* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
LINGUIST List logo Eastern Michigan University Wayne State University *
* People & Organizations * Jobs * Calls & Conferences * Publications * Language Resources * Text & Computer Tools * Teaching & Learning * Mailing Lists * Search *
* *
LINGUIST List 16.1728

Wed Jun 01 2005

Review: Ling Theories: Anstey & Mackenzie (2005)

Editor for this issue: Naomi Ogasawara <naomilinguistlist.org>

What follows is a review or discussion note contributed to our Book Discussion Forum. We expect discussions to be informal and interactive; and the author of the book discussed is cordially invited to join in. If you are interested in leading a book discussion, look for books announced on LINGUIST as "available for review." Then contact Sheila Dooley at collberglinguistlist.org.
        1.    Freek Van de Velde, Crucial Readings in Functional Grammar

Message 1: Crucial Readings in Functional Grammar
Date: 31-May-2005
From: Freek Van de Velde <Freek.VanDeVeldearts.kuleuven.ac.be>
Subject: Crucial Readings in Functional Grammar

EDITORS: Anstey, Matthew P.; Mackenzie, J. Lachlan
TITLE: Crucial Readings in Functional Grammar
SERIES: Functional Grammar Series 26
PUBLISHER: Mouton de Gruyter
YEAR: 2005
Announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/16/16-877.html

Freek Van de Velde, Department of Linguistics, University of Leuven


'Crucial Readings in Functional Grammar' is a collection of 11 papers
each of which has contributed significantly to the development of
Functional Grammar (FG), as originally conceived and later
elaborated by the late S.C. Dik (1978, 1989, 1997a, 1997b). Covering
a wide range of topics, from clause combining to the architecture of
the lexicon, it provides an historical and theoretical background to FG
and to the recent advancements which have led to its
successor 'Functional Discourse Grammar' (FDG) (Mackenzie &
Gómez-González 2004; Hengeveld & Mackenzie fc). As such, it is
complementary to e.g. Anstey (2004). Each article is followed by a
short chapter under the heading 'further reading' pointing out the
impact the contribution at issue has had on subsequent research. The
book concludes with a list of books and doctoral dissertations that are
supportive of the framework of FG.

In the Introduction the editors, ANSTEY and MACKENZIE discuss the
general outline and purpose of the book, and describe the 'external
history' of FG: its geographical focal points, its conferences, its
website and its major exponents. In addition, the internal history is
cursorily touched upon: the authors refer to the eclectic nature of the
model "combining the explicitness and generativity of Chomskyan
grammar, the semantics of Case Grammar, the syntax of Relational
Grammar and (implicitly) the pragmatics of the Prague School" (this
volume: ix, citing Anstey 2004). Central to the model are the rejection
of transformational operations and the embracing of a fully
functionalistic approach to language, in that syntax is deemed to be
semantically motivated. In this way, FG aims to meet the standards of
typological, pragmatic and psychological adequacy (Dik 1997a). The
authors give an overview of the development of FG during the eighties
and the nineties to a full-fledged theory encompassing a broad range
of domains in linguistics, theoretical as well as applied, syntactic as
well as pragmatic. Two hallmarks of FG, the layered structure of the
clause introduced by Hengeveld (this volume [1989]) on the one hand
and the growing interest in discourse on the other, enhanced the
descriptive and explanatory power of the theory but at the same time
turned out to be a fragmentation bomb. The precise nature and
amount of the different layers and the suited place to implement
discourse material, are both subject to current debate. Those
espousing the extension of the layered structure to the discourse level
("upward layering") find themselves challenged by those who
advocate the relegation of discourse operations to a separate module
("modular approach") (Hengeveld 2004b). The metamorphosis of FG
into FDG is an attempt to reconcile various scholars subscribing to
opposite strands of thought.

The introduction concludes with a note on what is not in the book.
One the one hand, articles on traditional areas such as phonology
and morphosyntax are absent, because FG has by and large
remained silent about them. On the other hand, due to space
limitations and the specific set-up of the book, articles are missing on
subjects that FG did attend to, like "expression rules of FG, modality in
FG, the growing impact of corpus linguistics, the relation between FG
and other models, and on applications of the theory in computer
linguistics" (this volume: xii).

The first article in the collection is a reprint of HENGEVELD's
famous 'Layers and Operators in Functional Grammar', originally
published in 1989. It is the only article in the volume that dates from
before the nineties, but its inclusion is justified by the profound impact
it has had on the overall design of the theory of FG. Hengeveld
borrowed the concept of layering from Foley & Van Valin (1984) to
give a neat account of modality, clause combining and the relative
ordering of Tense, Aspect and Mood (TAM) morphemes. The basic
idea is that a full clause is a successive expansion of different layers,
each selecting its own modifiers (satellites and operators). A crucial
distinction is made between the lower representational layers on the
one hand, and the higher interpersonal layers on the other. In line with
the general assumption of FG that the underlying structure is to be
primarily understood in semantic terms (cf. Dik 1997a, Anstey 2004),
the layering Hengeveld proposes is motivated in a semantic way, in
that the various layers refer to entity types of different order in a way
that is reminiscent of Lyons (1977: 442ff.). In a subsequent part of the
paper, Hengeveld focuses on operators (grammatically expressed
modifiers). The semantic categories the operators fall into are aligned
with the various layers. To take the TAM-morphemes as an example:
Aspect is argued to attach to layer 1 (hosting the predicate), Tense
and objective Mood are on the predicational layer 2 and subject and
evidential Mood on the propositional layer 3. The allocation of the
operators to distinct layers yields an elegant account for their relative
order (in line with ideas of Bybee 1985), for constraints on their use in
various constructions and for scope effects in their interaction. The
last part of the paper is devoted to satellites (lexically expressed
modifiers), which transpire to behave similarly. The integration of
satellites in the layered structure of the clause will be extensively
pursued in the paper of Dik e.a. (this volume: 169-218).

The second paper is RIJKHOFF's 'Toward a Unified Analysis of Terms
and Predications', published in 1990. Rijkhoff shows how the layered
structure of the clause, as discusses by Hengeveld in the previous
paper, can be extended to the structure of the noun phrase (NP)
(or 'terms' as NPs are called in FG) as well. As was already
mentioned, the underlying layered structure is of a semantic nature,
so if there should be any correspondence between layered clause
structure and layered term structure, some common meaning has to
be found. To provide this joint meaning, Rijkhoff appeals to Aristotle's
distinction between 'quality', 'quantity' and 'location'. Applied to the
term, each of these domains qualifies a different modification slot. The
tripartite division of the term is largely analogous to some older work
on NP structure distinguishing between an adjective slot, a quantifier
slot and a determiner slot (cf. e.g. Van der Lubbe 1958 on Dutch
NPs). Rijkhoff's three layers relate to two of the clausal layers: the
quality layer corresponds to layer 1 and the quantity layer as well as
the locality layer both correspond to layer 2. This leads Rijkhoff to put
forward a split-up in the predicational layer 2 in clauses, which he
justifies by signalling the scope differences between frequentative
markers (quantity) and tense markers (locality).

Contrary to traditional descriptions of NP structure, Rijkhoff's main
interest is in the field of the operators. Quite innovatively, he draws a
parallel between verbal aspect ("Aktionsart") and nominal aspect
("Seinsart"), also situated at layer 1. In the verbal realm, he discerns
four aspectual distinctions, which he arrives at by the cross-
classification of the features [beginning] and [ending]. This
yields 'imperfective' (unmarked for beginning, unmarked for
ending), 'ingressive' (marked for beginning, unmarked for
ending), 'egressive' (unmarked for beginning, marked for ending)
and 'perfective' (marked for beginning and marked for ending). In the
nominal domain, the features are [structure] and [shape],
yielding 'conceptual' (unmarked for structure, unmarked for
shape), 'mass' (marked for structure, unmarked for shape), 'individual'
(unmarked for structure, marked for shape) and 'collective' (marked
for structure and marked for shape). In later work on nominal aspect,
the distinctions have been slightly altered: the feature [structure] has
been replaced by [homogeneity] and instead of a division
between 'marked' and 'unmarked', the feature has got three potential
values: nouns are now argued to be either positively or negatively
marked for homogeneity or unmarked for the feature at issue. The
aforementioned foursome of nouns has been extended with general
nouns and set nouns (for details: Rijkhoff 2002: 28-59).

The quantity layer 2 hosts the number markers whereas the locality
layer 3 hosts the deictic elements. After having introduced these
layers in detail, scope effects and the relative order of the
morphological markers are discussed to corroborate the parallelism
between the clause and the noun phrase: both on the semantic and
on the formal side, the layered structure of the clause and of the term
display similar behaviour. The correspondence between clauses and
terms is less straightforward in the domain of satellites, however. In
canonical FG, all term modifiers are considered to be restrictors,
incrementally narrowing down the intension, yet nothing similar to
those restrictors is postulated at clause level. The problematic relation
between restrictors and satellites is still unresolved in FG (cf. Keizer

In the 'further reading' section, reference is made to the revisions
Rijkhoff's account has been subjected to in the past years, most
notably the introduction of a separate layer for definiteness and
specificity. This prefigures the FDG design that relegates these
discourse categories to the interpersonal module (Hengeveld

In the third article 'Parts of Speech' (1992) by HENGEVELD, two major
innovations to the theory of FG are suggested. The first is the
introduction of a variable for each predicate (the introduction of
predicate variables is also at issue in Keizer (this volume: 109-139),
infra). Justification for this suggestion comes from two phenomena:
firstly, predicates may be anaphorically referred to, and secondly, they
may serve as an antecedent for relativization. The advantages of
adding these variables become apparent in different areas: first, it is a
helpful addition to the description of some kinds of verb
complementation. Next, it proves useful in the treatment of term-
predicates (details: 81-82). Moreover, the availability of term variables
appears necessary to account for anaphora to attributive adjectives
and for submodification (details: 83). By the same token, anaphoric
reference can be made to illocutionary predicates and this similarly
calls for a predicate variable (84).

The second innovation is the account Hengeveld gives for parts of
speech. He distinguishes four parts of speech (Verb, Noun, Adjectives
and Adverbs), which can each function as the first restrictor (head) of
a predicate phrase, by virtue of their predicate variable, so to speak.
The part of speech such a predicate phrase consists of constrains the
functions it can fulfil. In typological research, these constraints in turn
can be used as a heuristic to the part of speech that is involved. To
give an example: when a predicate can only be used predicatively, it is
a verbal one.

Hengeveld applies his part of speech system to typological data, and
comes up with a distinction between 'flexible' and 'rigid' languages.
Rigid languages are those in which different parts of speech are
separated: a particular word cannot be used as a nominal and as a
verbal predicate. Flexible languages, on the other hand are those in
which one word can fulfil different functions, and seems to belong to
different parts of speech. In Dutch for example, there is no formal
difference between adjectives and (manner) adverbs. Both rigid and
flexible languages differ, however, in how many parts of speech they
actually possess: a particular language may have only verbs and
nouns, but no adjectives. This means that there will be no attributive
modifier in noun phrases. The advantage of Hengeveld's description
is that it distinguishes between, say a rigid language that only has
adjectives but no adverbs on the one hand, and a flexible language
that does not differentiate between adjectives and adverbs on the
other. Or, to take another example, between a rigid language that has
only verbs on the one hand, and an extremely flexible language where
all words can be used in all kinds of constructions. Interestingly, the
four parts of speech can be ordered in a hierarchy (Verb > Noun >
Adjective > Adverb), such that "a category of predicates is more likely
to occur as a separate part of speech the more to the left it is in this
hierarchy" (96).

As the 'further reading' section rightly points out, this article's
importance "has lain in the link that has been forged between FG and
typological work on diverse languages".

The fourth article is KEIZER's 1992 paper 'Predicates as Referring
Expressions'. In essence, it deals with the issue of predicate variables,
and as such bears much resemblance to Hengeveld's
(contemporaneous) proposal (this volume [1992]), though it discusses
the matter in a more extensive way. Moreover, Keizer draws attention
to the inconsistency in the differentiated ontology that forms the basis
of the layered structure (cf. supra) as a result of the FG treatment of
terms: terms can refer to any kind of entity, whereas the different
layers that together build up the clause refer unequivocally to one kind
of entity. Hence terms cannot be the structural unit exclusively
embodying first order entity types (for details: 114-115). Keizer's
solution is the introduction of the "predicator" as the first restrictor of
terms referring to first order entity types. In that way, it is situated in
between the predicate, which functions as the first restrictor of a term
referring to a zero-order entity type and the predication, the first
restrictor of a term referring to a second order entity type.

The next section in Keizer's paper is on reference, which is fairly
liberally defined: not only first order entities, both also higher order
entities are argued to refer. In addition, even zero-order entities
(predicates) are taken to have referring function. The major
advantage of Keizer's approach is her well-designed outline of various
kinds of copular sentences, which together with a discussion of the
implications her model has on topic assignment forms the bulk of the
rest of the paper.

The fifth paper is MACKENZIE's (1992) article 'Places and Things',
which deals with issues related to that in Keizer (this volume [1992]): it
explores the nature of reference, in particular with regard to the
difference between places and things. Mackenzie argues that places,
times and attributes have no entity-status, although reference to them
is perfectly feasible. Basically, he claims that 'places' form a category
of their own, quite distinct from regular entities. He supports his line of
thought by arguments from philosophy as well as by linguistic data
(notably the pronominal system), and quite a lot of effort is put into the
implementation of his ideas in to the theory of FG. The most
remarkable modification to the FG model is his proposal to provide
spatial prepositions with their own predicate variable, which is of
course equally used for places. The need for such a predicate
variable can be deduced from the fact that place-referring terms do
not always have locational function (146). This observation, together
with the observation that places seem to be able to be referred to by
entity-referring pronominals ('this' instead of 'here' for example) leads
Mackenzie to distinguish between three kinds of opposition: locational
vs. non-locational semantic functions, place-denotation vs. entity-
denotation and place-reference vs. entity-reference, which not
necessarily coincide, to account for all sorts of construction in English
(details: 149ff.).

'The Hierarchical Structure of The Clause and The Typology of
Adverbial Satellites' (1990) by DIK, HENGEVELD, VESTER & VET is
the sixth article to be included in the volume. It builds further on
Hengeveld (this volume [1989]) by applying the layered structure of
the clause to all kinds of satellites: adverbs, extra participants,
subordinate clauses etc. A typology of satellites is arrived at by
analyzing both their internal complexity and the way they are attached
to the main clause in terms of layered structure. For adverbials, this
yields a classification that is analogous to that of (a.o.) Greenbaum
(1969), but it is more fine-grained and it has the advantage that the
adverbials are further subcategorized by their internal organization.
Evidence comes initially from semantic arguments, but corroboration is
given by phenomena from such diverse areas as pragmatic function
assignment, scope effects, subject and object assignment, predicate
formation, semantic constraints on the occurrence of satellites,
ordering and position differences, paraphrase possibilities et cetera
(for details concerning this sometimes theory-specific terminology: 183-
205). The authors end on a note on the distinction between restrictive
and non-restrictive satellites, which appears to tie up with the layered
structure of the clause.

HARDER's (1992) 'Semantic Content and Linguistic Structure in
Functional Grammar. On the Semantics of "Nounhood''' deals with
topics related to some of those signalled in Keizer (this volume
[1992]), Hengeveld (this volume [1992]) and Mackenzie (this volume
[1992]), albeit from a quite different perspective.

Harder is concerned with "the philosophical underpinnings of
Functional Grammar" (this volume: 246) and raises some critique to
the architecture of underlying structure in FG, a feature it has in
common with Chomskyan approaches (cf. supra). He clearly points
out the risk of circularity in explaining a surface form by making appeal
to an underlying form there is no direct empirical evidence for. He
emphasizes the need to define the underlying structure solely on
semantic grounds. This entails a purification of FG's underlying
structure, retaining only those elements that can be semantically
motivated and - in turn - empirically controlled by matching them up
with surface expressions.

All this immediately raises the question about the nature of coded
meaning. Harder is much in favour of a "pragmatic" model that is
addressee-oriented: linguistic expressions are regarded as
instructions to guide the interpretation process of the addressee.
Expanding on this idea, Harder notices the link between FG on the
one hand, and other approaches like Discourse Representation
Theory, Procedural Semantics, Relevance Theory and Cognitive
Grammar (224).

Another concern of the author is the distinction between process and
product in grammar. His view of meaning as instructions to the
addressee links up with the idea that grammar describes not so much
the product as the process of language production. The discussion
between the two views on language will gain importance in the late
nineties, and no consensus seems to have been reached (cf.
Mackenzie & Gómez-González 2004, Hengeveld 2004b, and
the 'further reading' section to this article 246-248).

Next, Harder draws a distinction between 'terms' and 'predicates',
corresponding to the difference between 'onoma'
and 'rhema', 'subject' and 'predicate' or 'noun' and 'verb' (226-227),
the major difference being that the latter term in the opposition is
semantically 'incomplete', in contrast to the 'complete' former term.

After these theoretical reflections, the author probes the semantics of
noun phrases. He strips them from their predicate logic design, doing
away for instance with variables and restrictors. He restates the
semantics of the term as an instruction to the addressee, in line of
what he has put forward in his theoretical discussion. The basic
semantic instruction a term contains is an appeal to the addressee "to
conceive of something that can carry properties". Information about
nominal aspect is not inherent in the noun, but is bestowed to it by
additional instructions. As for 'word classes', Harder pleads for a
semantic foundation of their definition, in terms of his distinction
between complete terms and incomplete verbs (cf. supra). In another
chapter, he assesses the FG view on reference and definiteness. He
suggests that "the term 'reference' is only necessary for definite
reference" (235), and suggest to dispose of it. With regard to
definiteness, his view turns out to be in accordance with the standard
view of FG to a large extent.

'On Assigning Pragmatic Functions in English' is a long excerpt of a
1991 article by MACKENZIE & KEIZER. After contemplating on the
process versus product problem in FG (cf. supra), the authors carry
out a thorough examination of the notions Topic and Focus
respectively. FG has a rather convoluted classification (Dik 1997a,
Ch.13). What a stretch of discourse is about is called 'Discourse
Topics' in FG. Discourse Topics are subdivided into New Topics,
Given Topics, Resumed Topics and Subtopics. Focus, on the other
hand, is subclassified into New (Completive) Focus and Contrastive
Focus. The former is in turn subclassified into Non-Emphatic New
Focus (Assertive focus) and Emphatic New Focus, itself subdivided
into Contrastive New Focus (Parallel Focus) and Non-contrastive New
Focus. The latter (Contrastive Focus) is subclassified into Parallel
Focus and Counter-Presuppositional Focus, itself subdivided into
Replacing Focus, Expanding Focus, Restricting Focus and Selecting
Focus. In addition, Topic and Focus interact in a complicated manner
with the concepts Given and New. As becomes clear from the labels,
the subclassification of Topic and Focus is largely based on the Given-
New distinction. Although the two dimensions (Topic-Focus; Given-
New) are of course closely related, they are still regarded as separate
dimensions in FG. This has some awkward consequences: New
Topics are in essence topical and focal at the same time. In §3.4, the
authors expand on all other sorts of problems with the relation
between these two notions (Topic/Focus and Given/New). Their
solution to the problems with the application of the FG pragmatic
functions in English is to jettison the idea of Topic function in English,
as there seem to be no formal characteristics ("special treatment") of
Topics in this language, whereas there are in fact special
constructions for Focus constituents. The rest of the article is devoted
to an assessment of the consequences of their analysis.

In 'The Utterance as Unit of Description: Implications for Functional
Grammar' HANNAY partakes in the discussion, already alluded to in
the introduction, about whether FG should extend its layered structure
upward to the discourse level or should adopt a modular approach
with a separate module for grammatical and discourse properties
respectively. Hannay links up this discussion with the process or
product discussion. Through an analysis of "non-clausal message
units" (sentences consisting of 'fragments') and other constructions
(adverbial clause combining, non-restrictive relative clauses and
illocutionary satellites), the author suggests that elements other than
the clause can equally function as an utterance. Such elements are by
no means 'incomplete'. This article can be seen as an endorsement of
the top-down approach, where the speaker attends to discourse
issues at the interpersonal layers before he arrives at the
representational level.

VET's (1998) 'The Multilayered Structure of the Utterance' critically
examines Hengeveld's layered structure of the clause (this volume
[1989]), concentrating on the representation of direct speech: the
speech act status which Hengeveld assigns to it, is called into
question. The modifications Vet suggests to account for mismatches
between speech act and grammatical form lead to a modular
approach, which is later taken up in FDG (Mackenzie & Gómez-
González 2004).

The final chapter is MINGORANCE's 'Functional Grammar and
Lexematics in Lexicography', providing a theoretical foundation of the
design of the lexicon in FG, a component that is somewhat neglected
in Dik 1997a.


As was pointed out in the introduction, this book is a welcome
resource for those who want to know more about FG than what is
amassed in Dik (1997a,b). It expands on some issues that were not
entirely satisfactorily accounted for (e.g. cf. Rijkhoff), not well
elaborated (e.g. Mingorance), or subject to controversy in standard
FG (e.g. Vet). Other articles bridge the gap between FG and its
successor FDG (e.g. Hannay) and still other articles seem to have
been included as landmarks in the development of the theory of FG,
showing its descriptive power (e.g. Dik et al.), notably in typological
research (e.g. Hengeveld [1992]). (This is not to say that the other
articles do not add to the descriptive power of the model, of course.)

The selection covers a wide range of topics (clause syntax, noun
phrase syntax, pragmatics, lexicon, semantics, discourse), although
there is perhaps too much overlap in the contributions by Hengeveld
[1992], Keizer, Mackenzie and Harder, all of which indeed originally
appeared in one and the same thematic issue. Then again, if some
matters turn out to be of more central concern to a particular
framework, these predilections should perhaps be mirrored in the
selection. I assume a compilation of articles of a more formal creed
would possibly display an inclination towards WH-dependencies,
island constraints or raising phenomena for instance. Nevertheless, in
view of the absence of such influential FG papers as Vet (1986) or
Bolkestein (1992), which doubtlessly deserved to be included in this
volume, the selection seems somewhat askew. One (admittedly
trifling) remark on the editing work: mention of the source of the
articles collected is not always consistent: original page numbers are
missing in Hengeveld [1992], Keizer, Mackenzie, Harder; publication
date is missing in Hannay, Mingorance and publisher is missing in
Hengeveld [1992], Keizer, Mackenzie, Dik et al.

Most of the articles originally appeared in volumes that are widely
available. One may hence raise the question whether there really was
any need for this collection as a separate book. However, it may be
argued that the publication of this book has to be seen as a sort of
codification of FG as a full-fledged framework slightly past its heyday
of the nineties, which is thus shown not to rest solely on the two-
volume-length account of Dik (1997a,b), but has also attracted the
interest of a wide range of scholars, who leave a legacy which persists
in FDG. Another benefit of this compilation in book form is the 'further
reading' sections, which contribute to the understanding of
the 'Wirkungsgeschichte' of FG.


ANSTEY, M. P. 2004. "Functional Grammar from its inception". In: J.L.
Mackenzie & M.A. Gmez-Gonzlez (eds.) 23-71.

BOLKESTEIN, A. M. 1992. "Limits to layering: Locatability and other
problems." In: M. Fortescue, P. Harder & L. Kristoffersen (eds.)
Layered structure and reference in a functional perspective.
Amsterdam: Benjamins. 387-407.

BYBEE, J. L. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between
meaning and form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

DIK, S. C. 1978. Functional Grammar. Amsterdam: North Holland.

DIK, S. C. 1989. The theory of Functional Grammar. 1: The structure
of the clause. Dordrecht: Foris.

DIK, S. C. 1997a. The theory of Functional Grammar. Part 1: The
structure of the clause. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.

DIK, S. C. 1997b. The theory of Functional Grammar. Part 2: Complex
and derived constructions. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.

FOLEY, W. A. & R. D. VAN VALIN. 1984. Functional Syntax and
Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

GREENBAUM, S. 1969. Studies in English adverbial usage. London:

HENGEVELD, K. 2004a. "The architecture of a Functional Discourse
Grammar". In: J. L. Mackenzie & M.A. Gómez-González (eds.) 1-21.

HENGEVELD, K. 2004b. "Epilogue". In: J. L. Mackenzie & M. A.
Gómez-González (eds.) 365-378.

KEIZER, E. 2004. "Term structure in FG: a modest proposal" WPFG

LYONS, J. 1977. Semantics (2 vol.). Cambridge: Cambridge University

MACKENZIE, J. L. & M. A. GÓMEZ-GONZÁLEZ (eds.) 2004. A new
architecture for Functional Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

MACKENZIE, J. L. & M. A. GÓMEZ-GONZÁLEZ (eds.) fc. Studies in
Functional Discourse Grammar. Berne: Peter Lang.

RIJKHOFF, J. 2002. The Noun Phrase. Oxford: Oxford University

VAN DER LUBBE, H. F. A. 1958. Woordvolgorde in het Nederlands:
een synchrone structurele beschouwing. Assen: Van Gorcum.

VET, C. 1986. "A pragmatic approach to tense in Functional
Grammar." WPFG 16.


Freek Van de Velde is a PhD student in linguistics at the University of
Leuven (Belgium). He is currently preparing a dissertation on the
diachrony of the noun phrase in Dutch (supervised by Joop Van der
Horst). His main research interests are historical syntax and
morphology, Dutch syntax, typology.

Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue

Please report any bad links or misclassified data

LINGUIST Homepage | Read LINGUIST | Contact us

NSF Logo

While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed
on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.