56 Matthew P. Anstey
and prepositions belong? (Mackenzie 1992; Olbertz, Hengeveld and
Sánchez García 1998; Engberg-Pedersen et al. 1996; Mairal Usón and Van
Valin 2001); and the problem of sub-disciplines – how does Functional
Grammar integrate with the various linguistic sub-disciplines such as dia-
chrony, typology, language acquisition, sign language, and so forth (Bakker
1998; Boland 1999)?- Compare Dik (1997a: 26): “... functional statements specify the relations of
constituents to the constructions in which they occur”. Dik also notes that
this idea is found in the works of Tesnière, Strang, Piťha, and Buyssens. - One wonders why Dik does not refer to Whorf’s concept of ‘covert categories’
as summarized by Fillmore (1968: 3): “Many recent and not-so-recent studies
have convinced us of the relevance of grammatical properties lacking obvious
‘morphemic’ realizations but having a reality that can be observed on the basis
of selectional constraints and transformational possibilities”. - The abbreviations are as follows: ile: independent linguistic expression, s:
sentence; decl: declarative, np: noun phrase, fv: finite verb, intr: intransitive.
Note that the ‘ile’ is (potentially) larger than a sentence, as in question-
answer pairs. Dik suggests that language users probably do not know how
to produce such structures. Note the contrast with FG 3 , “...speakers are able
to construe underlying clause structures and map these onto linguistic ex-
pressions” (Dik 1997a: 56). - Dik writes, “... [FG 0 ] can be viewed as a particular reconstruction of tag-
memic notions” (1968: 159). - They write (2000: 18) that “[i]t is then an empirical matter whether ... we
will have to rehash the overall organization in the sense that we assign ele-
ments and features to the UR level that would formerly be assigned to ER
and the other way around”. Since the URs are already semantically com-
plete, in the context of their paper, I understand these “elements and
features” to refer to types of constituent structure. - Dik quotes this from Campbell and Wales (1970). In every subsequent pub-
lication he quotes instead from Hymes (1972). Hymes’s article is based on
his 1966 lectures, subsequently published in a monograph in 1971. Inciden-
tally, it should not be assumed that Dik borrows this phrase from Hymes
appropriately. Is there anything substantial in FG that would absolve it of
Hymes’s pointed critique of ‘Garden of Eden’ linguistics: “The controlling
image is of an abstract, isolated individual, almost an unmotivated cognitive
mechanism, not, except incidentally, a person in a social world” (1972:
272)? - Mackenzie (1987) is the only one to observe that the FG view of nouns as
monovalent instead of avalent results directly from Dik’s appropriation of
Bach’s logical-semantic formalism, which in turn derives from Carnap,
Reichenbach, and others.