DIK, SIMON C., Tite Theory of Funutional Grammar Part 2. Complex ant)
Derived Constructions. Ed. Kees Hengeveld. Berlin and New York: Mouton de
Gruyter. 1997. xx + 477 pp. ISBN: 3-11-015405-6.

This secund pan of Tite Theory of Functional Gramrnar (TFG2) sees the light
more tan two years after te death uf its author, Simon C. Dik, at te age uf 55.
The publication uf Dik’s pusthumous grammar is made possible wit te assistance
of Kces Hcngeveld, Dik’s disciple and successur at the Vrije Universiteit van
Amsterdam. The text as it is published intends tu reflect Simon Dik’s views as
closely as possible; with ube exception of chapters 16 tu 18, ube draft versions of alí
the chapters in uhis volume were discussed with te autor. It is a sequel tu pan 1 of
Tite Theory of Functional Grammar (TEGI), published by Dik in 1989 and revised
in 1997, tu which it makes constant reference and whose content is presuppused.
‘[bis second pan completes Simon Dik’s view of a model of description uf a natural
language, by dcaling witb tbe funetional grammar of complex and derived
cunstructions. It is designed tu be used “for advanced study of FG by thuse wbo
alrcady have a reasonable knowledge of the basic framework of the theory” (TFGI:
Preface).

FG is a grammar wbich is basically centred un the sentence or, in Dik’s terms,
predication. ‘[he predicatiun, buwever, is not viewed in isolation but in context. In
general terms, FG atuempus tu describe a natural language as an instrument whicb
can only be understood correctly as functioning in a wider, pragmatic setting. ‘[bis
is reflected in the consideration of praginatics as “te all-encompassing framework
within whicb semantics and syntax must be studicd” (TFGI:7). In panicular, both
TFGJ and TFG2 aim tu describe and explain te linguistic expressions uf natural
languages of any type in a way that is typologically, pragmatically andpsycholugically
adequate.

Ibis approacb may be compared wit oter functiunal-typological grammars
such as those of Givón (cf. Givón 1984 and 1990) in that it attempts tu arrive at a
universally valid characterisation of linguistic phenumena, wbilc recognising thc
effect of extemal facturs which determine the nature of tbe commun properties of
languages, and resurting tu genetic factors only wben alí other attempts at
explaining the linguistic facts have failed. As a result uf this typulogical interest, ube
grammars are enriched with examples from a wide scope of languages, ranging
from Western (mainly English and Dutcb) tu other less common Australian ur
African languages.

In spite of being a functionally-oriented grammar, FO exhibits a higher degree
uf formalisation than most utber functional approaches tu language. ‘[his is in part
due tu the use of logic (for which Dik uses tbe term “Functional Logic”) which
enables the derivation of new pieces of knowledgc from tbc knuwledge te mudel
already possesses. As a result uf this, FO analyses of sentence structure often
resemble dic notatiunal conventions used in formally-based analyses and, in
particular. those of Chomskyan ‘[ransformatiunal-Generative grammar. Ibere exist
points of convergende in the treatment of language structurc in botb grammatical
framcworks, and transformational-generative cxplanations of specific linguistic

Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense, 6,241-249. Madrid, 1998.



242 Reseñas

phenomena are oftcn introduced tu illustrate tbe line of argumentation, althougb
they are ultimately rejected in favour uf othcr arguments more compatible with the
spirit of FO. Nonctbeless, Dik’s standpoint is absolutcly functional and, as
Siewierska (1991:1) states, he “places FO firmly witbin the functional paradigm of
linguistic theury which he repcatedly champions and unequivocally opposes tu the
formal paradigm as represented by mainstream American linguists”.

Almost equal in importance tu tbe grammars tbemselves (mainly, Dik 1978,
1989 and the present text of 1997 ‘) are the various written cuntributions of otber
FO linguists 2, which provide applications of FO ideas tu different languages ur
more detailed accounts of spccific topics. Many of these volumes carne tu ligbt as
compilations uf selected papers of the FO conferences which have been being held
in Europe every two years since 1986 (Antwerpen). ‘[hese volurnes hclp those
interested in FO tu keep track of te devclopment of ideas and the more recent
interests wiibin this theoretical model (cf. cg. Bolkestein et al. 1981, Huekstra et
al., eds. 1981, Bolkestein et al., eds. 1985a and 1985b, van der Auwera & Goosscns,
eds. 1987, Nuyts & de Schuttcr, eds. 1987, Hannay & Vester, eds. 1990, Connolly
et al., eds. 1996).

‘[he prcsent book consists of eightcen chapters, dealing with thirtcen main topics
involving complex asid derived constructions. Wbile TFGI mainly concentrated on
te structure of main clauses, TFG2 discusses tbc most important linguistic
phenomena uutside the boundaries of the clause proper. TFG2 can be further
síructured in blocks by grouping together those chapters whicb concentrate un related
issues, as will be seen in the more detailed discussiun of the contents of the volume
wbicb follows.

It would have been useful tu bave an introductory section at the beginning of
the book with an uverview of te different phenomcna discussed in the text and an
explanation of how tbe author envisaged the connection between TFGI and thc
present volume. Instead, tbe autor starts witb the discussion in tbe first chapter of
une uf thesc pbenurnena, predicate formation. In this chapter, Dik gives a survey of
tbe most impurtant typcs of predicate formation míes as found across languages, by
means uf wbich new predicates can be derived frum given predicates in a particular
language. In FO each clause is described in terms of an abstract underlying clause
structure (apredicateframe) wbich is mapped un tu the actual linguistic exprcssion
by a system of expression míes. ‘[he constructiun of such a predicate brame first of
alí requires a predicare, wbicb designates properties ur relations and wbicb is tu be
applied tu an apprupriate number of terms, which designate entities (cf. tbe Preview
un FO in 01k 19S9:4Sffl. An exasnplc of such a predicate formation rule is tbc
Agent Nuun formatiun in English by means uf wbich from any action verb such as
work we can derive tbe corresponding Agent Noun worker. In tbis chapter, Dik
presents a modified approach tu predicate formation in which be not only describes
the processes involved, but also gives an explanatory treatment of how tbcse
processes can be functiunally understood.

Cbapters 2 tu 7 and 9 may be grouped togetbcr since they are cuncemed with ube
descriptiun in FO terms of linguistic operations such as subordinatiun, embedding
and cuordination which extend beyund tbe simple clause in variuus ways.

Cbapters 2, 3 and 4 focus un verbal restrictors. Restriclors were introduced in
TFGJ tu designae elements which restrict or narruw duwn the set uf putential



Reseñas 243

referents of tbe term within whicb tbey are embedded (TFGI:ll6ff, TFG2:27). Of
alí te types of restrictors tbat may qualify a term, Dik concentrates un restrictors
whicb are construed around verbal predicates or verbal restrictors (VRs). A typical
example of a VR is a relative clause modifying a noun (tite man who is working in
the garden). Tbe term verbal restrictor is rightly used by Dik in a wider sense than
tbe subclass relative clause tu include rcstrictors whose verb may not be explicit
(The school in tbe centre of town is not very good) but which can indeed be
regarded as altemative formal expressions of a similar semantic configuration (Tite
school which is in ube centre of town is nót very good). Wbereas chapter 2 discusses
sume fundamental properties of VRs, chapter 3 gives a survey uf te typulogical
variation across languages asid uf tbe ways tbese various types can be interpreted in
terms of FO. After this detailed account of VRs, chapter 4 cuncentrates un the
explanatury level, by raising a number of questions pertaining tu ube ways in wbicb
the variety and tbe recurrent properties of VRs could be explained. Tbis procedure
of addrcssing a number of questions, by way of hypoubeses, asid then discussing
sume pussible answers tu tbcm from a functiunal graminar perspective is fulluwed
by Dik throughout the whole book. ‘[bis is a useful methodological tuol whicb
simplifies the task uf the reader in fullowing ube line of argumentation asid enduws
tbc discussions witb tbeoretical rigour.

Chaptcrs 5, 6 and 7 prcsent te FO vicw of embedded cunstructiosis. In chapter
5, Dik develops a semantic typology uf cmbedded constructions taking into accuunt
te differcnt types of matrix predicate (or superordinate clause, cf. Downing &
Locke 1992) and tbe semantic constraints whicb tbese matrix predicates may
impuse un tbeir embedded complcments. ‘[be different types of cmbedded
constructions outlined by Dik according tu tbe type of cumplex term tbey refer tu
are: embedded predications, wbicb make reference tu a state of affair (John
witnessed tbe changing of the guards), embedded propositions in wbicb reference is
made tu a possible fact (JoItn knew tbat Mary bad failed tu sbow up) and embedded
clauses, referring tu a speech act (John considered wby Peter bad failed tu sbow up)
t ‘[he tcrm embedded construction is also used by Dik tu refer tu adverbial clauses
which function as satellites (John will only take tite job ¡f nobody else is interested).
Other functionally-oriented grammars, while not rcjecting ube constituency analysis
for these adverbial clauses, present an alternative analysis which views tbese
adverbial clauses as dependent, ratber than embedded, and which is considered
preferable fur discourse (cf. Downing & Locke 1992). In this analysis, adverbial
subordinate clauses aredistinguished from nominal asid adjectival clauses whicb are
indeed embcdded asid function as arguments of the superordinate clause.

The treatmcnt of embedded constructions cuntinues in chapter 6 witb a
discussiun of funetiunal asid formal properties of these constructiosis. Witbin tbe
functional parameters, Dik concentrates un different types uf functions wbicb the
embedded construction may have: semantic functions (such as Agent, Goal or
Zero), perspectiva! functions (ur syntactic functiuns, Subj and Obj) asid pragmatie
functions (mainly Topic asid Focus). In FO, te predication in general receives te
assignation of tbree levels of functions: semantie, syntactic (or perspectival) and
pragmatic functions. ‘[bis differentiation of the threc levels of linguistic analysis is
present in most functionally-orientcd grarnmars, starting witb Dane~, une of the first
linguists whu postulates this three-level approacb tu language (cf. Dane~ 1966). In



244 Reseñas

the discussion uf tbe formal properties uf embedded constructions, ube position of
te construction is une of tbe features discussed wbich, as Dik describes, is affected
by principies such as that of categorial complexity (or LIPOC, cf. TFG2: 127,
TFGI:cb.16) and tbe iconicity principIe.

Cbapter 7 completes tbe treatment of embedded cunstructions by cuncentrating
un the different types uf these constructiosis wbicb can be fuund witbin and across
languages. Dik provides a taxonomy wbich is intended tu have cross-linguistic
validity and in whicb tbe first parameter used tu classify tbcse constructions is the
presence of a finite or non-finite verb.

Cbapter 9 concentrates un cuordination, by mainly looking at tbe different types
of cuordinative relatiunships distinguished and how ube>’ can be treated in FG. In
Dik’s cbaracterisatiun of cuordination importance is given tu tbe fact that the
members uf the cuordination shuuld befunctionally equivalenr In many approaches
tu tbis phenomenon the requiremcnt bas been tbat the members should be
categorially equivalent (i.e. should be constituents belonging tu the same category),
but Dik proves that, even ib ibis criterion is met, the result may still be an
ungrammatical sentence containing cuordinated terms. Bis explanation is tbat
cuordinated members sbould have ube same functions, not unly syntactic, but aNo
semantie asid even pragmatic (fur a more detailed accuunt, see TFG2:192ff). Dik
also rejects tbe traditional treatmcnt of cuordinate constructions as reductions of
cuordinated fulí clause structures (cf cg. Quirk et al. 1972:ch. 9). Instead, be
proposes a “Direct Approach” tu cuordination, more compatible with ube spirit of
FO, which postulates “a cuordination of sub-clausal cunstituents in terms uf rules
which directly multiply such constituents locally, in the position in which they occur
in tbe clause structure” (TFG2:195).

Otber issues conceming non-basic clausal structures sucb as negative polarity
and interrogative clauses are described in cbapters 8 and 12, respectively. A related
chapter is chapter 11 witb a detailed account of the illocutionary layer. In chapter 8
Dik considers negation (whicb be views as an operator4 ratber tban a satellite) frum
various angles including what precisely is denied or negated, the pragmatic and
semantic values of negation and the different strategies wbich may manifest it in
formal exprcssion. Folluwing Lyons (1977), thc autbor makes a distiuctiun between
predicational negation asid propositional negation un semantic and pragmatic
grounds. ‘[he former reflects an objcctive statement of the nun-occurrence of sorne
state of affair (John is not rich); tbe latter indicates a subjective denial of sume pre-
established propusition (John is NOT rich —as the addressee secms tu imply). The
first form of negatiun involves a case of New or Cumpletive Focus, the second a
case uf Counter-Presuppositiunal Focus (cf. TEGJ: 13.4).

Chapter 12 describes how different types of interrogative clauses can be treated
¡si FO, including tbe various responses which ma>’ be given tu questions. A large
purtion of tbe chapter concentrates un Q-word questiuns wbich, for Dik, display te
most interesting properties, especially in their interrelations with verbal restricturs
(cf cbapters 2-4), un tbe une hasid, asid Cleft constructions (cf. cbapters 13-14), un
tbe utber. Witb respect tu this second type of relationsbip, Dik’s statement tbat Q-
wurd questiuns are a particular type uf Focus construction is bigbly questiunable.
Focus constructiusis are defined in TFGJ:278 as “constructiosis whicb intrmnsically
define a specific constituent as baving ube Fucus function”; tbe typical constructiun



Reseñas 245

included in tbis gruup is tbe Clcft construction. It is true that there exist Q-word
questions whicb take te form uf a Cleft constructiun (What was it that Peterfound
in tIte garden?) but tus cannut be cunsidered te basic pattern, at least in ube mure
common Wcstern lasiguages. Also worrying is tbe constant use of unnatural
examples for whicb a clear context of uccurrence is difficult tu find ~. Mucb more
successful is tbe discussion of the variuus types of responses and tbe distisiction
between answers asid responses.

Questions are sentence types witb interrogative illucutionary furce as tbeir basic
illocution, but other derived illucutiosis (such as Excíamatiun, Request or Rheturical
Questiun) can be also found in interrogatives by cunversiun of the interrogative
illocutionary operator. Chapter 11 centres around diese basic asid derived illocutiusis
of tbe different sentence types. The cbapter outlines tbe wurk of scbolars such as
Austin and Searle in what is a useful review uf Speecb Act ‘[beory.

Chapters 13 and 14 can be grouped togeuber in terms of their similar concem,
the use of Focus constructiosis, special complex constructions wbich specifically
have tbe function of bringing sume Focus constituent into prominence. Focus
constructions are typically represented by Cleft constructions. ‘[hese include not
unly “protutypical” Cleft and Pseudocleft sentences, but also identifying
constructions with “classificatory” head nouns sucb as person, tIting, etc. in une of
tbe arguments of tbc construction (TIte tbing Ifound is John’s watch). ‘[bis is In
agreement with te treatment given tu both identifying and Cleft constructions and
tbcir inclusion in the same gruup as Focus constructions in other related wurks (cf
Moreno Cabrera 1987, Martínez Caro 1995:ch.5). Similarí>’, Dik rigbtly
distinguishes between protutypical Clefts sucb as (1) and cunstructions sucb as (2):

(1) a. It was JOHN with whom 1 went to New York.
b. It was JOHN that 1 went tu New York witIt.

(2) It was WITH JOHN that ¡ went to New York.

by positing a different analysis for eacb of them. ‘[be embedded clause in (2) is not
a relative constructiun as in tbe prototypical clefts, but a general subordisiate that-
clause. In semantic tcrms, constructions of type (1) and (2) have also diffcrent typcs
of prcdications: whereas (1) contains identifying constructiuns, (2) is a property-
assigning une.

In chapter 14, Dik discusses ubree mure specific pbenumena cunccming Focus
constructiuns. 1 would likc tu draw te reader’s attention tu une of these issues, tbe
proccss of “demarking” of Focus constructions, wbich can serve tu illustrate the use
uf diachronic features in Dik’s fusictional explanations. By tbe “demarking” of Focus
constructions, the author understands certain grammatical phenomena in (mutually
unrelated) languages through whicb “an originally marked Focus cunstruction is
increasingly used in cunditions in which no special focusing is called for, and finally
ends up as dxc pragmatically neutral, unmarked clause type uf tbe language invulved”
(TFG2:325). mis isa process typically associatcd witb languages with Pl VSO urder
6 (sucb as Spanish) in which the demarking of the Focus cosistructiun may end up in
a vanatiun in te urdering of cunstituents as te only trace of its carlier existence as a
marked Focus construction. Furtbermure, Dik wisbcs tu include the previuus
demarking process in a more general principIe wbicb states ubat any pragmatically



246 Reseñas

marked constructiun may undergo markedness sbift, finally leading tu a
pragmaticalí>’ unmarked, neutral construction type. This rnay again be applied tu
Spanish, in whicb constructions whicb were formerly pragmaticalí>’ marked (and
whicb are currentí>’ so in otber languages sucb as English) bave becume
grammaticalised (neutral) constructiosis in sume contexts. Left and rigbt dislocations
pruvide an instance of such demarking in Spanisb ~.

The following two chapters diseuss two further theuretical issues. Chapter 15
describes asid explains certain discrepancies between undcrlying clause structure
asid surface expression including the cunstruction of Raising. Chapter 16 presents
dxc basic notions relevant tu a tbeory of accessibility, understood as thc capacity of a
term tu be ube target of sume grammatical uperation, by dealing with tbe various
types of constraints explaining the isiapplicability of a particular uperation tu a
particular term.

Finally, a furtber set of chapters reflects the increasing interest in FO in matters
pertaining tu tbe discourse and the pragmatics of verbal interaction, as can be seen
by the publicatiun of two recent vulumes un FG (Cunnully et al., eds. 1996 and
Bulkestein & Hanna>’, eds. furtbcuming). Wbilc chapter 18 presents a preliminary
version uf a funetiosial grammar uf discourse, chapters 17 and 10 give an accuunt of
two furtber issues witb implicatiusis fur tbe urganisation uf tbe discourse, extra-
clausal constituents asid anapboric relatiosis, respectively.

Particularly intcresting is the discussion uf extra-clausal cunstituents (ECCs) in
Chapter 17. ‘[bis completes te study uf intra-clausal constituents ané pragmatic
functiuns pruvided ‘si TFGI:cb.13 asid reflects ¡‘(Vs cuncern with spuken discourse.
Moreuver, te discussion is most welcomc in graminatical tbeory, which bas su far
devoted much less attention tu tbis typc of constitucsit than tu clausal-internal
elements. Dik’s accounr uf ECCs centres un tbeir typology, in terms of positiun and,
mure importantly, functiun. By and large, ECCs fuiflíl a wide range uf functions,
from te interactional asid attitudinal tu tbuse of discourse organisation. Related tu
the latter, Dilc distinguishes three main pragmatic functions: Boundary n-iarking,
Orientatiun asid Tail. The wider pragmatic funetiun uf Orientation reformulates
Dik’s functiun of ‘[heme (cf TFGI:13.l). ‘[bis isa kind of pragmatic superfunction
wbicb includes otbers sucb as Themc, Condition and Setting. Dik wisbes tu make a
clear distinction between Iheme (a function uutside the clause) asid Tupic (une uf
the twu pragrnatic fusictiosis within te clause, te olber une heme Focus). However,
if Tbeme (and, more generally, Orientation) is closely assuciated with ube notion of
topicality, tben we cuuld ask what difference tbere is betwcen intra-clausal ‘[opic
and extra-clausal Theme (ie. wby have two labels referring tu similar, if not the
same, concept), especially when Dik himself uses tbe term “integrated Theme” fur
Topic (cf. TFG2:398). ‘[he discussion is othcrwise detailed, well illustrated with
examples asid illuminating.

‘[he last chapter is meant as a first step towards a grammatical model tbat takes
into account levels uf linguistic organisatiun higher tban the clause. As Dik himself
ts cautious enougb tu stato, tbis is indeed just tbe bare outlines of wbat a tbcory of
discourse sbould look like. The discussion is centred un tbree main lines: the
decisions that 5 must take ‘u building ‘sp a discourse, tIte overalí organisation of a
discourse asid tbe notion of discourse coherence. ‘[be secund of these tupics
considers discuurse as having a bierarchical, layered structurc. Each of the layers is



Reseñas 247

represented by different types of units, wbicb are viewed as subdivisions uf a
discourse event, botl¡ from tbe interactiunal puint uf view and from te puint of
view uf the content. In relation tu the conccpt of coherence, te autor considers
wbat factors contribute tu boub local asid global discourse coberence. Among these,
Dik mesitions notions sucl¡ asframe asid script, iconicitjy, tbe use of connectors, asid
the importance uf the pragmatic functions Topic asid Focus for cuberence.

Despite tbe introductury character of tbe chapter. Dik dues indeed tuuch upon
tbuse main features of discuurse which sbould be taken into account in a discourse
grammatical model. It would be desirable tbat, in vicw of its own standards of
adequacy and of te recent interests in linguistic tbeory, FO should progressively
develup into such amodel.

On te wbole, te buok is a successful attempt tu pruvide the reader witb botb a
descriptive ant) explanatory grammar uf complex and derived constructiosis from a
functional perspective.

Among te drawbacks found, une could mentiun dic use of isolated, invented,
and often unnatural examples, whicb seem inappropriate in a grammar whose aim is
tu describe a natural language as functioning in a wider, pragmatic setting. In
general, it would bave been helpful, for a greater cumprehension, tu have included
more examples illustrating te theoretical discussions; tus is especially ubviuus in
chapter 18.

A certain degree of superficiality has been also observed in te accuunt uf sume
phenumena in particular languages, as a consequence of te wish tu accuunt for as
many languages as possible, in an attempt tu arrive at universal explanations. Finalí>’,
sume issues which were not discussed in dept in TGFJ are left unmentiuned bere.
Particularí>’ striking in tbis respect is the puor treatment given in FO tu prosudic
features.

Despite diese disadvantages, TFG2 is an essential text for advanced students of
FO and in general fur an>’ scbolar interested in functiunal-uriented (or even ouber more
formal) mudels uf language. It has been a lung-awaited aud ¡nuch-needed buuk whicb
successfully completes te treatmesit uf FO given in TFGJ, by pruviding a description
of a natural language tat is typological, pragmatically and psycbulugically adequate.
Like ube first part, it will assuredly be te standard current reference buuk un FO for
man>’ years tu come.

NOTES

Siewierska (1991) is an excellent critical accousit of FO and highly recommendable for
any scholar in linguistics wishing to learn the working of the model.

2 Such as the Working Papers in Functional Oranunar, available frum IFOTT, Institute
for Functional Research in Language and Language Use, University of Amsterdam.

Ihese are Dik’s examples. Por a detailed accuunt uf the higher layers of underlying
clause structure (Predication, Proposition and Clause), see TEO]: ch. 12.

“ The terin operator is used in FO tu refer tu modificatiuns and modulatiuns of linguistic
expressions effected by grammatical rneans (Siewierska 199 t :20).

5 This is particularly obvious in the discussions of echo-questiosis (Q-pattern strategy)
and multiple Q-word questions.

6 Pl in FO is a clause-initial special pusition fur constituents witb the pragmatic function
uf Topic or Focus or uther special cunstituents such as subordinators, relativepronouns, etc.



248 Reseñas

The following exaniples in Spanish may serve as illustration of one of these processes
(left disiocaliun ur, in Dik’s terns, Theme+Clause construction):

a. La ropa ya la he lavado.
b. El coche lo vendí la semana pasada.
c. A mi hermano le encanta el fdtbol.

REFERENCES

van der Auwera, Johan and Luuis Ooosscns (eds.) (1987). Ins ant) Outs of tite
Predication. Dordrecht: Foris.

Bolkestein, A. Machtclt, Henk A. Cumbé, Simon C. Dik, Casper dc Groot, Jadranka
Gvozdanovic and Co Vet (1981). Predicarion ant) Expression in Functional
Gramman London: Academic Press.

Bolkestcin, A. Macbtelt, Casper de Oruot and J. Lachían Mackenzie (eds.) (1985a).
Syntax ant) Pragmatics in Functional Grammar Dordrecht: Foris.

Bolkestein, A. Machtelt, Casper de Groot and J. Laeblan Mackenzie (cés.) (1985b).
Predicates ant) Terms in Functional Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.

Bolkestein, Machtelt, and Mike Hannay (eds.) (forthcoming). Functional Grammar
ant) Verbal Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Connolí>’, Jobn FI., Roel Nl. Vismans, Cbristopher 5. Butíer asid Richard A.
Gatward (eds.) (1996). Discourse ant) Pragmatics in Functional Grammar
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Dane~, Frantisek (1966). A tbree-level approach tu syntax. Travaus Linguistiques de
Prague 1, 225-240.

Dik, Simon C. (1978). Functional Grumman Amsterdam: North-Holland (
3rd

printing 1981, Dordrccht; Furis).
Dik, Simon C. (1989). Tite TIteory of Functional Gramman Partí. TIte Síructure of

the Clause. Dordrecht: Foris. (20d rey. cd., 1997, Berlin asid New York: Mouton
dc Gruytcr).

Duwning, Angela and Philip Locke (1992). A University Course in Englisit
Gramman Heme! Hcmpstead: Prentice Hall International.

Givón, Talmy (1984) and (1990). Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction. 2
vds. Amsterdam: John Benjarnisis.

Hannay, Mike asid Elsevine Vester (eds.) (1990). Working with FG; Descriptive ant)
Computational Applications. Durdrecht: Foris.

Huekstra, ‘[cun, Harry van der Hulst and Michael Moortgat (eds.) (1981).
Perspectives o» Functional Gramman Dordrecht: Foris.

Lyons, John (1977). Semantics. 2 vols. Ca¡nbridgc: Cambridge University Prcss.
Martínez Caro, Elena (1995). Funciones Pragmáticas, Orden de Constituyentes y

Acentuación en Inglés y en Español. Estudio de Corpus. Tesis Doctoral.
Departamento dc Filología Inglesa, Universidad Complutense de Madrid.

Moreno Cabrera, Juan Carlos (1987). Fundamentos de Sintaxis General. Madrid:
Síntesis.

Nuyts, Jan ant) Georges dc Schutter (cds.) (1987). Getting Ones Words into Line.
O» Word Order ant) Functional Grammar. L)ordrecbt: Furis.



Reseñas 249

Quirk, Randolpb, Sidney Greenbaum, Oeoffrey Leecb asid Jan Svartvik (1972). A
Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman.

Sicwierska, Anna (1991). Functional Gramman London: Routledge.

Elena Martínez Caro
Universidad Complutense de Madrid

Departamento de Filología Inglesa
Facultad de Filología

28040 Madrid (SPAIN)
E-mail: fling09 @ sis.ucm.es