Syntactic Functions in Functional Discourse Grammar and Role and Reference Grammar: An Evaluative Comparison
Saved in:
| Title: | Syntactic Functions in Functional Discourse Grammar and Role and Reference Grammar: An Evaluative Comparison |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Butler, Christopher S. |
| Source: | Language Sciences. Jul 2012 34(4):480-490. |
| Availability: | Elsevier. 6277 Sea Harbor Drive, Orlando, FL 32887-4800. Tel: 877-839-7126; Tel: 407-345-4020; Fax: 407-363-1354; e-mail: usjcs@elsevier.com; Web site: http://www.elsevier.com |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Physical Description: | |
| Page Count: | 11 |
| Publication Date: | 2012 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Evaluative |
| Descriptors: | Semantics, Syntax, Grammar, Structural Analysis (Linguistics), Discourse Analysis, Role, Comparative Analysis, Morphology (Languages), Prediction, Languages, Linguistic Theory |
| DOI: | 10.1016/j.langsci.2012.03.002 |
| ISSN: | 0388-0001 |
| Abstract: | The aim of this paper is to compare the treatment of syntactic functions, and more particularly those traditionally labelled as Subject and Object, in Functional Discourse Grammar and Role and Reference Grammar. Relevant aspects of the overall structure of the two theories are briefly described. The concept of alignment between levels of the grammar in Functional Discourse Grammar is introduced and the role of syntactic functions in the morphosyntactic type of alignment is explained. The arguments put forward in Role and Reference Grammar against the adoption of Subject and Object and in favour of a single language-specific and construction-specific privileged syntactic argument are then discussed. The arguments against Subject are found to be persuasive, those against the need for any secondary syntactic function (in place of the traditional Object) rather less so. It is therefore proposed that Functional Discourse Grammar should abandon the notions of Subject and Object as valid categories in those languages which can be demonstrated to need syntactic functions, and should make it explicit that grammatical relations are specific to particular languages and even to constructions within those languages, while making appropriate generalisations wherever possible. The role played by syntactic functions in the two theories is then discussed in rather more detail, and it is concluded that while the Role and Reference Grammar system makes stronger predictions about the relationships between syntax and semantics, the Functional Discourse Grammar concept of alignment has greater overall scope and generality. (Contains 3 figures.) |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2012 |
| Accession Number: | EJ965978 |
| Database: | ERIC |
| FullText | Text: Availability: 0 |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ965978 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Syntactic Functions in Functional Discourse Grammar and Role and Reference Grammar: An Evaluative Comparison – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Butler%2C+Christopher+S%2E%22">Butler, Christopher S.</searchLink> – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Language+Sciences%22"><i>Language Sciences</i></searchLink>. Jul 2012 34(4):480-490. – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: Elsevier. 6277 Sea Harbor Drive, Orlando, FL 32887-4800. Tel: 877-839-7126; Tel: 407-345-4020; Fax: 407-363-1354; e-mail: usjcs@elsevier.com; Web site: http://www.elsevier.com – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: PhysDesc Label: Physical Description Group: PhysDesc Data: PDF – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 11 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2012 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Evaluative – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Semantics%22">Semantics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Syntax%22">Syntax</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grammar%22">Grammar</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Structural+Analysis+%28Linguistics%29%22">Structural Analysis (Linguistics)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Discourse+Analysis%22">Discourse Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Role%22">Role</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Comparative+Analysis%22">Comparative Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Morphology+%28Languages%29%22">Morphology (Languages)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Prediction%22">Prediction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Languages%22">Languages</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Linguistic+Theory%22">Linguistic Theory</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1016/j.langsci.2012.03.002 – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 0388-0001 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: The aim of this paper is to compare the treatment of syntactic functions, and more particularly those traditionally labelled as Subject and Object, in Functional Discourse Grammar and Role and Reference Grammar. Relevant aspects of the overall structure of the two theories are briefly described. The concept of alignment between levels of the grammar in Functional Discourse Grammar is introduced and the role of syntactic functions in the morphosyntactic type of alignment is explained. The arguments put forward in Role and Reference Grammar against the adoption of Subject and Object and in favour of a single language-specific and construction-specific privileged syntactic argument are then discussed. The arguments against Subject are found to be persuasive, those against the need for any secondary syntactic function (in place of the traditional Object) rather less so. It is therefore proposed that Functional Discourse Grammar should abandon the notions of Subject and Object as valid categories in those languages which can be demonstrated to need syntactic functions, and should make it explicit that grammatical relations are specific to particular languages and even to constructions within those languages, while making appropriate generalisations wherever possible. The role played by syntactic functions in the two theories is then discussed in rather more detail, and it is concluded that while the Role and Reference Grammar system makes stronger predictions about the relationships between syntax and semantics, the Functional Discourse Grammar concept of alignment has greater overall scope and generality. (Contains 3 figures.) – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: As Provided – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2012 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ965978 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ965978 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1016/j.langsci.2012.03.002 Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 11 StartPage: 480 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Semantics Type: general – SubjectFull: Syntax Type: general – SubjectFull: Grammar Type: general – SubjectFull: Structural Analysis (Linguistics) Type: general – SubjectFull: Discourse Analysis Type: general – SubjectFull: Role Type: general – SubjectFull: Comparative Analysis Type: general – SubjectFull: Morphology (Languages) Type: general – SubjectFull: Prediction Type: general – SubjectFull: Languages Type: general – SubjectFull: Linguistic Theory Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Syntactic Functions in Functional Discourse Grammar and Role and Reference Grammar: An Evaluative Comparison Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Butler, Christopher S. IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 07 Type: published Y: 2012 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 0388-0001 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 34 – Type: issue Value: 4 Titles: – TitleFull: Language Sciences Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
