Article published In: The dynamicity of communication below, around and above the clause:
Edited by Ben Clarke and Jorge Arús-Hita
[English Text Construction 9:1] 2016
► pp. 56–76
Dynamicity and dialogue
Perspectives from Functional Discourse Grammar
Published online: 30 June 2016
https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.9.1.04mac
https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.9.1.04mac
The article surveys how Functional Discourse Grammar (FDG; Hengeveld & Mackenzie 2008) has responded to Simon Dik’s call for a functional grammar to have ‘psychological adequacy’ and draws parallels to similar initiatives from other approaches. After a brief history of what has later come to be known as cognitive adequacy, the impact of psycholinguistic notions on the architecture of FDG is discussed and exemplified with emphasis on how FDG confronts the tension between the static nature of a pattern model of grammar and the dynamicity of the communicative process. The article then turns to four ways in which FDG has responded in recent years to ongoing work in psycholinguistics. The first concerns how the incrementality of language production, i.e. the gradual earlier-to-later build-up of utterances, has inspired FDG’s coverage of fragmentary discourse acts and its Depth-First Principle. The second, pertaining to the role of prediction in language comprehension, is reflected in the countdown to a clause-final position PF. The third is priming, involving the reuse of elements of structure at all levels of analysis: this interferes with the mapping of function onto form in ways that have been explored in FDG. The fourth is dialogical alignment, the manner in which participants in dialogue mutually accommodate their language use; this has led to new understandings of the respective roles of FDG’s Conceptual and Contextual Components. Taken together, these developments have moved FDG towards modelling dialoguing interactants rather than an isolated speaker.
References (63)
Acuña Fariña, Juan Carlos. 2005. Aspects of the relationship between theories of grammar and theories of processing. Atlantis 271: 11–27.
Antony, Louise M. 2003. Rabbit-pots and supernovas: On the relevance of psychological data to linguistic theory. In Epistemology of Language, Alex Barber (ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 47–68.
Auer, Peter. 2009. On-line syntax: Thoughts on the temporality of spoken language. Language Sciences 311: 1–13.
Bakker, Dik. 2005. Agreement: More arguments for the dynamic expression model. In Morphosyntactic Expression in Functional Grammar, Casper de Groot & Kees Hengeveld (eds). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1–40.
Bakker, Dik & Anna Siewierska. 2004. Towards a speaker model of Functional Grammar. In A New Architecture for Functional Grammar, J. Lachlan Mackenzie & María de los Ángeles Gómez González (eds). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 325–364.
Black, Maria & Shulamuth Chiat. 1981. Psycholinguistics without ‘psychological reality’. Linguistics 191: 37–61.
Bock, J. Kathryn. 1982. Toward a cognitive psychology of syntax: Information processing contributions to sentence formulation. Psychological Review 891: 1–47.
Butler, Christopher S. 2007. Notes towards an incremental implementation of the Role and Reference Grammar semantics-to-syntax linking algorithm for English. In Structural-Functional Studies in English Grammar, Mike Hannay & Gerard J. Steen (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 275–307.
. 2013. A reappraisal of the functional enterprise, with particular reference to Functional Discourse Grammar. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 671: 13–42.
Butler, Christopher S. & Francisco Gonzálvez-García. 2014. Exploring Functional-Cognitive Space. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Cann, Ronnie, Ruth Kempson & Lutz Marten. 2005. The Dynamics of Language: An Introduction. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Clark, Andy. 2013. Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36 (3): 181–204.
Connolly, John H. 2014. The contextual component within a dynamic implementation of the FDG model: Structure and interaction. Pragmatics 24 (2): 229–248.
Cornish, Francis. 2013. On the dual nature of the Functional Discourse Grammar model: Context, the language system/language use distinction, and indexical reference in discourse. Language Sciences 381: 83–98.
. 1990. How to build a natural language user. In Working with Functional Grammar: Descriptive and Computational Applications, Mike Hannay & Elseline Vester (eds). Dordrecht and Providence RI: Foris, 203–227.
Ferreira, Victor S. & J. Kathryn Bock. 2006. The functions of structural priming. Language and Cognitive Processes 211: 1011–1029.
Firbas, Jan. 1959. More thoughts on the communicative function of the English verb. Sborník Prací Filozofické Fakulty Brněnské University A71: 74–98.
. 1992. Functional Sentence Perspective in Written and Spoken Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fortescue, Michael. 2004. The complementarity of the process and product interpretations of Functional Grammar. In A New Architecture for Functional Grammar, J. Lachlan Mackenzie & María de los Ángeles Gómez González (eds). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 151–178.
Giomi, Riccardo. 2014. Grammar, context and the hearer: A proposal for an addressee-oriented model of Functional Discourse Grammar. Pragmatics 24 (2): 275–296.
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Universals of Grammar, Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.). Cambridge: MIT Press, 73–113.
Grice, H. Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, Peter Cole & Jerry Morgan (eds). New York: Academic Press, 41–58.
Halle, Morris, Joan Bresnan & George Miller (eds). 1981. Linguistic Theory and Psychological Reality. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Hasson, Uri, Asif A. Ghazanfar, Bruno Galantucci, Simon Garrod & Christian Keysers. 2012. Brain-to-brain coupling: A mechanism for creating and sharing a social world. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 16 (2): 114–121.
Hengeveld, Kees. 2005. Dynamic expression in Functional Discourse Grammar. In Morphosyntactic Expression in Functional Grammar, Casper de Groot & Kees Hengeveld (eds). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 53–86.
Hengeveld, Kees & J. Lachlan Mackenzie. 2008. Functional Discourse Grammar: A Typologically-Based Theory of Language Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
. 2014. Grammar and context in Functional Discourse Grammar. Pragmatics 24 (2): 203–227.
. 2014. The active-passive alternation in English. Pragmatics 24 (2): 399–423.
Kempen, Gerard & Karin Harbusch. 2002. Performance Grammar: A declarative definition. In Computational Linguistics in the Netherlands 2001, Anton Nijholt, Mariët Theune & Hendrik Hondorp (eds). Amsterdam: Rodopi, 148–162.
Mackenzie, J. Lachlan. 2005. Incremental Functional Grammar and the language of football commentary. In The Dynamics of Language Use: Functional and Contrastive Perspectives, Christopher S. Butler, María de los Ángeles Gómez-González & Susana Doval-Suárez (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 113–128.
. 2010. More tiles on the roof: Further thoughts on incremental language production. In Language Usage and Language Structure, Kasper Boye & Elizabeth Engberg-Pedersen (eds). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 263–293.
. 2011. The study of semantic alternations in a dialogic Functional Discourse Grammar. In Morphosyntactic Alternations in English: Functional and Cognitive Perspectives, Pilar Guerrero Medina (ed.). London: Equinox, 38–61.
. 2012. Cognitive adequacy in a dialogic Functional Discourse Grammar. Language Sciences 341: 421–432.
. 2014. The contextual component in a dialogic FDG. Pragmatics 24 (2): 249–273.
Nuyts, Jan. 1992. Aspects of a Cognitive-Pragmatic Theory of Language: On Cognition, Functionalism, and Grammar. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
O’Grady, Gerard. 2012. A Grammar of Spoken English Discourse: The Intonation of Increments. London, New York, New Delhi and Sydney: Bloomsbury.
O’Grady, William. 2005. Syntactic Carpentry: An Emergentist Approach to Syntax. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Pickering, Martin J. & Victor S. Ferreira. 2008. Structural priming: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin 134 (1): 427–459.
Pickering, Martin J. & Steven Garrod. 2004. Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 271: 169–226.
. 2011. The use of prediction to drive alignment in dialogue. In Grounding Sociality: Neurons, Mind, and Culture, Gün R. Semin & Gerald Echterhoff (eds). New York: Psychology Press, 175–191.
Riley, Michael A., Michael J. Richardson, Kevin Shockley & Verónica C. Ramenzoni. 2011. Interpersonal synergies. Frontiers in Psychology 2 (38). (Last accessed on 11 June 2015).
Sapir, Edward. 1933. La réalité psychologique des phonèmes. Journal de Psychologie Normale et Pathologique 301: 247–265.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1987. Recycled turn beginnings: A precise repair mechanism in conversation’s turn-taking organisation. In Talk and Social Organisation, Graham Button & John R.E. Lee (eds). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 70–85.
Sinclair, John McH. & Anna Mauranen. 2006. Linear Unit Grammar. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Tanaka, Hiroko. 2000. Turn-projection in Japanese talk-in-interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction 331: 1–38.
