Tenth International Workshop on Functional Discourse Grammar

The Interpersonal Level in Functional Discourse Grammar

Dopersduin, Schoorl, 3-4 July 2025

Organizers

  • Riccardo Giomi (University of Amsterdam)
  • Kees Hengeveld (University of Amsterdam)

The Tenth International Workshop on Functional Discourse Grammar (IW-FDG-2025) will be organized by the University of Amsterdam and will take place in Schoorl, The Netherlands on 3-4 July 2025. As on previous occasions, the workshop will be devoted to a specific aspect of the theory and serves two major aims: (i) the development and improvement of the theory of FDG (Hengeveld & Mackenzie 2008, Keizer 2015, Hengeveld, Keizer & Giomi in prep.) and (ii) the publication of an edited volume or special issue consisting of the papers discussed during the workshop. This year’s topic will be the Interpersonal Level. Previous workshops have all resulted in the publication of a special issue of a respected journal or an edited volume in an established journal or book series. To realize these aims, a special procedure is followed in the preparation and organization of the workshop.

Programme

Berner, Felix. It is sort of complicated – an FDG account of the type noun sort (of).
Fang Hongmei. Topic markers in Mandarin: An FDG account.
Favaro, Marco. Illocutionary operators in Functional Discourse Grammar: Reassessing modal particles and their role within Discourse Acts.
Giomi, Riccardo & van Olmen, Daniel & van Oers, Denise. Insults as a sentence type: A cross-linguistic perspective
Hengeveld, Kees. The focalizing copula in Colombian Spanish.
Keizer, Evelien. I propose: a modified analysis of performatives in FDG.
Mittendorfer, Matthias. Contrast and contrastiveness in structural parallelism: evidence from prosody.
Mustafa, Ozan. It’s just that they’re ambiguous: an FDG account of it BE (not) that and fragmentary not that.
Olbertz, Hella & Vázquez, Victoria. Cleft constructions with lo que ‘what’ in European Spanish.
Portero Muñoz, Carmen. Not for nothing:  From emphasis to politeness.
Salazar García, Ventura. Towards a functional characterization of focus markers (putting the focus on Spanish)
Schwaiger, Thomas. On the relationship between morphology and the Interpersonal Level in Functional Discourse Grammar.
ten Wolde, Elnora. Adverbials in FDG: A case of English purpose and result.

Procedure and deadlines:

  • 1 May 2025: complete first drafts due. Each draft will be reviewed by three other participants of the workshop and will be read by the remaining participants in preparation of the workshop.
  • 15 June 2025: internal reviews due. Comments will be collected/summarized by the organizers and will be distributed among the participants in the workshop.
  • 3-4 July 2025: each paper will be discussed in detail during the workshop in a number of chaired sessions.

    • The topic
    A distinguishing feature of Functional Discourse Grammar is the presence of an Interpersonal Level in its central architecture. The Interpersonal Level is defined in actional terms, but actional categories are represented only to the extent that they are reflected in morphosyntax or phonology, in accordance with the Principle of Formal Encoding (Keizer 2015). The overall layout of the Interpersonal Level, as originally proposed by Hengeveld & Mackenzie (2008), is presented in (1):

    (1)        (Π MI:  [                                                                                                                             Move
                               (Π Ai:   [                                                                                                               Discourse Act
                                            (Π FI: […] (FI): Σ (FI))                                                                            Illocution
                                            (Π PI: […] (PI): Σ (PI))S                                                                         Speaker
                                            (Π PJ: […] (PJ): Σ (PJ))A                                                                        Addressee
                                            (Π CI:    [                                                                                                 Communicated Content
                                                          (Π TI: […] (TI): Σ (TI))Φ                                                         Ascriptive Subact
                                                          (Π RJ: […] (RI): Σ (RI))Φ                                                        Referential Subact                            
                                             ] (CI): Σ (CI))Φ                                                                                      Communicated Content
                                ] (AI): Σ (AI))Φ                                                                                                  Discourse Act
                ] (MI): Σ (MI))                                                                                                                   Move

    Here a Move (M) contains one or more Discourse Acts (A), which are combinations of maximally four units: the Illocution (F), the speech act Participants (PI­)S and (PJ)A, and the Communicated Content (C). Every unit may have its own operators (Π) and modifiers (Σ), and carry functions (Φ): pragmatic functions within the Communicated Content, participant functions within the Discourse Act, and rhetorical functions at higher layers.
                A number of changes of the basic overall template of the Interpersonal Level are currently being considered. A number of these were discussed during an informal discussion meeting in Vienna in February 2023, others are explored in Hengeveld, Keizer & Giomi (in prep.), and yet others in more specific publications mentioned below. If all changes suggested were to be adopted, (1) could be replaced by (2):

    (2)        (S1:      [                                                                                                                           Discourse Segment
                              (Π M1: [                                                                                                             Move
                                            (π A1:   [                                                                                               Discourse Act
                                                          (Π F1: … (F1): Σ (F1))                                                            Interpersonal Property
                                                          (Π P1: … (P1): Σ (P1))S                                                         Speaker
                                                          (Π P2: … (P2): Σ (P2))A                                                        Addressee
                                                          (Π C1:   [                                                                                 Communicated Content
                                                                        (Π R1/T1: […] (R1/T1): Σ (R1/T1))Φ                  Referential/Ascriptive Subact
                                                                        (Π Cm1: [                                                                 Comment
                                                                                         (Π R1: […] (R1): Σ (R1))Φ                    Referential Subact
                                                                                         (Π T1: […] (T1): Σ (T1))Φ                     Ascriptive Subact
                                                                                         (Π C1: […] (CI): Σ (C1))Φ                      Communicated Content
                                                                         ] (Cm1): Σ (Cm1))Φ                                               Comment                  
                                                            ] (C1): (C1))Φ                                                                      Communicated Content
                                           ] (A1): Σ (A1))                                                                                       Discourse Act
                              ] (M1): Σ (M1))Φ                                                                                              Move
                ] (S1))                                                                                                                                Discourse Segment

    The innovations in (2) concern:

  • The Discourse Segment: This is a new layer that can be defined as a combination of rhetorically related Moves. As the higher the layer at the Interpersonal Level, the fewer the grammatical phenomena that are sensitive to that layer, Discourse Segments do not seem to have their own modifiers or operators. Nevertheless, some languages seem to have dedicated means of indicating the beginning or end of a Discourse Segment, thereby confirming their existence. One such language is Koryak (a Chukotko-Kamchatkan language), which has a special expression (Aɕɕo'ɕ ‘that’s all’) which is used to indicate the end of a (narrative) unit consisting of several Moves (Bógoras 1917: 43-45). Other examples would be the use of expressions like pues nada and e niente in informal spoken Spanish and Italian, respectively, to indicate that the speaker wants to end the conversation. The Discourse Segment is also necessary to keep together two or more Moves that are in a rhetorical relationship with one another.
  • The Interpersonal Property: The variable F, which used to stand for the Illocution in underlying representations, has been generalized to also include the functions of what Giomi (2021) called Lexical Deeds. In parallel with the Representational Level, the F then not only stands for the main (illocutionary) predicate (see Hengeveld & Keizer forthc. for discussion), but for any lexical items of an interpersonal nature as well. For instance, reference to an Individual through a proper name would be represented as (RI: (FI: John (FI)) (RI)), and an attitudinal modifier such as surprisingly as (CI: [….] (CI): (FI: surprisingly (FI)) (CI)). An advantage of this approach is that it becomes possible to account for the modification of interpersonal modifiers themselves, as in Slightly surprisingly, the weather forecast is not very positive, where the representation of slightly surprisingly would be (FI: surprisingly (FI): (FJ: slightly (FJ)) (FI)).
  • The Comment: Following work by Smit (2010), the Communicated Content is subdivided in a topical part and a Comment, with the topical element either evoking the entitiy the Comment is about, or providing the setting for the rest of the Communicated Content. The topical part may be a real Topic, when languages mark topics grammatically, or a Referential or Ascriptive Subact that is topical in nature but not marked as such. An advantage of this further layering is that Focus or Contrast assignment to Comments can be taken care of straightforwardly. An example would be: A: and so what did you do? B: I (immediately called the police)Foc. Also, presentative and thetical sentences can be accounted for systematically: presentative sentences only have a focal topical constituent, while thetical sentences have a focal Comment only.
  • Furthermore, the idea that there can be only one Communicated Content at the Interpersonal Level is abandoned. Communicated Contents can be part of the Comment, as shown in (2), or two or more independent Communicated Contents may co-occur. This step is motivated by the fact that subordinate clauses of virtually all layers may be modified by reportative and attitudinal modifiers, as in I assume it will unfortunately happen (Communicated Content as part of the Comment) and in After unfortunately being fired, she reportedly took on a night job (two juxtaposed Communicated Contents). Further evidence for this is that subordinate clauses have their own information-structural configuration, which is a property of Communicated Contents. So instead of having subordinate clauses correspond to Referential Subacts at the Interpersonal Level, it seems to make sense to relate them to Communicated Contents at the Interpersonal Level. This was first argued for in Mackenzie (2019), and more recently in Olbertz & Vázquez Rozas (2022).
  • Another innovation, not visible in (2), is the distinction between two types of Topics: Aboutness Topics (A-Topics) and Frame-Setting Topic (FS-Topics). The former correspond to what has been called Topic in FDG so far, the latter correspond to e.g. locative, temporal, and conditional units that provide the frame within which the ensuing Comment is to be interpreted. In many languages the two types of Topic are marked in the same way, but they also differ in that generally FS-Topics have to precede A-Topics in linearization.
  • A final innovation, also not directly visible in (2), is the proposal to distinguish between two types of rhetorical functions: discourse-oriented ones and host-oriented ones (see also Mittendorfer forthc.). Discourse-oriented functions serve to indicate the role played by a unit within the higher unit (i.e. of a Move within a Discourse Segment or a Discourse Act within a Move), while host-oriented functions indicate a relation between two units of like rank (e.g. between two Discourse Acts within a Move). An example of the former would be rhetorical functions that explicitly indicate the discourse-organizational role of a Move within a Discourse Segment (as expressed by, for instance in sum or all in all). An example of the latter can be found in an utterance like Football, I don’t really like it, which consists of two Discourse Acts, with a rhetorical relation between them. Since the two units are of like rank, this relation is of the host-oriented type.

    • For the workshop, we would like to invite contributions that apply, discuss, or challenge the above modifications or provide further evidence for or against them. Contributions dealing with other phenomena at the Interpersonal Level are equally welcome, as there remains much to be explored. Contributions may be typological or language-specific, theoretical or applied, synchronic or diachronic. The only limitation on contributions is that they, in one way or other, should contribute to a better understanding of the Interpersonal Level in FDG.

    The abstract
    Anyone interested in participating in the workshop is kindly requested to let us know as soon as possible (at functionaldiscoursegrammar@gmail.com), so that we know at an early stage how many participants we may expect. Extended abstracts (1500 words or four pages) on the aforementioned general topic need to be submitted by 15 November 2024 to the same email address. Please note that by sending in an abstract you express your willingness to take part not only in the workshop but also in the various preparatory activities specified above.

    The workshop
    During the workshop, each paper will be discussed in great detail during a number of chaired sessions. Contributors will be asked to react to the comments they have received on their paper, after which other participants can ask questions and make suggestions. The aim of this procedure is twofold: it will help to improve the final versions of the papers and it will allow us to create a unified set of papers, which will enhance the chances of publication as a special issue or a thematic volume.

    Funding
    We are at the moment applying for funds in order to provide some financial support for participants in the workshop. Although we are hopeful that we will be able to obtain some funding, we recommend that participants do not refrain from applying for funding from their own universities or research organizations when they see an opportunity to do so.

    The programme committee
    The programme committee will consist of:

    • Riccardo Giomi (University of Amsterdam)
    • Kees Hengeveld (University of Amsterdam)
    • Evelien Keizer (University of Vienna)
    How to reach us

    The email address functionaldiscoursegrammar@gmail.com is available for all matters related to the workshop.

     

    References

    Bogoras, Waldemar (1917), Koryak texts (Publications of the American Ethnological Society V). Leyden: Brill.
    Giomi, Riccardo (2021), The Place of Interpersonal Lexemes in Linguistic Theory, with Special Reference to Functional Discourse Grammar. Corpus Pragmatics 5.2, 1-36.
    Hengeveld, Kees & Keizer, Evelien (forthc.), General principles of linearization in Functional Discourse Grammar. To appear in Elnora ten Wolde, Riccardo Giomi & Kees Hengeveld (eds), Linearization in Functional Discourse Grammar.
    Hengeveld, Kees, Keizer, Evelien & Giomi, Riccardo (in prep.), Layering in Functional Discourse Grammar: The hierarchical structure of the language system. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Hengeveld, Kees and Mackenzie, J. Lachlan (2008), Functional Discourse Grammar: A typologically-based theory of language structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Keizer, Evelien (2015), A Functional Discourse Grammar for English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Mackenzie, J. Lachlan (2019), The Functional Discourse Grammar approach to syntax. In A. Kertész, E. Moravcsik and Cs. Rákosi (eds), Current approaches to syntax - a comparative handbook. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton. 291-316.
    Mittendorfer, Matthias (forthc.), Discourse functions, placement and prosody: an FDG analysis of left and right dislocation in British English. In Elnora Ten Wolde, Riccardo Giomi and Kees Hengeveld (eds.), Linearization in Functional Discourse Grammar.
    Olbertz, Hella & Vázquez Rozas, Victoria (2022), Asymmetrical pseudoclefts in Spanish — towards an FDG account. Lecture, Seventh International Conference on Functional Discourse Grammar, Schoorl, The Netherlands.
    Smit, Niels (2010), FYI: Theory and typology of information packaging. PhD Dissertation, University of Amsterdam.