On assigning pragmatic functions in English

J. Lachlan Mackenzie and Evelien Keizer


This paper presents a discussion of the treatment of the pragmatic functions Topic and Focus in Functional Grammar (Dik: 1989, ch. 13). Two questions will be addressed: (a) the theoretical question of how the interface between the static grammar (dealing with a discourse as the product of text-creating activity) and the dynamic theory of verbal interaction (dealing with discourse as the ongoing text-creating process itself) is handled with regard to pragmatic functions; and (b) the practical question whether the reader of Dik (1989) finds a set of proposals that can be operationalized in the analysis of linguistic material. With regard to the former question we conclude that in the present FG treatment of Topic and Focus, the static and the dynamic approaches do not connect and that, as a result, the speaker’s selection of constituents for Topic or Focus function is left unaccounted for. As for the second question, we show that Dik’s proposal can be put into practice, but that the resultant analysis suffers from a number of inconsistencies and unclarities. Finally, we argue that most of these inconsistencies and unclarities can be solved if (1) we accept a different classification of Focus, and (2) assume that Topic assignment is irrelevant in English, as there is no consistent way in which Topic constituents are given special treatment, and Pl-placement can be accounted for without having to resort to Topic function.

Quick links
A browser-friendly version of this article is not yet available. View PDF
Beaugrande, R.-A. de and W.U. Dressler
(1981) Introduction to text linguistics. London: Longman. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brown, G. and G. Yule
(1983) Discourse analysis. Cambridge: CUP. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, P.A. and M.A. Just
(1977) Integrative processes in comprehension. In D. LaBerge & S.J. Samuels (eds.), Basic processes in reading: perception and comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 217-241.Google Scholar
Chafe, W.L
(1976) Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and points of view. In C.N. Li (ed.), Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press, 25-57.Google Scholar
Clark, H.H. and S.E. Haviland
(1977) Comprehension and the Given-New contract. In R.O. Freedle (ed.), Discourse production and comprehension. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1-40.Google Scholar
Cruse, D.A
(1980) Review of Hawkins (1978), Definiteness and indefiniteness. Journal of Linguistics 16: 308-316. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dik, S.C
(1978) Functional Grammar. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
(1989) The theory of Functional Grammar. Part 1. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
forthcoming) The theory of Functional Grammar. Part 2.
Ebert, K.H
(1971) Referenz, Sprechsituation und die bestimmten Artikel in einem nordfriesischen Dialekt (Fering). Bräist/Bredstedt: Nordfriisk Instituut.Google Scholar
Groot, C. de
(1981) Sentence intertwining in Hungarian. In A.M. Bolkestein, H.A. Combé, S.C. Dik, C. de Groot, J. Gvozdanovic, A. Rijksbaron & C. Vet (eds.), Predication and expression in Functional Grammar. London: Academic Press, 41-62.Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K
(1985) An introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K. and R. Hasan
(1976) Cohesion in English. London: Longman.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Hannay, M
(1983) The Focus function in Functional Grammar: questions of contrast and context. In S.C. Dik (ed.), Advances in Functional Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris, 207-223.Google Scholar
(1985a) Inferrability, discourse-boundness, and sub-topics. In A.M. Bolkestein, C. de Groot & J.L. Mackenzie (eds.), Syntax and pragmatics in Functional Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris, 49-63.  BoP CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1985b) English existentials in Functional Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.  BoP CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1990) Pragmatic function assignment and word order variation in a Functional Grammar of English. Working Papers in Functional Grammar 38. To appear in Journal of Pragmatics. Crossref
Jong, J.R. de
(1981) On the treatment of Focus phenomena in Functional Grammar. In T. Hoekstra, H. van der Hulst & M. Moortgat (eds.), Perspectives on Functional Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris, 89-115.Google Scholar
Löbner, S
(1985) Definites. Journal of Semantics 4: 279-326. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Prince, E.F
(1981) Toward a taxonomy of Given-New information. In P. Cole (ed.), Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, 223-255.Google Scholar
Sanford, A.J. and S.C. Garrod
(1981) Understanding written language: explorations of comprehension beyond the sentence. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar