Part ofa series on
Linguistics
Outline History Index
General linguistics Diachronic Lexicography Morphology Phonology Pragmatics Semantics Syntax Syntax–semantics interface Typology
Applied linguistics Acquisition Anthropological Applied Mathematical Computational Conversation analysis Corpus linguistics Discourse analysis Determinism Distance Documentation Ethnography of communication Ethnomethodology Forensic History of linguistics Interlinguistics Neurolinguistics Philology Philosophy of language Phonetics Psycholinguistics Sociolinguistics Text Translating andinterpreting Writing systems
Theoretical frameworks Formalist Constituency Dependency Distributionalism Generative Glossematics Functional Cognitive Construction grammar Functional discourse grammar Grammaticalization Interactional linguistics Prague circle Systemic functional Usage-based Structuralism
Topics Autonomy of syntax Compositionality Conservative and innovative language Descriptivism Etymology Iconicity Internet linguistics LGBTQ linguistics Origin of language Orismology Orthography Philosophy of linguistics Prescriptivism Second-language acquisition Theory of language Terminology
Portal
v t e

Functional grammar (FG) andfunctional discourse grammar (FDG) aregrammar models and theories motivated byfunctional theories of grammar. These theories explain howlinguistic utterances are shaped, based on the goals and knowledge of natural language users. In doing so, it contrasts with Chomskyantransformational grammar. Functional discourse grammar has been developed as a successor to functional grammar, attempting to be more psychologically and pragmatically adequate than functional grammar.^[1][2]

The top-level unit of analysis in functional discourse grammar is thediscourse move, not thesentence or theclause. This is a principle that sets functional discourse grammar apart from many otherlinguistic theories, including its predecessor functional grammar.

Functional grammar (FG) is a model ofgrammar motivated byfunctions,^[3] asSimon C. Dik's thesis^[4] pointed towards issues withgenerative grammar and its analysis of coordination back then, and proposed to solve them with a new theory focused on e.g. concepts such assubject andobject. The model was originally developed bySimon C. Dik at theUniversity of Amsterdam in the 1970s,^[5] and has undergone several revisions since then. The latest standard version under the original name is laid out in the 1997 edition,^[6] published shortly after Dik's death. The latest version features the expansion of the model with a pragmatic/interpersonal module byKees Hengeveld and Lachlan Mackenzie.^[1] This has led to a renaming of the theory to functional discourse grammar. This type of grammar is quite distinct fromsystemic functional grammar as developed byMichael Halliday and many other linguists since the 1970s.

The notion of "function" in FG generalizes the standard distinction ofgrammatical functions such assubject andobject. Constituents (parts of speech) of a linguisticutterance are assigned three types or levels of functions:

1. Semantic function (Agent, Patient, Recipient, etc.), describing the role of participants in states of affairs or actions expressed
2. Syntactic functions (Subject and Object), defining different perspectives in the presentation of a linguistic expression
3. Pragmatic functions (Theme and Tail, Topic and Focus), defining the informational status of constituents, determined by the pragmatic context of the verbal interaction

There are a number of principles that guide the analysis of natural language utterances according to functional discourse grammar.

Functional discourse grammar explains the phonology, morphosyntax, pragmatics and semantics in one linguistic theory. According to functional discourse grammar, linguistic utterances are built top-down in this order by deciding upon:

1. Thepragmatic aspects of the utterance
2. Thesemantic aspects of the utterance
3. Themorphosyntactic aspects of the utterance
4. Thephonological aspects of the utterance

According to functional discourse grammar, four components are involved in building up an utterance:

• The conceptual component, which is where the communicative intention that drives the utterance construction arises
• The grammatical component, where the utterance is formulated and encoded according to the communicative intention
• The contextual component, which contains all elements that can be referred to in the history of the discourse or in the environment
• The output component, which realizes the utterance as sound, writing, or signing

The grammatical component consists of four levels:

• The interpersonal level, which accounts for thepragmatics
• The representational level, which accounts for thesemantics
• The morphosyntactic level, which accounts for thesyntax andmorphology
• The phonological level, which accounts for thephonology of the utterance

This example analyzes the utterance "I can't find the red pan. It is not in its usual place." according to functional discourse grammar at the interpersonal level.

At the interpersonal level, this utterance is one discourse move, which consists of twodiscourse acts, one corresponding to "I can't find the red pan." and another corresponding to "It is not in its usual place."

• The first discourse act consists of:
  • Adeclarativeillocutionary force
  • A speaker, denoted by the word "I"
  • An addressee
  • A communicated content, which consists of:
    • A referential subact corresponding to "I"
    • An ascriptive subact corresponding to "find", which has the functionFocus
    • A referential subact corresponding to "the red pan", which contains two ascriptive subacts corresponding to "red" and "pan", and which has the functionTopic
• The second discourse act consists of:
  • A declarative illocutionary force
  • A speaker
  • An addressee
  • A communicated content, which consists of:
    • A referential subact corresponding to "it", which has the functionTopic
    • An ascriptive subact corresponding to "in its usual place", which has the function Focus
      • Within this subact there is a referential subact corresponding to "its usual place", which consists of:
        • A referential subact corresponding to "its"
        • An ascriptive subact corresponding to "usual"
        • An ascriptive subact corresponding to "place"

Similar analysis, decomposing the utterance into progressively smaller units, is possible at the other levels of the grammatical component.

• Nominal group
• Thematic equative
• Verbal Behavior (book)

• Functional Grammar home pageArchived 2019-11-27 at theWayback Machine
• Functional Discourse Grammar homepage

• Grammar
• Grammar frameworks

• Webarchive template wayback links