Abstract
This article contains a series of reflections on the nature of the lexicon in FDG inspired in large measure by the preceding articles. We start by considering how the lexicon relates to the Conceptual Component, arguing that lexemes do not label units of conceptualization but rather are associated with experientially based beliefs about their appropriate use. In our view, the Conceptual Component first develops a Message, which then influences the choice of a frame in the Grammatical Component into which appropriate lexemes are inserted. Lexemes are thus not inherently associated with frames, as was proposed in earlier work. Instead, they are marked with numerical indicators for the set of frames with which they are compatible, with coercion allowing one-off extensions of that frameset. It is a further consequence of our position that lexemes come with neither meaning definitions nor selection restrictions. We adopt Keizer’s notion of partially instantiated frames to account for idiomatic expressions. We then turn to parts-of-speech, as they apply to lexemes in various language types. Lexemes are distinguished from Words: for example, the single class of Contentives in the Esperanto lexicon corresponds to Verb Words, Noun Words, etc. in morphosyntax. This leads to a discussion of derivation and compounding, where it is shown that two types of derivation are to be distinguished in FDG, lexical derivation, which uses lexical primitives ($) as its input, and grammatical derivation, which takes place after insertion of a lexeme into its frame. Three major types of compounding are differentiated and exemplified from English and Dutch: predicate-argument, nucleus-modifier, and conjunct-conjunct compounds, each of which can be either endocentric or exocentric. Turning finally to the difficulty of drawing a sharp distinction between the lexicon and the grammar, we apply Keizer’s (2007) distinctions among primary and secondary lexical elements and primary and secondary grammatical elements, showing how findings from various of the preceding articles can be interpreted in this light.
Acknowledgements
We are indebted to Inge Genee and Evelien Keizer and to an anonymous reviewer for comments on an earlier version of this article.
References
Booij, Geert. 2002. The morphology of Dutch. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 2009. Compounding and construction morphology. In Rochelle Lieber & Pavol Štekauer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding, 201–216. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Boroditsky, Lera, Lauren A. Schmidt & Webb Phillips. 2003. Sex, syntax, and semantics. In Dedre Gentner & Susan Goldin-Meadow (eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Brown, Alan S. 2012. The tip of the tongue state. New York: Psychology Press.10.4324/9780203582961Search in Google Scholar
Butler, Christopher S. 2012. An ontological approach to the representational lexicon in Functional Discourse Grammar. Language Sciences 34(5). 619–634.10.1016/j.langsci.2012.02.004Search in Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. & Eve V. Clark. 1979. When nouns surface as verbs. Language 55. 430–477.10.2307/412745Search in Google Scholar
Connolly, John H. 2013. Conceptual representation and formulation: A computationally oriented approach. In J. Lachlan Mackenzie & Hella Olbertz (eds.), Casebook in Functional Discourse Grammar, 125–153. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.137.06conSearch in Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical construction grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Fernández, Eva M. & Helen Smith Cairns. 2011. Fundamentals of psycholinguistics. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
García Velasco, Daniel. 2007. Lexical competence and Functional Discourse Grammar. Alfa – Revista de Lingüística 51(2). 165–187.Search in Google Scholar
García Velasco, Daniel. 2009. Conversion in English and its implications for Functional Discourse Grammar. Lingua 119(8). 1164–1185.10.1016/j.lingua.2007.12.006Search in Google Scholar
García Velasco, Daniel & Kees Hengeveld. 2002. Do we need predicate frames? In Ricardo Mairal Usón & María Jesús Pérez Quintero (eds.), New perspectives on argument structure in Functional Grammar, 95–123. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Genee, Inge. 2013. On the representation of roots, stems and finals in Blackfoot. In J. Lachlan Mackenzie & Hella Olbertz (eds.), Casebook in Functional Discourse Grammar, 95–123. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.137.05genSearch in Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199268511.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Harley, Trevor A. 2001. The psychology of language: From data to theory. Hove & New York: Psychology Press.10.4324/9780203345979Search in Google Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees. 2013. Parts-of-speech system as a basic typological determinant. In Jan Rijkhoff & Eva van Lier (eds.), Flexible word classes: Typological studies of underspecified parts of speech, 31–55. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199668441.003.0002Search in Google Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees & Eva van Lier. 2010. An implicational map of parts-of-speech. Linguistic Discovery 8(1). 129–156.10.1349/PS1.1537-0852.A.348Search in Google Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees & J. Lachlan Mackenzie. 2008. Functional Discourse Grammar: A typologically-based theory of language structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199278107.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees & J. Lachlan Mackenzie. 2014. Grammar and context in Functional Discourse Grammar. Pragmatics 24(2). 203–227.10.1075/prag.24.2.02henSearch in Google Scholar
Hirst, Graeme. 1999. What exactly are lexical concepts? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22. 45–46.10.1017/S0140525X99301771Search in Google Scholar
Honselaar, Wim & Evelien Keizer. 2009. Lexicon and frames in FDG: A treatment of Dutch bekend zijn ‘to be familiar, well known’, behandelen ‘to treat’ and trouwen ‘marry’. Lingua 119(8). 1212–1241.10.1016/j.lingua.2007.12.008Search in Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2007. Language, consciousness, culture: Essays on mental structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/4111.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2009. Compounding in the parallel architecture and conceptual semantics. In Rochelle Lieber & Pavol Štekauer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding, 105–129. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan. 2007. Synergic concepts in the bilingual mind. In Istvan Kecskes & Liliana Albertazzi (eds.), Cognitive aspects of bilingualism, 29–61. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4020-5935-3_2Search in Google Scholar
Keizer, Evelien. 2007. The lexical-grammatical dichotomy in Functional Discourse Grammar. Alfa – Revista de Lingüística 51(2). 35–56.Search in Google Scholar
Konopka, Agnieszka E. & Sarah Brown-Schmidt. 2014. Message encoding. In Matthew Goldrick, Victor Ferreira & Michele Miozzo (eds.), Oxford handbook of language production, 3–20. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltán & Günther Radden. 1998. Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive linguistics 9(1). 37–77.10.1515/cogl.1998.9.1.37Search in Google Scholar
Larsson, Staffan. 2008. Formalising the dynamics of semantic systems in dialogue. In Robin Cooper & Ruth Kempson (eds.), Language in flux: Relating dialogue coordination to language variation, change and evolution, 121–142. London: College Publications.Search in Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle. 2011. IE, Germanic: English. In Rochelle Lieber & Pavol Štekauer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding, 357–369. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199695720.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
van Lier, Eva & Jan Rijkhoff. 2013. Flexible word classes in linguistic typology and grammatical theory. In Jan Rijkhoff & Eva van Lier (eds.), Flexible word classes: A typological study of underspecified parts-of-speech, 1–30. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199668441.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Longe, Olivia, Billi Randall, Emmanuel A. Stamatakis & Lorraine K. Tyler. 2007. Grammatical categories in the brain: the role of morphological structure. Cerebral Cortex 17(8). 1812–1820.10.1093/cercor/bhl099Search in Google Scholar
Mackenzie, J. Lachlan 2012. Cognitive adequacy in a dialogic Functional Discourse Grammar. Language Sciences 34(4). 421–432.10.1016/j.langsci.2012.02.006Search in Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 2013. Verbal argument structure: Events and participants. Lingua 130. 152–168.10.1016/j.lingua.2012.10.012Search in Google Scholar
McCawley, James. 1971. Where do noun phrases come from? In Danny Steinberg & Leon A. Jakobovits (eds.), Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics and psychology, 217–231. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Moseley, Rachel L. & Friedemann Pulvermüller. 2014. Nouns, verbs, objects, actions, and abstractions: Local fMRI activity indexes semantics, not lexical categories. Brain and Language 132. 28–42.10.1016/j.bandl.2014.03.001Search in Google Scholar
Paradis, Michel. 2007. Neurofunctional components of the bilingual cognitive system. In Istvan Kecskes & Liliana Albertazzi (eds.), Cognitive aspects of bilingualism, 3–28. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4020-5935-3_1Search in Google Scholar
Periñán-Pascual, Carlos & Ricardo Mairal Usón. 2010. La gramática de COREL: Un lenguaje de representación conceptual. Onomázein 21. 11–45.10.7764/onomazein.21.01Search in Google Scholar
Scalise, Sergio & Antonietta Bisetto. 2011. The classification of compounds. In Rochelle Lieber & Pavol Štekauer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding, 34–53. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Smit, Niels & Miriam van Staden. 2007. Representational layering in Functional Discourse Grammar. Alfa – Revista de Lingüística 51(2). 143–164.Search in Google Scholar
Tyler, Lorraine K., Peter Bright, Peter Fletcher & Emmanuel A. Stamatakis. 2004. Neural processing of nouns and verbs: The role of inflectional morphology. Neuropsychologia 42(4). 512–523.10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2003.10.001Search in Google Scholar
Ullmann, Michael T. 2001. The declarative/procedural model of lexicon and grammar. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 30(1). 37–69.10.1023/A:1005204207369Search in Google Scholar
Vigliocco, Gabriella, Tiziana Antonini & Merrill F. Garrett. 1997. Grammatical gender is on the tip of Italian tongues. Psychological Science 8. 314–317.10.1111/j.1467-9280.1997.tb00444.xSearch in Google Scholar
©2016 by De Gruyter Mouton
