On the place and role of ‘discourse’ in the Functional Discourse Grammar model. The interface between language system and language use

IF 1.7 2区 文学 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Francis Cornish
{"title":"On the place and role of ‘discourse’ in the Functional Discourse Grammar model. The interface between language system and language use","authors":"Francis Cornish","doi":"10.1016/j.langsci.2023.101584","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Mackenzie (2020) is a defense of the position adopted by the architects of the standard model of Functional Discourse Grammar (FDG): namely that the model cannot (and even could never) be considered a ‘grammar of discourse’. The article examines the arguments given for rejecting the ‘discourse’ dimension from the FDG model, proposes an independent account of discourse, and suggests a means of dovetailing it within a model of the wider utterance context. On the one hand, the author's arguments are in the main valid: for ‘discourse’, as characterized in section 3, is not a formal, clearly delineated object amenable to systematic treatment within a grammatical model of a given language. Yet on the other, it is arguable that even the presence of the term ‘discourse’ in the model's name is not <em>in fine</em> justified. Notwithstanding, in order to include the ‘discourse dimension’ (section 3), it is argued that the Core FDG model could be integrated with a broader model of the utterance context involved. This would enable it to account more adequately, for example, for the ways in which indexical reference, the lexicon and adjectival modification operate in actual texts. In turn, it would influence certain of the other characterizations independently assigned within the Core model.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51592,"journal":{"name":"Language Sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Language Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0388000123000499","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Mackenzie (2020) is a defense of the position adopted by the architects of the standard model of Functional Discourse Grammar (FDG): namely that the model cannot (and even could never) be considered a ‘grammar of discourse’. The article examines the arguments given for rejecting the ‘discourse’ dimension from the FDG model, proposes an independent account of discourse, and suggests a means of dovetailing it within a model of the wider utterance context. On the one hand, the author's arguments are in the main valid: for ‘discourse’, as characterized in section 3, is not a formal, clearly delineated object amenable to systematic treatment within a grammatical model of a given language. Yet on the other, it is arguable that even the presence of the term ‘discourse’ in the model's name is not in fine justified. Notwithstanding, in order to include the ‘discourse dimension’ (section 3), it is argued that the Core FDG model could be integrated with a broader model of the utterance context involved. This would enable it to account more adequately, for example, for the ways in which indexical reference, the lexicon and adjectival modification operate in actual texts. In turn, it would influence certain of the other characterizations independently assigned within the Core model.

论“语篇”在功能语篇语法模型中的地位和作用。语言系统与语言使用之间的接口
Mackenzie(2020)对功能语篇语法(FDG)标准模型的构建者所采取的立场进行了辩护:即该模型不能(甚至永远不可能)被视为“语篇语法”。本文考察了从FDG模型中拒绝“话语”维度的论点,提出了话语的独立解释,并提出了一种将其与更广泛的话语语境模型相吻合的方法。一方面,作者的论点在很大程度上是有效的:正如第三节所描述的那样,“话语”并不是一个正式的、清晰描绘的对象,它可以在给定语言的语法模型中进行系统的处理。然而,另一方面,有争议的是,即使“话语”一词出现在模型的名称中,也不是完全正当的。尽管如此,为了包含“话语维度”(第3节),有人认为核心FDG模型可以与所涉及的话语语境的更广泛模型相结合。这将使它能够更充分地说明,例如,索引参考、词典和形容词修饰在实际文本中的操作方式。反过来,它会影响在核心模型中独立分配的某些其他特征。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Language Sciences
Language Sciences Multiple-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
38
期刊介绍: Language Sciences is a forum for debate, conducted so as to be of interest to the widest possible audience, on conceptual and theoretical issues in the various branches of general linguistics. The journal is also concerned with bringing to linguists attention current thinking about language within disciplines other than linguistics itself; relevant contributions from anthropologists, philosophers, psychologists and sociologists, among others, will be warmly received. In addition, the Editor is particularly keen to encourage the submission of essays on topics in the history and philosophy of language studies, and review articles discussing the import of significant recent works on language and linguistics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信