estrategia, discurso. estrategia, Discursivo, Acto Discursivo-Funcional, Gramática Funcional, Gramática clave: Palabras serlo. podría jamás ni discurso, del gramática que GDF una la no es concluye afirmando artículo El lenguaje. del uso del através mentes de encuentro cierto un que buscan yreceptores emisores de comunicativas estrategias comprensión la las de para herramienta GDF la una como interpreta artículo el Dik, de verbal interacción de modelo el Reavivando Discursivos. Actos distintos entre como Discursivo Acto un de dentro tanto fenómenos los en que ocurren principalmente centrado GDF ha la se ypor tanto éxito, no tuvieron gramaticalmente mismas las cribir ( Intervenciones en agrupan se Discursivos Actos Los Discursivo. Acto del (GDF) gramática como Discursivo-Funcional Gramática ala lugar dando yque contribuido, acabó ha (GF), Soliño que Gómez José Funcional al debate mática Gra la de dentro discurso del sobre papel el debate del seguimiento un hace artículo Este Resumen discourse. Keywords: itnor be. could of discourse, not is agrammar FDG that by asserting concludes article The of language. use the through of minds meeting a certain seek they as strategies hearer’sand communicative speaker’s of the realization atool for the as FDG on to interpret goes article the interaction, of verbal model Dik’s Reviving Acts. Discourse between and Act Discourse the within occur on phenomena that focused has FDG and successful, not have been grammatically Move the to circumscribe but into group Moves, attempts Acts Discourse Act. Discourse of the agrammar as (FDG) Grammar Discourse to Functional rise gave ultimately debate That model. that in a contributor, was role on of Soliño the discourse Gómez José (FG), to which Grammar Functional within debate the by tracing begins article This Abstract WHY FUNCTIONAL DISCOURSE GRAMMAR IS NOT, IS GRAMMAR DISCOURSE FUNCTIONAL WHY Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses Estudios de Canaria Revista AND COULD NOT BE, A DISCOURSE GRAMMAR NOT ADISCOURSE BE, COULD AND Functional Grammar, Functional Discourse Grammar, Discourse Act, strategy, strategy, Act, Discourse Grammar, Discourse Functional Grammar, Functional P q or podr ni u G é la DOI: https://doi.org/10.25145/j.recaesin.2020.80.05DOI: í ram a ser J. Lachlan Mackenzie J. Lachlan á D tica gram , una VU Amsterdam VU iscursivo , 80; April 2020, pp. 73-87; ISSN: e-2530-8335 ISSN: pp. 73-87; 2020, April , 80; á discurso del tica Moves -F es no unctional ), intentos los pero circuns de ,
- -
Revista canaria de estudios ingleses, 80; 2020, pp. 73-87 73 Revista canaria de estudios ingleses, 80; 2020, pp. 73-87 74 grammar and textuality (e.g. Vet Co [French], textuality and de Groot [Hungarian], Casper grammar work both confronted with them whose daily of foreign languages departments in teacher-researchers but sang pur werepractitioners not time of FG linguists at that (c) context; without understood reference discourse to the most of the not fully be etc.) could sentence constituents, type, extra-clausal (anaphora, focus, grammar more ever numerous of apparentof properties clausal FG, becoming that it was T Chafe, (M. grammar with its interface and of discourse analysis to the turning world the across were increasingly oriented linguists functionally from anumber of FG (a) considerations factors: arose in inclusionthe of discourse in PROLOG Grammar (Functional FG of implementation apparent D in also was grammar on clause focus “First This History”). (Mackenzie theories rivalling presuppositions those same as D time at that and others, many R Grammar, representations, Case its quasi-logical with (orclause ‘sentence’), Generative Semantics but Generative Grammar, also not least of the other grammars of context emergence of the the various in FG arose that I of clause. the foremost a grammar Mackenzie Functional Discourse Grammar Mackenzie D to FG, Functional theory a successor contributions of his –contributions were into to emergence feed of that the lasting Part 1 ( language” that in discourse of connected organization to acomplete give is of grammatical adequate account the and language of aparticular grammar of afunctional aim Simon “the highest not that written FG. A in role concerned the of discourse years of those conferences I Hengeveld. successor, Kees ultimate and student, colleague doctoral byedited his moreway in developed form into D anumber foundpublications of of their but more which many also inchoate ideas, I should it take? direction so, if what one father? doubts: of FG great continue could without its intellectual also adherents bandbut theory the of of the international for difficult emotionally of Simon death D and illness premature the of theory. the major Theof José’s years involvement with corresponded with FG development volume, editor commitment tofurther alifelong to of embrace the this Contexto”, “ (notably “ Soliño Gómez articles writing University Laguna, at the of La 1 Parts Grammar (FG; D Grammar contributor creative and active to Simon D an C. years for several n this period of flux, the question that was predominant in the workshops andthe workshopsin predominant was that the of period question flux, n this 12)? This was the very question to which José made the most important and theimportant most made which thequestion to José 12)? very was This
and 2 and FG, as originally conceived by originally FG, as José Gómez Soliño, in addition to his countless other achievements, was was other achievements, José countless addition Soliño, Gómez to in his almy Givón, Thompson andmany others);almy Sandra (b)the applicationin O ), especially in the nineties of last century, when he was teaching FG teaching century, when he of was last nineties the in ), especially rganización Jerárquica”) and inspiring his pupils, not least the guest guest the pupils, not his least inspiring Jerárquica”) and rganización Theory of Functional Grammar of Functional Theory ik nevitably, Simon had left behind not only a rich library ofnevitably, not library behind only arich Simon left had 1. I N n understanding this, it should borne be mind in this, n understanding ik ( ik ik saw himself as working with several of the several with working as himself saw ik TROD Theory of Functional Grammar. Parts 1 Parts Grammar. Functional of Theory iscourse Grammar (F Grammar iscourse D ). ik ( ik UC D ik (†1995),ik not only was that atime Functional Grammar Functional TIO Theory Grammar of Functional Theory ik ik’s workik’s on computational the , N Theory of Functional Grammar. Grammar. Functional of Theory ). later The towards push elational Grammar and and Grammar elational A .K. Halliday, Wallace Halliday, Wallace .K. D G; Hengeveld and G; Hengeveld and ), was first and ), first was ik’s Functional Functional ik’s fter all, had had all, fter T and 2 exto y exto ), ), . Caroline Kroon and A and Kroon Caroline R an of levels analysis, three instituting by from ‘grammar’ ‘discourse’ separating also while modifiers, and of operators, restrictors arsenal afull of layers with asystem using analysed be could FG notion the discourse that retained to opposing reconcile views– the Grammar D –dubbedFunctional model This reflected. commitments ofenough their A Hengeveldmodel (published “The as endorsement position. an of this suggests Jerárquica”); D – Hengeveld (“Cohesion”),Kees A to consistency. its inner injury any A without doing FG discourse to encompass allowing of discourse, into domain the included the forceful presence of classicists included forceful the José [ Hannay, Soliño Gómez and myself Mike [Serbo-Croat- Gvozdanović Jadranka Levels. theory ( theory of D comethehallmark had be to that sentences.layers The of individual FG to analysis the were analogous that ways in should analysed be and corpora) could in available were now that readily transcriptions and texts written theory.a single O into not could collapsed be domains but choices, two the grammatical users’ language in maybe detectable factors discourse production, of influence the and of discourse results the suitable tool for understanding ahighly have may developed as Grammar were therefore incommensurable. two the that and activity productthe of linguistic describes grammar while time in occurring process adynamic essentially is discourse that FG community. international Some the in maintained nineteen-nineties performance. of oral or transcriptions texts i.e. written material, attested of analysis and consultation the points towards sentences to elucidate theoretical away from D FG enticing linguists also was More linguistics of generally, corpus programs. rise the computer via consultable concordance andincreasingly were by textual definition trace the lines of connection between his thinking and F and thinking his of between connection lines the trace contribution brief this homenaje of Soliño. to The José’spurpose deserved richly notablywork the and in of José Gómez years of preceding the discussions vibrant the A did like notmodel new spring This
as we shall see below– José (“ Soliño see Gómez we shall as epresentational Level for ‘semantics’ and an E for an ‘semantics’ and Level epresentational Theory of Functional Grammar of Functional Theory The debate was to be resolved in 2000, when Kees Hengeveld whenKees proposed a new 2000, in be to resolvedThe debatewas 2 1 This shift towards the discursive came to dominate thethe debates to of dominate came discursive the towards shift This
The E The D Simon ik’s practices of using introspective data and invented and pseudo- data introspective of using practices ik’s xpression Level was later to be divided into Morphosyntactic and Phonological Phonological and Morphosyntactic into divided be to later was Level xpression ik’s posthumous work ( posthumous ik’s ik was himself a classicist bytraining. aclassicist himself was ik thers took the view that the products of discursive activity (those activity products of the discursive that took view the thers lbert R lbert I nterpersonal Level for ‘pragmatics and rhetoric’, and for ‘pragmatics Level nterpersonal a ijksbaron, whose corpora of Latin and Greek texts Greek texts and ijksbaron, of whose corpora Latin hmed Moutaouakil (“ Moutaouakil hmed thena from the brow from but the thena its in roots of had Zeus mong the major exponents of this view were mong view major the exponents of this ) could, it was argued, be extended upwards upwards extended be argued, it) could, was Theory of Functional Grammar. Part 2 Part Grammar. Functional of Theory B rchitecture”) in which both sides could find find sides could both which in rchitecture”) osnian], Kees Hengeveldosnian], [Spanish], Kees and 1 like Machtelt B Machtelt like xpression Level for ‘morphosyntax’.xpression Level T exto yContexto”,exto “ E nglish]); (d) and FG group the D G as currently constituted constituted currently G as olkestein, Harm Pinkster, Pinkster, Harm olkestein, O n the Layering”), and Layering”), and n the ik’s presentationik’s of the O rganización rganización iscourse iscourse E nglish nglish ) also ) also is to to is 2
Revista canaria de estudios ingleses, 80; 2020, pp. 73-87 75 Revista canaria de estudios ingleses, 80; 2020, pp. 73-87 76 not, and could not be, a ‘discourse grammar’. notnot, could a‘discourse be, and with abrief conclusion.with one’s The paper ends atool goals. for as attaining strategic of grammar and strategic interaction as of verbal order interaction in understanding of to verbal situate an way. D this 3revives in Section framework the of limiting advantages the participants in ( in participants at least some communicated content. some communicated at least ‘ cansada? ¿Está from Spanish I and practised. I practised. and therefore misleading and should be avoided. be should and misleading therefore desempeña el rol emisor no se muestra en un plano de igualdad” de plano un en muestra no se emisor rol el desempeña quien cual la de mujer respecto una por desempeñada está receptor de función que la de hecho el por (distinguished in morphosyntactic and/or phonological structure), and no A no and structure), phonological and/or morphosyntactic in (distinguished Clearly, A every aD have some for which form in the consequences they if of phrases, a single phrase, a single word asingle or acombination phrase, of clauses. asingle of phrases, succession show a non-clausal well up as just as may but they clauses, as expressed into divided D is activity overall This beings. other human to etc. warnings, requests, feelings, thoughts, communicate to effort an in of energy D elements, all of which are prefigured in Gómez Soliño Gómez in (“ prefigured are of which elements, all 52-53): speaker does not adopt an equal position”; not does equal adopt an speaker to whom the respect with by awoman performed is of addressee function the that thefact by affected form is of which ultimate the act interrogative out an carrying Mackenzie Mackenzie nterpersonal Level of analysis within F within of analysis Level nterpersonal iscourse is seen as actional in nature, the result of being’s one result the human nature, expenditure in actional as seen is iscourse 4 3 principle A defining of F A T variable identifying the Speaker (P Speaker the identifying A variable variable identifying the A the identifying A variable The Communicated Content (C Communicated The I Section 2 will present F 2 will Section
n essence, while FG was a grammar of the clause, F of clause, the agrammar FG was while n essence, n indication of the type of I type of the n indication The translation frequently employed in Spanish, ‘Gramática Funcional del D del Funcional ‘Gramática in Spanish, employed frequently translation The “un usuario del español realiza un acto interrogativo cuya forma final está condicionada condicionada está final forma cuya interrogativo acto un realiza español del usuario “un he D Functional Discourse Grammar Discourse Functional 2. F 2. 1 iscourse A iscourse n particular, my aim is to argue that despite its full name, F name, despite that its full to argue is my aim n particular, A contains an I an contains D 1 ), (“ Soliño Gómez G: AG RA ct (symbolized as A as (symbolized ct A llocution defining the type of speech act to be encoded be encoded to act of speech type the llocution defining MM re you tired?’ re D D ddressee (P ddressee G is that elements are specified in the analysis only only analysis the in elements specified are that G is G as a grammar of D the a grammar G as O AR llocution (F llocution O 1 ) A rganización Jerárquica” 53) example an rganización gives D s for the necessity of including the speech speech the of including s for necessity the F T G. The inner structure of A structure inner TheG. 4 1 in other words, translated into F the other words, in translated ) , ) is a grammar of D the agrammar ) is S 2
arguing that here “a user of Spanish is here is “a that of Spanish user arguing ) H A 3 1
) E DI 1 ) is the central concept of the central the ) is SC O O U iscourse A iscourse iscourse A iscourse rganización Jerárquica” rganización R iscourse iscourse S D E A G (Hengeveld and and G (Hengeveld C ct is expressed. expressed. is ct 1 T contains four four contains cts: many are are many cts: A iscourse A iscourse ct, showing showing ct, ik’s modelik’s iscurso’, is is iscurso’, 1 D lacks lacks G is G is D ct. ct. G suggest various pointers ( to (a) Move various Utterance an status: expressionsuggest as Discourse Grammar ( or Mackenzie phonological Hengeveld presence. and to clues their formally. I than rather dialogue, in theiroccurrence functionally,inof terms defined have been they since more in texts, protracted of Moves, for demarcation especially the evidence and conclusivefind to precise proved it difficult but has practice, good, so in far So of I asuccession pair,as response counts and greeting Move) (a a reaction or itself R is interest. layer of grammatical highest F hierarchical. thoroughly as of themselves part of larger ‘text frames’ ( ‘text frames’ of larger part themselves are blocks text These unit. interpersonal than rather Move arepresentational the as ( a‘text block’ as Jerárquica” 57) expressed for unit the of analysis higher than A than higher of analysis for. accounted be or it be phonological morphosyntactic (or under analysis, to both),unit needs that of the feature only where some is there formal assigned are these again, located; into Moves (M 49) or of in sum (51-52), information background of interruption to an provide after of line a narrative main to the areturn indicate 51); intonation Mackenzie and (Hengeveld a falling with of (b) insertion the formalism, the presence of the third person form está of third presence the the formalism, ( interaction. The expressioninteraction. The movimiento Move of term the proposed use autonomous the for an contribution ongoing to an (see R (2) D of (or predication reference and of a ‘ascription’) out performance the in carried i.e. mini-acts of of the Subacts, aseries consists and nature in a whole, actional is (1) illocution: interrogative the P explained only be can Discourse Particles Discourse J , the A , the iscourse A iscourse textualizaciones (
Un Modèle Grobet Un and Filliettaz oulet, I O T (M The Communicated Content, in keeping with theContent, I with Communicated keeping Thein ddressee, being marked as ‘high’ and ‘female’, alongside the indication of ‘female’, indication and the alongside ‘high’ as marked being ddressee, A n dialogue, aMove (an of either areaction I opens possibility up the n dialogue, his proposal develops work in the mid-nineties by Caroline Kroon Kroon develops proposal work by mid-nineties Caroline his the in f particular interest in the present context is the question present of the the possible is interest context in layers f particular I : [(F : 1 : [( : ct. I ct. A 1 I ): : I to introduce a summarizing Move (50); to introduce asummarizing (c) of expressions use the t has not been possible to identify fully reliable morphosyntactic reliable morphosyntactic not fully possible been t has to identify 1 t is here that the ‘pragmatic functions’ of T functions’ ‘pragmatic the heret is that ) ... ( ... ) ; these nested layers form part of his vision of text and discourse discourse and vision of of text his layers form part nested ; these N ), who –herself drawing on E ), drawing who –herself ) and Keizer ( Keizer ) and (F TER A by n )] (M )] 1 . F
including the respective variables in the grammar, with with grammar, the in variables respective the including D I )) (P )) D 1 G has adopted position D the G has that )) eaction Move).eaction sequence, a or a Thus question-answer G differs, as we shall see, in taking the Move as thethe as Move taking in see, as shall we G differs, I ) A Functional Discourse Grammar for English Grammar Discourse A Functional S to introduce a digressive Move (Keizer Move to (Keizer way introduce a digressive the by (hf P (hf is also used by (“ Soliño Gómez used also is marcos textuales J ) A (C for a comprehensive presentation) comprehensive a for I )] ( )] ddy R A I and the feminine form feminine the and )) nitiation and R nitiation and oulet’s notion of intervention ), which in turn form part form part ), turn in which bloque textual bloque nterpersonal Level as as Level nterpersonal opic and Focus are opic are Focus and iscourse A iscourse eaction Moves. eaction O ), but he sees rganización rganización Functional u 1 cts group cts nitiation nitiation ) ending ) ending cansada cansada so ) do to to –
Revista canaria de estudios ingleses, 80; 2020, pp. 73-87 77 Revista canaria de estudios ingleses, 80; 2020, pp. 73-87 78 interpersonal triggering of reflexivity. triggering interpersonal have that languages the few to it verified– is –if generalized only be could it clearly is intriguing, reflexives Lezgian about the observation although a Move; finally, and as regarded reasonably be could much longer span than adiscourse precede all could /t/-flapping;could so themarkers Discourse Grammar Functional by (as Mackenzie have Hengeveld conceded paratones and is nor do all intonation (most Moves do questions not, have afalling not for example), all all, and among the D the among (i.e. a representational rather than interpersonal grouping). interpersonal than rather (i.e. arepresentational Content be a Propositional fact in may holds reflexivity which within domain the that suggesting ( Mackenzie and terms ‘restricts’– (M terms the introduce a contrasting Move (59-60); (e) the domain of reflexivity in Lezgian (373); Move (59-60);Lezgian acontrasting in introduce (e) of reflexivity domain the 59); Mackenzie and (d) elements’ however deployment the like of ‘grammatical like Moves as opposed toMoves D as of distinctive present, none and necessarily are phenomenaof these necessarily are pointers no or indeed more tendencies. are than None they sense, intuitive make scope of reflexives in Latin. in of reflexives scope analysis” (Hengeveld and Mackenzie Functional Discourse Grammar Mackenzie and (Hengeveld analysis” of to unit found grammatical interaction relevant ofbeen Move, the “the largest we have seen in the proposals of (“ Soliño Gómez proposals the we in have seen as Move. FGsingle framework, the it were Such in attempts, made should said, be phonologically by ‘flapping’ an Utterance-final /t/ as/ /t/ phonologically by ‘flapping’an Utterance-final possibility, the E in of (g) paratones; use the (f) i.e., the Move serves to define the i.e.,limit upper of F to define Move the serves Grammar ( presentation Mackenzie the Hengeveld and in with strongly constituent D its among relations the which within domain the as continue to recognized be it not. Ibelieve does concepts? R grammatical of discarded Move the should that (at scrapheap to provisionally) the mean consigned be least Part 2 Part Jerárquica”) and notably in the final chapter of final notablyJerárquica”) the and in reflects the fact that F that thefact reflects concerned with both the internal properties of D properties the internal the both concerned with lies inside the scope of A scope the the inside lies a grammar of D the a grammar story along cut to 409-441), significantly titled ‘ 409-441), significantly 6 5 has correlate conclusionThedate then, that to no formal reliable be, must The goal of F Thegoal
See D See ), where of most frequent ‘Move’ the collocates in are Moreover, the long-distance reflexive in the Lezgian example (329)in example Hengeveld Lezgian the in reflexive long-distance Moreover, the iscourse A iscourse 373) occurs within the frame of indirect speech, speech, of indirect frame the within Functional Discourse Grammar 373) occurs iscourse A iscourse ik ( ik 421) for a similar case pertaining to the the to pertaining case 2421)Part asimilar for Grammar. Functional of Theory 430); however 430); iscourse A iscourse D D short iscourse A iscourse G is thus not to attempt an analysis of units larger than the the than larger of units not analysis thus toG is attempt an cts in the set {( set the in cts G, as its name indicates, is a grammar, and more specifically more and specifically a grammar, is indicates, its name G, as 1 ) variable). ) cts are examined and defined, and this proposal aligns aligns proposal this and defined, and examined are cts to introduce a Move that rounds off a story (Hengeveld to introduce offa Movestory a rounds that 1 variable) and its external properties (i.e. properties relations the variable) its external and Functional D AFunctional ct. , cts or,cts A possibly, of discourse. stretches larger could just as well link two D two link well as just could by the way the by T 6 A owards a functional grammar of discourse’. grammar afunctional owards 1 ) ... ( ... ) , A in sum nglish, of reducing two Moves to of one two reducing nglish, n D )} that lies within –and in technical technical in –and )} within lies that T ik ( ik exto yContexto”,exto “ iscourse A iscourse short story along cut to even and iscourse Grammar is therefore is Grammar iscourse Theory of Functional Grammar. Grammar. Functional of Theory ɾ / (431). A D G’s concerns. ather, Move the should ct (i.e. everything that that (i.e.ct everything , lthough these criteria criteria these lthough iscourse A iscourse Functional Discourse Discourse Functional within 50). D O and contains and This in turn turn in This rganización rganización cts (60),cts as oes this this oes fter fter to to 5 ;
A as of narratives structure seven-stage the concerned with is narrative, oral analogous to Soliño’s Gómez analogous (“ D inquiry. object of discourse-grammatical natural the conversation is of normal that sequencing incremental, one-thing-leads-to-another usual prey to the from falling to prevent job interviews chairs applied is by committee structure this anything, I strategies. communicative areflection of sense human any in being than rather order, to introduced bring measure and comparability efficiency administrative down atop- more any is than structure nesting this that should not fooled be into thinking R [ of knowledge boxes” (424) boxes within –[ within of “boxes set as a story. the and The former jobstructured is the interview users: language 1,Section D cited aim” in “highest the should (409) look achieving like” with keeping in and discourse of theory a what of out outlines bare “the setting of course the in There, and Waletzky “Narrative “Narrative Waletzky and (notably Labov analysts by various from data induced was However, structure this C. Levinson:C. thewords following of in Stephen most effectively made is to grammar discourse point the about reducing exchange, verbal of human area interaction, natural the A of discourse. agrammar from constituting phenomena far disparate but (if present) these patterns, still are lexical as well as pronouns, and proper speech, names direct tenses, markers, of discourse use the to consider them invites grammar, like hierarchically structured is discourse that Soliño (“Soliño membership of ( the categories” such for determining procedure effective an formulated ever has ‘story “no grammars’, grammarian story any, if A optional. at best are structure, the ‘episodes’ of various the consequences of formal the that sense the in from grammar stories. I impermissible about and permissible bstract –O bstract ituals]– in a manner that is reminiscent of grammatical organization. However, organization. we of grammatical reminiscent is that amanner in ituals]– ik’s other example ( example other ik’s grammar ofgrammar discourse formal as a thing such no is there why is That product. a contingent is advance–it in plan can none parties of the something is interaction outcome of amomentary [...] answer. by an followed be must aquestion The that no rule is but there answer, an expects a question that assumption an is there Thus, but by expectation. rule I nteraction is characterized by action chains and sequences [...] sequences and not governed by chains by action characterized is nteraction O rganización Jerárquica” 66), too, in pursuit of persuading his readers readers his Jerárquica” 66), too, of pursuit persuading in rganización ik considers two types of discourse that are consciously structured by structured consciously are that of discourse types considers two ik rientation –E E xchange of information] Statexchange of Knowledge] Procedure] Farewell Theory of Functional Grammar. Part 2430-431), Part Grammar. Functional of is which Theory A vents E and . (Levinson “ . (Levinson nalysis”), but without any claim to being a hypothesis a hypothesis to being nalysis”), but without claim any O rganización Jerárquica” 64-66) treatment of an of treatment an Jerárquica” 64-66) rganización valuation –R valuation O n the Human” 45-46; my emphasis) 45-46; Human” n the s Philip N. Johnson-Laird said of similar of similar N. said Johnson-Laird s Philip n addition, this proposal strays very far far very strays proposal n addition, this nd when it to comes conversational O pening rituals [Procedure [State [Procedure rituals pening esolution –E Mental Models 362). Models Mental Gómez pilogue –Closing. pilogue O pening – – pening f
Revista canaria de estudios ingleses, 80; 2020, pp. 73-87 79 Revista canaria de estudios ingleses, 80; 2020, pp. 73-87 80 development of F recentthe role in played a significant has communication of dialogicality The Soliño (“Soliño Mackenzie Mackenzie O the in articulation orgraphic possibly gestural Component),(with phonetic, to input the Contextual from ultimately the leading Component Grammatical the speaker’s in operations of encoding formulation and intention Component),communicative (modelled Conceptual the in followed by the and activity cognitive speaker’s the pre-linguistic with operations: sequence starts the interpretation of derivational F a unidirectional latter, favoured This individual”. the in has view ‘orthodox’ processing language resembles the more more be organization its effective will “a model of grammar ( of Mackenzie Hengeveld and pages initial the in articulated speaker-oriented the with, view to someand rivalry in extent the speaker performs aD performs speaker the intention, situation. of Given their a particular awareness competence and linguistic shared exploiting their minds, their between gap to the bridge users by language attempt an is communication moment. linguistic From perspective, this particular at a interactant of mind an the constitute together that etc. preconceptions, feelings, pragmática stores of information’ ‘pragmatic ( individual their is do notthey share ( passively, and environment actively the and language ashared to use ability the ( code the is share they What moment adialogue. in D Gómez Soliño (“ Soliño Gómez I communication. of linguistic nature strategic the emphasizes of the speaker. I of speaker. the intention communicative presumed the to attempts reconstruct then Utterance, the of receiver. information the latter, The pragmatic the in decoding in change the desired of effecting chance a reasonable has Utterance resultant the a way that reconstruction ( reconstruction the the of the speaker. The D of speaker. the elements thecontain of hearer’salso evaluation forexample, will, which significance a thefrom derive utterance, will they of significance the only part forms hearer the by decoded information polite; the and to remain desire the as such knowledge, of mere ofto omnipresence of the the conveyance motivations additional because intention, communicative not ofwords their are acomplete not least verbalization medio ik’s ( ik’s D iscourse iscourse ), i.e. the communicative situation in which they find themselves. What What themselves. find they ), which situation in i.e. communicative the Theory of Functional Grammar. Part 1 Part Grammar. Functional of Theory The “contingent product” referred to by Levinson occurs, as Gómezas The occurs, “contingent product”Levinson to referred by Figure 1 represents the speaker ( speaker 1represents the Figure What this means is that the form of words chosen by the speaker to perform to perform form of the words speaker by chosen the that is means this What O ), which are entirely personal and cover the totality of knowledge, beliefs, beliefs, of knowledge, cover totality the and ), entirely personal are which Functional Discourse Grammar rganización Jerárquica” 44) points out, within a dialogic situation. adialogic points Jerárquica” out, 44) within rganización A ct contributesct to, interpretation; but the speaker’s not the does dictate, reconstrucción n other words, the speaker anticipates ( anticipates speaker n other words, the O D rganización Jerárquica” 45) 1.rganización Figure in G (cf. “ Mackenzie iscourse A iscourse 3. AS iscourse A iscourse TRATE ) of the Utterance ( ) of Utterance the ct is therefore said to be underdetermined, i.e. to its underdetermined, be therefore is said ct ct, formulating and encoding their ideas in such such in ideas their encoding and formulating ct, G I C V D emisor 6). The alternative dialogical view brings view brings dialogical alternative 6). The ynamicity and D and ynamicity IE ) perspective back into back play,) perspective one that Functional Discourse Grammar W O ) and the hearer ( hearer the ) and utput Component (Hengeveld and D expresión lingexpresión G as modelling a succession of asuccession modelling G as F código D anticipación G ), have both i.e. they ialogue”) alongside, ialogue”) üística t is summarized by summarized t is receptor ). ) the hearer’s) the información información ) at some 1-2): 1-2): that import. that of trigger essential an but import, it also its total is content much than less very is among bacterial cells. bacterial among sensing’ ‘quorum is exception only the way; this in advances communication human) (including a (3) following mini-interaction: Consider clues. the of these most salient the among are of utterance the properties mentioned 1; of Figure reconstruction in process functional the the through said, has speaker of the what sense make and to clues try using is too, hearer the dialogue, I towns. Spanish commonmany in fashion the in down hosed been have newly they because wet be for may example streets the we wrong: be may that is abilities of abductive our Note acharacteristic that raining. been it has that we abduce may wet, are streets the that of we perceptions. observe Forour sense if example, make b (“ abductive is used rather, R as of decoding; result the 7 import The of aD
: i : Thom Scott-Philipps (“Nonhuman Primate Communication”) argues that all animal animal all that argues Communication”) Primate (“Nonhuman Scott-Philipps Thom Unfortunately Ihave promised to visit myUnfortunately A 7 ’d like to me. invite you with like to have dinner ’d Figure 1: D Figure O by Gómez Soliño (“ Soliño by Gómez n the Logical Necessity”), a form of reasoning that we use to we use that aform of Necessity”), reasoning Logical n the diagrammed as interaction of dialogical model ik’s iscourse A iscourse andy J. LaPolla has argued, the kind of reasoning of reasoning kind the argued, has J.andy LaPolla ct cannot generally be deduced or deduced be from induced generally cannot ct O rganización Jerárquica” 45). Jerárquica” rganización unt R ose tonight. ose n
Revista canaria de estudios ingleses, 80; 2020, pp. 73-87 81 Revista canaria de estudios ingleses, 80; 2020, pp. 73-87 82 function of anticipatory elements like E of elements anticipatory like function position of T initial into short relatively of division speech the production interpretation of and real-time to utterances: the of sensitivity framework the in understandable interaction are dialogical of informal unit (Mackenzie “ (Mackenzie unit (4) B of Aand on part the it inferences involve abductive does various Nevertheless, Discourse Grammar some attention F in dialogue. its way into F has found too, This, guesses. confidentthoseabout are they if interrupt speaker the even may they continue end, and and about will incomplete how an utterance guesses make also we Hearers have seen. as it involves that is guesswork, inference A fact. this possible, soon reflects as as of material of properties F various too, and this knows complete, speaker is the and utterance the not until postponed (a)
(d) (c)
(f) The decoding of this simple pair of Moves is relatively straightforward. simpleof straightforward. is Movesrelatively this pair of The decoding The role of grammar, from this perspective, is to facilitate strategic interplay in interplay in strategic facilitate is to perspective, this from The rolegrammar, of (b) clearly infers from the situation no from the mention but infers of time, Bclearly amakes the (e) O
ne property of utterance production and interpretation that has received received production has interpretation of and that utterance ne property that no conditionality is actually intended. actually is no conditionality that probably aconditional, but infer as Bwill formulated is –this to like I’d lacks the Spanish tú Spanish the lacks life partner is also invited or not? also is partner life you howabout Bfeel and that? does case, the be will this that to infer invite – this together’, have but more Amaybe mind? does in meal ‘consume evening an means literally –this me with dinner have of of A only guess! for A–can blow the invitation, the or accept simply softening apoliteness marker to unable at being aunt regret a commitment or made to their visit an Unfortunately, theadverb in inference clue down.Therethis is a to him/her turning is possibly roleand the of ‘white conversation, lies’ in commitments of dinner, family promises, about timing the knowledge A with dinner having to do with nothing has tonight –B Rose Aunt visit my to promised I have ‘tonight’. Ameans that is used on this word. on this used is intonation contrastive if especially of other evenings, possibility open the D tonight – this is a clear instance of underdetermination in E of in underdetermination instance aclear is –this G in the countdown to the P G in D opic elements which limit the hearer’s search space; the signalling signalling opic the hearer’s the space; elements limit which search D D 24): the process of ‘making sense’ (the process) sense’ is inferential 24): of ‘making process the ynamicity and D and ynamicity iscourse A iscourse Functional Functional Mackenzie and (Hengeveld its incrementality G is , which , D
typically connotes that A connotes that typically G, notably the ‘depth first’ principle that enforces encoding encoding principle first’ enforces that G, notably ‘depth the which
makes their inference (e) inference their leave could explicitmakes but also cts, with various preparatory and corrective A corrective and preparatory various with cts, vs. vosotr@s vs.
may be an expression of B an be may ialogue” 67-69). properties ialogue” grammatical Many nglish it nglish nother clue B found be may in F , the final position in a morphosyntactic position in a morphosyntactic final , the to infer that his or her his that Ato infer is distinction; , often associated with extraposition; extraposition; with associated , often is willing to pay, willing is but B is nother property of nother abductive property , but given shared social social , but given shared ’s displeasure at having ’s at having displeasure ’s apparently response can abduce that B that abduce A can nglish, which which nglish, ’s inclusion necessarily necessarily cts; the the cts; :
be either the man ( eitherbe man the (6) into D message the divides (6c) from (6a) (6b) and strategically distinguishes howwhat is speaker the (with aloose relation prosodic divisions contend to punctuation) and are that status know). y’ or see me let (like regulatory (referential are and/or substantive that ascriptive)are those and (5) E between E comparing E like language rigid syntactically arather in especially rules, fast and hard also are there clefting, and extraposition, their ideational material is chunked into chunked is material ideational their (104) of speaker’s it the amatter is “strategic that planning” how argue they clause, aD that demonstration of fact the (“ Kroon Caroline and Hannay Mike strategy. act speech indirect one an in I never an inherently is request T inherentlyis a never a Subact the on hearer. effect Forinstance, desired have the ‘campaign’ to of astrategic intention part communicative as created but are rather R I shown at the meaning F the characterize that of meaning two representations the that This entails individualities. their between differences deploy users order in to bridge the language tool intricate that an instrument, to make. permitted is hearer the that inferences abductive the on interpretation”“constraints (122-123), limiting in resides functionality i.e. their as rules grammatical such regards LaPolla else. anything no to freedom infer has hearer the and burst, man the that therefore (5a) only mean second clause: the can in subjectis specified a different unless identical be must clauses coordinated of two I to make. hearer the expect will speaker the that inference an is this burst; to latter have intended the that contexts within the hearer can make sense of what is being said. being of is what sense make can hearer the within contexts the restricts which elements prominence the given tobyand contrastive clefting, opic, but may be treated as one as part of the speaker’s communicative strategy; a strategy; of speaker’s the communicative oneopic, part as as but treated be may epresentational Level, do not replicate the speaker’s conceptualization or even their or their even do not speaker’s Level, replicate the epresentational conceptualization (c) (b) I e (b) (a) (a) This strategic approach has been very effectively examined and applied by examined effectively been very approachhas strategic This an that of is perspective this from emerges that grammar view of a The A n Spanish the unexpressed subject of the second coordinated clause could could clause subject of second coordinated the unexpressed the n Spanish longside such pragmatically inspired grammatical options as topicalization, topicalization, options as grammatical inspired longside pragmatically such nglish and Spanish: and nglish He for waited ages. He waited. ForHe waited. ages. He waited, forHe ages. waited, The man dropped thedroppedwatermelon and burst. man The nglish and Chinese, observes a contrast which applies analogously applies analogously which a contrast observes Chinese, and nglish l hombre dejó caer la sandía yestalló. l hombre sandía la dejó caer They go on to show that thego clues reliable most toD on They that showto el el hombre iscourse A iscourse n E nglish, by contrast, there is an inviolable rule that the subjects subjects the that inviolable rule an is there by contrast, nglish, nterpersonal Level and the semantic meaning shown at the shown at the meaning semantic the and Level nterpersonal ) or watermelon the ( cts: nterrogative I nglish. LaPolla (“Why Languages D Languages (“Why LaPolla nglish. iscourse A iscourse D G analysis of a G analysis A cts and the R the and cts D iscourse iscourse llocution, but again may be treated as as treated be may llocution, but again ct need not correspond to a syntactic not need ct correspond to asyntactic la sandía la A elationship”). A D cts, distinguishing those that that those distinguishing cts, iscourse iscourse ), but the speaker is likely likely ), is but speaker the A ct, the pragmatic pragmatic the ct, fter a detailed adetailed fter iscourse A iscourse iffer” iffer” 131), ct ct
Revista canaria de estudios ingleses, 80; 2020, pp. 73-87 83 Revista canaria de estudios ingleses, 80; 2020, pp. 73-87 84 a single Utterance with a single I asingle with Utterance a single insignificant – while in while (6c) – (M insignificant asrelatively seen is difference the – punctuation elaboration of first the an being (7) Kroon’s and Hannay notin terms, one but of of ideas, acts: or more into A asingle ideas or idea over more two an bythem, for dividing example for conveying strategies their and ideas their develops both component speaker that pre-grammatical it this Kroon, in is and For information. Hannay of pragmatic a continuation is Component, of ways D many in which Conceptual by component a triggered are mentioned of grammatical the workings above, the A theand formulation of D processes conceptualization our flowbetween direct two I two and R and representation I from the aconceptual of reverse-engineering ways R Connolly (“Conceptual John H. strategies. and job to ideas represent it grammarian’s whether the these is concert. Forconcert. F people’s (emphasis of same two his), example the the to attending reactions giving experience same the by way same the changed are of us two any that believe to reason R as next; from onethe itperson to differs that of is thought status of private, the individual Acorollary individual. private, is and thought public, is obvious while (23): language Levinson’s others. many conclusion and is on thinking; our aperspective to take us elementsthe in (consider all almost (c) we mean; say what languages our in ubiquity the of deixis do not often we very that by showing (post-)Gricean made discoveries pragmatics (b) multiple the language; in expressed be cannot of experience realms for many (16ff.):absent, are that fields even gaps, of entire lexical of lexical existence the(a) He mentions anumber of by points made distinguished. sharply be must meaning and thought that argue sympathizes, latter, the whomwhile with Levinson linguistics, cognitive with identified strongly are and conceptualization and structure A neither is nor desirable achievable. this that have view defended the Lexicon”) the -theorists and B and -theorists cts, since the latter operation is the result of the speaker’s strategic planning. A of planning. speaker’s the result operation the strategic latter is the since cts, ntonational Phrases ( Phrases ntonational epresentational Levels. O Levels. epresentational (b) (a) (M 8 A I The debate can be framed in terms of Levinson’s distinction between Levinson’sbetween in of terms distinction framed be can The debate a n (6a) (6b), and Move (M n important implication of this strategic view of F view strategic implication of this n important obert E obert
t the Phonological Level, (6a) and (6b) will be analysed as an Utterance ( Utterance an as analysed be (6b) (6a) and will Level, Phonological t the (M D I I : ( [( : I am going to the local airport tonight airport local going the I am to G, which is clearly a clearly is G, which -theorists (“From-theorists O pstein wrote in a recent essay (“The E arecent essay wrote in pstein A A I ) (M I ) ( ip A i ) and ( ) and J I epresentation”) has argued in favour of in doing so,epresentation”) proposing argued has ) )) E
lab ntonational Phrase. ntonational ct. The question has arisen among practitioners of F arisen The has ct. question ] (M ip J ), or (6b) possibly as two utterances ( utterances two ), as or (6b) possibly I ) consists of a single D of asingle ) consists thers (Hengeveld and Mackenzie “ Mackenzie and (Hengeveld thers I )) I ) is divided into two D into two divided ) is B uter to I -theory in Levinson’s implication in the terms, -theory (= (6c)) (= (= (6a), (6b)) nner” 14): former the equate semantic 8 ); (d) the way language forces forces ); (d) way language the iscourse A iscourse A mpty B mpty iscourse A iscourse cts or by combining two or two by combining cts D u i G is that there is no is there that G is ) and ( ) and ct. The contrast is, is, contrast The ct. rain”), “ R cts, the second the cts, u j ). form (6c) will eflections on eflections nterpersonal nterpersonal u ik’s notionik’s B i ) containing ) containing there is no no is there -theorists -theorists iscourse iscourse D G ” s in order to understand how it works as a strategic device. how order astrategic in it to as understand works on phenomena publicly the to need available focus of language grammarians that is for F within the Move. the F For reason, within that of properties D complete of internal the account I context. discourse their in understood phenomena fully only be can grammatical many that observation the bound up with was motivation for developing theory the original of discourse. but they do not add up to a grammar in the way that F way that the in dobut not they up add to a grammar analysis discourse discipline of theacademic to essential are observations These etc. evidentials, markers, of discourse tense, shifts about cohesive links, observations to except add nothing has on it outside, from the grammarian were,looking as the day, every butoutconstantly carry all that we analysis’ ‘discourse kind of the is This about B assumptions their and information pragmatic own will notice this and interpret and B notice this Awill interactant, an but as or positive why little so whyhe/she verb, Bsays amildly only speculate uses can (8). in discourse B b a (8) “bound”), butin F are pronouns,which reflexive antecedents in (8 in antecedents and and him D G’s stance with respect to the analysis of discourse. I of discourse. analysis to the G’s respect with stance I he he link that mechanisms co-indexing contain must grammar The to to n concluding, let us consider the repercussions of the preceding argument argument of preceding consider repercussions the let the us n concluding, : : n (8 He likes him. He likes What does John think about B John does think What Bill B ) , but this is far from forming a complete from forming of mini- account the far is , but this A he he ’s answer is, like all utterances, strategic. A strategic. utterances, all ’s like is, answer ): and are in generative grammar said to be “free” (unlike (unlike to “free” be said generative grammar in are him 4. C 4. R D ONCLUS evised paper accepted for publication: 29 January 2020 29 January publication: for accepted paper evised G is not, and indeed could not be, a grammar not could agrammar not, indeed be, G is and ill? ION iscourse A iscourse R D eviews sent to author: 28 January 2020 January 28 author: to sent eviews G they must be linked to their to their linked be must G they D ’s of A terms in utterance G does aspire to provide aspire G does a cts and their interrelations their and cts ’s information. pragmatic t will be clear that the the that clear be t will s a grammarian, one s agrammarian, to to John ’s
Revista canaria de estudios ingleses, 80; 2020, pp. 73-87 85 Revista canaria de estudios ingleses, 80; 2020, pp. 73-87 86 LaPolla Labov, Labov, Kroon Keizer Johnson-Laird Hengeveld Hengeveld Hengeveld Hengeveld Connolly Gómez Soliño Gómez Dik Dik Gómez Soliño Gómez E Dik Dik Hannay Dik pstein The Theory of Functional Grammar Functional of Theory The C. , Simon Functional Grammar C. , Simon The Theory of Functional Grammar Functional of Theory The C. , Simon Functional Grammar in C. , Simon PROLOG: An Integrated Implementation for English, French , Simon C. C. , Simon nam, enim, autem, vero and vero autem, enim, nam, of AStudy Latin: in Particles Discourse , Caroline. , E William, and Joshua and William, , R , Mike, and Caroline Kroon Caroline and , Mike, , R on I E 1995. Gieben, dam: Grammar.”. Linguistics Consciousness Theory of Language Structure Language of Theory M. Vismans. B Vismans. M. Mouton de Gruyter, 2004. 1-21. 2004. Mouton Gruyter, de Functional Grammar Grammar Functions of Language mar”. lbertz. A Olbertz. Hella A 2 (1995): 201-216. (1995): 2 Específicos Fines para guas cess-information-and-it-is-not-a-computer Os Estudios Ingleses no Contexto das Novas Tendencias Novas das Contexto no Ingleses Estudios Os Gruyter, 1997b. Gruyter, 1997a. and Dutch and Javier Pérez Guerra. Vigo: Universidade de Vigo, 1996. Vigo, de 42-68. Universidade Vigo: Guerra. Pérez Javier and velien. A Functional Discoursevelien. Grammar for English , John H. “Conceptual R “Conceptual H. , John d. June Helm. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1967. Press, of Washington 12-44. University Seattle: Helm. June d. pproach.” pproach.” obert. “The E “The obert. andy J. “Why Languages D Languages J. “Why andy , Kees, and J. Lachlan Mackenzie J. Lachlan and , Kees, , Kees, and J. Lachlan Mackenzie J. Lachlan and , Kees, , Kees. “The A “The , Kees. Functional in Pragmatics and Discourse Grammar.” Functional in “Cohesion , Kees. Language Variation: Papers on Variation and Changes in the Sinosphere and and Sinosphere the in Changes and Variation on Papers Variation: Language nference.” The Theory of Functional Grammar Functional of Theory The , José. “La O “La , José. , José. “ , José. Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference and and Inference Language, of Science Towards aCognitive Models: N.Mental , Philip . E . B Casebook inCasebook Grammar Functional Discourse d. Christopher S. B S. Christopher d. . Cambridge: CUP, 1983.. Cambridge: erlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1992. Mouton Gruyter, de erlin: T erlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1997. Mouton Gruyter, de erlin: 1-16. mpty B mpty exto y Contexto en la la en y Contexto exto msterdam: John B John msterdam: rchitecture of a Functional D of a Functional rchitecture rganización Jerárquica de los T los de Jerárquica rganización Waletzy. “ . E 54.5 (2016): 1135-1161. (2016): 54.5 Aeon. Aeon. rain.” d. J. Lachlan Mackenzie and María Á. Gómez-González. B Gómez-González. Á. María and Mackenzie J. Lachlan d. WOR . A Computationally O AComputationally Formulation: and epresentation 12:1 (2005), 87-124. 12:1 (2005), . O . “ msterdam: Noord-Holland, 1978. Noord-Holland, msterdam: iffer: Variation in the Conventionalisation of Constraints Constraints of Conventionalisation the in iffer: Variation A xford: O xford: Narrative A Narrative utler, John H. Connolly, R Connolly, H. utler, John cts and the R the and cts enjamins, 2013. 125-153.enjamins, Web
Revista canaria de estudios ingleses, 80; 2020, pp. 73-87 87