16.1728, Review: Ling Theories: Anstey & Mackenzie (2005)

[LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-16-1728. Wed Jun 01 2005. ISSN: 1068 - 4875.

Subject: 16.1728, Review: Ling Theories: Anstey & Mackenzie (2005)

Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Wayne State U <aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Aristar-Dry, Eastern Michigan U <hdry at linguistlist.org>
 
Reviews (reviews at linguistlist.org) 
        Sheila Dooley, U of Arizona  
        Terry Langendoen, U of Arizona  

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org/

The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, Wayne
State University, and donations from subscribers and publishers.

Editor for this issue: Naomi Ogasawara <naomi at linguistlist.org>
================================================================  

What follows is a review or discussion note contributed to our 
Book Discussion Forum. We expect discussions to be informal and 
interactive; and the author of the book discussed is cordially 
invited to join in. If you are interested in leading a book 
discussion, look for books announced on LINGUIST as "available 
for review." Then contact Sheila Dooley at collberg at linguistlist.org. 

===========================Directory==============================  

1)
Date: 31-May-2005
From: Freek Van de Velde < Freek.VanDeVelde at arts.kuleuven.ac.be >
Subject: Crucial Readings in Functional Grammar 

	
-------------------------Message 1 ---------------------------------- 
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2005 12:28:34
From: Freek Van de Velde < Freek.VanDeVelde at arts.kuleuven.ac.be >
Subject: Crucial Readings in Functional Grammar 
 

EDITORS: Anstey, Matthew P.; Mackenzie, J. Lachlan
TITLE: Crucial Readings in Functional Grammar
SERIES: Functional Grammar Series 26
PUBLISHER: Mouton de Gruyter
YEAR: 2005
Announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/16/16-877.html


Freek Van de Velde, Department of Linguistics, University of Leuven 
(Belgium)

PURPOSE AND CONTENTS

'Crucial Readings in Functional Grammar' is a collection of 11 papers 
each of which has contributed significantly to the development of 
Functional Grammar (FG), as originally conceived and later 
elaborated by the late S.C. Dik (1978, 1989, 1997a, 1997b). Covering 
a wide range of topics, from clause combining to the architecture of 
the lexicon, it provides an historical and theoretical background to FG 
and to the recent advancements which have led to its 
successor 'Functional Discourse Grammar' (FDG) (Mackenzie & 
Gómez-González 2004; Hengeveld & Mackenzie fc). As such, it is 
complementary to e.g. Anstey (2004). Each article is followed by a 
short chapter under the heading 'further reading' pointing out the 
impact the contribution at issue has had on subsequent research. The 
book concludes with a list of books and doctoral dissertations that are 
supportive of the framework of FG.

In the Introduction the editors, ANSTEY and MACKENZIE discuss the 
general outline and purpose of the book, and describe the 'external 
history' of FG: its geographical focal points, its conferences, its 
website and its major exponents. In addition, the internal history is 
cursorily touched upon: the authors refer to the eclectic nature of the 
model "combining the explicitness and generativity of Chomskyan 
grammar, the semantics of Case Grammar, the syntax of Relational 
Grammar and (implicitly) the pragmatics of the Prague School" (this 
volume: ix, citing Anstey 2004). Central to the model are the rejection 
of transformational operations and the embracing of a fully 
functionalistic approach to language, in that syntax is deemed to be 
semantically motivated. In this way, FG aims to meet the standards of 
typological, pragmatic and psychological adequacy (Dik 1997a). The 
authors give an overview of the development of FG during the eighties 
and the nineties to a full-fledged theory encompassing a broad range 
of domains in linguistics, theoretical as well as applied, syntactic as 
well as pragmatic. Two hallmarks of FG, the layered structure of the 
clause introduced by Hengeveld (this volume [1989]) on the one hand 
and the growing interest in discourse on the other, enhanced the 
descriptive and explanatory power of the theory but at the same time 
turned out to be a fragmentation bomb. The precise nature and 
amount of the different layers and the suited place to implement 
discourse material, are both subject to current debate. Those 
espousing the extension of the layered structure to the discourse level 
("upward layering") find themselves challenged by those who 
advocate the relegation of discourse operations to a separate module 
("modular approach") (Hengeveld 2004b). The metamorphosis of FG 
into FDG is an attempt to reconcile various scholars subscribing to 
opposite strands of thought.

The introduction concludes with a note on what is not in the book. 
One the one hand, articles on traditional areas such as phonology 
and morphosyntax are absent, because FG has by and large 
remained silent about them. On the other hand, due to space 
limitations and the specific set-up of the book, articles are missing on 
subjects that FG did attend to, like "expression rules of FG, modality in 
FG, the growing impact of corpus linguistics, the relation between FG 
and other models, and on applications of the theory in computer 
linguistics" (this volume: xii).

The first article in the collection is a reprint of HENGEVELD's 
famous 'Layers and Operators in Functional Grammar', originally 
published in 1989. It is the only article in the volume that dates from 
before the nineties, but its inclusion is justified by the profound impact 
it has had on the overall design of the theory of FG. Hengeveld 
borrowed the concept of layering from Foley & Van Valin (1984) to 
give a neat account of modality, clause combining and the relative 
ordering of Tense, Aspect and Mood (TAM) morphemes. The basic 
idea is that a full clause is a successive expansion of different layers, 
each selecting its own modifiers (satellites and operators). A crucial 
distinction is made between the lower representational layers on the 
one hand, and the higher interpersonal layers on the other. In line with 
the general assumption of FG that the underlying structure is to be 
primarily understood in semantic terms (cf. Dik 1997a, Anstey 2004), 
the layering Hengeveld proposes is motivated in a semantic way, in 
that the various layers refer to entity types of different order in a way 
that is reminiscent of Lyons (1977: 442ff.). In a subsequent part of the 
paper, Hengeveld focuses on operators (grammatically expressed 
modifiers). The semantic categories the operators fall into are aligned 
with the various layers. To take the TAM-morphemes as an example: 
Aspect is argued to attach to layer 1 (hosting the predicate), Tense 
and objective Mood are on the predicational layer 2 and subject and 
evidential Mood on the propositional layer 3. The allocation of the 
operators to distinct layers yields an elegant account for their relative 
order (in line with ideas of Bybee 1985), for constraints on their use in 
various constructions and for scope effects in their interaction. The 
last part of the paper is devoted to satellites (lexically expressed 
modifiers), which transpire to behave similarly. The integration of 
satellites in the layered structure of the clause will be extensively 
pursued in the paper of Dik e.a. (this volume: 169-218).

The second paper is RIJKHOFF's 'Toward a Unified Analysis of Terms 
and Predications', published in 1990. Rijkhoff shows how the layered 
structure of the clause, as discusses by Hengeveld in the previous 
paper, can be extended to the structure of the noun phrase (NP) 
(or 'terms' as NPs are called in FG) as well. As was already 
mentioned, the underlying layered structure is of a semantic nature, 
so if there should be any correspondence between layered clause 
structure and layered term structure, some common meaning has to 
be found. To provide this joint meaning, Rijkhoff appeals to Aristotle's 
distinction between 'quality', 'quantity' and 'location'. Applied to the 
term, each of these domains qualifies a different modification slot. The 
tripartite division of the term is largely analogous to some older work 
on NP structure distinguishing between an adjective slot, a quantifier 
slot and a determiner slot (cf. e.g. Van der Lubbe 1958 on Dutch 
NPs). Rijkhoff's three layers relate to two of the clausal layers: the 
quality layer corresponds to layer 1 and the quantity layer as well as 
the locality layer both correspond to layer 2. This leads Rijkhoff to put 
forward a split-up in the predicational layer 2 in clauses, which he 
justifies by signalling the scope differences between frequentative 
markers (quantity) and tense markers (locality).

Contrary to traditional descriptions of NP structure, Rijkhoff's main 
interest is in the field of the operators. Quite innovatively, he draws a 
parallel between verbal aspect ("Aktionsart") and nominal aspect 
("Seinsart"), also situated at layer 1. In the verbal realm, he discerns 
four aspectual distinctions, which he arrives at by the cross-
classification of the features [beginning] and [ending]. This 
yields 'imperfective' (unmarked for beginning, unmarked for 
ending), 'ingressive' (marked for beginning, unmarked for 
ending), 'egressive' (unmarked for beginning, marked for ending) 
and 'perfective' (marked for beginning and marked for ending). In the 
nominal domain, the features are [structure] and [shape], 
yielding 'conceptual' (unmarked for structure, unmarked for 
shape), 'mass' (marked for structure, unmarked for shape), 'individual' 
(unmarked for structure, marked for shape) and 'collective' (marked 
for structure and marked for shape). In later work on nominal aspect, 
the distinctions have been slightly altered: the feature [structure] has 
been replaced by [homogeneity] and instead of a division 
between 'marked' and 'unmarked', the feature has got three potential 
values: nouns are now argued to be either positively or negatively 
marked for homogeneity or unmarked for the feature at issue. The 
aforementioned foursome of nouns has been extended with general 
nouns and set nouns (for details: Rijkhoff 2002: 28-59).

The quantity layer 2 hosts the number markers whereas the locality 
layer 3 hosts the deictic elements. After having introduced these 
layers in detail, scope effects and the relative order of the 
morphological markers are discussed to corroborate the parallelism 
between the clause and the noun phrase: both on the semantic and 
on the formal side, the layered structure of the clause and of the term 
display similar behaviour. The correspondence between clauses and 
terms is less straightforward in the domain of satellites, however. In 
canonical FG, all term modifiers are considered to be restrictors, 
incrementally narrowing down the intension, yet nothing similar to 
those restrictors is postulated at clause level. The problematic relation 
between restrictors and satellites is still unresolved in FG (cf. Keizer 
2004).

In the 'further reading' section, reference is made to the revisions 
Rijkhoff's account has been subjected to in the past years, most 
notably the introduction of a separate layer for definiteness and 
specificity. This prefigures the FDG design that relegates these 
discourse categories to the interpersonal module (Hengeveld 
2004a,b).

In the third article 'Parts of Speech' (1992) by HENGEVELD, two major 
innovations to the theory of FG are suggested. The first is the 
introduction of a variable for each predicate (the introduction of 
predicate variables is also at issue in Keizer (this volume: 109-139), 
infra). Justification for this suggestion comes from two phenomena: 
firstly, predicates may be anaphorically referred to, and secondly, they 
may serve as an antecedent for relativization. The advantages of 
adding these variables become apparent in different areas: first, it is a 
helpful addition to the description of some kinds of verb 
complementation. Next, it proves useful in the treatment of term-
predicates (details: 81-82). Moreover, the availability of term variables 
appears necessary to account for anaphora to attributive adjectives 
and for submodification (details: 83). By the same token, anaphoric 
reference can be made to illocutionary predicates and this similarly 
calls for a predicate variable (84). 

The second innovation is the account Hengeveld gives for parts of 
speech. He distinguishes four parts of speech (Verb, Noun, Adjectives 
and Adverbs), which can each function as the first restrictor (head) of 
a predicate phrase, by virtue of their predicate variable, so to speak. 
The part of speech such a predicate phrase consists of constrains the 
functions it can fulfil. In typological research, these constraints in turn 
can be used as a heuristic to the part of speech that is involved. To 
give an example: when a predicate can only be used predicatively, it is 
a verbal one.

Hengeveld applies his part of speech system to typological data, and 
comes up with a distinction between 'flexible' and 'rigid' languages. 
Rigid languages are those in which different parts of speech are 
separated: a particular word cannot be used as a nominal and as a 
verbal predicate. Flexible languages, on the other hand are those in 
which one word can fulfil different functions, and seems to belong to 
different parts of speech. In Dutch for example, there is no formal 
difference between adjectives and (manner) adverbs. Both rigid and 
flexible languages differ, however, in how many parts of speech they 
actually possess: a particular language may have only verbs and 
nouns, but no adjectives. This means that there will be no attributive 
modifier in noun phrases. The advantage of Hengeveld's description 
is that it distinguishes between, say a rigid language that only has 
adjectives but no adverbs on the one hand, and a flexible language 
that does not differentiate between adjectives and adverbs on the 
other. Or, to take another example, between a rigid language that has 
only verbs on the one hand, and an extremely flexible language where 
all words can be used in all kinds of constructions. Interestingly, the 
four parts of speech can be ordered in a hierarchy (Verb > Noun > 
Adjective > Adverb), such that "a category of predicates is more likely 
to occur as a separate part of speech the more to the left it is in this 
hierarchy" (96).

As the 'further reading' section rightly points out, this article's 
importance "has lain in the link that has been forged between FG and 
typological work on diverse languages".

The fourth article is KEIZER's 1992 paper 'Predicates as Referring 
Expressions'. In essence, it deals with the issue of predicate variables, 
and as such bears much resemblance to Hengeveld's 
(contemporaneous) proposal (this volume [1992]), though it discusses 
the matter in a more extensive way. Moreover, Keizer draws attention 
to the inconsistency in the differentiated ontology that forms the basis 
of the layered structure (cf. supra) as a result of the FG treatment of 
terms: terms can refer to any kind of entity, whereas the different 
layers that together build up the clause refer unequivocally to one kind 
of entity. Hence terms cannot be the structural unit exclusively 
embodying first order entity types (for details: 114-115). Keizer's 
solution is the introduction of the "predicator" as the first restrictor of 
terms referring to first order entity types. In that way, it is situated in 
between the predicate, which functions as the first restrictor of a term 
referring to a zero-order entity type and the predication, the first 
restrictor of a term referring to a second order entity type.

The next section in Keizer's paper is on reference, which is fairly 
liberally defined: not only first order entities, both also higher order 
entities are argued to refer. In addition, even zero-order entities 
(predicates) are taken to have referring function. The major 
advantage of Keizer's approach is her well-designed outline of various 
kinds of copular sentences, which together with a discussion of the 
implications her model has on topic assignment forms the bulk of the 
rest of the paper.

The fifth paper is MACKENZIE's (1992) article 'Places and Things', 
which deals with issues related to that in Keizer (this volume [1992]): it 
explores the nature of reference, in particular with regard to the 
difference between places and things. Mackenzie argues that places, 
times and attributes have no entity-status, although reference to them 
is perfectly feasible. Basically, he claims that 'places' form a category 
of their own, quite distinct from regular entities. He supports his line of 
thought by arguments from philosophy as well as by linguistic data 
(notably the pronominal system), and quite a lot of effort is put into the 
implementation of his ideas in to the theory of FG. The most 
remarkable modification to the FG model is his proposal to provide 
spatial prepositions with their own predicate variable, which is of 
course equally used for places. The need for such a predicate 
variable can be deduced from the fact that place-referring terms do 
not always have locational function (146). This observation, together 
with the observation that places seem to be able to be referred to by 
entity-referring pronominals ('this' instead of 'here' for example) leads 
Mackenzie to distinguish between three kinds of opposition: locational 
vs. non-locational semantic functions, place-denotation vs. entity-
denotation and place-reference vs. entity-reference, which not 
necessarily coincide, to account for all sorts of construction in English 
(details: 149ff.).

'The Hierarchical Structure of The Clause and The Typology of 
Adverbial Satellites' (1990) by DIK, HENGEVELD, VESTER & VET is 
the sixth article to be included in the volume. It builds further on 
Hengeveld (this volume [1989]) by applying the layered structure of 
the clause to all kinds of satellites: adverbs, extra participants, 
subordinate clauses etc. A typology of satellites is arrived at by 
analyzing both their internal complexity and the way they are attached 
to the main clause in terms of layered structure. For adverbials, this 
yields a classification that is analogous to that of (a.o.) Greenbaum 
(1969), but it is more fine-grained and it has the advantage that the 
adverbials are further subcategorized by their internal organization. 
Evidence comes initially from semantic arguments, but corroboration is 
given by phenomena from such diverse areas as pragmatic function 
assignment, scope effects, subject and object assignment, predicate 
formation, semantic constraints on the occurrence of satellites, 
ordering and position differences, paraphrase possibilities et cetera 
(for details concerning this sometimes theory-specific terminology: 183-
205). The authors end on a note on the distinction between restrictive 
and non-restrictive satellites, which appears to tie up with the layered 
structure of the clause.

HARDER's (1992) 'Semantic Content and Linguistic Structure in 
Functional Grammar. On the Semantics of "Nounhood''' deals with 
topics related to some of those signalled in Keizer (this volume 
[1992]), Hengeveld (this volume [1992]) and Mackenzie (this volume 
[1992]), albeit from a quite different perspective.

Harder is concerned with "the philosophical underpinnings of 
Functional Grammar" (this volume: 246) and raises some critique to 
the architecture of underlying structure in FG, a feature it has in 
common with Chomskyan approaches (cf. supra). He clearly points 
out the risk of circularity in explaining a surface form by making appeal 
to an underlying form there is no direct empirical evidence for. He 
emphasizes the need to define the underlying structure solely on 
semantic grounds. This entails a purification of FG's underlying 
structure, retaining only those elements that can be semantically 
motivated and - in turn - empirically controlled by matching them up 
with surface expressions.

All this immediately raises the question about the nature of coded 
meaning. Harder is much in favour of a "pragmatic" model that is 
addressee-oriented: linguistic expressions are regarded as 
instructions to guide the interpretation process of the addressee. 
Expanding on this idea, Harder notices the link between FG on the 
one hand, and other approaches like Discourse Representation 
Theory, Procedural Semantics, Relevance Theory and Cognitive 
Grammar (224).

Another concern of the author is the distinction between process and 
product in grammar. His view of meaning as instructions to the 
addressee links up with the idea that grammar describes not so much 
the product as the process of language production. The discussion 
between the two views on language will gain importance in the late 
nineties, and no consensus seems to have been reached (cf. 
Mackenzie & Gómez-González 2004, Hengeveld 2004b, and 
the 'further reading' section to this article 246-248).

Next, Harder draws a distinction between 'terms' and 'predicates', 
corresponding to the difference between 'onoma' 
and 'rhema', 'subject' and 'predicate' or 'noun' and 'verb' (226-227), 
the major difference being that the latter term in the opposition is 
semantically 'incomplete', in contrast to the 'complete' former term. 

After these theoretical reflections, the author probes the semantics of 
noun phrases. He strips them from their predicate logic design, doing 
away for instance with variables and restrictors. He restates the 
semantics of the term as an instruction to the addressee, in line of 
what he has put forward in his theoretical discussion. The basic 
semantic instruction a term contains is an appeal to the addressee "to 
conceive of something that can carry properties". Information about 
nominal aspect is not inherent in the noun, but is bestowed to it by 
additional instructions. As for 'word classes', Harder pleads for a 
semantic foundation of their definition, in terms of his distinction 
between complete terms and incomplete verbs (cf. supra). In another 
chapter, he assesses the FG view on reference and definiteness. He 
suggests that "the term 'reference' is only necessary for definite 
reference" (235), and suggest to dispose of it. With regard to 
definiteness, his view turns out to be in accordance with the standard 
view of FG to a large extent.

'On Assigning Pragmatic Functions in English' is a long excerpt of a 
1991 article by MACKENZIE & KEIZER. After contemplating on the 
process versus product problem in FG (cf. supra), the authors carry 
out a thorough examination of the notions Topic and Focus 
respectively. FG has a rather convoluted classification (Dik 1997a, 
Ch.13). What a stretch of discourse is about is called 'Discourse 
Topics' in FG. Discourse Topics are subdivided into New Topics, 
Given Topics, Resumed Topics and Subtopics. Focus, on the other 
hand, is subclassified into New (Completive) Focus and Contrastive 
Focus. The former is in turn subclassified into Non-Emphatic New 
Focus (Assertive focus) and Emphatic New Focus, itself subdivided 
into Contrastive New Focus (Parallel Focus) and Non-contrastive New 
Focus. The latter (Contrastive Focus) is subclassified into Parallel 
Focus and Counter-Presuppositional Focus, itself subdivided into 
Replacing Focus, Expanding Focus, Restricting Focus and Selecting 
Focus. In addition, Topic and Focus interact in a complicated manner 
with the concepts Given and New. As becomes clear from the labels, 
the subclassification of Topic and Focus is largely based on the Given-
New distinction. Although the two dimensions (Topic-Focus; Given-
New) are of course closely related, they are still regarded as separate 
dimensions in FG. This has some awkward consequences: New 
Topics are in essence topical and focal at the same time. In §3.4, the 
authors expand on all other sorts of problems with the relation 
between these two notions (Topic/Focus and Given/New). Their 
solution to the problems with the application of the FG pragmatic 
functions in English is to jettison the idea of Topic function in English, 
as there seem to be no formal characteristics ("special treatment") of 
Topics in this language, whereas there are in fact special 
constructions for Focus constituents. The rest of the article is devoted 
to an assessment of the consequences of their analysis.

In 'The Utterance as Unit of Description: Implications for Functional 
Grammar' HANNAY partakes in the discussion, already alluded to in 
the introduction, about whether FG should extend its layered structure 
upward to the discourse level or should adopt a modular approach 
with a separate module for grammatical and discourse properties 
respectively. Hannay links up this discussion with the process or 
product discussion. Through an analysis of "non-clausal message 
units" (sentences consisting of 'fragments') and other constructions 
(adverbial clause combining, non-restrictive relative clauses and 
illocutionary satellites), the author suggests that elements other than 
the clause can equally function as an utterance. Such elements are by 
no means 'incomplete'. This article can be seen as an endorsement of 
the top-down approach, where the speaker attends to discourse 
issues at the interpersonal layers before he arrives at the 
representational level.

VET's (1998) 'The Multilayered Structure of the Utterance' critically 
examines Hengeveld's layered structure of the clause (this volume 
[1989]), concentrating on the representation of direct speech: the 
speech act status which Hengeveld assigns to it, is called into 
question. The modifications Vet suggests to account for mismatches 
between speech act and grammatical form lead to a modular 
approach, which is later taken up in FDG (Mackenzie & Gómez-
González 2004).

The final chapter is MINGORANCE's 'Functional Grammar and 
Lexematics in Lexicography', providing a theoretical foundation of the 
design of the lexicon in FG, a component that is somewhat neglected 
in Dik 1997a.

CRITICAL EVALUATION

As was pointed out in the introduction, this book is a welcome 
resource for those who want to know more about FG than what is 
amassed in Dik (1997a,b). It expands on some issues that were not 
entirely satisfactorily accounted for (e.g. cf. Rijkhoff), not well 
elaborated (e.g. Mingorance), or subject to controversy in standard 
FG (e.g. Vet). Other articles bridge the gap between FG and its 
successor FDG (e.g. Hannay) and still other articles seem to have 
been included as landmarks in the development of the theory of FG, 
showing its descriptive power (e.g. Dik et al.), notably in typological 
research (e.g. Hengeveld [1992]). (This is not to say that the other 
articles do not add to the descriptive power of the model, of course.)

The selection covers a wide range of topics (clause syntax, noun 
phrase syntax, pragmatics, lexicon, semantics, discourse), although 
there is perhaps too much overlap in the contributions by Hengeveld 
[1992], Keizer, Mackenzie and Harder, all of which indeed originally 
appeared in one and the same thematic issue. Then again, if some 
matters turn out to be of more central concern to a particular 
framework, these predilections should perhaps be mirrored in the 
selection. I assume a compilation of articles of a more formal creed 
would possibly display an inclination towards WH-dependencies, 
island constraints or raising phenomena for instance. Nevertheless, in 
view of the absence of such influential FG papers as Vet (1986) or 
Bolkestein (1992), which doubtlessly deserved to be included in this 
volume, the selection seems somewhat askew. One (admittedly 
trifling) remark on the editing work: mention of the source of the 
articles collected is not always consistent: original page numbers are 
missing in Hengeveld [1992], Keizer, Mackenzie, Harder; publication 
date is missing in Hannay, Mingorance and publisher is missing in 
Hengeveld [1992], Keizer, Mackenzie, Dik et al.

Most of the articles originally appeared in volumes that are widely 
available. One may hence raise the question whether there really was 
any need for this collection as a separate book. However, it may be 
argued that the publication of this book has to be seen as a sort of 
codification of FG as a full-fledged framework slightly past its heyday 
of the nineties, which is thus shown not to rest solely on the two-
volume-length account of Dik (1997a,b), but has also attracted the 
interest of a wide range of scholars, who leave a legacy which persists 
in FDG. Another benefit of this compilation in book form is the 'further 
reading' sections, which contribute to the understanding of 
the 'Wirkungsgeschichte' of FG.

REFERENCES

ANSTEY, M. P. 2004. "Functional Grammar from its inception". In: J.L. 
Mackenzie & M.A. Gmez-Gonzlez (eds.) 23-71.

BOLKESTEIN, A. M. 1992. "Limits to layering: Locatability and other 
problems." In: M. Fortescue, P. Harder & L. Kristoffersen (eds.) 
Layered structure and reference in a functional perspective. 
Amsterdam: Benjamins. 387-407.

BYBEE, J. L. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between 
meaning and form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

DIK, S. C. 1978. Functional Grammar. Amsterdam: North Holland.

DIK, S. C. 1989. The theory of Functional Grammar. 1: The structure 
of the clause. Dordrecht: Foris.

DIK, S. C. 1997a. The theory of Functional Grammar. Part 1: The 
structure of the clause. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.

DIK, S. C. 1997b. The theory of Functional Grammar. Part 2: Complex 
and derived constructions. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.

FOLEY, W. A. & R. D. VAN VALIN. 1984. Functional Syntax and 
Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

GREENBAUM, S. 1969. Studies in English adverbial usage. London: 
Longman.

HENGEVELD, K. 2004a. "The architecture of a Functional Discourse 
Grammar". In: J. L. Mackenzie & M.A. Gómez-González (eds.) 1-21.

HENGEVELD, K. 2004b. "Epilogue". In: J. L. Mackenzie & M. A. 
Gómez-González (eds.) 365-378.

KEIZER, E. 2004. "Term structure in FG: a modest proposal" WPFG 
78.

LYONS, J. 1977. Semantics (2 vol.). Cambridge: Cambridge University 
Press.

MACKENZIE, J. L. & M. A. GÓMEZ-GONZÁLEZ (eds.) 2004. A new 
architecture for Functional Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

MACKENZIE, J. L. & M. A. GÓMEZ-GONZÁLEZ (eds.) fc. Studies in 
Functional Discourse Grammar. Berne: Peter Lang.

RIJKHOFF, J. 2002. The Noun Phrase. Oxford: Oxford University 
Press.

VAN DER LUBBE, H. F. A. 1958. Woordvolgorde in het Nederlands: 
een synchrone structurele beschouwing. Assen: Van Gorcum.

VET, C. 1986. "A pragmatic approach to tense in Functional 
Grammar." WPFG 16. 

ABOUT THE REVIEWER 

Freek Van de Velde is a PhD student in linguistics at the University of 
Leuven (Belgium). He is currently preparing a dissertation on the 
diachrony of the noun phrase in Dutch (supervised by Joop Van der 
Horst). His main research interests are historical syntax and 
morphology, Dutch syntax, typology.





-----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-16-1728