The central issue addressed in this paper concerns the design of an appropriate contextual framework to support a dynamic implementation of FDG. The first part of the paper is concerned with the internal structure of the contextual framework. A particular hierarchical structure for the analysis and description of context, articulated in Connolly (2007a) and termed the Extended Model of Context (EMC), is presented as the starting-point. Alternative frameworks are considered, but all are found to have shortcomings. However, the original version of the EMC has also received some criticism. Consequently, a revised model of the EMC is proposed, in which the treatment of context is enhanced, and which is appropriate to a dynamic implementation of FDG. The application of the revised EMC not only to the grammatical model, but also to a broader discourse model, is also discussed. The next part of the paper is concerned with the interaction between the EMC and the FDG Grammatical and Conceptual Components. It is contended that all of the main types of context recognised within the EMC have a significant effect upon grammar. However, the only way in which contextual factors may directly influence the production and interpretation of discourse is through their presence in the minds of the discourse-participants. Consequently, the Conceptual Component plays a vital, mediating role in the handling of interactions between the EMC and the Grammatical Component. This point is particularly salient when considering a dynamic implementation, in which the flow of information around the model is of crucial importance. It is contended that this flow is essentially cyclic in nature.
Auer, P. (2009) Context and contextualisation. In J. Verschueren, and J.-O. Östman (eds.), Key Notions for Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 86-101.
Biber, D. (1988) Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. BoP
Brown, P., and C. Fraser (1979) Speech as a marker of situation. In K. Scherer, and H. Giles (eds.), Social Markers in Speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 33-62.
Butler, C.S. (2008) Interpersonal meaning in the noun phrase. In D. García Velasco, and J. Rijkhoff (eds.), The Noun Phrase in Functional Discourse Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 221-261.
Butler, C.S. (2013) A reappraisal of the functional enterprise, with particular reference to Functional Discourse Grammar. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 671: 13-42.
Clark, H.H., and T.B. Carlson (1992) Context for comprehension. In H.H. Clark (ed.), Arenas of language use. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 60-77.
Connolly, J.H. (2004) The question of discourse representation in Functional Discourse Grammar. In J.L. Mackenzie, and M. de los Ángeles Gómez-González (eds.), A New Architecture for Functional Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 89-116.
Connolly, J.H. (2010) Accommodating multimodality in Functional Discourse Grammar. In G. Wanders, and E. Keizer (eds.), Web Papers in Functional Discourse Grammar WP-FDF-83, Special Issue: The London Papers II1: 1-18. Available at: [URL].
Cook, G. (1992) The Discourse of Advertising. London: Routledge. BoP
Cornish, F. (2009) Text and discourse as context: Discourse anaphora and the FDG Contextual Component. In E. Keizer, and G. Wanders (eds.), Web Papers in Functional Grammar WP-FDG-82, Special Issue: the London Papers I1: 97-115. Available at [URL].
Devlin, K. (1991) Logic and Information. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goodwin, C. (2000) Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 321: 1489-1522. BoP
Goodwin, C., and A. Duranti (1992) Rethinking context: An introduction. In A. Duranti, and C. Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-42. BoP
Harris, W.V. (1988) Interpretive Acts: In Search of Meaning. Oxford: Clarendon.
Hengeveld, K., and J.L. Mackenzie (2008) Functional Discourse Grammar: A Typologically-based Theory of Language Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hymes, D. (1972) Models of the interaction of language and social life. In J.J. Gumperz, and D. Hymes (eds.), Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston, pp. 35-71. BoP
Jacoby, S., and E. Ochs (1995) Co-construction: An introduction. Research on Language and Social Interaction 281: 171-183. BoP
Keizer, E. (2008) Reference and ascription in Functional Discourse Grammar: an inventory of problems and some possible solutions. In D. García Velasco, and J. Rijkhoff (eds.), The Noun Phrase in Functional Discourse Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 43-62.
Martinec, R. (2000) Types of process in action. Semiotica 1301: 243-268.
Okada, M. (2007) Whose common ground? A misunderstanding caused by incorrect interpretations of the lexical markers of common ground. In A. Fetzer, and K. Fischer (eds.), Lexical Markers of Common Ground. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 183-194.
Rijkhoff, J. (2008) Layers, levels and contexts in Functional Discourse Grammar. In D. García Velasco, and J. Rijkhoff (eds.), The Noun Phrase in Functional Discourse Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 63-115.
Shailor, J.G. (1997) The meaning and use of “context’”in the theory of the Coordinated Management of Meaning. In J.L. Owen (ed.), Context and Communication Behaviour. Reno, NV: Context Press, pp. 97-110.
van Dijk, T.A. (2006) Discourse, context and cognition. Discourse Studies 81: 159-177.
van Dijk, T.A. (2008) Discourse and Context: A Sociocognitive Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.