Cover not available
Part of
Theory and Practice in Functional-Cognitive Space
Edited by María de los Ángeles Gómez González, Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez and Francisco Gonzálvez-García
[Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics 68] 2014
► pp. 151–176

Derivational morphology in Functional Discourse Grammar

 | University of Oviedo, Spain
 | Universität Wien, Austria
The aim of this paper is to provide a general overview of derivational morphology in Functional Discourse Grammar (FDG) as presented in Hengeveld and Mackenzie (2008). The paper begins with a brief description of the model with special reference to those properties which are relevant in the characterization of derivational processes; it also discusses the differences between classical Functional Grammar (FG) and the current FDG model. It is argued that two novel features of FDG are of special relevance: the separation of frames and lexemes, which entails that the Predicate Formation Rules employed in FG are no longer an option, and the distinction between Lexemes at the Representational Level and Words at the Morphosyntactic Level, with the consequence that morphological processes have impact on various levels of representation. Finally, some examples of key derivational processes (compounding, affixation, and valency changing operations) are provided to show how these processes can be handled in the model.
Keywords: compounding, derivation, Functional Discourse Grammar, Functional Grammar, morphology
Published online: 22 July 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sfsl.68.07vel
References (28)
Bhat, D.N.S. (1977). Multiple case roles. Lingua , 42, 365–377. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Butler, C.S. (2009). Lexical phenomena in Functional Discourse Grammar and Systemic Functional Linguistics. In S. Slembrouck, M. Taverniers, & M. van Herreweghe (Eds.), From will to well: Studies in Linguistics offered to Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen (pp. 55–67). Gent: Academia Press.Google Scholar
. (2012). An ontological approach to the representational lexicon in Functional Discourse Grammar. Language Sciences , 34, 619–634. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carstairs McCarthy, A. (2002). An introduction to English morphology . Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Dik, S.C. (1980). Studies in Functional Grammar . London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
. (1985). Valentie en valentie-operaties in funktionele grammatika. Tijdschrift voor Taal- en Tekstwetenschap, 5(2), 95–114.Google Scholar
. (1997a). The theory of Functional Grammar. Part 1. The structure of the clause . [Kees Hengeveld (ed.)]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. (1997b). The theory of Functional Grammar. Part 2. Complex and derived constructions . [Kees Hengeveld (ed.)]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García Velasco, D., & Hengeveld, K. (2002). Do we need predicate frames?In R. Mairal Usón, & M.J. Pérez Quintero (Eds.), New perspectives on argument structure (pp. 95–123). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
García Velasco, D. (2009). Conversion in English and its implications for Functional Discourse Grammar. Lingua , 19, 1164–1185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2011). The causative / inchoative alternation in Functional Discourse Grammar. In P. Guerrero Medina (Ed.), Morphosyntactic alternations in English. Functional and cognitive perspectives (pp. 115–135). London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A.E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalizations in language . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (1993). More on the typology of the inchoative/causative verb alternations. In B. Comrie (Ed.), Causatives and transitivity (pp. 87–120). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2002). Understanding morphology . London: Hodder Education.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, K., & Mackenzie, J.L. (2008). Functional Discourse Grammar . Oxford: Oxford ­University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Honselaar, W., & Keizer, E. (2009). A Functional Discourse Grammar account of set nouns in Dutch and its implications for lexicography. International Journal of Lexicography , 22, 361–397. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Katamba, F. (1993). Morphology . Hampshire: Macmillan Press.Google Scholar
Keizer, M.E. (forthcoming). A Functional Discourse Grammar for English: A textbook .
Langacker, R.W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Volume 1 . Stanford: Stanford ­University Press.Google Scholar
Levin, B. (1993). English verbs classes and alternations . Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, J.L. (1985a). Nominalization and valency reduction. In A.M. Bolkestein, C. de Groot, & J.L. Mackenzie (Eds.), Predicates and terms in Functional Grammar (pp. 29–47). Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
. (1985b). Genominaliseer. Tijdschrift voor Taal- en Tekstwetenschap , 5(2), 177–198.Google Scholar
. (1996a). Nouns are avalent – and nominalizations too. In K. van Durme (Ed.), The valency of nouns (pp. 85–105). Odense: Odense University Press.Google Scholar
. (1996b). English nominalisations in a layered model of the sentence. In B. Devriendt, L. Goossens, & J. van der Auwera (Eds.), Complex structures: A functionalist perspective (pp. 325–355). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Plag, I. (1999). Morphological productivity. Structural constraints in English derivation . Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2003). Word-formation in English . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Portero Muñoz, C. (2011). A Functional Discourse Grammar approach to the swarm-­alternation as a case of conversion. In P. Guerrero Medina (Ed.), Morphosyntactic alternations in English. Functional and cognitive perspectives (pp. 316–338). London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Cited by (6)

Cited by six other publications

Guerrero Medina, Pilar
2018. Towards a comprehensive account of English -erdeverbal synthetic compounds in Functional Discourse Grammar. Word Structure 11:1 ► pp. 14 ff. DOI logo
Keizer, Evelien
2018. Derivation in Functional Discourse Grammar: Some challenges and implications. Word Structure 11:1 ► pp. 36 ff. DOI logo
Keizer, Evelien
2023. Enation and agnation in multi-level models. In Reconnecting Form and Meaning [Studies in Language Companion Series, 230], ► pp. 267 ff. DOI logo
Muñoz, Carmen Portero & Daniel García Velasco
2018. A new proposal for the distinction between lexical and syntactic derivation in Functional Discourse Grammar. Word Structure 11:1 ► pp. 95 ff. DOI logo
Portero Muñoz, Carmen
2018. Derivational morphology and the lexicon-grammar competition in Functional Discourse Grammar: An overview. Word Structure 11:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Schwaiger, Thomas
2018. The derivational nature of reduplication: Towards a Functional Discourse Grammar account of a non-concatenative morphological process. Word Structure 11:1 ► pp. 118 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 december 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.