Functional Discourse Grammar and constituent order typology Kees Hengeveld

Introduction In Functional Discourse Grammar (FDG), constituent order is taken care of in a novel way in two different senses: (i) the word order component of FDG makes use of templates that are dynamically constructed using maximally four absolute positions: initial (P I ), second (P 2 ), middle (P M ) and final (P F ) 2

Introduction In Functional Discourse Grammar (FDG), constituent order is taken care of in a novel way in two different senses: (ii) the assignment of constituents to positions occurs in two different steps: a hierarchical and a configurational one 3

Introduction These two aspects of the approach to constituent order in FDG provide a new perspective on classical constituent order typology: (i) the availability of maximally four absolute positions leads to the question whether the six-way classification of basic consituent orders in terms of S, O, and V is not far too simple 4

Introduction These two aspects of the approach to constituent order in FDG provide a new perspective on classical constituent order typology: (ii) the hierarchical approach leads to the question whether one should really start looking at S, O, and V, rather than at peripheral constituents such as sentence adverbs. 5

Contents 1. Constituent order in Functional Discourse Grammar 2. Classical constituent order typology 3. FDG templates and constituent order typology 4. FDG hierarchies and constituent order typology 5. Conclusions 6

1. Constituent order in Functional Discourse Grammar

Frames, Lexemes, Primary operators Templates, Auxiliaries, Secondary operators Interpersonal Level Representational Level Formulation Morphosyntactic Encoding Morphosyntactic Level Phonological Encoding Phonological Level Prosodic patterns, Morphemes, Tertiary operators

Morphosyntactic encoding 9 Interpersonal Level Representational Level Morphosyntactic Level

10 Steps in morphosyntactic encoding Hierarchical ordering (Alignment) Non-hierarchical ordering (Dummy-insertion) (Agreement)

11 Templates Ordering templates make use of maximally four language specific absolute positions which serve as anchor points in the ordering process: initial, second, middle, and final position: P I P 2 P M P F As soon as an absolute position is occupied, and only when it is occupied, the template is expanded with further relative positions: P I P I+1 P I+2 etc. P 2 P 2+1 P 2+2 etc. etc.P M-2 P M-1 P M P M+1 P M+2 etc. etc.P F-2 P F-1 P F

Hierarchical ordering 12 Interpersonal LevelM → A → C → R → T ↓ Representational Levelp → ep → e → fcfc → flfl Within each level assign a position to elements with higher scope before assigning a position to elements with lower scope Assign a position to interpersonal units before assigning a position to representational units

Non-hierarchical ordering Non-hierarchical ordering is guided by alignment considerations: is a language accusative, ergative or hierarchical, does complexity of constituents play a role? 13

14 Hierarchichal ordering: IL She finally (Σ A ) honestly (Σ F ) reportedly (Σ C ) is the queen’s sister. P I P M---

15 Hierarchichal ordering: IL She finally (Σ A ) honestly (Σ F ) reportedly (Σ C ) is the queen’s sister. P I P M P M+1 ---finally ---

16 Hierarchichal ordering: IL She finally (Σ A ) honestly (Σ F ) reportedly (Σ C ) is the queen’s sister. P I P M P M+1 P M+2 ---finally honestly ---

17 Hierarchichal ordering: IL She finally (Σ A ) honestly (Σ F ) reportedly (Σ C ) is the queen’s sister. P I P M P M+1 P M+2 P M+3 ---finally honestly reportedly ---

18 Hierarchichal ordering: IL She finally (Σ A ) honestly (Σ F ) reportedly (Σ C ) is the queen’s sister. P I P M P M+1 P M+2 P M+3 ---finally honestly reportedly [is the queens sister]

19 Hierarchichal ordering: IL She finally (Σ A ) honestly (Σ F ) reportedly (Σ C ) is the queen’s sister. P I P I+1 P M P M+1 P M+2 P M+3 She---finally honestly reportedly [is the queens sister]

20 Hierarchical ordering: RL She drinks continuously (σ f ) again (σ e ) recently (σ ep ). P I P M P F

21 Hierarchical ordering: RL She drinks continuously (σ f ) again (σ e ) recently (σ ep ). P I P M P F-1 P F recently

22 Hierarchical ordering: RL She drinks continuously (σ f ) again (σ e ) recently (σ ep ). P I P M P F-2 P F-1 P F again recently

23 Hierarchical ordering: RL She drinks continuously (σ f ) again (σ e ) recently (σ ep ). P I P M P F-3 P F-2 P F-1 P F continuously again recently

24 Hierarchical ordering: RL She drinks continuously (σ f ) again (σ e ) recently (σ ep ). P I P I+1 P M P F-3 P F-2 P F-1 P F She continuously again recently

25 Hierarchical ordering: RL She drinks continuously (σ f ) again (σ e ) recently (σ ep ). P I P I+1 P M P F-3 P F-2 P F-1 P F She---drinks---continuously again recently

26 Hierarchical ordering: IL/RL Perhaps (σ p ) I will (π ep ) accept that. P I P M---

27 Hierarchical ordering: IL/RL Perhaps (σ p ) I will (π ep ) accept that. P I P I+1 P M Perhaps------

28 Hierarchical ordering: IL/RL Perhaps (σ p ) I will (π ep ) accept that. P I P I+1 P M P M+1 Perhaps---will---

29 Hierarchical ordering: IL/RL Perhaps (σ p ) I will (π ep ) accept that. P I P I+1 P M P M+1 P M+2 Perhaps---willaccept---

30 Hierarchical ordering: IL/RL Perhaps (σ p ) I will (π ep ) accept that. P I P I+1 P M P M+1 P M+2 Perhaps---willacceptthat.

31 Hierarchical ordering: IL/RL Perhaps (σ p ) I will (π ep ) accept that. P I P I+1 P M P M+1 P M+2 PerhapsIwillacceptthat.

32 Hierarchical ordering: IL/RL That (R Contrast ) perhaps (σ p ) I will (π ep ) accept. (Connolly 2012: 465) P I P M---

33 Hierarchical ordering: IL/RL That (R Contrast ) perhaps (σ p ) I will (π ep ) accept. P I P I+1 P M That------

34 Hierarchical ordering: IL/RL That (R Contrast ) perhaps (σ p ) I will (π ep ) accept. P I P I+1 P I+2 P M Thatperhaps------

35 Hierarchical ordering: IL/RL That (R Contrast ) perhaps (σ p ) I will (π ep ) accept. P I P I+1 P I+2 P M P M+1 Thatperhaps---willaccept.

36 Hierarchical ordering: IL/RL That (R Contrast ) perhaps (σ p ) I will (π ep ) accept. P I P I+1 P I+2 P M P M+1 ThatperhapsIwillaccept.

37 Hierarchical ordering: IL/RL Perhaps (σ p ) I will (π ep ) accept that. That (R Contrast ) perhaps (σ p ) I will (π ep ) accept. P I P I+1 P M P M+1 P M+2 PerhapsIwillacceptthat. P I P I+1 P I+2 P M P M+1 ThatperhapsIwillaccept.

Phrases the ( π R ) three ( π x ) pairs of ( π f ) shoes that you bought P I P F--- 38

Phrases the ( π R ) three ( π x ) pairs of ( π f ) shoes that you bought P I P I+1 P F the

Phrases the ( π R ) three ( π x ) pairs of ( π f ) shoes that you bought P I P I+1 P I+2 P F thethree

Phrases the ( π R ) three ( π x ) pairs of ( π f ) shoes that you bought P I P I+1 P I+2 P I+3 P F thethreepairs_of

Phrases the ( π R ) three ( π x ) pairs of ( π f ) shoes that you bought P I P I+1 P I+2 P I+3 P I+4 P F thethreepairs_ofshoes

Phrases the ( π R ) three ( π x ) pairs of ( π f ) shoes that you bought P I P I+1 P I+2 P I+3 P I+4 P F-1 P F thethreepairs_ofshoes------that you bought 43

44 Words Manuelanofi-nu( π e )-ti( π C )-e( π F ). Manuelfood eat-PERC-REP-DECL ‘They say Manuel ate.’ P F ---

45 Words Manuelanofi-nu( π e )-ti( π C )-e( π F ). Manuelfood eat-PERC-REP-DECL ‘They say Manuel ate.’ P F-1 P F ----e

46 Words Manuelanofi-nu( π e )-ti( π C )-e( π F ). Manuelfood eat-PERC-REP-DECL ‘They say Manuel ate..’ P F-2 P F-1 P F ----ti-e

47 Words Manuelanofi-nu( π e )-ti( π C )-e( π F ). Manuelfood eat-PERC-REP-DECL ‘They say Manuel ate.’ P F-3 P F-2 P F-1 P F ---nu-ti-e

48 Words Manuelanofi-nu( π e )-ti( π C )-e( π F ). Manuelfood eat-PERC-REP-DECL ‘They say Manuel ate.’ P F-4 P F-3 P F-2 P F-1 P F ---fi-nu-ti-e

2. Classical constituent order typology

S, O, and V Classical clausal constituent order typology focuses on the position of S, O, and V in transitive clauses This is problematic by itself, as S, O, nor V are universal (nor are, perhaps, transitive clauses) I therefore rather use Predicate, Actor and Undergoer as the basic notions Six patterns in classical constituent order typology: VSO, SVO, SOV, VOS, OVS, OSV 50

3. FDG templates and constituent order typology

Issues From the perspective of FDG templates two major questions have to be addressed in constituent order typology: (i) Which and how many absolute positions are used by a language? (ii) To which of these positions are Predicate, Actor, and Undergoer assigned? 52

Absolute positions 53 1 absolute position PIPI PMPM - ---PFPF 2 absolute positions PIPI P2P2 -- PIPI -PMPM - PIPI --PFPF --PMPM PFPF

Absolute positions 54 3 absolute positions PIPI P2P2 PMPM - PIPI P2P2 -PFPF PIPI -PMPM PFPF 4 absolute positions PIPI P2P2 PMPM PFPF

Absolute positions Are there any universal restrictions on combinations of absolute positions? (i) P I seems to be universal (ii) P 2 by definition cannot exist without P I (iii) Templates with just one absolute position are highy unlikely 55

Absolute positions 56 2 absolute positions P1P1 P2P2 -- P1P1 -PMPM - P1P1 --PFPF 3 absolute positions PIPI P2P2 PMPM - PIPI P2P2 -PFPF PIPI -PMPM PFPF 4 absolute positions PIPI P2P2 PMPM PFPF

Predicate, Actor and Undergoer 57 PIPI P2P2 PMPM PFPF PredAU AU AU A U A U A U AU AU AU

Predicate, Actor and Undergoer 58 PIPI P2P2 PMPM PFPF PredUA UA UA U A U A U A UA UA UA

Predicate, Actor and Undergoer 59 PIPI P2P2 PMPM PFPF PredA U PredA U PredA U Pred AU U U

Predicate, Actor and Undergoer 60 PIPI P2P2 PMPM PFPF APred U A A A PredU U U

Predicate, Actor and Undergoer 61 PIPI P2P2 PMPM PFPF AU Pred A A A UPred A UPred A UPred

Predicate, Actor and Undergoer 62 PIPI P2P2 PMPM PFPF PredU A PredU A PredU A Pred UA A A

Predicate, Actor and Undergoer 63 PIPI P2P2 PMPM PFPF UPred A U U U PredA A A

Predicate, Actor and Undergoer 64 PIPI P2P2 PMPM PFPF UA Pred U U U APred U APred U APred

Predicate, Actor and Undergoer 65 PIPI P2P2 PMPM PFPF Pred A U Pred U A

Predicate, Actor and Undergoer Instead of 6 there are now 64 possible orders. Some of these are probably non-existent, but testing this would require an enormous sample and detailed information on all the languages in the sample Some illustrations of the placement of A and U in absolute and relative positions follow. 66

Portuguese O Pedroleu o livro. the Pedroread the book. ‘Pedro read the book.’ Ontem oPedroleu o livro. yesterdaythe Pedroread the book. ‘Yesterday Pedro read the book.’ → no P 2 position 67

Portuguese OPedroontemleuolivro. the Pedroyesterdayread the book. ‘Yesterday Pedro read the book.’ → verb not in P I+N O Pedroleu o livro. the Pedroread the book. ‘Pedro read the book.’ → verb in P M 68

Portuguese OPedroleuontem olivro. the Pedroread yesterdaythe book. ‘Yesterday Pedro read the book.’ → Undergoer in P F 69

Portuguese 70 PIPI P2P2 PMPM PFPF APredU

Dutch Peterlashetboek snel. Peterreadthebookquicky ‘Peter read the book quickly.’ Waarschijnlijk las Peter het boek snel. probablyreadPeter thebookquickly ‘Probably Peter read the book quickly.’ → verb in P 2 71

Dutch Peterlashetboek. Peterreadthebook ‘Peter read the book.’ → A in P I Peter lasgisterensnelhetboek. Peterreadyesterdayquicklythebook ‘Peter read the book quickly yesterday.’ → modifiers in P M, U not in P 2+1 but in P M or P F 72

Dutch Peter lashetboekgisterensnel. Peterreadthebookyesterdayquickly ‘Peter read the book.’ → U not in P F Jan las het boek. → U in P M 73

Dutch 74 PIPI P2P2 PMPM PFPF APredU

English Peter read the book. Probably Peter read the book. → verb not in P 2 Peter probably read the book. → verb not in P I+N Peter read the book. → verb in P M 75

English *Peter read probably the book. → U in P M+1 Peter read the book probably. → modifier in P F 76

English 77 PIPI P2P2 PMPM PFPF APred U

Leti LoTutkueiSolemaana nvavaSeli=o atTutukeiSalomon is.calledSeli=IND ‘Salomon is called Seli in Tutukei.’ 78

Leti 79 PIPI P2P2 PMPM PFPF A Pred U

Examples of A Pred U languages 80 PIPI P2P2 PMPM PFPF PortugueseAPredU DutchAPredU EnglishAPred U LetiA Pred U

FDG hierarchies and constituent order typology

Hierarchical ordering In many approaches to constituent order nuclear constituents are taken as the point of departure Functional Discourse Grammar, as a top- down model, rather starts with the peripheral constituents, applying a hierarchical principle 82

Hierarchical ordering In such an approach constituent order directly reflects the pragmatic and semantic scope of constituents This has to be achieved in a functional model of language that does not allow any transformation, such as movement, deletion, etc. 83

Hierarchical ordering Any absolute position may act as the starting point of hierarchical ordering, as shown in the following examples. 84

Tagalog Sa=kasamaang-palad bhumiagsaksi=Gaga UnfortunatelyAV.failedNOM=Gaga sa=pagsusulit. DAT=examination ‘Unfortunately Gaga failed the examination.’ HierarchischConfigurationeel P I P I+1 P I+N P X P X

Hidatsa Wíraiapaarikistaoski. treeitgrowINCHREM.PSTCERT 'The tree must have begun to grow a long time ago.' Configurationeel Hierarchisch...P X-1 P X P F-N P F-1 P F 86

Leti Rèknasidela=Agustustujublasra-sèka=e=lo let’s_sayusuallyDIR=August173.PL-dance=EXCT=LOC Servaru. Serwaru.EXCT ‘Let’s say they usually do a specific war dance in Serwaru on 17 August.’ Hierarchisch P I P I+1 P I+2 P M-2 P M-1 P M P M+1 P M+2 P F-2 P F-1 P F Configurationeel 87

Lillooet Kaxim=a=k w ú?=tu?. he.disappeared=REINF=REP=PAST ‘He disappeared, I heard.’ ConfigurationeelHierarchischConfigurationeel P I P 2 P 2+1 P 2+2 P 2+n P 2+n

A typology in terms of hierarchical starting points 89 PIPI P2P2 PMPM PFPF Tagalog+ Lillooet+ Hidatsa+ Leti++ English+++ etc.

Interaction between hierarchical and configurational ordering Languages often have the predicate in the same field as the one they use for hierarchical ordering, but Lillooet shows that this is not a necessary combination There appear to be predicate-final languages that start hierarchical ordering in initial position, but I am not aware of predicate- initial languages that start hierarchical ordering in final position, which again points at the universality of the initial position. 90

Conclusions

Though the typological data needed to check the predictions that follow from the FDG approach to constituent order are difficult to obtain, this first exploration suggests: (i) that the four absolute positions proposed in the theory have clear typological correlates, which leads to a far larger number of possible word order types as those recognized in classical constituent order typology. 92

Conclusions Though the typological data needed to check the predictions that follow from the FDG approach to constituent order are difficult to obtain, this first exploration suggests: (ii) that the distinction between hierarchical and configurational ordering leads to a new typology of languages in terms of their starting point for hierarchical ordering. 93

Conclusions Though the typological data needed to check the predictions that follow from the FDG approach to constituent order are difficult to obtain, this first exploration suggests: (iii) that the interaction between patterns of hierarchical and configurational ordering are not random, but restricted in systematic ways. 94

This presentation is available at