1887
The interaction between context and grammar in Functional Discourse Grammar
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238

Abstract

The central issue addressed in this paper concerns the design of an appropriate contextual framework to support a dynamic implementation of FDG. The first part of the paper is concerned with the internal structure of the contextual framework. A particular hierarchical structure for the analysis and description of context, articulated in Connolly (2007a) and termed the Extended Model of Context (EMC), is presented as the starting-point. Alternative frameworks are considered, but all are found to have shortcomings. However, the original version of the EMC has also received some criticism. Consequently, a revised model of the EMC is proposed, in which the treatment of context is enhanced, and which is appropriate to a dynamic implementation of FDG. The application of the revised EMC not only to the grammatical model, but also to a broader discourse model, is also discussed. The next part of the paper is concerned with the interaction between the EMC and the FDG Grammatical and Conceptual Components. It is contended that all of the main types of context recognised within the EMC have a significant effect upon grammar. However, the only way in which contextual factors may directly influence the production and interpretation of discourse is through their presence in the minds of the discourse-participants. Consequently, the Conceptual Component plays a vital, mediating role in the handling of interactions between the EMC and the Grammatical Component. This point is particularly salient when considering a dynamic implementation, in which the flow of information around the model is of crucial importance. It is contended that this flow is essentially cyclic in nature.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.24.2.03con
2015-06-01
2019-08-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Auer, P
    (2009) Context and contextualisation. In J. Verschueren , and J.-O. Östman (eds.), Key Notions for Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.86-101. doi: 10.1075/hoph.1.05aue
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hoph.1.05aue [Google Scholar]
  2. Biber, D
    (1988) Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511621024
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621024 [Google Scholar]
  3. Brown, P. , and C. Fraser
    (1979) Speech as a marker of situation. In K. Scherer , and H. Giles (eds.), Social Markers in Speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.33-62.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Butler, C.S
    (2008) Interpersonal meaning in the noun phrase. In D. García Velasco , and J. Rijkhoff (eds.), The Noun Phrase in Functional Discourse Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp.221-261.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. (2013) A reappraisal of the functional enterprise, with particular reference to Functional Discourse Grammar. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses67: 13-42.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Clark, H.H. , and T.B. Carlson
    (1992) Context for comprehension. In H.H. Clark (ed.), Arenas of language use. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp.60-77.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Connolly, J.H
    (2004) The question of discourse representation in Functional Discourse Grammar. In J.L. Mackenzie , and M. de los Ángeles Gómez-González (eds.), A New Architecture for Functional Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp.89-116. doi: 10.1515/9783110197112.89
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197112.89 [Google Scholar]
  8. (2007a) Context in Functional Discourse Grammar. Alfa51/2: 11-33.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. (2007b) Mental context and the expression of terms within the English clause: An approach based on Functional Discourse Grammar. In M. Hannay , and G.J. Steen (eds.), Structural-functional Studies in English Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.193-208. doi: 10.1075/slcs.83.12con
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.83.12con [Google Scholar]
  10. (2010) Accommodating multimodality in Functional Discourse Grammar. In G. Wanders , and E. Keizer (eds.), Web Papers in Functional Discourse Grammar WP-FDF-83, Special Issue: The London PapersII: 1-18. Available at: www.functionaldiscoursegrammar.info/.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Cook, G
    (1992) The Discourse of Advertising. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Cornish, F
    (2009) Text and discourse as context: Discourse anaphora and the FDG Contextual Component. In E. Keizer , and G. Wanders (eds.), Web Papers in Functional Grammar WP-FDG-82, Special Issue: the London PapersI: 97-115. Available atwww.functionaldiscoursegrammar.info/.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Devlin, K
    (1991) Logic and Information. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Fetzer, A
    (2004) Recontextualising Context: Grammaticality Meets Appropriateness. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/pbns.121
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.121 [Google Scholar]
  15. Firth, J.R
    (1957) Papers in Linguistics 1934–1951. London: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. García Velasco, D. , and J. Rijkhoff
    (eds.) (2008) The Noun Phrase in Functional Discourse Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Giomi, R
    . (this volume) Grammar, context and the hearer: Preliminary proposal for a hearer-based model of FDG. Pragmatics24.2: 275-296.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Givón, T
    (2005) Context as Other Minds: The Pragmatics of Sociability, Cognition and Communication. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/z.130
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.130 [Google Scholar]
  19. Goodwin, C
    (2000) Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics32: 1489-1522. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(99)00096‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00096-X [Google Scholar]
  20. Goodwin, C. , and A. Duranti
    (1992) Rethinking context: An introduction. In A. Duranti , and C. Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.1-42.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Harris, W.V
    (1988) Interpretive Acts: In Search of Meaning. Oxford: Clarendon.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Hengeveld, K. , and J.L. Mackenzie
    (2008) Functional 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]
  23. (this volume) Grammar and context in Functional Discourse Grammar. Pragmatics24.2: 203-227.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Hymes, D
    (1972) Models of the interaction of language and social life. In J.J. Gumperz , and D. Hymes (eds.), Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston, pp.35-71.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Jacoby, S. , and E. Ochs
    (1995) Co-construction: An introduction. Research on Language and Social Interaction28: 171-183. doi: 10.1207/s15327973rlsi2803_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi2803_1 [Google Scholar]
  26. Keizer, E
    (2008) Reference and ascription in Functional Discourse Grammar: an inventory of problems and some possible solutions. In D. García Velasco , and J. Rijkhoff (eds.), The Noun Phrase in Functional Discourse Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp.43-62.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. . (this volume)Context and cognition in FDG: Where and why?Pragmatics24.2: 399-423.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Linell, P
    (1998) Approaching Dialogue: Talk, Interaction and Contexts in Dialogical Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/impact.3
    https://doi.org/10.1075/impact.3 [Google Scholar]
  29. Lukin, A
    (2013) What do texts do? The context-construing work of news. Text and Talk3: 523-551.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Mackenzie, J.L
    . (this volume)The Contextual Component in a dialogic FDG. Pragmatics24.2: 249-273.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Martin, J.R
    (1992) English Text: System and Structure. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/z.59
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.59 [Google Scholar]
  32. Martinec, R
    (2000) Types of process in action. Semiotica130: 243-268. doi: 10.1515/semi.2000.130.3‑4.243
    https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.2000.130.3-4.243 [Google Scholar]
  33. Okada, M
    (2007) Whose common ground? A misunderstanding caused by incorrect interpretations of the lexical markers of common ground. In A. Fetzer , and K. Fischer (eds.), Lexical Markers of Common Ground. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp.183-194.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Rijkhoff, J
    (2008) Layers, levels and contexts in Functional Discourse Grammar. In D. García Velasco , and J. Rijkhoff (eds.), The Noun Phrase in Functional Discourse Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp.63-115.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Shailor, J.G
    (1997) The meaning and use of “context’”in the theory of the Coordinated Management of Meaning. In J.L. Owen (ed.), Context and Communication Behaviour. Reno, NV: Context Press, pp.97-110.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. van Dijk, T.A
    (2006) Discourse, context and cognition. Discourse Studies8: 159-177. doi: 10.1177/1461445606059565
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445606059565 [Google Scholar]
  37. (2008) Discourse and Context: A Sociocognitive Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511481499
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511481499 [Google Scholar]
  38. Widdowson, H.G
    (2004) Text, Context, Pretext: Critical Issues in Discourse Analysis. Malden, MA: Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9780470758427
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470758427 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/prag.24.2.03con
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Component , Context , Dynamic and Functional Discourse Grammar
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