FDG and language production 191mixture of elements that come directly from the interactional component
and elements that have passed through the representational component. In
this way we are able to account for the fact that (9) functions in the same
way as (7), but differs only in degree of politeness. At the same time, (9)
remains parsable: if so desired, a language user can refer it back to the de-
clarative grammar, as appears to happen when a speaker, in an effort to be
hyperpolite, creates a baroque variant of the socially recognized formula:
(10) If you could possibly see your way clear to providing me with some grapes.
An example in which the representational component is more thor-
oughly implicated is (11), where capitalization indicates the tonic syllable:
(11) Did you EAT the grapes?
Here, let us assume, the speaker is aware of the addressee and the grapes:
both are given information, and the Focus is on eat. The initial structure in
the interactional component could therefore be:
(12) (M 1 : (inquire A 1 : (SA1:1: (T: EAT)Foc)))
which would yield the utterance (13), a highly unlikely utterance in the cir-
cumstances at issue here:
(13) EAT?
The representational component, however, will not be ‘satisfied’ with (13),
since the lexical entry for eat contains an Agent and a Patient. The lexicon
also contains the information that eat without a Patient has a different, here
irrelevant sense ‘have one’s meal’. The representational component there-
fore demands specification of the Patient, yielding (14), which would be a
possible utterance in the given situation:
(14) EAT the grapes?
In other words, in creating the representation in the interactional compo-
nent, the speaker heeds the declarative rules of the language, giving:
(15) (M 1 : (inquire A 1 : (SA1.1: (T: EAT)Foc), (SA1.2: (R: GRAPES))))