40 Matthew P. Anstey
fluential in psycholinguistics. On the other hand, it is arguably the case that
FG’s commitment to formalization (derived from the merging of predicate
logic with functional primitives) that has led to its appropriation in the
study of information sciences such as knowledge engineering (Weigand
1992), textual scenario analysis (Rolland and Ben Achour 1998), and or-
ganizational analysis (Steuten and Dietz 1998).
5.4.5. The layered ‘revolution’
Between FG 1 and FG 2 the most important development is the introduction
of the layered structure for URs. This development was a gradual expan-
sion of the predication structure.^25
Dik (1979) presents tense and aspect (τ α) distinctions as ‘predicate op-
erators’; Dik (1981b) is the first to include them in the formal notation:^27
(9) π1/2 predβ (ω x 1 )n
De Jong (1980) proposes indicating the illocutionary function of a sen-
tence as a predication operator. For example, the Ass(ertive) sentence (10)
could have the UR in (11):
(10) JOHN opened the door.
(11) Ass openV (xi: JohnN (xi))AgSubj (xj: doorN (xj))GoObj
In 1986, Kees Hengeveld, inspired by Searle (1969), Lyons (1977), and
Foley and Van Valin (1984),^28 presents for the first time a (three-)layered
UR that contains an abstract illocutionary frame and operators at each
level. Predications are placed in the illocutionary frame, just as terms are
placed in the predicate frame (Hengeveld, 1986: 77; cf. Hengeveld 1987):^29
(12) π 4 ILL (π 3 Xi: [π 1 predβ (ω x 1 )n] (Xi))
Hengeveld (1988) uses the ‘E’ variable for speech acts and the ‘e’ vari-
able for predications (Vet 1986), thereby creating the fourth layer:^30
(13) E 1 : [π 4 ILL (S) (A) (π 3 X 1 : [proposition^31 ] (X 1 ))] (E 1 )
(π 2 e 1 : [π 1 predβ (ω x 1 )n] (e 1 ))