Informational articulations in Functional Discourse Grammar Kees Hengeveld

Informational articulations in Functional Discourse Grammar Kees Hengeveld ACLC -University of Amsterdam

Introduction Functional Discourse Grammar accounts for categories of information structure through the assignment of pragmatic functions to referential and predicational units These pragmatic functions are organized along three parameters: Topic-Comment, Focus. Background, and Contrast-Overlap 2

Introduction Functions chosen along each of these parameters may be combined These combinations allow for a systematic definition of informational articulations, which characterize the overall information structure of a Discourse Act The variation in the ways language express these informational articulations can be described systematically on the basis of the parameters that define them 3

Contents 1. Functional Discourse Grammar 2. Pragmatic functions 3. Informational articulations 4. The typology of informational articulations 5. Conclusion 4

Functional Discourse Grammar

Features 1. Top-down rather than bottom up grammar 2. Discourse rather than sentence grammar 3. Grammatical component connected to conceptual, contextual and output components 4. Four levels of representation: pragmatic, semantic, morphosyntactic, and phonological 6

1. Top-down • Assumption: a model of grammar is more effective the more its organization resembles language processing in the individual • Language production is a top down process, starting with intentions, working down to the articulation of the actual linguistic expression • The grammatical production model reflects this process and is organized in a top-down fashion 7

2. Discourse grammar • • Many grammatical phenomena can only be interpreted in terms of units larger than individual sentences: narrative constructions, discourse particles, anaphorical chains, tailhead linkage, etc. Many utterances are non-sentential: holophrases, exclamations, vocatives, etc. 8

2. Discourse grammar. . . turus jafa. . . then Jafa cahi saloi carry. on. the. back basket 3. NH=there turus ena=ge paka then 3. NH=there ascend Ine ena=ge una ine. go. upwards oka koi. . . go. upwards 3. SG. M pick banana '. . . then Jafa carried the saloi and went upwards. Went upwards he picked the bananas. . . ‘ Tidore (van Staden 2000: 275) 9

2. Discourse grammar Non-sentential utterances: • Holophrases: (What are you eating? ) A donut. • Exclamations: Congratulations! • Vocatives Oh John! 10

2. Discourse grammar • The basic unit of discourse is not the sentence but the discourse act • Discourse acts combine into moves, which in turn may enter into larger discourse structures • Discourse acts may be manifested in language as sentences, but also as sentence fragments, phrases or words 11

3. Conceptual, contextual and output components • Conceptual component is the driving force behind the grammatical component • Contextual component is the discourse domain on the basis of which new utterances are produced in the grammatical component • Output component generates acoustic, signed, or orthographic expressions on the basis of information provided by the grammatical component 12

4. Levels of representation Interpersonal level 1. A. Get out of here! B. Don’t talk to me like that ! Representational level 2. A. There are lots of traffic lights in this town. B. I didn’t notice that. 13

4. Levels of representation Morphosyntactic level 3. A. I had chuletas de cordero last night. B. Is that how you say ‘lamb chops’ in Spanish? Phonological level 4. A. I had /tʃuletɑs#de#kordero/ last night. B. Shouldn’t that be /tʃuletɑs#de#θordero/ ? 14

4. Levels of representation Interpersonal level: pragmatics. Representational level: semantics. Morphosyntactic level: morphosyntax. Phonological level: phonology. All levels are purely linguistic in nature: they describe language in terms of its functions, but only in so far as these functions are encoded in the grammar of a language. 15

Conceptual Component G r a m m a r O u t p u t Frames, Lexemes, Operators Templates, Grammatical elements Prosodic Contours, Sounds Formulation Pragmatics, Semantics Encoding Morphosyntax, Phonology Articulation Expression Level C o n t e x t u a l C o m p o n e n t

Conceptual Component G r a m m a r O u t p u t Frames, Lexemes, Operators Templates, Grammatical elements Prosodic Contours, Sounds Formulation Pragmatics, Semantics Encoding Morphosyntax, Phonology Articulation Expression Level C o n t e x t u a l C o m p o n e n t

Levels and Layers • Interpersonal (A 1: [(FI: ILL (FI)) (P 1)S (P 2)A (C 1: [(T 1) (R 1)] (C 1))] (A 1)) • Representational (p 1: (ep 1: [(e 1: [(f 1) (x 1)] (e 1))] (ep 1)) (p 1)) • Morphosyntactic (Le 1: [(Cl 1: [(Xw 1) (Xp 1: [Xw 2 (Xp 2)] (Xp 1))] (Cl 1))] (Le 1)) • Phonological (U 1: [(IP 1: [(PW 1)] (PP 1))] (IP 1))n] (U 1)) 18

Levels and primitives I like these bananas. (id RI) (prox m xi: [(fi: /bə’nɑ: nə/N (fi)) (xi)Φ]) (Npi: [(Gwi: this-pl (Gwi)) (Nwi: /bə’nɑ: nə/-pl (Nwi ))] (Np)) i (ppi: [(pwi: /ði: z/ (pwi)) (pwj: /bə’nɑ: nəz/ (pwj))] (ppi)) 19

Pragmatic functions

Pragmatic functions Three dimensions: Topic vs Comment Focus vs Background Contrast vs Overlap 21

Pragmatic functions Marked members: Topic vs Comment Focus vs Background Contrast vs Overlap 22

Pragmatic functions: Topic Gol-a-ro mæhin ab flower-PL-TOP Mahin water 'Mahin watered the flowers. ' dad. gave Persian, Mahootian 1997: 122 23

Pragmatic functions: Focus Ndu-nde takhim-gende? sago-FOC buy-3 PL. PRS. FINAL 'They buy sago. ' Wambon, de Vries 1985: 172 24

Pragmatic functions: Contrast Ao po: -lә te tam ja: h-si-u li-zya. this place-in CONTR wheat put-DETR-NML be. CNT 'In this place (as opposed to others) wheat has been sown. ' Kham, Watters 2002: 183 25

Pragmatic functions Domain: Communicated Content at the Interpersonal Level (A 1: [(FI: ILL (FI)) (P 1)S (P 2)A (C 1: [(T 1)FOC (R 1)TOP ] (C 1))] (A 1)) 26

Pragmatic functions May attach to referential and ascriptive subacts: (C 1: [(T 1) (R 1)TOP] (C 1)) (C 1: [(T 1)TOP (R 1)] (C 1)) 27

Pragmatic functions: Topic Llov-er no lluev-e. rain-INF NEG rain-PRS. 3. SG. IND ‘It doesn’t rain here. ’ “Rain it doesn’t rain. ” Spanish 28

Pragmatic functions May attach to referential and ascriptive subacts: (C 1: [(T 1) (R 1)FOC] (C 1)) (C 1: [(T 1)FOC (R 1)] (C 1)) 29

Pragmatic functions: Focus Se vini Jan mèt vini. FOC come Jan may come ‘Jan may come. ’ Haitian Creole, Glaude fc. 30

Pragmatic functions May attach to referential and ascriptive subacts: (C 1: [(T 1) (R 1)CONTR] (C 1)) (C 1: [(T 1)CONTR (R 1)] (C 1)) 31

Pragmatic functions: Contrast Ma-nɪ- υ kabiyɛ kɪ nɪ- υ, 1. SG-understand-IMPF Kabiye KI understand. INF ma-a yɔɔd-υ kυ 1 SG-NEG speak-IMPF it ‘I only understand Kabiye. I don’t speak it. ’ Kabiye, Collins & Essizewa 2007: 191 Functional Discourse Grammar 32

Pragmatic functions Combining pragmatic functions Focus/Contrast Topic/Contrast Focus/Topic/Contrast etc 33

Pragmatic functions Combining pragmatic functions Presentatives: (C 1: [(R 1)FOC/TOP] (C 1)) 34

Pragmatic functions: Focus/Topic Hiza=hayza’ ila ko. Sa’en ka Sai. Siyat. there=EX PFVPAUS NOM Saisiyat ‘Once there were Saisiyats. ’ Saisiyat (Hsieh & Huang 2006: 100): 35

Informational articulations

Informational articulations Presentatives show that a Discourse Act may consist of just a Topic and not have a Comment The opposite is also true, in that a Discourse Act may consist of just a Comment and not have a Topic, as in the case of Thetics This means that there is ‘transitivity’ involved in informational articulations 37

Informational articulations Smit (2010) therefore proposes to introduce Topic and Comment layers within Communicated Contents: (C 1: [(Top 1) (Cm 1)]) (C 1: [(Top 1)]) (C 1: [ (Cm 1)]) ‘Transitive frame’ ‘Intransitive frame’ 38

Informational articulations The Topic and Comment layers themselves contain Referential and or Ascriptive Subacts, e. g. : (C 1: [(Top 1: [(R 1)]) (Cm 1: [(T 1) (R 2)])]) ‘The butcher sells veal chops. ’ 39

Informational articulations A focus operator can be added to the Topic layer, the Comment layer, a Referential Subact or an Ascriptive Subact. (C 1: [(Top 1: [(R 1)]) (Cm 1: [(T 1) (R 2)])]) ‘The butcher sells veal chops. ’ 40

Informational articulations Focus assignment to a Referential Subact or an Ascriptive Subact leads to identificational focus, e. g. (C 1: [(Top 1: [(R 1)]) (Cm 1: [(T 1) (Foc R 2)])]) (What does the butcher sell? ) ‘The butcher sells veal chops. ’ 41

Informational articulations Focus assignment to the Topic or the Comment layer, combined with the transitive ofrintransitive nature of the frame, leads to four possible combinations: 42

Informational articulations Focal Topic One-place Topic-central Thetic Two-place Topic-central Categorical Focal Comment-central Thetic Comment-central Categorical 43

Informational articulations Focal Topic One-place Focal Topic No Comment Two-place Focal Topic Comment Focal Comment No Topic Focal Comment 44

Informational articulations Topic-central Thetic (presentative) (C 1: [(Foc Top 1)]) Comment-central Thetic (thetic) (C 1: [(Foc Cm 1)]) Topic-central Categorical (C 1: [(Foc Top 1) (Cm 1)]) Comment-central Categorical (Categorical) (C 1: [(Top 1) (Foc Cm 1)]) 45

Topic-central Thetic (C 1: [(Foc Top 1)]) Introduction of new topic There is beer without alcohol 46

Comment-central Thetic (C 1: [(Foc Cm 1)]) All new discourse act (What happened? ) A train arrived. 47

Comment-central categorical (C 1: [(Top 1) (Foc Cm 1)]) Focal comment about a given topic (What did he do? ) He put his house on fire. 48

Topic-central categorical (C 1: [(Foc Top 1) (Cm 1)]) Introduction of new topic and ensuing comment within the same discourse act (no previous mention of ‘fire’). . . and the fire it burned 49

Topic-central categorical Often avoided and realized in two discourse acts As for the fire, it burned 50

The typology of informational articulations

Typology Based on the various parameters involved, informational articulation can be (dis)similar in various respects The expectation is that when they are similar, they may share the same expression strategy, but when they are dissimilar, they may not 52

Typology This leads to interesting results, presented in Smit (2010) He classifies 82 coding strategies from 15 languages. 34 of these coding strategies express more then 1 informational articulation These cases distribute as follows: 53

One-place strategy 3 Focal Topic One-place Focal Topic No Comment Two-place Focal Topic Comment Focal Comment No Topic Focal Comment 54

Two-place strategy 7 Focal Topic One-place Focal Topic No Comment Two-place Focal Topic Comment Focal Comment No Topic Focal Comment 55

Topic strategy 4 Focal Topic One-place Focal Topic No Comment Two-place Focal Topic Comment Focal Comment No Topic Focal Comment 56

Comment strategy 4 Focal Topic One-place Focal Topic No Comment Two-place Focal Topic Comment Focal Comment No Topic Focal Comment 57

Focal Topic strategy 6 Focal Topic One-place Focal Topic No Comment Two-place Focal Topic Comment Focal Comment No Topic Focal Comment 58

Focal Comment strategy 6 Focal Topic One-place Focal Topic No Comment Two-place Focal Topic Comment Focal Comment No Topic Focal Comment 59

? ? ? strategy 0 Focal Topic One-place Focal Topic No Comment Two-place Focal Topic Comment Focal Comment No Topic Focal Comment 60

? ? ? strategy 0 Focal Topic One-place Focal Topic No Comment Two-place Focal Topic Comment Focal Comment No Topic Focal Comment 61

? ? ? strategy 0 Focal Topic One-place Focal Topic No Comment Two-place Focal Topic Comment Focal Comment No Topic Focal Comment 62

? ? ? strategy 4? Focal Topic One-place Focal Topic No Comment Two-place Focal Topic Comment Focal Comment No Topic Focal Comment 63

Conclusions

Conclusions FDG offers the tools to systematically define a number of informational articulations by combining three parameters of information structuring These informational articulations allows for typological generalizations concerning the extent to which the same coding strategy may be used for the expression of combinations of articulations 65

This presentation can be downloaded from www. keeshengeveld. nl