34 Matthew P. Anstey
represent the transition from intention to articulation? Alternatively, is this
a procedural model? If so, of what procedure – the steps a computer simu-
lation may go through in mimicking a language? That this same model
gives rise to two different interpretations of Functional Grammar signals
the beginning of the problem of psychological adequacy (PR6): how does
such a standard apply to the model? To illustrate these different interpreta-
tions compare Van der Auwera (1983: 437 fn.5) who comments: “Another,
rather implausible assumption is that the order of the FG formation would
reflect the mental processes a speaker has to go through while forming a
sentence.” Fortescue (1985: 113), on the other hand, writes that “FG seems
to me interpretable as a model of real-time sentence production (this is of
course not the only way it can be usefully envisaged)”.
Finally, the formal notation intrinsically poses the problem of formal-
ization (PR7), since it aims for explicitness and testability (see Bakker
1994; Hengeveld 1999). This problem became acute in the late mid-
nineties when a plethora of notational variants competed for superiority.
5.3. Reviews
Having outlined the salient points of FG 1 , we are now in a position to con-
sider briefly the reviews it received, most of which were very positive.
Comrie (1979: 275) is therefore representative when he writes that “[t]hese
critical comments should not detract from the very positive promises that
Functional Grammar holds out” (see also Comrie 1980; Dik 1980a). Most
reviewers, however, noted the incompleteness of the theory and were
“looking forward” to its explication. Almost all of the problems identified
so far are observed by various people.
Hymes (1979: 306), who clearly influenced Dik, notes the problem of ver-
bal interaction (PR3): “It might be fair to say that Dik understands FG to be
preferable as a way of analysing grammar as communicative means, but leaves
the analysis of communicative ends, and the linkage between means and ends,
to others, or for another time” (cf. Prideaux 1981; Hymes 1983).
Bauer (1980: 52) picks up on the problem of primitives (PR4): “Objec-
tions of this kind – especially the difficulty of adequately motivating
assignments [of semantic/syntactic functions] – were probably the most vi-
tal factor behind the flagging interest in case grammar, and it seems to me
that in this respect, FG is no further ahead. Its viability depends on solu-
tions to these problems”.
Piťha (1980: 266) concentrates on the problem of underlying represen-
tations (PR2): “More problematic is the author’s term ‘semantic,’ denoting