92 John Connolly
be identified as successions of speech acts over two or three turns. From
the point of view of the representational layer, on the other hand, the dis-
course is divided into episodes, sub-episodes, sub-sub-episodes and so on
(for example, chapters, sections and paragraphs in a book). Ultimately,
these units are composed of individual propositions, which constitute the
lowest-ranking type of discourse unit within the representational layer.
Another aspect of discourse appears in the form of rhetorical relations,
such as elaboration or contrast. A well-known approach to these phenom-
ena is found in the Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST) proposed by Mann
and Thompson (1987) and discussed in relation to FG by Gulla (1997). In
this approach, an individual rhetorical relation associates two stretches of
discourse, one of which is called the nucleus and the other the satellite. For
instance, an elaboration is considered to be the satellite of what it elabo-
rates, the latter being the nucleus. Dik (1997b) accepts that rhetorical
relations of the kind recognized in RST should be accommodated into the
FG-based approach to discourse.
2.2. The advent of a modular framework
If Dik’s (1997b) approach to discourse is accepted as being indicative of
the scope of discourse studies as far as FG is concerned, then we may
safely assume FDG to be in conformity with this. Nevertheless, there still
remains the question of how exactly to accommodate discourse within the
descriptive framework. Let us, therefore, now summarize how this issue
has been addressed within FG from 1997 onwards.
One approach to discourse has been to treat it as an additional level (or
set of levels) above the clause. This approach is described in Hengeveld
(1997), and has become known as upward layering. The additional level
was originally called the Rhetorical Layer, wherein speech acts are
grouped into moves, and moves are organized into a particular type of dis-
course (such as a conversation). A move is realized by a paragraph within a
monologue or by a turn within a dialogue. This view of discourse organisa-
tion is very reminiscent of the Sinclair and Coulthard approach to
discourse, where acts are grouped into moves, moves into exchanges, ex-
changes into transactions, and transactions into interactions; see Coulthard
(1977: 107). In fact, Steuten’s (1998a, 1998b) work on the analysis of
business conversations leads her to suggest replacing Hengeveld’s original
rhetorical layer with an Interactional Layer in which acts and exchanges
comprise the main organisational units within dialogue.