At this point he introduced three additional standards of adequacy for grammatical theo- ries, which subsequently have also been accepted in other functional ap- proaches to grammar e. Van Valin and LaPolla 8 : pragmatic, psychological and typological adequacy. Undoubtedly, the standard of ty- pological adequacy has been satisfied to a greater extent than the other two, as many FG publications contain references to studies on a wide variety of linguistic phenomena in languages from many different families, which have had a considerable influence on the general architecture of the model.
This strong commitment to typology continues to be an important hallmark of FDG. There is little doubt that FG has been less successful in its aim to be- come a theory of grammar that is also pragmatically and psychologically adequate Butler ; , and to some extent this has motivated the birth of FDG. As for psychological adequacy, which roughly requires the theory to be compatible with well-established findings in the field of psycholinguis- tics, let us simply say that the number of studies in FG that make reference to the results of psycholinguistic research is extremely limited, which means that the theory has remained untested from a psycholinguistic point of view.
Thus, on the one hand FDG can be seen as a continuation of FG, on the other hand the original model as conceived by Dik has been restructured in such a way that it is better equipped to meet the standards of adequacy mentioned above. So even though FDG shares certain features with its predecessor FG, the differences are substantial enough to say that it offers a new research programme in the linguistic landscape. Next we will examine the differences between the two models under the headings sentence grammar vs. Sentence grammar vs.
Nevertheless, in reality FG has mostly concentrated on the analysis of the internal organiza- tion of single, isolated sentences. In fact, this development was already anticipated in the first presentation of the theory, when Dik 15 stated: FG is meant to cover any type of linguistic expression …. It is thus not re- stricted to the internal structure of sentences, inasmuch as there are combi- nations of sentences related by syntactic and semantic rules. This is arguably an important drawback, which, according to Siewierska 2 makes FG amenable to the attacks of both formalists and functionalists alike.
It seems, then, that over the years FG has re-interpreted its commit- ment to the study of language-in-use towards developing a grammatical theory that is merely compatible with a model of verbal interaction. The need for a more serious treatment of discourse phenomena in FG and a greater integration of grammar the rules and pragmatics when to apply these rules into the theory was especially strongly felt in the late nineties see the papers in Hannay and Bolkestein eds.
Essentially, this set the pillars for the new architecture of the model, since traits of both approaches can be found in FDG. Significantly, in his presentation of FDG, Hengeveld a notes that a considerable number of grammatical phenomena relate to units that are either larger or smaller than the clause and for that reason cannot be ade- quately described by a sentence grammar. In particular, he argues that FDG must account for the fact that a quite a few verbal exchanges are not real- ized in the form of fully-fledged sentences, but rather in the form of frag- ments, or, generally speaking, non-clausal linguistic units Mackenzie a.
- Secrets of a Working Dog: Unleash Your Potential and Create Success.
- Dusty the Church Dog:and other sightings of the gospel.
- Bestselling Series.
- The Expression of Possession : William McGregor : .
- Reincarnation of Julie.
- ISBN 13: 9783110184372.
- Chapter 48, A Cross-Country Perspective on the Causes of the Global Financial Crisis.
The following utterances are examples of non-sentential discourse acts: 1 a. A pen. To the market. The expression in 1a may act as a vocative or address in order to initiate a verbal interaction, whereas 1b and 1c can serve as natural replies to a question. At the same time, there are linguistic phenomena that relate to the orga- nization of connected discourse and extend their influence over several sentences. In his chapters on the representation of discourse, Dik b cites a number of phenomena that serve to establish coherence relations.
These include iconic sequencing, topic continuity, focus assignment and tail-head linkage, which is here illustrated with an example from Kombai adapted from De Vries : 2 a. DS year one finished. Khumolei-n-a ifamano. Such cases show even better that tail-head linkage can only be properly handled by a grammatical theory that goes beyond the boundaries of a traditional sentence grammar.
You may also be interested in...
As noted by Anstey 45 , this adds to the pragmatic-centricity of the model as opposed to the predicate-centricity of FG. In this respect FDG differs from most contemporary grammatical theories, which see the lexicon as the point of departure in the generation of linguistic structures. Conceptualization in- volves the creation of a communicative intention and the construction of preverbal message, i.
The process of Formulation translates this preverbal conceptual structure into a linguistic structure Levelt 11 and Articulation in- volves the execution of an acoustic plan by means of the appropriate physiological organs. All three components have a place in the FDG model, as can be seen in Figure 1 cf. Conceptual Component, Formulation and Articulation. Figure 1 shows that there are four major modules in the organization of FDG: the conceptual, the contextual, the grammatical and the output com- ponents.
Hengeveld b: emphasizes that the conceptual compo- nent is the trigger for the grammatical component to operate. In his view, the conceptual component is responsible for two types of processes: the development of a communicative intention, which has a direct link with the interpersonal level in the grammar see 1. As the dynamics of discourse unfold, the contextual component receives information from the grammatical component and provides the conceptual component with data that are potentially relevant for the creation of new communicative intentions and conceptualizations.
One could say that it is of the major functions of the contextual component to connect the grammatical compo- nent with the other modules. However, given the fact that FDG attempts to understand the structure of discourse acts as reflections of different kinds of knowledge deployed by the natural language user J. Lachlan Mackenzie, personal communication , rather than just the speaker, the output may take different forms of expression written, signed or spoken signs. It is important to emphasize that the conceptual, the contextual and the output components are not part of the grammatical component Hengeveld and Mackenzie Formulation means that at this point pragmatic and semantic representations are being produced; the two Encoding stages indicate where morphosyntactic and phonological representations in that order are being generated.
Each op- eration has of its own set of primitives in the form of frames, templates and operators among others. Although primitives are assumed to be language- specific the lexemes of a language are perhaps the most obvious examples of language-dependent primitives , FDG aims at discovering significant cross-linguistic generalizations and hierarchies, which can predict the num- ber and type of frames and templates that a language employs on the basis of a limited set of parameters. Unlike FG, the four levels of representation are independently organized and relate to one another through mapping rules, signified by arrows.
One of the features of FG that is preserved in FDG concerns the use of hierar- chical layered representations to account for differences in scope. In the next section we will discuss the internal organization of each level in the grammatical component in more detail. The discussion of layering, how- ever, has been postponed to section 2. T1 R Moves are the grammatical realization of communicative intentions invitations, proposals, requests, etc.
Mackenzie argues that the expression in 5 contains one move, but three discourse acts, and can thus be represented as in 6. These variables, which were absent in FG, make it possible to distinguish between semantic entities and the pragmatic functions of reference and predication or ascription. I just talked to a carpenter. My neighbour is a carpenter. The two NPs are now formalized as in 8 : 8 a. R1: [a carpenter] R1 b. T1: [a carpenter] T1 Since all pragmatic aspects that determine the actual form of the linguistic expression must be specified at the interpersonal level, pragmatic functions such as Topic and Focus are also added to the schema at this level.
There is an important difference between FG and FDG in that the proposition represented by the p-variable in FDG is now assumed to be part of the representational level rather than the interpersonal level. As in FG, the rep- resentational level is constructed on the basis of predicates symbolized by the f-variable6 which designate a property or a relation. All lexemes of a language are analysed as predicates and therefore represented as in 10 : 10 f1: lexeme f1 When the lexeme slot is filled by a first-order noun i.
The morphosyntactic level In classical FG, underlying representations like 12 are converted into actual linguistic expressions after the application of a number of expression rules that take care of the form and order of the constituents in sentences. Since these expression rules involve language specific features, it is here that the differences between individual languages are made explicit. This indicates that in FG syntax is merely regarded as the actualization of an underlying semantic representation. Indeed, syntactic constituents and word order are not considered primitive notions in FG, but the result of complex interactions between general ordering principles.
In FDG, by contrast, linear order and constituent structure have been given a more prominent status with the introduction of a separate morpho- syntactic level. In accordance with basic functional methodology, FDG assumes that syntactic order can generally be explained on the basis of the meaning and use of linguistic expressions.
Introduction 13 Like the other levels of representation, the morphosyntactic level is fed by primitives in the form of syntactic templates, which provide slots for the insertion of lexical units. Syntactic templates are reminiscent of functional patterns7 in FG, i. P1 Vf Vi S X existential sentence Constituents at the representational level are assigned a position in a func- tional pattern through the application of placement rules, which are in turn sensitive to information specified in the underlying representation.
This problem does not occur in FDG, where the separation between the representational and the morphosyntactic level allows for independent semantic and morphosyntactic representations of linguistic expressions. In view of the fact that F D G does not permit movement operations, this is especially useful in the case of syntactic discontinuity, extraposition, rais- ing, etc. Having separate levels of representation in the grammatical component also makes it possible to ac- count for cases where different semantic representations are mapped onto the same syntactic template De Groot Moreover, since func- tional patterns as used in FG cannot handle any restrictions on the ordering of elements within a construction, FDG has extended its inventory of syn- tactic templates, which now also includes templates for the constituents of the clause.
The organization of the morphosyntactic level has been slightly mod- ified since the first presentation of the FDG model. In subsequent publications, though, the terms Predi- cative Phrase and Referential Phrase have been replaced by traditional con- stituency labels such as Verb Phrase or Noun Phrase, for reasons to be dis- cussed in section 2. Lexn] NP [ Lex1… Lexn ] ] ] ] Although the morphosyntactic and other levels in FDG are supposed to be fed by primitives, and can thus be considered static, some authors have argued for a dynamic interpretation of FG expression rules Bakker , ; Bakker and Siewierska Hengeveld shows that this idea is compatible with the general architecture of FDG, thus adding to the psy- chological adequacy of the model.
The reason why Noun Phrase is generally avoided in these theories is that it is a formal label which only informs us about the intrinsic properties of a constituent, rather than a functional name that specifies the relation of a constituent to the construction in which it occurs cf. Dik a: If we were to use only functional names such as Subject, Topic or Agent , however, we would know very little about the intrinsic properties of the constituent in question. Ideally there should be straightforward names for linguistic cate- gories that tell us something about the formal and the functional properties of a linguistic form or construction, but apparently such category labels are not always easy to find see below.
Saeed Whereas the definition of Ref- erential Phrase is perhaps too narrow, the definition of Term is rather wide, since it basically includes any kind of expression that can fill an argument or adjunct satellite position e. On the other hand, names such as Term or Referential Phrase are either too general covering a wide variety of forms and constructions or too narrow in that the definition only includes certain terms or noun phrases.
The basic problem with names for linguistic categories seems to be that they tend to be based either on formal or on functional properties and that there is usually no direct relationship between them. The same constituent may occur in different functions, and the same function may apply to dif- ferent forms or constructions cf. Thus, a name such as Qualifying Adjective informs us about the function qualifying, rather than e. One could do the same with Noun Phrase, i.
Introduction 17 2. FG II: multi-layered hierarchical representations in a bottom-up model; 3. FDG: multi-layered representations in a multiple-level, top-down model. Open predications are also called restrictors, because they successively restrict the range of possible referents of the NP. The colon between the restric- tors indicates that the information to the right gives a specification of, or a restriction on, the possible values of xi as it has been specified at that point.
The employment of layering, another major change in the representation of NPs, is discussed in section 2. With the introduction of layering into FG Hengeveld , however, the number of variables for semantic catego- ries expanded considerably. Presumably many mental constructs of spatio-temporal entities do not exist independently of entities in the external physical world, but the relation between a mental construct of an entity and its counterpart in the real world is a difficult issue with a long philosophical history that we will not discuss here.
Suffice to say that the problematic relation between men- tal and physical entities in the representation of linguistic expressions has also been given due attention in FG and FDG e. Vet , and is also touched upon in this book see, for example, the contributions by Escri- bano, Keizer and Rijkhoff. Having different variables for the various kinds of entities offers several advantages for the representation of linguistic expressions. To mention one that is relevant for the current volume, they make it possible to distinguish between nouns that are used to talk about different kinds of entities Dik Thus, an NP headed by a noun denoting a concrete object like table a first-order noun contains an x-variable, as in d1 xi: tableN xi 18 the table, whereas an NP headed by an event noun such as meeting a second-order noun will contain an e-variable as in d1 ei: meetingN ei the meeting Dik a: The use of different variables for different kinds of entities is also moti- vated by the fact that different kinds of entities are specified for different kinds of properties.
Rijkhoff For example, English uses ana- phoric it for spatial objects symbolized by the x-variable , whereas ana- phoric so is used for possible facts here symbolized by the X-variable; notice that we only use skeleton representations to bring out the contrast : 28 a. Cherie dropped [the briefcase]i, but Tony picked iti up b. John thought that [Bill would win]i and Peter thought soi too b. This makes it possible to distinguish between linguistic expressions and the referents of those expressions Rijkhoff B: When did you stop calling her that?
Possessives as localizing satellites Localizing modifiers specify the location of the referent in time or space in the world of discourse. In definite NPs these modifiers typically provide addressees hearers or readers with an entity through which they can identify the otherwise unidentifiable referent of the matrix NP Prince , Rijkhoff , Hawkins , Haspelmath Lyons —; Bugenhagen In other words, without this modifier the addressee could not locate or identify the referent of the matrix in the shared world of discourse.
This can even be illustrated with these more or less isolated sentences. The first example concerns a year old man who in his younger days used to participate in bicycle races : 79 hij verzorgt zijn lichaam heel goed. Geen wonder dat men he takes. No wonder that people hem vroeg of dat de fiets van zijn vader was! In fact there are languages in which relative clauses are almost exclusively attested in definite NPs. Mit einem Relativsatz kann man leicht einen bestimmten Gegenstand durch Spezifikation der Situation, an der er teilhat, identifizieren.
This explains that the typical relative construction co-occurs with a determiner, although in principle this is not necessary, of course — JR]. Lehmann Das Adjektiv dient mehr der Begriffsbildung, der Relativsatz mehr der Gegenstandsidentifikation [The adjective primarily adds to the meaning, the relative clause typically serves to identify an object — JR] Lehmann Compare these constructed examples: 82 a. The police have arrested the man.
The police have arrested the man who stole my car a couple of days ago. In 82a the man has not been mentioned before and one is inclined to ask what man the speaker is referring to. Relationships between locative, possessive, as well as existential constructions have been observed and discussed in many studies.
Lyons was among the first to point out that these constructions are related, both synchronically and diachronically. Clark , investigated the nature of this relation in more detail and demonstrated on the basis of a sample of 65 languages that these constructions are systematically connected in terms of word order and patterns of verb use. Lyons and Clark were only concerned with sentential constructions, but obviously the localist account of possession see section 2. Definiteness and indefinites in NPs with localizing possessives So far we have been dealing with adnominal localizing possessives that provide a referential anchor to ground the referent of the matrix NP, i.
This is in fact how localizing possessives are commonly used. It turns out that localizing definite adnominal possessives are almost exclusively attested in definite matrix NPs: 23, out of 23, cases i. From a police report: 96 De twee, een jarige jongen en een jarige man, hadden the two a year. In one group, the adnominal possessive contains a modifier that specifies a property that is relevant for the further development of the story: 98 De jongen die de fiets van een man zonder rechterbeen the boy who the bicycle of a man without right.
He has seen those trousers before. The NPs in question typically occur in texts from chat sites or web-logs: From a chat site: een vriend van me heeft eens, toen hij 6 was ofzo, … a friend of me has once, when he 6 was or. Localizing possessives: modification, predication, reference Localizing possessives are the most unrestricted NP satellites: they can be modified b , used as predicates c and are fully referential d : a.
On the gradual nature of modifier categories It was mentioned earlier that it is sometimes rather difficult to draw a hard and fast line between the various types of adnominal possessives section 3. For that reason it seems better to regard the types distinguished in Table 3 as reference points on a scale of noun modification rather than distinct modifier classes. Section 4. The close relationship between classifying possessives and qualifying possessives of type A also manifests itself in the fact that NPs with a qualifying possessive tend to be used in grammatical contexts where they have a strong classifying flavor.
Qualifying possessives of type A can occur as a modifier in subject or object NPs, as in — , but this does not happen very often. From a grammatical perspective, titles are rather similar to non-verbal clauses, except for the fact that non-verbal clauses must contain a copula at least in Dutch and English , which is typically absent in book titles or article headings instead we tend to find a colon. Fridtjof Nansen: Man of many facets. These examples involve NPs with a type A qualifying possessive, but notice that in each case it is the whole NP has a strong classifying flavor, not just the possessive modifier.
This ties in nicely with the fact that indefinite NPs in predicate position are typically used to express class inclusion Shelley is On the co-variation between form and function of adnominal possessives 93 a communist — Dik Part 1: ; cf. Hengeveld 89, Keizer ch. Between qualifying adnominal Type B and localizing satellites We saw in section 3. Qualifying possessives of type A occur between other types of qualifying possessives and classifying possessives, because the NPs in which they occur often signal class inclusion, as in Ed Case is [a Man of Integrity], i.
Ed Case belongs to the class of men who are honest and strong about what they believe to be right; section 4. A tentative explanation How can we explain the distribution of values for the three parameters in Table 3? The short answer is: the different values reflect the functional requirements of the various modifier functions in which the adnominal possessive is used. To put it differently, the possessive construction has a wide range of semantic and syntactic possibilities that are exploited in different degrees depending on the modifier function it serves in the NP by the language user.
There is, however, one pragmatic constraint: since the referential anchor must be an identifiable entity, the localizing adnominal possessive phrase must be definite a marginal number of apparent counter examples were discussed in the previous section. Therefore there is no need to fully exploit the referring potential of the possessive phrase.
The fact that type A qualifying possessives cannot occur as predicates which puts them in between classifying possessives and qualifying possessives of type B nicely illustrates the fuzzy boundary between qualifying and classifying satellites see note 8 and section 4.
It seems, however, that one can only linguistically predicate a property of an entity that is conceptually complete. Thus, the reason why classifying satellites cannot serve as a sentence predicate is precisely that the subject entity does not constitute a conceptually complete entity yet to predicate a property of, as the classifying satellite actually helps to define that entity. Since the classifying modifier and the head noun constitute a tight unit, not just conceptually as we just saw but also syntactically, one can only modify the combination of classifying modifier-plusnoun.
In other words, the strong conceptual and syntactic bond between classifying modifier and head makes it impossible to single out the classifying possessive for modification or predicative purposes. They are, however, not attested as quantifying NP satellites, which may have to do with the special role of numerical concepts in human cognition section 3. Furthermore there is a positive correlation between the kind of modifier function of the adnominal possessive in the NP and its grammatical properties.
On the co-variation between form and function of adnominal possessives 97 Table 4. Thirdly and perhaps more importantly, the results of this study indicate that functional categories can be characterized in grammatical terms, making it possible to capture grammatical differences between members of the same form class Table 3 and grammatical similarities between members of different form classes e. I am grateful to the audiences for interesting discussion, in particular Kristin Davidse and Lutz Gunkel.
Studies in Language 28 1 : 1— Conceptions of gradience in the history of linguistics. Language Sciences 26 4 : — Conceptions of categorization in the history of linguistics. Language Sciences 28 4 : — Lachlan Mackenzie. Amsterdam: Free University, Faculty of Arts. Bach, Emmon Syntactic Theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Bauer, Laurie When is a sequence of two nouns a compound? English Language and Linguistics 2: 65— Bennis, Hans and Jan W. Dordrecht: Foris. Posner Infant brains detect arithmatic errors.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 33 : — On the co-variation between form and function of adnominal possessives 99 Bugenhagen, Robert D. Oceanic Linguistics — Butler, Christopher S. In Hall et al. Clark, Eve V. In Greenberg et al. Claudi, Ulrike and Bernd Heine On the metaphorical basis of grammar. Studies in Language 10 2 : — Cole, Peter ed.
Comrie, Bernard General features of the Uralic languages. In Sinor ed. Comrie, Bernard ed. Connolly, John H. Dik eds. Corston-Oliver, Simon Roviana. In Lynch et al. Corum, Claudia, T. Cedric Smith-Stark and Ann Weiser eds. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Dik, Simon C. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 1: 11— Part 1: The Structure of the Clause.
Part 2: Complex and Derived Constructions. Dixon, Robert M. And other Essays in Semantics and Syntax. Everaert, Martin Nogmaals: Een schat van een kind. In Bennis and de Vries eds. Everett, Daniel L. Current Anthropology 46 4 : — plus comments and a reply from the author, — In Radden and Panther eds. Farsi, A. Language Learning 45— Frajzyngier, Zygmunt Grammaticalization of number: from demonstratives to nominal and verbal plural.
Linguistic Typology 1 2 : — Fraurud, Kari Possessives with extensive use: a source of definite articles? In Barton et al. Studies and Monographs ]. Giegerich, Heinz J. Journal of Linguistics 41 3 : — Gil, David Nominal and verbal quantification. On the co-variation between form and function of adnominal possessives Gildea, Spike The development of tense markers from demonstrative pronouns in Panare Cariban. Studies in Language 17 1 : 53— Folia Linguistica Historica 2 1 : 35— Volume II. Greenberg, Joseph H. Ferguson and Edith A. Moravcsik eds.
Volume 4: Syntax. Guillemin, Diana A look at so in Mauritian Creole: From possessive pronoun to emphatic determiner. In Huber and Velupillai eds. Gunkel, Lutz and Gisela Zifonun Constraints on relational-adjective noun constructions: a comparative view on English, German and French. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. London: Arnold. Hammond, Michael and Michael Noonan eds. Haspelmath, Martin Explaining article-possessor complementarity: economic motivation in noun phrase syntax. Language 75 2 : — Journal of Linguistics — Hengeveld, Kees Layers and operators.
Working Papers in Functional Grammar Hengeveld, Kees Layers and operators in Functional Grammar. Journal of Linguistics 25 1 : — Hengeveld, Kees The hierarchical structure of utterances. In Nuyts et al. Huber, Magnus and Viveka Velupillai eds. Jordan, Kerry E. Brannon The multisensory representation of number in infancy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 9 : — Keizer, M. Evelien Reference, predication and in definiteness in functional grammar. A functional approach to English copular sentences.
Cambridge: Cambridge Universtity Press. Manchester: The University of Manchester Press. Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria Adnominal possession in the European languages: form and function. On the co-variation between form and function of adnominal possessives Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria a A woman of sin, a man of duty, and a hell of a mess: non-determiner genitives in Swedish. In Plank ed.
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria b Possessive noun phrases in the languages of Europe. Levi, Judith N. In Corum et al. Oceanic Linguistics 44 1 : — Richmond: Curzon. Lyons, John A note on possessive, existential and locative sentences. Foundations of Language 3: — Lyons, John Semantics 2 volumes. Malchukov, Andrej L. McCawley, James Review of Newmeyer Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Mithun, Marianne Lexical categories and the evolution of number marking. In Hammond and Noonan eds.
Mouton de Gruyter: Buy Online from efewuvajib.tk
Moravcsik, Edith A. Working Papers on Language Universals 1: 64 — Oslo: Universitetsforlaget AS. Newman, Paul Hausa and the Chadic languages. In Comrie ed. Leiden: Afrika-Studiecentrum. Newmeyer, Frederik J. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Nuyts, Jan, A.
You may also be interested in...
Machtelt Bolkestein and Co Vet eds. Paardekooper, Petrus C. De Nieuwe Taalgids 93— Plank, Frans Double articulation. Plank, Frans ed. Prince, Ellen F. In Cole ed. Rausch, P. Anthropos 7: —, — , — Rijkhoff, Jan A typology of operators: toward a unified analysis of terms and predications. Rijkhoff, Jan The identification of referents. In Connolly and Dik eds. Rijkhoff, Jan Toward a unified analysis of terms and predications. Rijkhoff, Jan The noun phrase: a typological study of its form and structure. On the co-variation between form and function of adnominal possessives Rijkhoff, Jan When can a language have nouns and verbs?
Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 7— In Aertsen et al. Rijkhoff, Jan a Layers, levels and contexts in functional discourse grammar. Rijkhoff, Jan b Layering and iconicity in the noun phrase: descriptive and interpersonal modifiers. Linguistics 46 4 : — Rijkhoff, Jan c On flexible and rigid nouns.
The Expression of Possession
Studies in Language 32 3 : — Special issue, U. Ansaldo, J. Don and R. Pfau eds. Rijkhoff, Jan d Synchronic and diachronic evidence for parallels between noun phrases and sentences. Rijkhoff, Jan and Johanna Seibt Mood, definiteness and specificity: a linguistic and a philosophical account of their similarities and differences. Tidsskrift for Sprogforskning 3 2 : 85— Rosenbach, Anette Descriptive genitives in English. English Language and Linguistics 10 1 : 77— Ross, Malcolm Adjectives with possessor nouns.
Ross, Malcolm a Proto-Oceanic adjectival categories and their morphosyntax. Oceanic Linguistics 85— Ross, Malcolm b Possessive-like attribute constructions in the Oceanic languages of northwest Melanesia. Schachter, Paul Parts-of-speech systems. In Shopen ed. Shopen, Timothy ed. Volume I: Clause Structure. In Siewierska ed. Siewierska, Anna ed. Sinclair, John ed. London: Harper Collins.
Sinor, Denis ed. Leiden: Brill. Song, Jae Jung Grammaticalization and structural scope increase: possessive-classifier-based benefactive marking in Oceanic languages. Linguistics 43 4 : — Sorace, Antonella and Frank Keller Gradience in linguistic data. Lingua — Bloomington: Indiana University. The Hague: Nijhoff. Indogermanische Forschungen 86— Williams, Edward Argument structure and morphology.
- Thoughts of an Average Girl.
- Selo & Inya: Lady of the Court?
- Hunters Of The Pride?
- Going Home: Finding Peace in the Midst of the Storm?
- Top Authors.
- Elf Sex.
The Linguistic Review 1: 81— Willemse, Peter Esphoric the N of a n N-nominals: forward bridging to an indefinite reference point. Folia Linguistica 40 3—4 : — English possessives as reference-point constructions and their function in the discourse. Is possession mere location? Contrary evidence from Maa Doris L. Payne 1. An opposing view is that Possessor is a bona fide semantic role, distinct from Locative. My goal in this paper is empirical as well as conceptual: I will examine Maa Maasai and Il-Chamus elicited and corpus data to evaluate the extent to which certain verb roots, and certain constructions involving those roots, are used for both location and possession.
To the extent that there may be overlap in senses for a single root or root-plus-construction, it supports the view that possession is merely location with something like an animate Locative. To the extent that this does not happen, it provides support for the cognitive distinctness of possession from location. I will conclude that there is solid evidence for the latter position, at least for Maa. This paper is concerned with the type of cognitive category or categories expressed in predicative possession. However, I exclude here External Possession which is also clausal in nature cf.
Payne , Payne and Barshi , and exclude the type of predicative possession that involves a 1 I capitalize semantic role labels Locative, Theme, etc. I will use the abbreviations PR possessor and PM possessum only when I am not particularly concerned one way or the other with the theoretical status of such notions as semantic roles. Payne genitive construction in the predicate, i. The use of NP-internal devices to express possession is only tangentially mentioned. I basically adopt a Construction Grammar approach, in part because it is too simplistic to say that all semantic role information can be accounted for solely by properties of lexical predicates cf.
It is also too simplistic to address verb senses without simultaneously considering the constructions that verbs occur in. I will first present two views on the relationship between possession and location sections 2 and 3 , and lay out definitions of key terms as used in this paper section 4. Basic morphological and clause-level constructions of Maa are then introduced section 5.
What is less clear from simple elicited data is whether the roots tii and ata overlap at all in predicating location and possession. Thus, a corpus study is undertaken section 8. The only plausible conclusion must be that human cognizers can and do recognize sufficiently-important conceptual distinctions between possession and location, both of which are relational — hence, semantic role-like — conceptualizations obtaining between two entities.
On the other hand, the fact that tii is used for both locational and existential predications and that ata is used for both possession and existential predications suggests that where languages do show single forms or partially shared constructions for predicating both location and possession, we should further explore whether the conceptual link is not via an existential stage.
That is, if we have a root that historically first predicates location, is this then extended to predicating existence; and once its use for predicating existence is established, is it then perhaps the existential which is extended for predicating possession? Significantly, there is no formally related negative locative construction to provide any link between the two — i. Contrary evidence from Maa 2. For just a few examples, Baron and Herslund argue that the fundamental meaning of have is that one object is simply located with respect to another, though additional part-whole or other meanings may be superimposed onto this fundamental meaning.
Additional claims in this direction are found in Gruber , Lyons , , Clark , Jackendoff , inter alia. AT y], where x is a Theme and y is Locative. In general, Theme and Locative derive only from either BE. AT or GO. TO types of abstract predicate notions, which may be understood in either literal or metaphorical ways.
Enactive Cognition at the Edge of Sense-Making
All more lexically-specific predicates can be subsumed to one of these, and hence all core semantic roles in any clause whatsoever can be subsumed to Agent, Theme or Locative. Wertheimer In cognitive studies, Figure designates an entity which perceptually stands out against a Ground, it is the focus of attention, and it is seen in detail.
A Ground is that part of the perceptual field against which the Figure stands out, it is in the periphery of attention, lacks 3 In this paper I cannot attempt to address the vast literature on theories or systems of semantic roles. DeLancey is concerned with developing a constrained theory of semantic roles that can account for surface case marking of core arguments of predicates, and specifically not with oblique cases. He does not deny the existence of semantic categories like Beneficiary or Instrument for obliques, but denies they are ever warranted as roles for core arguments.
My own approach is to posit whatever is empirically driven, and believe the cross-linguistic evidence supports a somewhat larger inventory than DeLancey posits cf. Comrie and van den Berg on case marking evidence for core Experiencier distinct from core or any type of oblique Locative. Payne detail and, according to perceptual psychologists, is not usually even perceived as an object.
For example, with the predicate provide, as in This document provides you with advice, the Agent is this document, the Locative is you, and the Theme is advice. Also, a core role may sometimes be expressed in the verbal lexeme itself. A strength of the general framework surrounding the possession-islocation view is that it is highly constrained. Thus, in The storm blew the house down, the storm does not have a distinct role from Agent merely because it is inanimate. AT y] cognitive model. Consider The garden has lots of bees and I have ten dollars, both of which employ the lexical verb have.
Under the possession-is-location view, the garden and I are both Locatives, while lots of bees and ten dollars are Themes conceptualized as being at those Locatives. The fact that one of the places happens to be a well-individuated animate entity that can control and even dispose of the money, while the Is possession mere location?
Contrary evidence from Maa other is an extended physical space, are irrelevant conceptual differences for an inventory of semantic roles. Maa examples taken from texts are tagged with a text name and line number. Word order in 4 is irrelevant and artificially falls out as it does only because I am trying to express these conceptual sources in sensible English.
Possession-is-location adherents would aver that essentially all of the sources in 4 are locational, as they can be subsumed to a BE. AT predicate type, as indicated by the headings in 4. AT is. She grabbed the book. AT Mary] ] ]. TO predicate , but simply a BE. AT predicate. Contrary evidence from Maa 3. Reference points are determined by ease of identifiability on the part of the conceptualizer e.
Ease of identifiability can be context dependent, but in some way the reference-point entity has greater perceptibility — whether because it is inherently more salient, or because it is an entity for which the conceptualizer has greater empathy, familiarity, acquaintance, etc. Strikingly, such features correspond to cognitive Figures, as opposed to their Grounds; i. Thus, conceptually the salient PR is naturally a primary Figure, which stands out against its background.
Thus, if Theme and Locative are grounded in or equivalent to the conceptual notions of Figure and Ground, overall this should lead to the designation of PRs as being tantamount to Themes — contrary to what is assumed in the possession-is-location view. Kemmer presents typological evidence for distinct conceptualization of Possessor from Locative. Payne lient. Crucially, they may be highly perceptible and salient relative to the PM. Thus, predicating possession is different from just predicating location. Note that these are relational hence semantic or cognitive role-like notions, regardless of whether they are instantiated in a verbal or clausal predicate or within an NP structure.
That is, Figure and Ground mutually co-define each other, and cannot be reduced to the features of solitary referents in-andof themselves. That is, is there evidence supporting a distinct Possessor role and possibly also Possessum role related to certain predicates, different from Locative and Theme — at least in certain languages?
Or can lexical and constructional behaviour be fully accounted for just in terms of the three core roles posited by the possession-is-location theory? This can be seen in the 6 7 One reason a Possessor may seem different from a Locative is because a Possessor may often be topical. Proponents of the possession-is-location view would presumably say that participant topicality has no direct bearing on the existence of any particular semantic role in a clause, as topicality is a discourse or other cognitive property not based in the relational nature of the predicate.
Indeed, referring to Lyons , DeLancey 9 suggests that physical possession is the more primitive concept in a developmental sense. Contrary evidence from Maa Jakaltek examples 1 — 3 above: though they share the same copular root ay, they require distinct constructions — and something about human cognition is certainly driving the development of distinct constructions taken as a whole. However, differences are evident from a closer examination of the grammars of at least some languages on which she originally based her conclusions. For just one example, Amharic is one of the 30 languages in her sample.
In Amharic, the same root may be used in existential 5 and predicative possessive 6 clauses, but this hardly means that the constructions are the same: the existential is intransitive, while the possessive is transitive, as shown by argument marking on the verb examples are from Michael Ahland, pers. LOC-table top book-PL exist. F book-PL exist. However, according to both Ahland pers.
I do, however, believe it is too reductionist to say that they are simply the same. My concern in this paper is to explore usage patterns of lexical and constructional forms for expressing location and possession, so as to bring further empirical evidence to bear on our understanding of how distinct these conceptions may be for human cognizers. I conclude that the Maa evidence points towards location being closely linked conceptually to existence; and of possession being somewhat closely connected to existence. As a matter of fact, Connolly renamed functional patterns as syntactic templates.
Thus, the predicate phrase in He read the book only consists of one element, read. Section 2 discusses the way noun phrase is used in this book. In its logical sense, a term Latin terminus is an atomic element without a structure of its own Vendler ; Lyons It is shown in Rijkhoff forthcoming b that the formal properties of this pos- sessive construction in Dutch depend on the function it has as a modifier and vary systematically along certain parameters Attribution, Predication, Refer- ence.
Mackenzie suggested omitting the x-variable after the colon in an attempt to get away from the logical-semantic nature of the representation and make it more pragmatically adequate see also Dik ; Dik a: 63; Butler The x-variable gets a similar interpretation in FDG: the set of possible first- order referents. Mackenzie b has argued that certain prepositions are better categorized as predicates rather than the formal expression of some function. For the distinction between first-order entities spatial objects , second-order entities events, states, and other temporal objects or states of affairs , third- order entities i.
Dik a: 63 justifies its absence in representations for the sake of simplicity. These are simple examples. In practice matters can be rather more interesting. For example, when a second order modifier such as recent is used in combina- tion with a first order entity such as book, as in a recent book, the adjective forces us to interpret the book as a temporal entity, as it refers to the moment the book was published i.
See Mackenzie a, b, on variables for places, times and man- ners, Olbertz on times and Hengeveld and Wanders on quanti- ties. For a critical discussion of this proposal, see Keizer this volume. On vari- ables in the NP schemas, see also Rijkhoff Escribano this volume is a critical treatment of variables in F D G from a strictly logical perspective.
The name term satellite was first used in Mackenzie On Seinsart see Rijkhoff ch. In Rijkhoff's version, modifiers at the Interpersonal Level specify intersubjec- tive rather than subjective properties as in FDG. The relationship between discourse-referential modifiers in the clause and the NP is discussed in more detail in Rijkhoff and Seibt ; see also Rijkhoff this volume.
Taylor and Willemse References Anstey, Matthew P. Working Papers in Functional Grammar In: J. Functional Grammar Series Anstey, Matthew P. Lachlan Mackenzie eds. Bolkestein, A. Machtelt What to do with Topic and Focus? Evaluating pragmatic informa- tion. In: Mike Hannay and A. Machtelt Bolkestein eds. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Sprachtheorie: Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Stuttgart: UTB. Jena: Fischer, Butler, Christopher S.
Journal of Linguis- tics In: Christopher S. Ruiz eds. Barcelona: Ariel. Amsterdam: Benja- mins. Interpersonal meaning in the noun phrase. Connolly, John H. Introduction 39 Constituent Order in Functional Grammar. Berlin: Foris. Freestanding noun phrases within documents: A pragmatic approach based on FDG. Vismans, Christopher S. Butler and Richard A. Gat- ward eds. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Dik, Simon C.
Dordrecht: Foris. London: Academic Press. Second, revised edition. Edited by Kees Hengeveld. Second, revised edi- tion. On noun phrase structure in F D G: Some conceptual issues. Functional Discourse Grammar and extraction from complex noun phrases. In: M. Caneda and J. Vigo: Universidade de Vigo.
Groot, Casper de Morphosyntactic templates. In: Casper de Groot and Kees Henge- veld eds. Hannay, Mike and A. Functions of Language 87— London: Arnold. First published Hengeveld, Kees a The Spanish mood system. In: Johan van der Auwera and Louis Goossens eds. Journal of Semantics 6: — Journal of Linguistics In: Jan Nuyts, A. Machtelt Bolkestein and Co Vet eds. In: John H. Connolly, Roel M. Gatward eds. In: Casper de Groot and Kees Hengeveld eds. Prototypical and non-prototypical noun phrases in FDG. Hengeveld, Kees and J. Lachlan Mackenzie Interpersonal functions, representational categories, and syntactic templates in Functional Discourse Grammar.
Bern: Peter Lang. In: Keith Brown ed. Oxford: Elsevier. Functional Discourse Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. In: Mike Hannay and Gerard Steen eds. Keizer, Evelien this vol. Reference and ascription in FDG: an inventory of problems and some possible solutions. Kroon, Caroline Discourse markers, discourse structure and Functional Grammar. Lefebvre, Claire Multifunctionality and variation among grammars: the case of the determiner in Haitian and in Fongbe. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 93— Mouton Grammar Library Levelt, Willem J.
Cambridge, Mass. Lyons, John Semantics II vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mackenzie, J. Lachlan Nominal predicates in a Functional Grammar of English. In: Simon C. Dik ed. Working Pa- pers in Functional Grammar Introduction 43 a The basis of syntax in the holophrase. Munich: Lincom Europa. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses — Linguistic Insights London: Longman. Rijkhoff, Jan A typology of operators. Amster- dam: Benjamins. Journal of Semantics 8: —