Volume 46, Issue 4

This article presents an overview of the notion of layering in three types of structural-functional grammars. Layering is interpreted in a broad sense to refer to two types of linguistic differentiations: (1) on the one hand, a distinction between levels of coding, namely, syntax/grammar, semantics, pragmatics; (2) on the other hand, a differentiation between speaker-related vs. content-related material in language, i.e., a distinction between interpersonal vs. representational or ideational aspects of linguistic structuring. We focus on the way in which layering is theorized in three types of linguistic models where layering plays a crucial role in the design of the theory, namely, Systemic-Functional Grammar (SFG), Functional Discourse Grammar (FDG) and Role and Reference Grammar (RRG). Special attention is paid to recent developments of these theories which have proposed important changes to the conception of layering . The discussion is organized in terms of four issues: (1) what layers are distinguished (how many?) in the “standard” version of the theory, and how is the relationship between the layers conceived of? (2) What is the motivation and descriptive evidence for the layered model? (3) What is the relationship between the view of a layered linguistic structure and the way in which different levels of encoding are conceived (syntax/semantics/pragmatics)? (4) In what way is the conception of layering related to the way in which the linguistic model views language typology? That is, in a typological perspective, what aspects of layering are regarded as universal, and what aspects differ between languages or typological groups of languages?

This study argues that constructions of purpose, reason and intended endpoint have a special status in typologies of complex sentences, because they combine features of the adverbial domain and the complement domain. The feature they share with adverbial clauses is that they do not function as the object of the predicate of the main clause, but instead elaborate on its circumstances. The feature they share with complement clauses is that unlike other adverbial clauses they specify the mental state of some participant in the main clause, typically the agent. Evidence for this special status comes from two sources. On the one hand, it is shown that the recognition of a mental state relation is necessary in semantic terms, to distinguish the three constructions from semantically similar types in the adverbial domain, and to explain their exceptional behavior in terms of presupposition. On the other hand, it is also shown that the presence of such a mental state relation is crosslinguistically reflected in the formal make-up of the three construction types, specifically in the use of mood markers in the dependent clause, and in the use of conjunctions that are shared with the domain of represented speech. From a theoretical perspective, the intermediate status of constructions of purpose, reason and intended endpoint is important because it provides structural evidence for layered models of clause structure, specifically for the distinction between a description-related and an interaction-related layer of organization, and for a further subdivision of the interaction-related layer in terms of modal and illocutionary features.

This article argues that adnominal modifiers in a layered model of the noun phrase can be divided into two major subcategories: descriptive modifiers and discourse-referential modifiers. Whereas descriptive modifiers can be subdivided into classifying, qualifying, quantifying and localizing modifiers (Section 2), discourse-referential modifiers in the noun phrase are concerned with the status of entities as referents in the world of discourse (Section 3). I will pay particular attention to three issues: (i) formal reflections of the layered, semantic structure of the noun phrase (Section 4), (ii) the special relationship between localizing and discourse-referential modifiers (Section 5), and (iii) semantic and morphosyntactic parallels between modifier categories in the noun phrase and the clause (Section 6). In addition this sample-based typological study shows (contra Hawkins's Universal 20′) that there are languages with the adjective before and the demonstrative or numeral after the head noun. These word order patterns provide additional support for the layered model of the noun phrase defended here in that it can now be shown for the first time that all patterns that iconically reflect the layered structure of the simple noun phrase are actually attested in the languages of the world.

One of Functional Grammar's (FG) most important features is the so-called LAYERED STRUCTURE OF THE CLAUSE (LSC). The LSC is used as both a descriptive and explanatory construct, dividing the linguistic world into various hierarchically related layers, such as predicate, predication, and proposition layers. But problems with the LSC eventually led to the development of Functional Discourse Grammar, which divides FG's unitary LSC into two layers, the Interpersonal and Representational and also adds a third, Syntactic Layer, a long-standing desideratum for FG. Nevertheless, the present article argues that there are several problems remaining in FDG's LSC, namely, the place of operators and satellites, the use of a quasi-predicate logic notation, and the insertion of lexemes as parts-of-speech in the Representational Layer. Moreover, the third of these problems relates to a deeper issue, which concerns the understanding of what SEMANTICS refers to in FDG. Specifically, should it refer only those interpersonal/representational distinctions that are relevant to syntax, or should it embrace conceptualisation more broadly and refer to the speaker's intended meaning? Through a consideration of MULTIFUNCTIONALITY, the latter, broader definition of conceptually-relevant semantics is deemed superior, because multifunctionality requires a prising apart of the one-to-one function-to-form bond between semantics and syntax implicit in FDG. It is suggested that a reinterpretation of FDG along the lines of Construction Grammar offers a way of accounting for such multifunctionality satisfactorily.