Cover not available
Part of
Reconnecting Form and Meaning: In honour of Kristin Davidse
Edited by Caroline Gentens, Lobke Ghesquière, William B. McGregor and An Van linden
[Studies in Language Companion Series 230] 2023
► pp. 267–298

Chapter 10
Enation and agnation in multi-level models

The case for Functional Discourse Grammar

 | University of Vienna
Gleason’s (1965) distinction between enation (same structure, different lexemes) and agnation (different structure, same lexemes) has proved to be a crucial one for theoretical linguistics, and over the last decades functional and cognitive linguists have made important contributions to the study of (in particular) agnate relations. Nevertheless, several issues have not yet been sufficiently investigated, including the identification of less obvious agnate relations; the exact characterization of identical, similar or overlapping relations at different levels of linguistic analysis; and the role of different kinds of function words in distinguishing between enation and agnation. In this paper I argue that the distinctive features of Functional Discourse Grammar (FDG) make this theory ideally suited to address these issues.
Keywords: enation, agnation, frames, levels of analysis, Functional Discourse Grammar
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Relations within the language system: Enation and agnation
    • 2.1Subtypes of enation and agnation
    • 2.2Applications of agnation
  • 3.Functional Discourse Grammar: Relevant features
    • 3.1Overall characterization
    • 3.2Four levels of analysis
    • 3.3Other important features
  • 4.Enation and agnation in FDG
    • 4.1General observations
    • 4.2Enation and agnation at the Interpersonal Level
    • 4.3Enation and agnation at the Representational Level
      • 4.3.1Type of entity
      • 4.3.2Quantitative valency
      • 4.3.3Qualitative valency
    • 4.4Overlapping frames
      • 4.4.1Resultative and simultaneous states
      • 4.4.2Syntactic er-noun derivation
    • 4.5Summary
  • 5.Towards a more systematic approach to relations between linguistic elements
    • 5.1Interaction between IL and RL
    • 5.2Lexeme vs. structure?
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 10 February 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.230.10kei
References (39)
References
Broekhuis, Hans. 2013. Syntax of Dutch. Adjectives and Adjective Phrases. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads. A Cross-linguistic Perspective. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Davidse, Kristin. 1998. Agnates, verb classes and the meaning of construals. The case of ditransitivity in English. Leuvense Bijdragen 87: 281–313.Google Scholar
. 2011. Alternations as a heuristic to verb meaning and the semantics of constructions. In Morphosyntactic Alternations in English. Functional and Cognitive Perspectives, Pilar Medina Guerrero (ed), 11–37. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
Ernst, Thomas. 2002. The Syntax of Adjuncts. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
García Velasco, Daniel. 2017. Modularity and derivation in Functional Discourse Grammar. D.E.L.T.A. 33(1): 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García Velasco, Daniel & Portero Muñoz, Carmen. 2002. Understood objects in functional grammar. Working Papers in Functional Grammar 76. Amsterdam: Amsterdam Center for Language & Communication, Universiteit van AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
García-Velasco, Daniel & Keizer, Evelien. 2014. Derivational morphology in Functional Discourse Grammar. In Theory and Practice in Functional-cognitive Space [Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics 68], María de los Ángeles Gómez González, Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez & Francisco Gonzálvez-García (eds), 151–177. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gentens, Caroline. 2020. The Factive-reported Distinction in English. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gleason, Henry A. 1965. Linguistics and English Grammar. New York NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1992. The inherent semantics of argument structure. The case of the English ditransitive construction. Cognitive Linguistics 3(1): 37–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001. Patient arguments of causative verbs can be omitted. The role of information structure in argument distribution. Language Sciences 23(4–5): 503–524. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005. Argument realization. The role of constructions, lexical semantics and discourse factors. In Construction Grammars. Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions [Constructional Approaches to Language 3], Jan-Ola Östman & Mirjam Fried (eds), 17–43. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Contreras-García, Lucia & García Velasco, Daniel. 2021. Interfaces in Functional Discourse Grammar. Theory and applications [Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 354]. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan T. & Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2004. Extending collostructional analysis. A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9(1): 97–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guerrero Medina, Pilar. 2020. The distribution of verbs and verb classes in the English for-dative alternation. A lexico-paradigmatic approach. Revista Electrónica de Lingüística Aplicada 19(1): 120–135.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1968. Notes on transitivity and theme in English 3. Journal of Linguistics 4: 179–215. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. & Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. 2014. An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 4th edn. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hay, Jennifer. 2002. From speech perception to morphology. Affix-ordering revisited. Language 78(3): 527–555. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees. 2011. Introduction. Transparency in Functional Discourse Grammar. Linguistics in Amsterdam 4(2): 1–22.Google Scholar
. 2017. A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization. In The Grammaticalization of Tense, Aspect, Modality, and Evidentiality. A Functional Perspective, Kees Hengeveld, Heiko Narrog & Hella Olbertz (eds), 13–37. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees & Mackenzie, J. Lachlan. 2008. Functional Discourse Grammar. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heyvaert, Liesbet. 2003. A Cognitive-Functional Approach to Nominalization in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. & Schultze-Berndt, Eva. 2005. Issues in the syntax and semantics of participant-oriented adjuncts. In Secondary Predication and Adverbial Modification. The Typology of Depictives, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann & Eva Schultze-Berndt (eds), 1–68. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Honselaar, Wim & Keizer, Evelien. 2009. Lexicon and frames in FDG. A treatment of Dutch bekend zijn ‘to be familiar, well known’, behandelen ‘to treat’ and trouwen ‘to marry’. Lingua 119(8): 1212–1241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keizer, Evelien. 2008. English prepositions in Functional Discourse Grammar. Functions of Language 15(2): 216–256. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Verb-preposition constructions in Functional Discourse Grammar. Lingua 119(8): 1186–1211. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Idiomatic expressions in Functional Discourse Grammar. Linguistics 54(5): 981–1016. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018a. Interpersonal adverbs in FDG. The case of frankly. In Recent Developments in Functional Discourse Grammar [Studies in Language Companion Series 205], Evelien Keizer & Hella Olbertz (eds), 48–88. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018b. Derivational morphology in FDG. Challenges and implications. Word Structure 11(1): 36–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. The semantics, syntax and prosody of adverbs in English. An FDG perspective. In Grammar and Cognition. Dualistic Models of Language Structure and Language Processing [Human Cognitive Processing 70], Alexander Haselow & Gunther Kaltenböck (eds), 191–231. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George & Johnson, Mark. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Leufkens, Sterre. 2015. Transparency in Language. A Typological Study. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics, 2 Vols. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, J. Lachlan. 2013a. The family of secondary predications in English. An FDG view. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 67: 43–58.Google Scholar
. 2013b. Spatial adpositions between lexicon and grammar. In Casebook in Functional Discourse Grammar [Studies in Language Companion Series 137], J. Lachlan Mackenzie & Hella Olbertz (eds), 67–93. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1989. How performatives work. Linguistics and Philosophy 12(5): 535–558. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van den Eynde, Karel. 1995. Methodological reflections on descriptive linguistics. Knud Togeby’s principles and the pronominal approach. In Studies in Valency, Lene Schøsler & Mary Talbot (eds), 111–131. Odense: Odense University Press.Google Scholar