informational articulations in functional discourse grammar kees hengeveld aclc -university of...

Informational articulations in Functional Discourse

Grammar

Kees HengeveldACLC -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

4

Contents

1. Functional Discourse Grammar2. Pragmatic functions3. Informational articulations 4. The typology of informational

articulations5. Conclusion

Functional Discourse Grammar

6

Features

1. Top-down rather than bottom up grammar

2. Discourse rather than sentence grammar3. Grammatical component connected to

conceptual, contextual and output components

4. Four levels of representation: pragmatic, semantic, morphosyntactic, and phonological

7

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

8

2. Discourse grammar

• Many grammatical phenomena can only be interpreted in terms of units larger than individual sentences: narrative constructions, discourse particles, anaphorical chains, tail-head linkage, etc.

• Many utterances are non-sentential: holophrases, exclamations, vocatives, etc.

9


... turus jafa cahisaloi ena=ge

... then Jafa carry.on.the.back basket3.NH=there turus ena=ge paka ine. then 3.NH=there ascend go.upwards

Ine una 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)

10


Non-sentential utterances:• Holophrases:

(What are you eating?) A donut.• Exclamations:

Congratulations!• Vocatives

Oh John!

11


• 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

12

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

13

4. Levels of representation

Interpersonal level1. A. Get out of here!

B. Don’t talk to me like that !Representational level2. A. There are lots of traffic lights in this

town.B. I didn’t notice that.

14


Morphosyntactic level3. 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/ ?

15


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.

Conceptual Component

Contextual

Component

Articulation

Expression Level

Prosodic Contours,Sounds

Frames, Lexemes, Operators

Templates, Grammatical elements

Pragmatics, Semantics

Formulation

Encoding

Morphosyntax, Phonology

Grammar

Output

18

Levels and Layers

• Interpersonal (A1: [(FI: ILL (FI)) (P1)S (P2)A (C1: [(T1) (R1)] (C1))] (A1))

• Representational(p1: (ep1: [(e1: [(f1) (x1)] (e1))] (ep1)) (p1))

• Morphosyntactic(Le1: [(Cl1: [(Xw1) (Xp1: [Xw2 (Xp2)] (Xp1))] (Cl1))] (Le1))

• Phonological(U1: [(IP1: [(PP1: [(PW1)] (PP1))] (IP1))n] (U1))

19

Levels and primitives

(id RI)

(prox m xi: [(fi: /bə’nɑ:nə/N (fi)) (xi)Φ])

(Npi: [(Gwi: this-pl (Gwi)) (Nwi: /bə’nɑ:nə/-pl (Nwi ))] (Npi))

(ppi: [(pwi: /ði:z/ (pwi)) (pwj: /bə’nɑ:nəz/ (pwj))] (ppi))

I like these bananas.

Pragmatic functions

Pragmatic functions

Three dimensions:

Topic vs CommentFocus vs BackgroundContrast vs Overlap

21

Pragmatic functions

Marked members:

Topic vs CommentFocus vs BackgroundContrast vs Overlap

22

Pragmatic functions: Topic

Gol-a-ro mæhin ab dad.flower-PL-TOP Mahin water

gave'Mahin watered the flowers.'

Persian, Mahootian 1997: 122

23

Pragmatic functions: Focus

Ndu-nde takhim-gende?sago-FOC buy-3PL.PRS.FINAL'They buy sago.'

Wambon, de Vries 1985: 172

24

Pragmatic functions: Contrast

Ao po:-lә te tam ja:h-si-uli-zya.

thisplace-in CONTR wheat put-DETR-NMLbe-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

(A1: [(FI: ILL (FI)) (P1)S (P2)A (C1: [(T1)FOC (R1)TOP ] (C1))] (A1))

26

Pragmatic functions

May attach to referential and ascriptive subacts:

(C1: [(T1) (R1)TOP] (C1))

(C1: [(T1)TOP (R1)] (C1))

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


(C1: [(T1) (R1)FOC] (C1))

(C1: [(T1)FOC (R1)] (C1))

29

Pragmatic functions: Focus

Se vini Jan mèt vini.FOC come Jan may come‘Jan may come.’

Haitian Creole, Glaude fc.

30

Pragmatic functions


(C1: [(T1) (R1)CONTR] (C1))

(C1: [(T1)CONTR (R1)] (C1))

31

Pragmatic functions: Contrast

Ma-nɪ-[υ kabiyɛ kɪ [ nɪ-[υ, 1.SG-understand-IMPF Kabiye KI

understand-INF ma-a yɔɔd-υ kυ1SG-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/ContrastTopic/ContrastFocus/TopicFocus/Topic/Contrastetc

33

Pragmatic functions

Combining pragmatic functions

Presentatives:

(C1: [(R1)FOC/TOP] (C1))

34

Pragmatic functions: Focus/Topic

Hiza=hayza’ ila koSa’en kaSaiSiyat.

there=EX PFVPAUS NOMSaisiyat

‘Once there were Saisiyats.’

Saisiyat (Hsieh & Huang 2006: 100):

35

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


Smit (2010) therefore proposes to introduce Topic and Comment layers within Communicated Contents:

(C1: [(Top1) (Cm1)]) ‘Transitive frame’

(C1: [(Top1)]) ‘Intransitive frame’

(C1: [ (Cm1)]) ‘Intransitive frame’

38


The Topic and Comment layers themselves contain Referential and or Ascriptive Subacts, e.g.:

(C1: [(Top1: [(R1)]) (Cm1: [(T1) (R2)])])

‘The butcher sells veal chops.’

39


A focus operator can be added to the Topic layer, the Comment layer, a Referential Subact or an Ascriptive Subact.

(C1: [(Top1: [(R1)]) (Cm1: [(T1) (R2)])])

‘The butcher sells veal chops.’

40


Focus assignment to a Referential Subact or an Ascriptive Subact leads to identificational focus, e.g.

(C1: [(Top1: [(R1)]) (Cm1: [(T1) (Foc R2)])])

(What does the butcher sell?)‘The butcher sells veal chops.’

41


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

42


43

Focal Topic Focal Comment

One-place

Topic-central Thetic

Comment-central Thetic

Two-place

Topic-central Categorical

Comment-central Categorical


44

Focal Topic Focal Comment

One-place

Focal TopicNo Comment

No TopicFocal Comment

Two-place

Focal TopicComment

TopicFocal Comment


Topic-central Thetic (presentative)(C1: [(Foc Top1)])

Comment-central Thetic (thetic)(C1: [(Foc Cm1)])

Topic-central Categorical (C1: [(Foc Top1) (Cm1)])

Comment-central Categorical (Categorical)(C1: [(Top1) (Foc Cm1)])

45

Topic-central Thetic

(C1: [(Foc Top1)])

Introduction of new topic

There is beer without alcohol

46

Comment-central Thetic

(C1: [(Foc Cm1)])

All new discourse act

(What happened?)A train arrived.

47

Comment-central categorical

(C1: [(Top1) (Foc Cm1)])

Focal comment about a given topic

(What did he do?)He put his house on fire.

48

Topic-central categorical

(C1: [(Foc Top1) (Cm1)])

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

54

3 Focal Topic Focal Comment

One-place



Two-place

Focal TopicComment

TopicFocal Comment

Two-place strategy

55


One-place



Two-place

Focal TopicComment

TopicFocal Comment

Topic strategy

56


One-place



Two-place

Focal TopicComment

TopicFocal Comment

Comment strategy

57


One-place



Two-place

Focal TopicComment

TopicFocal Comment

Focal Topic strategy

58


One-place



Two-place

Focal TopicComment

TopicFocal Comment

Focal Comment strategy

59


One-place



Two-place

Focal TopicComment

TopicFocal Comment

??? strategy

60


One-place



Two-place

Focal TopicComment

TopicFocal Comment

??? strategy

61


One-place



Two-place

Focal TopicComment

TopicFocal Comment

??? strategy

62


One-place



Two-place

Focal TopicComment

TopicFocal Comment

??? strategy

63

4 ? Focal Topic Focal Comment

One-place



Two-place

Focal TopicComment

TopicFocal Comment

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

http://www.keeshengeveld.nl/

informational articulations in functional discourse grammar kees hengeveld aclc -university of...

Documents