Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T03:43:58.732Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Layers and operators in Functional Grammar1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Kees Hengeveld
Kees Hengeveld
Affiliation:
Institute for General Linguistics, University of Amsterdam
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

I have argued elsewhere (Hengeveld, 1987b) that for a proper treatment of modality the clause model used in Functional Grammar (Dik, 1978, 1980) should be adapted in such a way that a number of different layers can be distinguished. My main argument there was that predications, used in Functional Grammar to represent linguistic expressions, have two different functions: a DESCRIPTIVE function and a CONTENT function. A predication not only gives a description of the external situation the speaker refers to within his speech act, it also represents the prepositional content or message unit processed within that speech act. Subjective and evidential modalities, which express a propositional attitude, should take a predication in its contentrepresenting function in their scope, whereas objective modalities, i.e. those modalities that are concerned with the actuality status of a State of Affairs (SoA), should take a predication in its SoA-designating function in their scope. A clause model should therefore be able to distinguish between these two functions of predications.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , March 1989 , pp. 127 - 157
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Auwera, J. van der & Goossens, L. (eds) (1987). Ins and outs of the predication. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Bartsch, R. (1976). The grammar of adverbials; a study in the semantics and syntax of adverbial constructions. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Barwise, J. & Perry, J. (1983). Situations and attitudes. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bolkestein, A. M. (forthcoming). Causally related predications and the choice between parataxis and hypotaxis in Latin. Paper presented at the Cambridge Colloquium on Latin Linguistics, 04 1987.Google Scholar
Bühler, K. (1934). Sprachtheorie. Jena: Fischer.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L. (1985). Morphology. A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. & Nichols, J. (eds) (1986). Evidentiality: the linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood (NJ): Ablex.Google Scholar
Chung, S. & Timberlake, A. (1985). Tense, aspect, and mood. In Shopen, T. (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, vol. III. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 202–258.Google Scholar
Cole, P. (1982). Imbabura Quechua. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. (1976). Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. (1985). Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Craig, C. G. (1977). The structure of Jacaltec. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Dik, S. C. (1978). Functional Grammar. Amsterdam: North-Holland (3rd ed. 1981, Dordrecht: Foris).Google Scholar
Dik, S. C. (1979). Raising in a Functional Grammar. Lingua 47, 119–40.Google Scholar
Dik, S. C. (1980). Studies in Functional Grammar. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Dik, S. C. (1987). Copula auxiliarization: how and why? In Harris, M. & Ramat, P. (eds), Historical development of auxiliaries. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 53–84.Google Scholar
Dik, S. C. (forthcoming). The theory of Functional Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Dik, S. C., Hengeveld, K., Vester, E. & Vet, C. (in prep.). The hierarchical structure of the clause and the typology of satellites.Google Scholar
Foley, W. A. & Van Valin, R. D. (1984). Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fortescue, M. (1984). West Greenlandic. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Goossens, L. (1985). The auxiliarization of the English modals. Working Papers in Functional Grammar 7.Google Scholar
Gorbet, L. (1976). A grammar of Diegueño nominals. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Greenbaum, S. (1969). Studies in English adverbial usage. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Groot, C. de (1985). Predicates and features. In Bolkestein, A. M., de Groot, C. & Mackenzie, J. I. (eds), Predicates and terms in Functional Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris. 71–84.Google Scholar
Hagman, R. S. (1974). Nama Hottentot Grammar. Ann Arbor, Mich.: UMI.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1970). Functional diversity in language. FL 6. 322–361.Google Scholar
Hannay, M. & Vester, E. (1987). Non-restrictive relatives and the representation of complex sentences. In Auwera, J. van der & Goossens, L. (eds). 39–52.Google Scholar
Haverkate, W. H. (1979). Impositive sentences in Spanish. Theory and description in linguistic pragmatics. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, K. (1987a). The Spanish mood system. Working Papers in Functional Grammar 22.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, K. (1987b). Clause structure and modality in Functional Grammar. In Auwera, J. van der & Goossens, L. (eds). 53–66.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, K. (forthcoming). Semantic relations in non-verbal predication. Paper presented at the Third International Conference on Functional Grammar, Amsterdam, 06 1988.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1971). Shifters, verbal categories, and the Russian verb. In Jakobson, R., Selected Writings, vol. II. The Hague: Mouton. 130–147.Google Scholar
Katz, J. J. & Postal, P. M. (1964). An integrated theory of linguistic descriptions. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lehmann, C. (forthcoming). Towards a typology of clause linkage. In Haiman, J. & Thompson, S. A. (eds), Clause combining in discourse and syntax. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lewis, G. L. (1967). Turkish grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Li, C. N. & Thompson, S. A. (1981). Mandarin Chinese. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics, 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Matthews, G. H. (1964). Hidatsa Syntax. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Olson, M. L. (1981). Barai clause junctures: towards a functional theory of interclausal relations. Ph.D. Dissertation, Australian National University.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1970). On declarative sentences. In Jacobs, R. A. & Rosenbaum, P. S. (eds), Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Waltham: Ginn. 222–272.Google Scholar
Rust, F. (1965). Praktische Namagrammatik. Cape Town: Balkema.Google Scholar
Steedman, M. J. (1977). Verbs, time and modality. Cognitive Science 1. 216–234.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (1982). From prepositional to textual and expressive meanings; some semantic-pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. In Lehmann, W. P. & Malkiel, Y. (eds), Perspectives on historical linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 245–271.Google Scholar
Vendler, Z. (1967). Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca (NY): Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Vester, E. (1983). Instrument and manner expressions in Latin. Assen: van Gorcum.Google Scholar
Vet, C. (1986). A pragmatic approach to tense in Functional Grammar. Working Papers in Functional Grammar 16.Google Scholar
Willett, T. (1988). A crosslinguistic survey of the grammaticization of evidentiality. Studies in Language 12. 51–97.Google Scholar
Woodbury, A. C. (1986). Interactions of tense and evidentiality: a study of Sherpa and English. In Chafe, W. & Nichols, J. (eds). 188–202.Google Scholar