Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …


An Interdisciplinary Journal of the Language Sciences

Editor-in-Chief: Gast, Volker

IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 0.644
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.878

CiteScore 2017: 0.79

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.418
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 1.386

See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 54, Issue 5


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
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ J. Lachlan Mackenzie
  • Faculteit der Geesteswetenschappen, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV Amsterdam, the Netherlands
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
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.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.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.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About the article

Published Online: 2016-08-20

Published in Print: 2016-09-01

Citation Information: Linguistics, Volume 54, Issue 5, Pages 1135–1161, ISSN (Online) 1613-396X, ISSN (Print) 0024-3949, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2016-0025.

Export Citation

©2016 by De Gruyter Mouton.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

Evelien Keizer
Word Structure, 2018, Volume 11, Number 1, Page 36
Carmen Portero Muñoz and Daniel García Velasco
Word Structure, 2018, Volume 11, Number 1, Page 95

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in