FG from its inception 45- FG 4 : The New Architecture
We are now in a position to consider our three introductory questions in the
light of the evolution of Functional Grammar and the problems associated
with it, with most attention being devoted to the second question.
7.1. FG 4 as a framework for Functional Grammar
7.1.1. What is FG 4 ’s relationship to previous models?
A newcomer to FG 4 who has only read FG2/3 would understandably strug-
gle to see the connection between the two, but the above survey
demonstrates the natural progression of Functional Grammar as envisioned
by Hengeveld and as shaped by many people over the last 15 years.
The different appearance of the notation should not be taken to mean
that the core commitments of Functional Grammar have changed. On the
contrary, FG 4 , for all its notational sophistication, is still basically a non-
transformational theory of grammar whereby linguistic expressions are
generated by expression rules operating on underlying representations sig-
nifying functional relationships between lexical items encased in various
frames, hierarchically nested within each other.
This continuity between Hengeveld’s model and FG0-3 should not over-
shadow the important discontinuities. As the discussion below will
illustrate, there are two defining characteristics of Hengeveld’s model that
are important progressions in the evolution of Functional Grammar: the
shift from predicate-centricity to pragmatic-centricity and the trifurcation
of the traditional Functional Grammar underlying representation into
interpersonal, representational, and expression layers.
Moreover, our survey amply documents the rapid and eclectic way in
which FG has continually adapted to the stream of linguistic data, criti-
cisms and suggestions in which all linguistic theories find themselves
existing. FG 4 , which in the light of the survey above presents itself as a di-
rect descendant of previous models, continues this tradition that began with
“speculations which have little more than a programmatic value” (Dik
1968: 293). My suggestion that a few non-functional elements may have
strayed into various FG models and that the theory has struggled with vari-
ous problems does not entail that its core commitments are indefensible,
only that their implementation has not been perfect.