The dynamicity of communication below, around and above the clause
  • ISSN 1874-8767
  • E-ISSN: 1874-8775
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


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.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Acuña Fariña, Juan Carlos
    2005 Aspects of the relationship between theories of grammar and theories of processing. Atlantis27: 11–27.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Antony, Louise M
    2003 Rabbit-pots and supernovas: On the relevance of psychological data to linguistic theory. InEpistemology of Language, Alex Barber (ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 47–68.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Auer, Peter
    2009 On-line syntax: Thoughts on the temporality of spoken language. Language Sciences31: 1–13. doi: 10.1016/j.langsci.2007.10.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2007.10.004 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bakker, Dik
    2005 Agreement: More arguments for the dynamic expression model. InMorphosyntactic Expression in Functional Grammar, Casper de Groot & Kees Hengeveld(eds). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1–40. doi: 10.1515/9783110920833.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110920833.1 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bakker, Dik & Anna Siewierska
    2004 Towards a speaker model of Functional Grammar. InA New Architecture for Functional Grammar, J. Lachlan Mackenzie & María de los Ángeles Gómez González (eds). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 325–364. doi: 10.1515/9783110197112.325
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197112.325 [Google Scholar]
  6. Black, Maria
    & Shulamuth Chiat 1981 Psycholinguistics without ‘psychological reality’. Linguistics19: 37–61. doi: 10.1515/ling.1981.19.1–2.37
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1981.19.1–2.37 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bock, J. Kathryn
    1982 Toward a cognitive psychology of syntax: Information processing contributions to sentence formulation. Psychological Review89: 1–47. doi: 10.1037/0033‑295X.89.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.89.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  8. Brazil, David
    1995A Grammar of Speech. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Butler, Christopher S
    2007 Notes towards an incremental implementation of the Role and Reference Grammar semantics-to-syntax linking algorithm for English. InStructural-Functional Studies in English Grammar, Mike Hannay & Gerard J. Steen (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 275–307. doi: 10.1075/slcs.83.16but
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.83.16but [Google Scholar]
  10. 2013 A reappraisal of the functional enterprise, with particular reference to Functional Discourse Grammar. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses67: 13–42.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Butler, Christopher S. & Francisco Gonzálvez-García
    2014Exploring Functional-Cognitive Space. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.157
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.157 [Google Scholar]
  12. Cann, Ronnie , Ruth Kempson & Lutz Marten
    2005The Dynamics of Language: An Introduction. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Chomsky, Noam
    1965Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Clark, Andy
    2013 Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences36 (3): 181–204. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X12000477
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X12000477 [Google Scholar]
  15. Clark, Herbert H
    1996Using Language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620539
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620539 [Google Scholar]
  16. Connolly, John H
    2014 The contextual component within a dynamic implementation of the FDG model: Structure and interaction. Pragmatics24 (2): 229–248. doi: 10.1075/prag.24.2.03con
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.24.2.03con [Google Scholar]
  17. 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 Sciences38: 83–98. doi: 10.1016/j.langsci.2013.02.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2013.02.001 [Google Scholar]
  18. Devitt, Michael
    2006Ignorance of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/0199250960.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/0199250960.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  19. Dik, Simon C
    1978Functional Grammar. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 1990 How to build a natural language user. InWorking with Functional Grammar: Descriptive and Computational Applications, Mike Hannay & Elseline Vester(eds). Dordrecht and Providence RI: Foris, 203–227. doi: 10.1515/9783110859904.203
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110859904.203 [Google Scholar]
  21. 1997The Theory of Functional Grammar. Part 1. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Du Bois, John W
    2014 Towards a dialogic syntax. Cognitive Linguistics25: 359–410. doi: 10.1515/cog‑2014‑0024
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0024 [Google Scholar]
  23. Ferreira, Victor S. & J. Kathryn Bock
    2006 The functions of structural priming. Language and Cognitive Processes21: 1011–1029. doi: 10.1080/01690960600824609
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960600824609 [Google Scholar]
  24. Firbas, Jan
    1959 More thoughts on the communicative function of the English verb. Sborník Prací FilozofickéFakulty Brněnské UniversityA7: 74–98.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 1992Functional Sentence Perspective in Written and Spoken Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511597817
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597817 [Google Scholar]
  26. Fortescue, Michael
    2004 The complementarity of the process and product interpretations of Functional Grammar. InA New Architecture for Functional Grammar, J. Lachlan Mackenzie & María de los Ángeles Gómez González (eds). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 151–178. doi: 10.1515/9783110197112.151
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197112.151 [Google Scholar]
  27. Giomi, Riccardo
    2014 Grammar, context and the hearer: A proposal for an addressee-oriented model of Functional Discourse Grammar. Pragmatics24 (2): 275–296. doi: 10.1075/prag.24.2.05gio
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.24.2.05gio [Google Scholar]
  28. Givón, Talmy
    1989Mind, Code, and Context: Essays in Pragmatics. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Greenberg, Joseph H
    1963 Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. InUniversals of Grammar, Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.). Cambridge: MIT Press, 73–113.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Grice, H. Paul
    1975 Logic and conversation. InSyntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, Peter Cole & Jerry Morgan (eds). New York: Academic Press, 41–58.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Halle, Morris , Joan Bresnan & George Miller
    (eds) 1981Linguistic Theory and Psychological Reality. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Halliday, M.A.K. & Ruqaiya Hasan
    1976Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 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 Sciences16 (2): 114–121. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2011.12.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2011.12.007 [Google Scholar]
  34. Hengeveld, Kees
    2005 Dynamic expression in Functional Discourse Grammar. InMorphosyntactic Expression in Functional Grammar, Casper de Groot & Kees Hengeveld (eds). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 53–86. doi: 10.1515/9783110920833.53
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110920833.53 [Google Scholar]
  35. Hengeveld, Kees & J. Lachlan Mackenzie
    2008Functional Discourse Grammar: A Typologically-Based Theory of Language Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199278107.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199278107.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  36. 2014 Grammar and context in Functional Discourse Grammar. Pragmatics24 (2): 203–227. doi: 10.1075/prag.24.2.02hen
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.24.2.02hen [Google Scholar]
  37. Hohwy, Jakob
    2013The Predictive Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199682737.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199682737.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  38. Kathol, Andreas
    2000Linear Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Keizer, Evelien
    2009 Verb-preposition constructions in FDG. Lingua119: 1186–1211. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2007.12.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.12.007 [Google Scholar]
  40. 2014 The active-passive alternation in English. Pragmatics24 (2): 399–423. doi: 10.1075/prag.24.2.10kei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.24.2.10kei [Google Scholar]
  41. Kempen, Gerard & Karin Harbusch
    2002 Performance Grammar: A declarative definition. InComputational Linguistics in the Netherlands 2001, Anton Nijholt , Mariët Theune & Hendrik Hondorp (eds). Amsterdam: Rodopi, 148–162.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Levelt, Willem J.M
    1989Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Mackenzie, J. Lachlan
    2005 Incremental Functional Grammar and the language of football commentary. InThe 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. doi: 10.1075/pbns.140.11mac
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.140.11mac [Google Scholar]
  44. 2010 More tiles on the roof: Further thoughts on incremental language production. InLanguage Usage and Language Structure, Kasper Boye & Elizabeth Engberg-Pedersen (eds). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 263–293.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 2011 The study of semantic alternations in a dialogic Functional Discourse Grammar. InMorphosyntactic Alternations in English: Functional and Cognitive Perspectives, Pilar Guerrero Medina (ed.). London: Equinox, 38–61.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. 2012 Cognitive adequacy in a dialogic Functional Discourse Grammar. Language Sciences34: 421–432. doi: 10.1016/j.langsci.2012.02.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2012.02.006 [Google Scholar]
  47. 2014 The contextual component in a dialogic FDG. Pragmatics24 (2): 249–273. doi: 10.1075/prag.24.2.04mac
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.24.2.04mac [Google Scholar]
  48. Miller, George A
    1962 Some psychological studies of grammar. American Psychologist11: 748–762. doi: 10.1037/h0044708
    https://doi.org/10.1037/h0044708 [Google Scholar]
  49. Nuyts, Jan
    1992Aspects of a Cognitive-Pragmatic Theory of Language: On Cognition, Functionalism, and Grammar. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.20
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.20 [Google Scholar]
  50. O’Grady, Gerard
    2012A Grammar of Spoken English Discourse: The Intonation of Increments. London, New York, New Delhi and Sydney: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. O’Grady, William
    2005Syntactic Carpentry: An Emergentist Approach to Syntax. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Pickering, Martin J. & Victor S. Ferreira
    2008 Structural priming: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin134 (1): 427–459. doi: 10.1037/0033–2909.134.3.427
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033–2909.134.3.427 [Google Scholar]
  53. Pickering, Martin J. & Steven Garrod
    2004 Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences27: 169–226. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X04000056
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X04000056 [Google Scholar]
  54. 2011 The use of prediction to drive alignment in dialogue. InGrounding Sociality: Neurons, Mind, and Culture, Gün R. Semin & Gerald Echterhoff (eds). New York: Psychology Press, 175–191.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Riley, Michael A. , Michael J. Richardson , Kevin Shockley & Verónica C. Ramenzoni
    2011 Interpersonal synergies. Frontiers in Psychology2 (38). (Last accessed on11 June 2015). doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00038
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00038 [Google Scholar]
  56. Sapir, Edward
    1933 La réalité psychologique des phonèmes. Journal de Psychologie Normale et Pathologique30: 247–265.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Schegloff, Emanuel A
    1987 Recycled turn beginnings: A precise repair mechanism in conversation’s turn-taking organisation. InTalk and Social Organisation, Graham Button & John R.E. Lee (eds). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 70–85.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Sinclair, John McH. & Anna Mauranen
    2006 Linear Unit Grammar. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/scl.25
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.25 [Google Scholar]
  59. Smit, Niels
    2010FYI: Theory and Typology of Information Packaging. Zutphen NL: Wöhrmann.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Soames, Scott
    1984 Linguistics and psychology. Linguistics and Philosophy7: 155–179. doi: 10.1007/BF00630811
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00630811 [Google Scholar]
  61. Tanaka, Hiroko
    2000 Turn-projection in Japanese talk-in-interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction33: 1–38. doi: 10.1207/S15327973RLSI3301_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3301_1 [Google Scholar]
  62. Tannen, Deborah
    2006Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Discourse, 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Wagner, Michael
    2016 Information structure and production planning. InOxford Handbook on Information Structure, Caroline Féry & Shinchiro Ishihara (eds). Oxford: Oxford University Press, n.a.
    [Google Scholar]
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error