[Lingtyp] 'Functional concepts' or rather: ‘functional categories’

[Jan Rijkhoff]

In the message that prompted the current discussion, I wrote that we must keep semantic and formal categories apart in morphosyntactic typology, because members of these categories have their own ‘mini-grammars’. Now Bill suggests that ‘comparative concepts’ (a term that I do not use, but which seems more or less synonymous with Greenberg’s semantic categories - cf. Haspelmath 2007: 126) “are either functional ("purely semantic") concepts, or hybrid.”

It will not come as a surprise that I believe it is essential we should also distinguish between functional and semantic categories, as in (a better version of this table can be found in e.g. Rijkhoff 2015a: 649):

Functional Category: Qualifying Modifier (in the noun phrase)

Semantic
Categories

Formal Categories
Adjective               Prep. Phrase                   Relative Clause

Size

a big N

 a N of enormous size    a N that is rather big

Value / Quality

an expensive N

 a N of great value         a N that is pretty cheap

Age

a young N

 a N under age 16          a N that is much too young

Color

a black N

 a N of blackness           a N that is pitch black

The same function (qualifying modifier) expressed by members of
different formal (Adjective, Prep Phrase, Rel Clause) and semantic categories (Size, Age, etc.)

Other functional modifier categories are classifying modifier (‘kind’ distinctions, as in 'evolutionary biology'), quantifying modifier (e.g. numerals, number marking), localizing/anchoring modifier (e.g. demonstrative, tense marking; adverb(ial)s of time and space), discourse-referential modifiers (for definitions, examples etc., see Rijkhoff 2008a-b, 2009, 2010, 2014). These functional modifier categories include both grammatical and lexical expressions (e.g. both past tense affix and 'yesterday'), have different scopal properties (as can be seen in a ‘layered’ representation), and can be used to analyze both clauses and noun phrases. A strongly simplified model of the layered organization of functional modifiers categories in the clause and the NP can be seen in e.g. Rijkhoff (2014: 132)
      Notice also that languages need not employ the complete set of these functional modifier categories and that Freek Van de Velde (2007, 2009, 2012) suggested two additional modifier categories, also taking into account diachronic aspects of the ‘layered’ model of functional modifier categories.

I agree with Bill when he seems to suggest that functional (interpersonal / communicative / discourse) categories should be the starting point for a cross-linguistic morphosyntactic investigation. I have proposed a more or less comprehensive list of functional categories at the SLE conference in Leiden last year (Rijkhoff 2015b), where I defined members of functional categories as the products of an interpersonal act.

I distinguish between four main types of interpersonal acts (and consequently between four main types of functional categories): illocutionary or discourse acts, thetical acts, propositional acts (which include Acts of Modification; cf. Croft 1990, Rijkhoff 2014), and pragmatic acts.  I am currently working on an article based on the talk I gave at the SLE 2015 in Leiden, which contains a more detailed presentation of interpersonal acts and functional categories.

As to Matthew’s previous message. He wrote When you (=JR) say “As far as I can remember, these factors (i.e. strategies which effectively helped to eliminate data that obstructed cross-linguistic comparability - JR) do not a major play a role in Matthew’s word order studies”, this is accurate in terms of what I have published but inaccurate in terms of what I have done.
    It is unfortunate that Matthew did not specify what he did in terms of data management to improve cross-linguistic comparability for his word order studies. This would have been very useful to know, if only for methodological reasons.

Jan Rijkhoff

References

Croft, William. 1990. A conceptual framework for grammatical categories (or: a taxonomy of Propositional Acts). Journal of Semantics 7-3, 245-279.
Rijkhoff, Jan. 2008a. Synchronic and diachronic evidence for parallels between noun phrases and sentences. In Folke Josephson and Ingmar Söhrman (eds.), Interdependence of Diachronic and Synchronic Analyses, 13-42. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Rijkhoff, Jan. 2008b. Layers, levels and contexts in Functional Discourse Grammar. In Daniel García Velasco and Jan Rijkhoff (eds.), The Noun Phrase in Functional Discourse Grammar, 63-115. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Rijkhoff, Jan. 2009. On the co-variation between form and function of adnominal possessive modifiers in Dutch and English. In William B. McGregor (ed.), The Expression of Possession, 51‑106. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Rijkhoff, Jan. 2010. Functional categories in the noun phrase: on jacks-of-all-trades and one-trick-ponies in Danish, Dutch and German. Deutsche Sprache 38 (Heft 2/10), 97‑123.
Rijkhoff, Jan. 2014. Modification as a propositional act. In María de los Ángeles Gómez González et al. (eds.), Theory and Practice in Functional-Cognitive Space, 129-150. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Rijkhoff, Jan. 2015a. Word Order. In James D. Wright (editor-in-chief), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Second Edition), Vol. 25, 644–656. Oxford: Elsevier
Rijkhoff, Jan. 2015b. Functional_Category  Shift, with particular attention to Classifying, Qualifying and Localizing Modifiers in the NP. Talk given at 48th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea (SLE 2015) in Leiden, 2 September 2015.
Van de Velde, Freek. 2007. Interpersonal modification in the English noun phrase. Functions of Language 14, 203–230.
Van de Velde, Freek. 2009. The emergence of modification patterns in the Dutch noun phrase. Linguistics 47-4, 1021-1049.
Van de Velde, Freek. 2012. A structural-functional account of NP-internal mood. Lingua 122, 1‑23.

________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20160123/1a44bd94/attachment.htm>