The Family of Secondary Predications in English An FDG View

En descripciones del inglés así como de otros idiomas, distintas construcciones se han caracterizado como "predicaciones secundarias". Himmelmann y Schultze-Berndt trascienden la descripción de lenguas individuales, identificando una familia de construcciones caracterizadas todas ellas por implicar tanto una adición a una predicación simple como una correspondencia semántica con uno de los participantes en dicha predicación simple. El presente artículo reinterpreta la categorización tipológica propuesta por los autores citados dentro del estricto sistema de niveles y estratos de la GDF y muestra, con referencia al inglés, cómo las distinciones permitidas por dicho sistema se alinean con las propiedades formales de las respectivas construcciones. Las construcciones analizadas son las siguientes: (a) las formadas por un complemento circunstancial libre fuerte, (b) las formadas por un complemento circunstancial libre débil, (c) las 'depictivas', (d) las formadas por un modificador adverbial, (e) otras, concretamente, las formadas por circunstanciales de tiempo, las cuasi-copulativas y las "complementativas". Se desprende que cada construcción tiene su propio análisis dentro de la GDF, reflejando distintos grados de integración de la "predicación secundaria" en la primaria.In descriptions of English and other languages, different constructions have been characterized as 'secondary predications'. Himmelmann and Schultze-Berndt stand back from the description of individual languages and identify a family of secondary-predication constructions all of which involve both an addition to a simple predication and a semantic overlap with one of the participants in that simple predication. The present article re-interprets their typological categorization within the strict FDG system of levels and layers and shows, with reference to English, how the distinctions permitted by that system align with the formal properties of the respective constructions. The following constructions are treated: (a) strong free adjuncts; (b) weak free adjuncts; (c) depictives; (d) adverbial modifiers; (e) others, namely circumstantials, quasi-copulars and complementatives. It emerges that each construction has its own analysis within FDG, reflecting different degrees of integration of the "secondary predication" into the primary on

O caráter particular da GDF como teoria de uma ferramenta complexa da comunicação linguística

Este artigo objetiva apresentar minha perspectiva acerca da teoria da Gramática Discursivo-Funcional (GDF), uma teoria estrutural-funcional, situada a meio caminho entre as teorias radicalmente formais e as radicalmente funcionais. Argumento, neste artigo, em favor da ideia de que GDF é ferramenta cognitiva por meio da qual o falante pode, estrategicamente, estimular o ouvinte a ativar sua imaginação e a inferir o que o falante quer veicular

Por qué la gramática discursivo-funtional no es, ni podría ser, una gramática del discurso

Este artículo hace un seguimiento del debate sobre el papel del discurso dentro de la Gramática Funcional (GF), debate al que José Gómez Soliño ha contribuido, y que acabó dando lugar a la Gramática Discursivo-Funcional (GDF) como gramática del Acto Discursivo. Los Actos Discursivos se agrupan en Intervenciones (Moves), pero los intentos de circunscribir las mismas gramaticalmente no tuvieron éxito, y por tanto la GDF se ha centrado principalmente en los fenómenos que ocurren tanto dentro de un Acto Discursivo como entre distintos Actos Discursivos. Reavivando el modelo de interacción verbal de Dik, el artículo interpreta la GDF como una herramienta para la comprensión de las estrategias comunicativas de emisores y receptores que buscan un cierto encuentro de mentes a través del uso del lenguaje. El artículo concluye afirmando que la GDF no es una gramática del discurso, ni jamás podría serlo.This article begins by tracing the debate within Functional Grammar (FG), to which José Gómez Soliño was a contributor, on the role of discourse in that model. That debate ultimately gave rise to Functional Discourse Grammar (FDG) as a grammar of the Discourse Act. Discourse Acts group into Moves, but attempts to circumscribe the Move grammatically have not been successful, and FDG has focused on phenomena that occur within the Discourse Act and between Discourse Acts. Reviving Dik’s model of verbal interaction, the article goes on to interpret FDG as a tool for the realization of the speaker’s and hearer’s communicative strategies as they seek a certain meeting of minds through the use of language. The article concludes by asserting that FDG is not a grammar of discourse, nor could it be

La Gramática Discursivo-Funcional

La Gramática Discursivo-Funcional (GDF) es una teoría funcional del lenguaje de inspi-ración tipológica que presenta una organización descendente (top-down) con el objeto de alcanzar la adecuación psicológica y que toma el Acto Discursivo como unidad básica de análisis para lograr la adecuación pragmática. Aunque en términos estrictos se trata de un modelo de la gramática, la GDF interactúa con los componentes Conceptual, Contextual y de Salida para facilitar su compatibilidad con una teoría de la interacción verbal más amplia

A Coordenação na Gramática Discursivo-Funcional

Coordination has commonly been treated as a grammatical process of connecting clauses, in which an equipollence relation may occur between the units involved. The purpose of this paper is to show how a discourse-functional theory understands coordination, relating it to the levels and layers proposed in the model of Functional Discourse Grammar (Hengeveld/Mackenzie 2008). We propose that coordination in Portuguese, as a morphosyntactic phenomenon, results from the double action of the Interpersonal and Representational Levels: the relations of addition and alternativity (expressed by e and ou respectively) result not only from parallelism at the Interpersonal Level but also from operations at the Representational Level that make use of notions found in logic. The adversative relation expressed by mas, however, is shown to be identical to the additive one at the Representational Level, differing only at the Interpersonal Level, where it requires the rhetorical function Concession to be assigned to a dependent Discourse Act

Alinhamento interpessoal, representacional e morfossintático na Gramática Discursivo-Funcional

Este artigo se debruça sobre o mapeamento entre os Níveis Interpessoal, Representacional e Morfossintático da gramática, o chamado alinhamento, segundo o arcabouço da Gramática Discursivo-Funcional (GDF). Propõe uma tipologia das línguas baseada no que a sua organização morfossintática codifica: distinções pragmáticas (p.ex. em Tagalo), distinções semânticas (p.ex. em Achém), ou distinções inerentes à morfossintaxe (p.ex. em Inglês, Basco ou a língua Kham). A inclusão tanto do Sujeito como do Objeto e de línguas tanto acusativas como ergativas no tratamento do alinhamento morfossintático permitiu-nos abranger tipos tipologicamente mais variáveis e demonstrar o potencial da GDF para a análise contrastiva das línguas.<br>Within the framework of Functional Discourse Grammar (FDG), alignment concerns the relations between the Interpersonal, Representational and Morphosyntactic Levels of grammar. This article proposes a typology of languages based upon what we find to be encoded in their morphosyntactic organization: pragmatic distinctions (as in Tagalog), semantic distinctions (as in Acheh), or distinctions inherent to the morphosyntax (as in English, Basque and Kham). By including both subject and object, and both accusative and ergative languages in our treatment of morphosyntactic alignment, we provide a better coverage of typological variation and show the potential of FDG for cross-linguistic analysis

Quantification and assessment of methane emissions from offshore oil and gas facilities on the Norwegian continental shelf

The oil and gas (O&G) sector is a significant source of methane (CH4) emissions. Quantifying these emissions remains challenging, with many studies highlighting discrepancies between measurements and inventory-based estimates. In this study, we present CH4 emission fluxes from 21 offshore O&G facilities collected in 10 O&G fields over two regions of the Norwegian continental shelf in 2019. Emissions of CH4 derived from measurements during 13 aircraft surveys were found to range from 2.6 to 1200 t yr−1 (with a mean of 211 t yr−1 across all 21 facilities). Comparing this with aggregated operator-reported facility emissions for 2019, we found excellent agreement (within 1σ uncertainty), with mean aircraft-measured fluxes only 16 % lower than those reported by operators. We also compared aircraft-derived fluxes with facility fluxes extracted from a global gridded fossil fuel CH4 emission inventory compiled for 2016. We found that the measured emissions were 42 % larger than the inventory for the area covered by this study, for the 21 facilities surveyed (in aggregate). We interpret this large discrepancy not to reflect a systematic error in the operator-reported emissions, which agree with measurements, but rather the representativity of the global inventory due to the methodology used to construct it and the fact that the inventory was compiled for 2016 (and thus not representative of emissions in 2019). This highlights the need for timely and up-to-date inventories for use in research and policy. The variable nature of CH4 emissions from individual facilities requires knowledge of facility operational status during measurements for data to be useful in prioritising targeted emission mitigation solutions. Future surveys of individual facilities would benefit from knowledge of facility operational status over time. Field-specific aggregated emissions (and uncertainty statistics), as presented here for the Norwegian Sea, can be meaningfully estimated from intensive aircraft surveys. However, field-specific estimates cannot be reliably extrapolated to other production fields without their own tailored surveys, which would need to capture a range of facility designs, oil and gas production volumes, and facility ages. For year-on-year comparison to annually updated inventories and regulatory emission reporting, analogous annual surveys would be needed for meaningful top-down validation. In summary, this study demonstrates the importance and accuracy of detailed, facility-level emission accounting and reporting by operators and the use of airborne measurement approaches to validate bottom-up accounting

Bi-allelic Loss-of-Function CACNA1B Mutations in Progressive Epilepsy-Dyskinesia.

The occurrence of non-epileptic hyperkinetic movements in the context of developmental epileptic encephalopathies is an increasingly recognized phenomenon. Identification of causative mutations provides an important insight into common pathogenic mechanisms that cause both seizures and abnormal motor control. We report bi-allelic loss-of-function CACNA1B variants in six children from three unrelated families whose affected members present with a complex and progressive neurological syndrome. All affected individuals presented with epileptic encephalopathy, severe neurodevelopmental delay (often with regression), and a hyperkinetic movement disorder. Additional neurological features included postnatal microcephaly and hypotonia. Five children died in childhood or adolescence (mean age of death: 9 years), mainly as a result of secondary respiratory complications. CACNA1B encodes the pore-forming subunit of the pre-synaptic neuronal voltage-gated calcium channel Cav2.2/N-type, crucial for SNARE-mediated neurotransmission, particularly in the early postnatal period. Bi-allelic loss-of-function variants in CACNA1B are predicted to cause disruption of Ca2+ influx, leading to impaired synaptic neurotransmission. The resultant effect on neuronal function is likely to be important in the development of involuntary movements and epilepsy. Overall, our findings provide further evidence for the key role of Cav2.2 in normal human neurodevelopment.MAK is funded by an NIHR Research Professorship and receives funding from the Wellcome Trust, Great Ormond Street Children's Hospital Charity, and Rosetrees Trust. E.M. received funding from the Rosetrees Trust (CD-A53) and Great Ormond Street Hospital Children's Charity. K.G. received funding from Temple Street Foundation. A.M. is funded by Great Ormond Street Hospital, the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), and Biomedical Research Centre. F.L.R. and D.G. are funded by Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre. K.C. and A.S.J. are funded by NIHR Bioresource for Rare Diseases. The DDD Study presents independent research commissioned by the Health Innovation Challenge Fund (grant number HICF-1009-003), a parallel funding partnership between the Wellcome Trust and the Department of Health, and the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute (grant number WT098051). We acknowledge support from the UK Department of Health via the NIHR comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre award to Guy's and St. Thomas' National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust in partnership with King's College London. This research was also supported by the NIHR Great Ormond Street Hospital Biomedical Research Centre. J.H.C. is in receipt of an NIHR Senior Investigator Award. The research team acknowledges the support of the NIHR through the Comprehensive Clinical Research Network. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, Department of Health, or Wellcome Trust. E.R.M. acknowledges support from NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, an NIHR Senior Investigator Award, and the University of Cambridge has received salary support in respect of E.R.M. from the NHS in the East of England through the Clinical Academic Reserve. I.E.S. is supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (Program Grant and Practitioner Fellowship)