ArticleslgStudy

mathematics

Functional discourse grammar

Functional discourse grammar is a mathematics topic covered in the lgStudy science library. This page brings together a partial reference excerpt, illustrations, worked examples, real-world applications and a short study plan, so you can understand Functional discourse grammar rather than just read about it. In short: Functional grammar (FG) and functional discourse grammar (FDG) are grammar models and theories motivated by functional theories of grammar. These theories explain how linguistic utterances are shaped, based on the goals and knowledge of natural language users.

Key takeaways

  • Functional discourse grammar belongs to mathematics; place it in that map before memorising details.
  • Learn the definition first, then one example that makes the definition concrete.
  • Connect Functional discourse grammar to a quantity you can measure, compute or draw — that is where exam questions come from.
  • Reproduce the core statement of Functional discourse grammar from memory before moving on to harder problems.

Reference excerpt

Functional grammar (FG) and functional discourse grammar (FDG) are grammar models and theories motivated by functional theories of grammar. These theories explain how linguistic utterances are shaped, based on the goals and knowledge of natural language users. In doing so, it contrasts with Chomskyan transformational grammar. Functional discourse grammar has been developed as a successor to functional grammar, attempting to be more psychologically and pragmatically adequate than functional grammar. The top-level unit of analysis in functional discourse grammar is the discourse move, not the sentence or the clause. This is a principle that sets functional discourse grammar apart from many other linguistic theories, including its predecessor functional grammar.

History Functional grammar (FG) is a model of grammar motivated by functions, as Simon C. Dik's thesis pointed towards issues with generative grammar and its analysis of coordination back then, and proposed to solve them with a new theory focused on e.g. concepts such as subject and object. The model was originally developed by Simon C. Dik at the University of Amsterdam in the 1970s, and has undergone several revisions since then. The latest standard version under the original name is laid out in the 1997 edition, published shortly after Dik's death. The latest version features the expansion of the model with a pragmatic/interpersonal module by Kees Hengeveld and Lachlan Mackenzie. This has led to a renaming of the theory to functional discourse grammar. This type of grammar is quite distinct from systemic functional grammar as developed by Michael Halliday and many other linguists since the 1970s. The notion of "function" in FG generalizes the standard distinction of grammatical functions such as subject and object. Constituents (parts of speech) of a linguistic utterance are assigned three types or levels of functions:

Semantic function (Agent, Patient, Recipient, etc.), describing the role of participants in states of affairs or actions expressed Syntactic functions (Subject and Object), defining different perspectives in the presentation of a linguistic expression Pragmatic functions (Theme and Tail, Topic and Focus), defining the informational status of constituents, determined by the pragmatic context of the verbal interaction

Principles of functional discourse grammar There are a number of principles that guide the analysis of natural language utterances according to functional discourse grammar. Functional discourse grammar explains the phonology, morphosyntax, pragmatics and semantics in one linguistic theory. According to functional discourse grammar, linguistic utterances are built top-down in this order by deciding upon:

The pragmatic aspects of the utterance The semantic aspects of the utterance The morphosyntactic aspects of the utterance The phonological aspects of the utterance According to functional discourse grammar, four components are involved in building up an utterance:

The conceptual component, which is where the communicative intention that drives the utterance construction arises The grammatical component, where the utterance is formulated and encoded according to the communicative intention The contextual component, which contains all elements that can be referred to in the history of the discourse or in the environment The output component, which realizes the utterance as sound, writing, or signing The grammatical component consists of four levels:

The interpersonal level, which accounts for the pragmatics The representational level, which accounts for the semantics The morphosyntactic level, which accounts for the syntax and morphology The phonological level, which accounts for the phonology of the utterance

Example This example analyzes the utterance "I can't find the red pan. It is not in its usual place." according to functional discourse grammar at the interpersonal level. At the interpersonal level, this utterance is one discourse move, which consists of two discourse acts, one corresponding to "I can't find the red pan." and another corresponding to "It is not in its usual place."

The first discourse act consists of: A declarative illocutionary force A speaker, denoted by the word "I" An addressee A communicated content, which consists of: A referential subact corresponding to "I" An ascriptive subact corresponding to "find", which has the function Focus A referential subact corresponding to "the red pan", which contains two ascriptive subacts corresponding to "red" and "pan", and which has the function Topic The second discourse act consists of: A declarative illocutionary force A speaker An addressee A communicated content, which consists of: A referential subact corresponding to "it", which has the function Topic An ascriptive subact corresponding to "in its usual place", which has the function Focus Within this subact there is a referential subact corresponding to "its usual place", which consists of: A referential subact corresponding to "its" An ascriptive subact corresponding to "usual" An ascriptive subact corresponding to "place" Similar analysis, decomposing the utterance into progressively smaller units, is possible at the other levels of the grammatical component.

See also Nominal group Thematic equative Verbal Behavior (book)

References

External links Functional Grammar home page Archived 2019-11-27 at the Wayback Machine Functional Discourse Grammar homepage

Worked examples

Example 1 — a first encounter with Functional discourse grammar

Start with the simplest possible case. Write down what Functional discourse grammar claims or describes in one sentence, then invent the smallest concrete situation in which that sentence is true. In mathematics, the smallest case is usually a single object, a single equation or a single measurement. Check that every symbol or term in your sentence has a meaning in that case.

Example 2 — changing one variable

Take the situation from Example 1 and change exactly one quantity: double it, halve it, or set it to zero. Predict what should happen to Functional discourse grammar before you calculate. Comparing your prediction with the result is the fastest way to find out whether you understand the idea or only the words.

Example 3 — an exam-style question

Typical questions about Functional discourse grammar ask you to (a) state it precisely, (b) apply it to given data, and (c) explain a limitation. Practise writing all three answers in under five minutes; the third part is what separates a full-mark answer from an average one.

Applications of Functional discourse grammar

In research
Functional discourse grammar appears in mathematics research whenever the underlying quantities have to be modelled precisely. Papers usually cite it as a starting assumption and then explore where it breaks down.
In technology and industry
Engineering practice reuses Functional discourse grammar in design rules, simulations and safety margins. Knowing the idea lets you read a specification sheet and understand why the numbers look the way they do.
In the classroom
Functional discourse grammar is common in secondary-school and first-year university syllabi. It links to neighbouring topics Grammar, Grammar frameworks, so understanding it makes those chapters shorter.
In everyday life
Look for Functional discourse grammar outside the textbook — in sport, cooking, traffic, electronics or the sky above you. An example you found yourself is remembered far longer than one you were given.

Affiliate

Preply — study more efficiently by working with a personal tutor. 50% off.

How to study Functional discourse grammar in 20 minutes

  1. Read the reference excerpt below once, without taking notes.
  2. Close the page and write down what Functional discourse grammar means in your own words.
  3. Compare your version with the excerpt and mark what you missed.
  4. Work through the three examples above with pen and paper.
  5. Explain Functional discourse grammar out loud to somebody else — or to Teacher Smith in the lgStudy chat.

Frequently asked questions

What is Functional discourse grammar in simple terms?

Functional grammar (FG) and functional discourse grammar (FDG) are grammar models and theories motivated by functional theories of grammar. These theories explain how linguistic utterances are shaped, based on the goals and knowledge of natural language users.

Why does Functional discourse grammar matter?

Because it connects several mathematics ideas at once: it gives you a definition you can apply, a quantity you can calculate, and a way to check whether a result is plausible.

How should I study Functional discourse grammar?

Read the excerpt, restate it from memory, then work through the examples and applications listed on this page. The five-step study plan above takes about twenty minutes.

What does this page cover?

It gives you a compact reference excerpt plus original lgStudy explanations, examples, applications and study material on Functional discourse grammar.

Tags

  • Grammar
  • Grammar frameworks

Keep exploring