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. 177–202

"Agreement" as a perspectivizing device in discourse

The view from French

The description of agreement brings into play a number of different components and levels of analysis. This chapter’s goal is to show how stating certain agreement facts requires reference to each of the levels and components available within the Functional Discourse Grammar model. Agreement’s raison d’être in discourse concerns the (re)identification and establishment of referents. Its manifestation depends on the assumed properties of the intended referent as conceptualised by users, as well as on what is being predicated of it. Thus agreement is not purely redundant, semantically empty and grammatically predictable (as is often claimed), but may perform several key functions at the level of discourse, the chief one of which is the superimposition of a referential perspective on the intended referent.

Keywords: agreement, anaphora, deixis, discourse, gender, number
Published online: 22 July 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sfsl.68.08cor
References
Ariel, M
(2000) The development of person agreement markers: From pronouns to higher accessibility markers. In M. Barlow, & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp. 197–260). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Baker, M
(2006) On zero agreement and polysynthesis. In P. Ackema, P. Brandt, M. ­Schoorlemmer, & F. Weerman (Eds.). Arguments and agreement (pp. 289–320). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bakker, D
(2005) Agreement: More evidence for the dynamic expression model. In C. De Groot, & K. Hengeveld (Eds.), Morphosyntactic Expression in Functional Grammar (pp. 1–40). ­Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bakker, D., & Siewierska, A
(2004) Towards a speaker model of Functional Grammar. In J. L. Mackenzie, & M. A. Gómez-González (Eds.), A new architecture for Functional Grammar (pp. 325–364). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barlow, M
(1999) Agreement as a discourse phenomenon. Folia Lingüística , XXX111(2), 187–210.Google Scholar
Berrendonner, A., & Reichler-Béguelin, M-J
(1995) Accords associatifs. Cahiers de Praxématique , 24, 21–42.Google Scholar
Blinkenberg, A
(1950)  Le problème de l’accord en français contemporain: Essai d’une typologie . Copenhagen: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Bock, C., & Middleton, E. L
(2011) Reaching agreement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory , 29, 1032–1069. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cappeau, P
(1996) Désaccords. Faits de Langue , 8, 175–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011) Points d’accord(s)? L’Information Grammaticale , 129, 42–45.Google Scholar
Connolly, J. H
(2007) Context in Functional Discourse Grammar. Alfa , 51(2), 11–33.Google Scholar
(forthcoming 2014) The Contextual component within a dynamic implementation of the FDG model: Structure and interaction. To appear in Pragmatics , 24(2).Google Scholar
Corbett, G. G
(1991)  Gender . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 
 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000)  Number . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 
 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006)  Agreement . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cornish, F
(1986)  Anaphoric relations in English and French. A discourse perspective . London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
(1996) “Antecedentless” anaphors: Deixis, anaphora, or what? Some evidence from English and French. Journal of Linguistics , 32, 19–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1999)  Anaphora, discourse and understanding. Evidence from English and French . Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Cornish. F
(2000) L’accord, l’anaphore et la référence: Quelques enjeux. In M. Coene, W. de Mulder, P. Dendale, & Y. D’Hulst (Eds.), Studia linguistica in honorem Lilianae Tasmowski (pp. 509–533). Padua: Unipress.Google Scholar
Cornish, F
(2009)  Text and discourse as context: Discourse anaphora and the FDG Contextual component.In M. E. Keizer, & G. Wanders (Eds.), Special issue of Working Papers in Functional Discourse Grammar (WP-FDG-82): The London Papers I , pp. 97–115.Google Scholar
(2010) Anaphora: Text-based or discourse-dependent? Functionalist vs. formalist accounts. Functions of Language , 17(2), 207–241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W
(1988) Agreement vs. case marking and direct objects. In M. E. Barlow, & C. A. ­Ferguson (Eds.), Agreement in natural languages (pp. 159–179). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
De Vincenzi, M
(1999) Differences between the morphology of gender and number: Evidence from establishing coreferences. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research , 28(5), 537–553. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dik, S. C
(1997)  The theory of Functional Grammar. Part 1: The structure of the clause . 2nd revised edition, edited by K. Hengeveld. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dikker, S
(2004) On the whereabouts of gender and number agreement: Location and accessibility. In K. Hengeveld (Ed.), Morphology in Functional Discourse Grammar. Working Papers in Functional Grammar , 79, 35–51.Google Scholar
Dikker, S., & van Lier, E
(2005) The interplay between syntactic and conceptual information: Agreement domains in FDG. In J. L. Mackenzie, & M. A. Gómez-González (Eds.), Studies in Functional Discourse Grammar (pp. 83–108). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Dowty, D., & Jacobson, P
(1988). Agreement as a semantic phenomenon. In J. Powers, & K. de Jong (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (pp. 95–108). Ohio: Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Givón, T
(1976) Topic, pronoun and grammatical agreement. In C. N. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 151–188). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, K
(2012) Referential markers and agreement markers in Functional Discourse Grammar. In D. García Velasco, & G. Wanders (Eds.), The Morphosyntactic Level in FDG. Special issue of Language Sciences , 34, 468–479. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hengeveld, K., & Mackenzie, J. L
(2008)  Functional Discourse Grammar. A typologically-based theory of language structure . Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Functional Discourse Grammar. In B. Heine, & H. ­Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis (pp. 367–400). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(forthcoming 2014) Grammar and context in Functional Discourse Grammar. To appear in Pragmatics , 24(2).Google Scholar
Jelinek, E
(2006) The pronominal argument parameter. In P. Ackema, P. Brandt, M. ­Schoorlemmer, & F. Weerman (Eds.), Arguments and agreement (pp. 261–288). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. L
(1979) On surface form and logical form. In B. B. Kachru (Ed.), Linguistics in the Seventies (pp. 163–203). Department of Linguistics, University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Kibrik, A. A
(2011)  Reference in discourse . Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lazard, G
(1996) Fonction de l’accord verbe-actant. Faits de Langue , 8, 152–159.Google Scholar
Lehmann, C
(1988) On the function of agreement. In M. Barlow, & C. A. Ferguson (Eds.), Agreement in natural language (pp. 55–65). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Mithun, M
(2003) Pronouns and agreement: The information status of pronominal affixes. Transactions of the Philological Society , 101(2: 2), 235–278. London: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reid, W
(2011) The communicative function of English verb number. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory , 29, 1087–1146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siewierska, A
(2004)  Person . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 
 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siewierska, A., & Bakker, D
(2005) The agreement cross-reference continuum: Person marking in FG. In C. de Groot, & K. Hengeveld (Eds.), Morphosyntactic expression in Functional Grammar (pp. 203–248). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
van Dijk, T. A
(2008)  Discourse and context. A sociocognitive approach . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiese, B
(1983) Anaphora by pronouns. Linguistics , 21(2), 373–341. DOI logoGoogle Scholar