The question of discourse representation 93Some writers have urged a stronger separation between grammar and
discourse than is entailed by upward layering, contending that discourse
should be handled within a separate module. The latter is termed the Prag-
matic Module (as opposed to the Grammatical Module) by Vet (1998a,
1998b), Bolkestein (1998) and Liedtke (1998), the Discourse Module (as
against the Sentence Module) by Kroon (1997), and the Communicative
Unit (as distinct from the Grammatical Unit) by Steuten (1998a, 1998b).
Kroon argues that the lowest-ranking unit in the discourse hierarchy, which
she calls the Discourse Act, is not necessarily equivalent to the clause,
since ECCs, too, can function as discourse acts. For Vet and Steuten, the
difference in nature between the process of discourse and the product of
that process, in the form of clauses, motivates their being treated separately
in the descriptive framework. In fact, the idea of some kind of modular
framework seems also to be envisaged in Dik (1997b: 409).
In Vet's model the grammatical module and the pragmatic module are
linked by an interface. Van den Berg (1998) develops this interface into a
level in its own right, calling it the Message Module. In Van den Berg's
framework, the pragmatic module is the controlling unit of the discourse
process, and deals with both the construction of moves and with the man-
agement of the social context within which the discourse takes place. The
grammar module provides the lexical and grammatical material for the
composition of the message, but the latter is actually put together by the
message module in a manner determined by instructions from the prag-
matic module.
In Hengeveld’s FDG, three levels are recognized, namely the Interper-
sonal Level, the Representational Level and the Expression Level.
Moreover, each of these levels is conceived of as a separate module, and
each is internally layered. Rules serve to connect the modules, as appropri-
ate. In this way, Hengeveld seeks to combine the best points of previous
approaches. Another important advance is the recognition in FDG of a
communicative component and a cognitive component. Both of these com-
prise essential elements of the context with which the three language
modules interact.
2.3. Other areas of discourse studies
The FG approach to discourse embraces numerous phenomena. Neverthe-
less, it by no means encompasses everything that is addressed in the
broader field of contemporary discourse analysis. It will be appropriate,