Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
In This Section


An Interdisciplinary Journal of the Language Sciences

Editor-in-Chief: van der Auwera, Johan

6 Issues per year

IMPACT FACTOR 2016: 0.378
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.897

CiteScore 2016: 0.50

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2015: 0.496
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2015: 1.099

See all formats and pricing
In This Section
Volume 54, Issue 5 (Sep 2016)


Reflections on the lexicon in Functional Discourse Grammar

Kees Hengeveld
  • Corresponding author
  • Department of Theoretical Linguistics, University of Amsterdam, Spuisstraat 134, 1012 VB Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  • Email:
/ J. Lachlan Mackenzie
  • Faculteit der Geesteswetenschappen, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV Amsterdam, the Netherlands
  • Email:
Published Online: 2016-08-20 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2016-0025


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.

Keywords: lexeme; derivation; frame; compounding; coercion; conceptual component


  • Booij, Geert. 2002. The morphology of Dutch. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Booij, Geert. 2009. Compounding and construction morphology. In Rochelle Lieber & Pavol Štekauer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding, 201–216. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • 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.

  • Brown, Alan S. 2012. The tip of the tongue state. New York: Psychology Press.

  • Butler, Christopher S. 2012. An ontological approach to the representational lexicon in Functional Discourse Grammar. Language Sciences 34(5). 619–634.

  • Clark, Herbert H. & Eve V. Clark. 1979. When nouns surface as verbs. Language 55. 430–477.

  • 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.

  • Croft, William. 2001. Radical construction grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Fernández, Eva M. & Helen Smith Cairns. 2011. Fundamentals of psycholinguistics. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.

  • García Velasco, Daniel. 2007. Lexical competence and Functional Discourse Grammar. Alfa – Revista de Lingüística 51(2). 165–187.

  • García Velasco, Daniel. 2009. Conversion in English and its implications for Functional Discourse Grammar. Lingua 119(8). 1164–1185.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Harley, Trevor A. 2001. The psychology of language: From data to theory. Hove & New York: Psychology Press.

  • 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.

  • Hengeveld, Kees & Eva van Lier. 2010. An implicational map of parts-of-speech. Linguistic Discovery 8(1). 129–156.

  • Hengeveld, Kees & J. Lachlan Mackenzie. 2008. Functional Discourse Grammar: A typologically-based theory of language structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Hengeveld, Kees & J. Lachlan Mackenzie. 2014. Grammar and context in Functional Discourse Grammar. Pragmatics 24(2). 203–227.

  • Hirst, Graeme. 1999. What exactly are lexical concepts? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22. 45–46.

  • 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.

  • Jackendoff, Ray. 2007. Language, consciousness, culture: Essays on mental structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • 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.

  • Kecskes, Istvan. 2007. Synergic concepts in the bilingual mind. In Istvan Kecskes & Liliana Albertazzi (eds.), Cognitive aspects of bilingualism, 29–61. Dordrecht: Springer.

  • Keizer, Evelien. 2007. The lexical-grammatical dichotomy in Functional Discourse Grammar. Alfa – Revista de Lingüística 51(2). 35–56.

  • 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.

  • Kövecses, Zoltán & Günther Radden. 1998. Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive linguistics 9(1). 37–77.

  • 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.

  • Lieber, Rochelle. 2011. IE, Germanic: English. In Rochelle Lieber & Pavol Štekauer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding, 357–369. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Mackenzie, J. Lachlan 2012. Cognitive adequacy in a dialogic Functional Discourse Grammar. Language Sciences 34(4). 421–432.

  • Marantz, Alec. 2013. Verbal argument structure: Events and participants. Lingua 130. 152–168.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Paradis, Michel. 2007. Neurofunctional components of the bilingual cognitive system. In Istvan Kecskes & Liliana Albertazzi (eds.), Cognitive aspects of bilingualism, 3–28. Dordrecht: Springer.

  • Periñán-Pascual, Carlos & Ricardo Mairal Usón. 2010. La gramática de COREL: Un lenguaje de representación conceptual. Onomázein 21. 11–45.

  • 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.

  • Smit, Niels & Miriam van Staden. 2007. Representational layering in Functional Discourse Grammar. Alfa – Revista de Lingüística 51(2). 143–164.

  • 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.

  • Ullmann, Michael T. 2001. The declarative/procedural model of lexicon and grammar. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 30(1). 37–69.

  • Vigliocco, Gabriella, Tiziana Antonini & Merrill F. Garrett. 1997. Grammatical gender is on the tip of Italian tongues. Psychological Science 8. 314–317.

About the article

Published Online: 2016-08-20

Published in Print: 2016-09-01

Citation Information: Linguistics, ISSN (Online) 1613-396X, ISSN (Print) 0024-3949, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2016-0025. Export Citation

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in