Volume 1, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238


This paper presents a discussion of the treatment of the pragmatic functions Topic and Focus in Functional Grammar (Dik: 1989, ch. 13). Two questions will be addressed: (a) the theoretical question of how the interface between the static grammar (dealing with a discourse as the product of text-creating activity) and the dynamic theory of verbal interaction (dealing with discourse as the ongoing text-creating process itself) is handled with regard to pragmatic functions; and (b) the practical question whether the reader of Dik (1989) finds a set of proposals that can be operationalized in the analysis of linguistic material. With regard to the former question we conclude that in the present FG treatment of Topic and Focus, the static and the dynamic approaches do not connect and that, as a result, the speaker’s selection of constituents for Topic or Focus function is left unaccounted for. As for the second question, we show that Dik’s proposal can be put into practice, but that the resultant analysis suffers from a number of inconsistencies and unclarities. Finally, we argue that most of these inconsistencies and unclarities can be solved if (1) we accept a different classification of Focus, and (2) assume that Topic assignment is irrelevant in English, as there is no consistent way in which Topic constituents are given special treatment, and Pl-placement can be accounted for without having to resort to Topic function.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Beaugrande, R.-A. de and W.U. Dressler
    (1981) Introduction to text linguistics. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Brown, G. and G. Yule
    (1983) Discourse analysis. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511805226
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511805226 [Google Scholar]
  3. Carpenter, P.A. and M.A. Just
    (1977) Integrative processes in comprehension. In D. LaBerge & S.J. Samuels (eds.), Basic processes in reading: perception and comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 217-241.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Chafe, W.L
    (1976) Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and points of view. In C.N. Li (ed.), Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press, 25-57.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Clark, H.H. and S.E. Haviland
    (1977) Comprehension and the Given-New contract. In R.O. Freedle (ed.), Discourse production and comprehension. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1-40.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Cruse, D.A
    (1980) Review of Hawkins (1978), Definiteness and indefiniteness. Journal of Linguistics16: 308-316. doi: 10.1017/S0022226700006654
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700006654 [Google Scholar]
  7. Dik, S.C
    (1978) Functional Grammar. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. (1989) The theory of Functional Grammar. Part 1. Dordrecht: Foris.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. . (forthcoming) The theory of Functional Grammar. Part 2.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Ebert, K.H
    (1971) Referenz, Sprechsituation und die bestimmten Artikel in einem nordfriesischen Dialekt (Fering). Bräist/Bredstedt: Nordfriisk Instituut.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Groot, C. de
    (1981) Sentence intertwining in Hungarian. In A.M. Bolkestein , H.A. Combé , S.C. Dik , C. de Groot , J. Gvozdanovic , A. Rijksbaron & C. Vet (eds.), Predication and expression in Functional Grammar. London: Academic Press, 41-62.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Halliday, M.A.K
    (1985) An introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Halliday, M.A.K. and R. Hasan
    (1976) Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Hannay, M
    (1983) The Focus function in Functional Grammar: questions of contrast and context. In S.C. Dik (ed.), Advances in Functional Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris, 207-223.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. (1985a) Inferrability, discourse-boundness, and sub-topics. In A.M. Bolkestein , C. de Groot & J.L. Mackenzie (eds.), Syntax and pragmatics in Functional Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris, 49-63.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. (1985b) English existentials in Functional Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. (1990) Pragmatic function assignment and word order variation in a Functional Grammar of English. Working Papers in Functional Grammar38. To appear in Journal of Pragmatics.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Jong, J.R. de
    (1981) On the treatment of Focus phenomena in Functional Grammar. In T. Hoekstra , H. van der Hulst & M. Moortgat (eds.), Perspectives on Functional Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris, 89-115.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Löbner, S
    (1985) Definites. Journal of Semantics4: 279-326. doi: 10.1093/jos/4.4.279
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/4.4.279 [Google Scholar]
  20. Prince, E.F
    (1981) Toward a taxonomy of Given-New information. In P. Cole (ed.), Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, 223-255.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Sanford, A.J. and S.C. Garrod
    (1981) Understanding written language: explorations of comprehension beyond the sentence. Chichester: Wiley.
    [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
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