Table Of Content<DOCINFOAUTHOR""TITLE"Structural-functionalstudiesinEnglishgrammar:InhonorofLachlanMackenzie"SUBJECT"StudiesinLanguageCompanionSeries,Volume83"KEYWORDS""SIZEHEIGHT"240"WIDTH"160"VOFFSET"4">
Structural-FunctionalStudiesinEnglishGrammar
StudiesinLanguageCompanionSeries(SLCS)
TheSLCSserieshasbeenestablishedasacompanionseriestoStudiesinLanguage,
InternationalJournal,sponsoredbytheFoundation“FoundationsofLanguage”.
SeriesEditors
WernerAbraham MichaelNoonan
UniversityofVienna UniversityofWisconsin,Milwaukee
EditorialBoard
JoanBybee ChristianLehmann
UniversityofNewMexico UniversityofErfurt
UlrikeClaudi RobertLongacre
UniversityofCologne UniversityofTexas,Arlington
BernardComrie BrianMacWhinney
MaxPlanckInstitute Carnegie-MellonUniversity
ForEvolutionaryAnthropology,Leipzig
MarianneMithun
WilliamCroft UniversityofCalifornia,SantaBarbara
UniversityofNewMexico
EdithMoravcsik
ÖstenDahl UniversityofWisconsin,Milwaukee
UniversityofStockholm
MasayoshiShibatani
GerritDimmendaal RiceUniversityandKobeUniversity
UniversityofLeiden
RussellTomlin
EkkehardKönig UniversityofOregon
FreeUniversityofBerlin
Volume83
Structural-FunctionalStudiesinEnglishGrammar
InhonourofLachlanMackenzie
EditedbyMikeHannayandGerardJ.Steen
Structural-Functional Studies
in English Grammar
In honour of Lachlan Mackenzie
Editedby
Mike Hannay
Gerard J. Steen
VrijeUniversiteitAmsterdam
JohnBenjaminsPublishingCompany
Amsterdam(cid:2)/(cid:2)Philadelphia
TM Thepaperusedinthispublicationmeetstheminimumrequirements
8
ofAmericanNationalStandardforInformationSciences–Permanence
ofPaperforPrintedLibraryMaterials,ansiz39.48-1984.
LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData
Structural-functionalstudiesinEnglishgrammar:inhonourofLachlan
Mackenzie/editedbyMikeHannayandGerardJ.Steen.
p. cm.(StudiesinLanguageCompanionSeries,issn0165–7763;v.
83)
Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindexes.
1.Functionalism(Linguistics).2.Englishlanguage--Grammar.I.
Hannay,Michael.II.Steen,Gerard.III.Mackenzie,J.Lachlan.
P147.S76 2007
410.1/8--dc22 2006051825
isbn9789027230935(Hb;alk.paper)
©2007–JohnBenjaminsB.V.
Nopartofthisbookmaybereproducedinanyform,byprint,photoprint,microfilm,or
anyothermeans,withoutwrittenpermissionfromthepublisher.
JohnBenjaminsPublishingCo.·P.O.Box36224·1020meAmsterdam·TheNetherlands
JohnBenjaminsNorthAmerica·P.O.Box27519·Philadelphiapa19118-0519·usa
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/02/2007;15:39 F:SLCS83CO.tex / p.1(47-107)
Table of contents
Introduction 1
I. Corpus-basedstudies
Nodoubtandrelatedexpressions:Afunctionalaccount 9
Anne-MarieSimon-Vandenbergen
Oncertainlyandzeker 35
PieterByloo,RichardKasteinandJanNuyts
PrenominalpossessivesinEnglish:Functionanduse 59
EvelienKeizer
DitransitiveclausesinEnglishwithspecialreferencetoLancashiredialect 83
AnnaSiewierskaandWillemHollmann
‘Itwasyouthattoldmethat,wasn’tit?’It-cleftsrevisitedindiscourse 103
MaríadelosÁngelesGómez-González
AnothertakeonthenotionSubject 141
DikBakkerandAnnaSiewierska
ThemodalauxiliariesofEnglish,π-operatorsinFunctionalGrammar
and“grounding” 159
LouisGoossens
Thekingisonhuntunge:Ontherelationbetweenprogressiveandabsentive
inOldandEarlyModernEnglish 175
CasperdeGroot
II. Thearchitectureoffunctionalmodels
MentalcontextandtheexpressionoftermswithintheEnglishclause:
AnapproachbasedonFunctionalDiscourseGrammar 193
JohnH.Connolly
AdverbialconjunctionsinFunctionalDiscourseGrammar 209
KeesHengeveldandGerryWanders
JB[v.20020404] Prn:22/02/2007;15:39 F:SLCS83CO.tex / p.2(107-127)
Tableofcontents
Treetigersandtreeelephants:AconstructionalaccountofEnglish
nominalcompounds 227
MatthewAnstey
EnglishconstructionsfromaDutchperspective:Wherearethedifferences? 257
ArieVerhagen
NotestowardsanincrementalimplementationoftheRoleandReference
Grammarsemantics-to-syntaxlinkingalgorithmforEnglish 275
ChristopherS.Butler
Grammar,flowandproceduralknowledge:Structureandfunction
attheinterfacebetweengrammaranddiscourse 309
PeterHarder
Thenon-linearityofspeechproduction 337
MichaelFortescue
Aspeaker/hearer-basedgrammar:Thecaseofpossessivesandcompounds 353
TheoA.J.M.Janssen
Index 389
JB[v.20020404] Prn:6/12/2006;14:29 F:SLCS83IN.tex / p.1(47-121)
Introduction
ThiscollectionofstudiesispresentedinhonourofJ.LachlanMackenzie,whoin2004
left the Chair of Modern English Language at the Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam to
start a new professional life. During a period of over twenty-five years working in
EnglishlanguageandlinguisticsintheNetherlands,Lachlanmadeasignificantcontri-
butiontothedevelopmentofSimonDik’sFunctionalGrammarandtofunctionalist
linguisticsingeneral.Inadditiontohistheoreticalwork,Lachlanappliedfunctional
linguisticinsightstotheteachingofwriting,andinrecentyearshasplayedanincreas-
ingly prominent role in furthering the study of English in Europe as a whole with
his work for the European Society for the Studyof English (ESSE). Lachlan contin-
uestoworkinFunctionalGrammarandiscurrentlycooperatingwithKeesHengeveld
(Hengeveld&Mackenzieforthc.)onthearchitecturaldetailsofFunctionalDiscourse
Grammar (FDG), which has grown out of Functional Grammar (see Mackenzie &
Gómez-González 2004). FDG takes units of discourse as the basic unit of analysis
and aims toaccount more adequatelythan its predecessor for the form of linguistic
expressionsintermsoftheiruseinactualcommunication.
Althoughhedoesnotshyawayfromdetailedstudyofotherlanguages,Lachlan’s
workhasbeenpredominantlyrelatedtoEnglish,andhispublicationshavecometobe
characterizedbytwostrongfeatures.Inthefirstplacehehasinsistedonfine-grained
functionallinguisticanalysis,andinrecentpublicationshasmademoreandmoreuse
ofauthenticnaturallyoccurringdataforsuchpurposes(e.g.Mackenzie2003,2005).
Secondly,hehasalwayssoughttoproposeformalaccountswhicharetruetotheprin-
ciples of the chosen theoretical framework, and which reinforce that framework. In
thisrespect,hisrecentworkinFDGhasmadeproposalsforagrammaticalapparatus
someelementsofwhichoperateinrealtimeaspartofalanguageproductionmodel,
thusenhancingpsychologicaladequacy(e.g.Mackenzie2000,2004).
In keeping with these interests, this collection honours him with a number of
studies in the lexico-grammar of English which focus on the one hand on close
reading of language in context and on the other hand on current functional the-
oretical concerns. The various contributions represent distinct functionalist models
of language, including Functional Grammar and Functional Discourse Grammar,
Systemic-Functional Grammar, Role and Reference Grammar, Cognitive Grammar
and Construction Grammar. Taken together, however, they typify current work be-
ing conducted from the grammatical perspective within what Butler has called the
functionalistenterprise,theaimofwhichis
JB[v.20020404] Prn:6/12/2006;14:29 F:SLCS83IN.tex / p.2(121-178)
Introduction
tounderstandhowtheformsofhumanlinguisticcommunicationarerelatedto
the functions theyserveinthe exchange ofmeanings underconditionsdefined
bythesocial andcognitivecontexts ofuse,and bythe structureoftheongoing
interactionitself. (Butler2003,Vol.2:477)
Thecoreofthefunctionalist enterpriseis indeedtherelationbetween structureand
usage. Although usage-based approaches have been attacked,notably by Newmeyer
(2003), as confusing the boundary between knowledge of language and use of lan-
guage,itremainsafundamentalpartoftheenterprisetoidentifylinguisticstructures
which are constrained by specific features of use, or which actually encode specific
featuresofuse,asmanyofthecontributionshereshow.
Whateverparticulartheoreticalmodeloneembraces,thefunctionalistenterprise
requiresthatthatmodelshouldaspireinequalmeasuretodescriptiveadequacyand
tovarious kinds ofexplanatory adequacy.In terms of descriptive adequacythis vol-
umefollowsthecallfromButler(2003)toembracethestudyofcorporabyoffering
asetofstudieswhicharebasedonauthenticlinguisticdataproducedinwell-defined
naturalcommunicativesettings.Suchstudiespermitafine-grainedlinguisticanalysis
whichcanleadtoenhanceddescriptionsofusage.Inparticular,insightintothearray
ofcontextualfactorsthatplayaroleindeterminingusagemayprovideabasisforafor-
malaccountwhichcontributestothediscoursaladequacyoftherelevanttheoretical
model.
PartIaccordinglyoffersasetofdescriptivelyoriented,data-drivenstudies,start-
ingoffwithAnne-MarieSimon-Vandenbergen’sfunctionalaccountofnodoubt and
relatedexpressions onthebasisofcorpusstudiesofbothsynchronic anddiachronic
data.Nodoubthasdevelopedasaresultofgrammaticalizationasadiscoursemarker,
andtheanalysisofthecontextofuseprovidesfurtherevidencefortheneedtostudy
modalexpressionsingeneralasmeansfornegotiatingopinions.PieterByloo,Richard
Kastein,andJanNuytslookatasimilarphenomenon,presentingacomparisonofthe
useofcertainlyandDutchzeker,onthebasisofoneoftheHarryPotterbooksandits
Dutch translation, plus two small samples from the British National Corpus (BNC)
andtheCorpusofSpokenDutch(CGN).Thecloseanalysis,whichalsohasanhistor-
icaldimension,allowsthemtodetailthesimilaritiesanddifferencesbetweenthetwo
adverbs,andtheyspeculateaboutwhatitisallowsmarkersofepistemiccertaintytode-
velopawiderrangeofdifferentmeaningsthanweakerepistemicexpressions.Evelien
KeizerusesmaterialtakenfromtheBritishcomponentoftheInternationalCorpusof
English (ICE-GB)toexamine thefactors which determinethe choiceofprenominal
possessives evenif post-nominal alternatives also appear acceptable,and proposes a
unifyingcognitive-pragmaticprinciplewhichmightaccountfortheuseofoneform
rather than another. Mariade los Ángeles Gómez-González focuses on the features
and discourse distribution of it-clefts, also based on data from the ICE-GB corpus.
Sheshowshowthedifferentconfigurationsofgivenandnewinformationwithinclefts
relatetospecifictopiccontinuitystrategiesandproposesexplanationsforthedistribu-
tionofcleftsoverdifferenttexttypes.AnnaSiewierskaandWillemHollmanconsider
JB[v.20020404] Prn:6/12/2006;14:29 F:SLCS83IN.tex / p.3(178-253)
Introduction
thecodingofthemeandrecipientconstituentsinditransitiveclausesusingfourdiffer-
entcorporacontainingdatafromLancashiredialect.Theyestablishthreeratherthan
just two ditransitive patterns and search for evidence to determine whether the dif-
ferent constituent orders relate to pragmatic status or whether a more fundamental
structuraldifferencemightbeinvolved.
This first group of five studies all use corpora to gain a fuller understanding of
howspecificstructuresareusedinawiderdiscoursecontext.Inthethreeremaining
studiesinPartI,theauthorsgoastepfurtherandmakeuseofcorpusdatatopropose
a reanalysis of how specific constructions might be handled in a functional model.
First,DikBakkerandAnnaSiewierskatacklethecontroversialnotionofsubjecthood
anduseEnglishcorpusdatatoanalysehowpragmaticandsemanticfactorsdetermine
speakers’choiceofaparticularconstituentasclausalsubject.Theygoontoconsider
other languages and propose a multifunctional framework for subject choice which
can be embedded in a functional model. Louis Goossens then uses corpus data to
examinehowmodalauxiliariesofEnglishareusedovertime,andexploitsthisanalysis
toargueforamodificationoftheircognitive-grammaticalaccountwithinthemodel
proposedbyLangacker(1991)aswellastheirFGaccountwithinthemodelproposed
by Dik (1997). Finally, Casper de Groot analyses a number of Middle English text
fragments toexamine how the use of two periphrastic constructions may be related
to the progressive construction in present-day English, and exploits this analysis to
proposeanewhypothesisthatcompeteswithalternativeproposalsintheliterature.
PartIIgoesyetastepfurtherandisbycontrastmuchlessdata-drivenandmore
model-driventhanPartI.Thechangeoffocusinthispartmeansthatarangeofdif-
ferent models are involvedand that theindividual contributionsare moregeared to
questions relating to explanatory rather than descriptive adequacy. The first contri-
butioninPartIIisfromJohnConnolly,whoshowshowitispossible,inamodelof
the natural language user which relates FDG to a contextual component, to specify
the relationship between these two components so as to provide an explanation for
certainaspectsoftheuseofadpositionalexpressionsinEnglish.Alsoworkingwithin
FDG,KeesHengeveldandGerryWandersthenargueforthedistinctionoftwodif-
ferentkindsofadverbialconjunction,lexicalandgrammatical,andillustratehowthe
interpersonalandrepresentationallevelsproposedwithinFDGarerelevantformod-
elling these different conjunction types. Matthew Anstey looks at English nominal
compoundsfromtheperspectiveofthereader/listener,andseekstodevelopamodel
whichcanbepsychologicallyadequate.Todothis,heargues,itisnecessarytoadopt
andexpandprinciplesofConstructionGrammar. ArieVerhagenillustratesthevalue
ofaconstructionalapproachinexplainingthefactthatgrammarsconsistofbothregu-
laritiesandidiosyncrasies.Thiscomesstronglytotheforewhenonecomparessimilar
constructionsintworelativelycloselyrelatedlanguageslikeDutchandEnglish.Finally
in thisgroup, ChrisButler takesas his starting point the incremental nature of lan-
guageproductionandputsforwardproposalsforhowthemodelofRoleandReference
Grammarmightgaininpsychologicaladequacybyhavingasetofsemantics-to-syntax
mappingruleswhichcapturetheincrementalityoftheproductionprocess.
