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


Dutch nominalisations of the type (‘the eating of meat’) have ergative alignment. The alignment is functionally motivated, in that it is a natural consequence of the flow of discourse. The functional account that is put forward here draws on the notion of Preferred Argument Structure (Du Bois 1987) and on the distinction between foregrounded and backgrounded discourse (Hopper & Thompson 1980). Support for this account comes from other domains of ergativity in Dutch, such as causativised predicates and participial constructions and from the observation that the alignment in Dutch nominalisations is in fact split-ergative. The present study adduces corpus evidence to corroborate the claims. In the last section, the analysis is cast in a Functional Discourse Grammar model (Hengeveld & Mackenzie 2008), including its hitherto underdescribed Contextual Component.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Alexiadou, A
    (2001) Functional structure in nominals. Nominalization and ergativity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/la.42
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.42 [Google Scholar]
  2. Chafe, W
    (1994) Discourse, consciousness, and time. The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Connolly, J.H
    (2007) Context in Functional Discourse Grammar. Alfa51/2: 11-33.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Dik, S.C
    (1980) Studies in Functional Grammar. London: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. (1985) Nederlandse nominalisaties in een funktionele grammatika. Forum der Letteren26: 82-107.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Dixon, R.M.W
    (1994) Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511611896
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611896 [Google Scholar]
  7. Du Bois, J.W
    (1985) Competing motivations. In J. Haiman (ed.), Iconicity in syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.343-365. doi: 10.1075/tsl.6.17dub
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.6.17dub [Google Scholar]
  8. (1987) The discourse basis of ergativity. Language63: 805-855. doi: 10.2307/415719
    https://doi.org/10.2307/415719 [Google Scholar]
  9. Gundel, J. , N. Hedberg , and R. Zacharski
    (1993) Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language69.2: 175-204. doi: 10.2307/416535
    https://doi.org/10.2307/416535 [Google Scholar]
  10. Haeseryn, W. , K. Romijn , G. Geerts , J. de Rooij , and M.C. van den Toorn
    (1997) Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunst. 2nd ed. Groningen: Martinus Nijhoff.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Harbert, W
    (2007) The Germanic languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Hengeveld, K
    (2008) Prototypical and non-prototypical noun phrases in Functional Discourse Grammar. In D. García Velasco , and J. Rijkhoff (eds.), The noun phrase in Functional Discourse Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp.43-62. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199278107.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199278107.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  13. 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]
  14. (2010) Functional Discourse Grammar. In B. Heine , and H. Narrog (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.367-400.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Heyvaert, L
    (2008) On the constructional semantics of gerundive nominalizations. Folia Linguistica42.1: 39-82. doi: 10.1515/FLIN.2008.39
    https://doi.org/10.1515/FLIN.2008.39 [Google Scholar]
  16. Hopper, P.J. , and S.A. Thompson
    (1980) Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language56.2: 251-299. doi: 10.1353/lan.1980.0017
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1980.0017 [Google Scholar]
  17. Keizer, E
    (2004) Term structure in FG: A modest proposal. Working Papers in Functional Grammar78.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M
    (1993) Nominalizations. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. (2003) Action nominal constructions in the languages of Europe. In F. Plank (ed.), Noun phrase structure in the languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp.723-759.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Lambrecht, K
    (1994) Information structure and sentence form. Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620607
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620607 [Google Scholar]
  21. Lyons, C
    (1999) Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511605789
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511605789 [Google Scholar]
  22. Mackenzie, J.L
    (1985) Nominalization and valency reduction. In A.M. Bolkestein , C. de Groot , and J.L. Mackenzie (eds.), Predicates and terms in functional grammar. Dordrecht: Foris, pp.29-47.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. (1996) English nominalizations in the layered model of the sentence. In B. Devriendt , L. Goossens , and J. van der Auwera (eds.), Complex structures. A functionalist perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp.325-355.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Noonan, M
    (1985) ‘Complementation’. In T. Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description. Volume II. Complex constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Prince, E
    (1981) Towards a taxonomy of given-new information. In P. Cole (ed.), Radical pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, pp.223-255.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Ross, J.R
    (1973) Nouniness. In O. Fujimura (ed.), Three dimensions of linguistics theory. Tokyo: TEC137-257.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Siewierska, A
    (2004) Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511812729
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511812729 [Google Scholar]
  28. Silverstein, M
    (1986) Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In P. Muysken , and H. van Riemsdijk (eds.), Features and projections. Dordrecht: Foris, pp.163-232. Originally published in R.M.W. Dixon (ed.), 1976. Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages. Canberra: Australian Institutes of Aboriginal Studies, pp. 112-171.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Van Belle, W. , and W. Van Langendonck
    (1996) The indirect object in Dutch. In W. Van Belle , and W. Van Langendonck (eds.), The Dative. Volume 1: Descriptive studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.217-250. doi: 10.1075/cagral.2.10van
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cagral.2.10van [Google Scholar]
  30. Verstraete, J.-C
    (2008) The status of purpose, reason, and intended endpoint in the typology of complex sentences: Implications for layered models of clause structure. Linguistics46.4: 757-788. doi: 10.1515/LING.2008.025
    https://doi.org/10.1515/LING.2008.025 [Google Scholar]
  31. (2010) Animacy and information structure in the system of ergative marking in Umpithamu. Lingua120: 1637-1651. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2009.05.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2009.05.011 [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Alignment; Dutch; Ergativity; Functional Discourse Grammar; Nominalisation; Split-ergativity
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