription in FDG Kinds of “worlds” Real (fictional or mythical) world: Things that ‘exist’ independently from any discourse situation or any particular speech participants Discourse world: Entities that are introduced into the discourse by textual means, as well as entities present in the immediate discourse situation (= contextual component) Mental world: The speech participants’ mental representations of the these worlds

    22. Reference and Ascription in FDG Variables at RL

    23. Reference and Ascription in FDG Extension sets

    24. Reference and Ascription in FDG Copular constructions revisited

    25. Reference and Ascription in FDG Conclusions Two main questions: (1) how to deal with reference and ascription in FDG, especially in copular constructions? and (2) what is the nature of representation, more specifically of the x-variable, at RL? Assumption: in the grammatical component only linguistic entities and relations are represented. This means that the variables at RL should be taken to represent the semantic content of expressions, rather than the entities referred to. Suggestion: the variables at this level be regarded as symbolizing the ‘mental extension set’ of an expression. Needed: a strict separation between the grammatical and contextual components. When these requirements are fulfilled, FDG can deal in a consistent and insightful manner with various types of copular construction. Thank you

    26. Reference and Ascription in FDG References Allan, Keith (2001). Natural Language Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell. Anstey, Matthew (2002). Layers and operators revisited. Working Papers in Functional Grammar 77. Carnap, Rudolf (1956). Meaning and Necessity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Connolly, John (2004). The question of discourse representation in Functional Discourse Grammar. In J. Lachlan Mackenzie & María Á. Gómez-González eds, A New Architecture for Functional Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 89-116. Dik, Simon C. (1978). Functional Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris. Dik, Simon C. (1980). Studies in Functional Grammar. London and New York: Academic Press. Dik, Simon C. (1989). The Theory of Functional Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris. Dik, Simon C. (1997a). The Theory of Functional Grammar. Vol. 1: The structure of the clause. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Dik, Simon C. (1997b). The Theory of Functional Grammar. Vol. 2: Complex and derived constructions. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Declerck, Renaat (1988). Studies on Copular Sentences, Clefts and Pseudoclefts. Leuven: Leuven University Press/Fortis Publications.

    27. Reference and Ascription in FDG Frege, Gottlob (1892). On sense and reference. In P.T. Geach and M. Black (eds.), 1977, Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege. Oxford: Blackwell, 56-78. Geach, Peter T. (1970). Reference and Generality. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Gundel, Jeanette K. (1977). Where do cleft-sentences come from? Language 53, 543-559. Hanna, Patricia and Bernhard Harrison (2004). Word & World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hannay, Mike and M. Evelien Keizer (2005). A discourse treatment of English non-restrictive nominal appositions in functional discourse grammar. In: María Á. Gómez-González and J. Lachlan Mackenzie eds, Studies in Functional Discourse Grammar (Linguistic Insights). Bern: Peter Lang, 151-185. Harder, Peter (1996). Functional Semantics. A Theory of Meaning, Structure and Tense in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Hengeveld, Kees (1989). Layers and operators in Functional Grammar. Linguistics, 25: 127-157. Hengeveld, Kees (1990) The hierarchical structure of utterances. In Jan Nuyts, A. Machtelt Bolkestein and Co Vet (eds.), Layers and Levels of Representation in Language Theory: a Functional View. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1-23.

    28. Reference and Ascription in FDG Hengeveld, Kees (1992a). Parts of speech. In Michael Fortescue, Peter Harder and Lars Kristoffersen (eds.), Layered Structure and Reference in a Functional Perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 29-55. Reprinted in Matthew Anstey and J. Lachlan Mackenzie (eds.) (2005), Crucial Readings in Functional Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 79-106. Hengeveld, Kees (1992b). Non-verbal Predication: Theory, Typology, Diachrony. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Hengeveld, Kees (2004a). The architecture of a Functional Discourse Grammar. In J. Lachlan Mackenzie and María Á. Gómez-González eds, A New Architecture for Functional Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1-21 Hengeveld, Kees (2004b). Epilogue. In J. Lachlan Mackenzie & María Á. Gómez-González eds, A New Architecture for Functional Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 365-378. Hengeveld, Kees (2005). Dynamic expression in Functional Discourse Grammar. In: Casper de Groot and Kees Hengeveld (eds.), Morphosyntactic Expression in Functional Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 53-86. Hengeveld, Kees (2008). Prototypical and non-prototypical noun phrases in Functional Discourse Grammar. In: Jan Rijkhoff and Daniel García Velasco, eds, (2008). The Noun Phrase in F(D)G. Trends in Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 43-62.

    29. Reference and Ascription in FDG Hengeveld, Kees and J. Lachlan Mackenzie (2005). Interpersonal functions, representational categories, and syntactic templates in Functional Discourse Grammar. In: María Á. Gómez-González and J. Lachlan Mackenzie eds, Studies in Functional Discourse Grammar. Berne: Peter Lang, 9-27. Hengeveld, K. and J.L. Mackenzie (2006). Functional Discourse Grammar. In Keith Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. 2nd edition. Oxford: Elsevier, 668-676. Higgins, F. Roger (1979). The Pseudo-cleft Construction in English. New York: Garland Publishing. Keizer, M. Evelien (1992a). Predicates as referring expressions. Layered Structure and Reference in a Functional Perspective, ed. by Michael Fortescue, Peter Harder and Lars Kristoffersen, 1-27. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Reprinted in Matthew Anstey and J. Lachlan Mackenzie (eds.) (2005), Crucial Readings in Functional Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 109-136. Keizer, M. Evelien (1992b). Reference, predication and (in)definiteness in Functional Grammar. A functional approach to English copular sentences. PhD dissertation, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Keizer, M. Evelien (2004). Term structure in FG: a modest proposal. Working Papers in Functional Grammar 78. Keizer, M. Evelien (2007). The English Noun Phrase – the Nature of Linguistic Categorization. Cambidge: Cambridge University Press. Kripke, Saul (1972). Naming and necessity. In Donald Davidson and Gilbert .

    30. Reference and Ascription in FDG Lyons, John (1977). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Mackenzie, J. Lachlan (1992). English spatial prepositions in Functional Grammar. Working Papers in Functional Grammar 46. McCawley, James D. (1982). Everything that Linguists Have Always Wanted to Know about Logic. Oxford: Blackwell. Mill, John Stuart (1856). A System of Logic, Vol 1. 4th ed. London: John W. Parker and Son. Rijkhoff, Jan (2002). The Noun Phrase. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rijkhoff, Jan (2008). Layers, levels and contexts in Functional Discourse Grammar. In: Jan Rijkhoff and Daniel García Velasco, eds, (2008). The Noun Phrase in F(D)G. Trends in Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 63-115. Searle, John (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Strawson, Peter F. (1950). On referring. In Peter F. Strawson (1971), Logico-linguistic Papers, London: Methuen, 1-27. Strawson, Peter F. (1959). Individuals. London: Methuen.

More Related