informational articulations in functional discourse grammar
DESCRIPTION
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 - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Informational articulations in Functional Discourse
GrammarKees 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
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 grammar2. 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
2. Discourse grammar
... 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.upwardsIne una oka koi ...go.upwards 3.SG.M pickbanana
'...then Jafa carried the saloi and went upwards. Went upwards he picked the bananas ...‘
Tidore (van Staden 2000: 275)
10
2. Discourse grammar
Non-sentential utterances:• Holophrases:
(What are you eating?) A donut.• Exclamations:
Congratulations!• Vocatives
Oh John!
11
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
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
4. Levels of representation
Morphosyntactic level3. A. I had chuletas de cordero last night.
B. Is that how you say ‘lamb chops’ in Spanish?
Phonological level4. A. I had /tʃuletɑs#de#kordero/ last night.
B. Shouldn’t that be /tʃuletɑs#de#θordero/ ?
15
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.
Conceptual Component
ContextualComponent
Articulation
Expression Level
Prosodic Contours,Sounds
Frames, Lexemes, Operators
Templates, Grammatical elements
Pragmatics, Semantics
Formulation
Encoding
Morphosyntax, Phonology
Grammar
Output
Conceptual Component
ContextualComponent
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
May attach to referential and ascriptive subacts:
(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
May attach to referential and ascriptive subacts:
(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 PFV PAUS NOMSaisiyat
‘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:
(C1: [(Top1) (Cm1)]) ‘Transitive frame’(C1: [(Top1)]) ‘Intransitive frame’(C1: [ (Cm1)]) ‘Intransitive frame’
38
Informational articulations
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
Informational articulations
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
Informational articulations
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
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
43
Focal Topic Focal CommentOne-place
Topic-central Thetic
Comment-central Thetic
Two-place
Topic-central Categorical
Comment-central Categorical
Informational articulations
44
Focal Topic Focal CommentOne-place
Focal TopicNo Comment
No TopicFocal Comment
Two-place
Focal TopicComment
TopicFocal Comment
Informational articulations
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 CommentOne-place
Focal TopicNo Comment
No TopicFocal Comment
Two-place
Focal TopicComment
TopicFocal Comment
Two-place strategy
55
7 Focal Topic Focal CommentOne-place
Focal TopicNo Comment
No TopicFocal Comment
Two-place
Focal TopicComment
TopicFocal Comment
Topic strategy
56
4 Focal Topic Focal CommentOne-place
Focal TopicNo Comment
No TopicFocal Comment
Two-place
Focal TopicComment
TopicFocal Comment
Comment strategy
57
4 Focal Topic Focal CommentOne-place
Focal TopicNo Comment
No TopicFocal Comment
Two-place
Focal TopicComment
TopicFocal Comment
Focal Topic strategy
58
6 Focal Topic Focal CommentOne-place
Focal TopicNo Comment
No TopicFocal Comment
Two-place
Focal TopicComment
TopicFocal Comment
Focal Comment strategy
59
6 Focal Topic Focal CommentOne-place
Focal TopicNo Comment
No TopicFocal Comment
Two-place
Focal TopicComment
TopicFocal Comment
??? strategy
60
0 Focal Topic Focal CommentOne-place
Focal TopicNo Comment
No TopicFocal Comment
Two-place
Focal TopicComment
TopicFocal Comment
??? strategy
61
0 Focal Topic Focal CommentOne-place
Focal TopicNo Comment
No TopicFocal Comment
Two-place
Focal TopicComment
TopicFocal Comment
??? strategy
62
0 Focal Topic Focal CommentOne-place
Focal TopicNo Comment
No TopicFocal Comment
Two-place
Focal TopicComment
TopicFocal Comment
??? strategy
63
4 ? Focal Topic Focal CommentOne-place
Focal TopicNo Comment
No TopicFocal Comment
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