58 Matthew P. Anstey
- Siewierska (1991: 228 fn. 7) notes: “This unclarity in regard to the semantic
vs. semantico-syntactic nature of the underlying structures recognized in FG
creates some uncertainty in regard to the type of criteria to be used in the
determination of these underlying structures”. - “In order to be able to generalize over all definite terms, however, we as-
sume that even in such cases [as proper nouns and personal pronouns] the
definiteness operator is present in the underlying structure of the term” (Dik
1978a: 60). - Another such example is in Dik’s (1983a: 235) pragmatic interpretation of
reflexivity. He sees the Addressee as inheriting the following task from the
speech situation: “Given a two-place relation R2 and a single entity a, con-
struct an interpretation in which R2 is applied to a”. - The author who most clearly identifies PR2, but more from the viewpoint of
instructional semantics, is Harder (1990, 1992, 1996a, 1996b; see also
Mackenzie 1987 and Keizer 1992b: 148–157). He argues, for instance, that
“there is strictly speaking no semantics” (1992: 305) in the accepted inter-
pretation of FG, in the sense that “meaning” can only be attributed to an UR
once it is interpreted, and no such interpretation mechanism exists in FG. - In the structures given below, I have standardized the symbols to illustrate
the continuity in the model’s development. They are structurally unchanged
of course. The superscript ‘n’ indicates stacking. The subscript ‘β’ indicates
lexical category (N, V, A, and so forth). - It is in Dik (1989b: 137) that he first mentions Seuren’s work Operators and
nucleus (1969b). Seuren (who reviewed Dik’s dissertation, Seuren 1969a) notes
that propositional (i.e. illocutional) operators were proposed as early as 1946 by
Lewis and that modal operators were proposed as early as the Middle Ages.
Seuren’s complete list is as follows: the sentence qualifiers are ASSertion,
QUestion, IMPerative, and SUGGestion and the qualifiers are NEGation, Pres,
Fut, Perf, Past, U (for universal or gnomic tense), Poss, Nec(essity), and
Perm(itted). In the light of this work, it is perhaps surprising that FG took its
time to adopt a more sophisticated operator structure. - The predicate and predication operators are π 1 and π 2 respectively in FG 2
onwards, but at this stage of FG development they are conflated so I have
used π1/2. - Hengeveld joined the FG discussion group in 1985. Here he first encoun-
tered Foley and Van Valin (1984) when it was reviewed by Machtelt
Bolkestein. - Hengeveld (1986, 1987) calls X a predication, but it later is correctly rela-
belled as a proposition. Hengeveld (1986: 120, n. 6) notes that Van Schaaik,
at the June 1985 FG symposium, was the first to distinguish between π3 and
π1 operators (cf. Van Schaaik 1983). Incidentally, Hengeveld (1986) is also
the first to mention in print the distinction between ILLs, ILLe, and ILLa, as