The question of discourse representation 91grammars of natural languages, unlike the speech act categories of, for ex-
ample, Searle (1976). However, in Dik (1997b: 419–421) it is proposed, in
addition, that whole discourses, or sections thereof, may have illocutionary
values, which are duly termed Discourse Illocutions, and which set the de-
fault values of the individual clauses within the stretch of language
concerned. Dealing with illocutions in terms of discourse also involves dis-
tinguishing between (i) the illocution as intended by S, written ILLS, (ii)
the illocution as coded in the expression, written ILLE, and (iii) the illocu-
tion as interpreted by A, written ILLA; see Dik (1997b: 230). This entails
countenancing the use of speech act categories additional to the four
grammatically encoded values; see Connolly et al. (1997a) for an example
of the use, within the FG tradition, of categories proposed by Searle (1976)
and Hancher (1979).
Certain other phenomena, too, tend to persist for whole sequences of
clauses or indeed for entire discourses. Such phenomena include tense and
discourse topic. Furthermore, the maintenance of topical continuity is con-
nected with the creation of chains of anaphoric reference, which frequently
extend across sentence boundaries.
Within the framework of Dik (1997b), a discourse event is structured in
two layers. The first is the Interpersonal Layer, which is concerned with the
human relations between the interlocutors and with their mentalities in
relation to the discourse and to each other. The interpersonal layer is
subdivided into the Interactional, which focuses on the interrelationship
and interplay between the participants, and the Attitudinal, which is con-
cerned with their states of mind, emotions and judgments, as reflected in
the discourse. The second layer is the Representational, which is related to
the actual language produced by the interlocutors. This layer is subdivided
into the Organisational, which deals with how the material that the dis-
course consists of is arranged and presented, and the Contentive, which is
concerned with the facts and States of Affairs communicated.
Discourse has (it is claimed) an essentially hierarchical structure,
though sometimes this is complicated by phenomena such as interruptions,
embeddings and recursions. The hierarchical structure can be discerned
within both the interpersonal and representational layers. In the interper-
sonal layer the lowest-ranking unit is the speech act (which will carry a
particular illocutionary value). Units of this type can combine into longer
sequences of speech acts. In a dialogue, sequences of one or more speech
acts are further organized into turns, and the whole sequence of turns
makes up the discourse. As a complication, patterns known as Adjacency
Sequences (such as question-answer or question-answer-reaction) can often