A New Architecture for Functional Grammar (Functional Grammar Series)

50 Matthew P. Anstey

(this volume: 16). Again, let us break this down into stages to illustrate the
problem, using Hengeveld’s three-line notation.^41

1. A 1 : [Decl (C 1 : [(R 1 )]), 6. (C 2 :[(T 1 T 2 R 2 R 3 R 4 )])Cond 11. (C 3 : [(T 3 R 5 ])


2. (prox sei: concert)Ø 7. (want (you)Ag [call
   (Ø)Ag (it)Go ( that)Ref]Go^42
   12. neg e: (exactly ..)


3. Ph 1 : /ðs knst/ 8. Cl 1 : /f j wnt t k:l
   t ðæt/
   13. Cl 2 : /znt gzæktl .. /


4. [ðs knst] 9. [f j wnt t k:l t
   ðæt]
   14. [znt gzæktl ..]


5. cl 1 , etc. copy to CC 10. cl 2 , etc. copy to CC 15. cl 3 , etc. copy to CC

Figure 6. A representation of example (26)

The obvious problem is timing: step #5 must occur before step #7. Oth-
erwise, the speaker cannot formulate C 2 , as he cannot refer (by using that,
see note 42) to what R 1 refers to (by using concert) until both he and the
listener have encoded and decoded concert instantiated as [knst] in the
communicative context.^43
The objection to FG 4 is not that this order of production is not a priori
impossible, but that the notation records no ‘chronology of composition’
and thus is static, whereas verbal interaction is manifestly dynamic. Fur-
thermore, it seems that such linking of underlying representations in a
chain of verbal interaction is fraught with cognitive and notational prob-
lems (not least of which would be the size of the notation). Dik’s (1989b:
52) warnings about the ‘quasi-productive’ interpretation of FG need to be
heeded.
Therefore I suggest that FG 4 ’s account of verbal interaction is problem-
atic because on the one hand verbal interaction necessarily involves
interpretation, inference, and co-operation, none of which FG 4 accounts
for, and on the other because it is dynamic while FG 4 is not.
Now let us move on to PR4: the problem of primitives. FG 4 has nothing
to say about (the problem of) functional primitives. This is unfortunate
considering the problems that have been raised concerning these. Having a
new architecture is of limited value if the building materials have a ten-
dency to show stress under pressure.^44 What we can surmise is that the
division of the UR into three layers entails the movement (and perhaps re-
definition) of the traditional Functional Grammar semantic, syntactic, and
pragmatic primitives into new locations within the model.