60 Matthew P. Anstey
- Hengeveld (1990) suggests that all five satellites are restrictive satellites,
which accounts for the ‘:’ preceding each one. However, in the same publi-
cation, Dik, Hengeveld, Vester and Vet (1990: 63) argue that σ 1 satellites
are always restrictive, σ3-5 are always non-restrictive and only σ 2 is either re-
strictive or non-restrictive. - Because Hengeveld wants the σ 1 to bind a variable and because in FG 3 , σ 1
modifies the variable-less “core predication” (Dik 1997a: 87), he must bind
it directly to the predicate. So the scope of σ 1 is ambiguous between predi-
cate and core predication. Similarly, the σ 4 binds to ILL as there is not yet
an ‘F’ variable in this model. - As early as 1990, Van Valin noted that for FG “the development of such a
theory [of non-relational syntactic structure] and an explicit means of repre-
senting syntactic structure is essential” (1990: 225). Mairal Usón and Van
Valin (2001) reiterate this sentiment. A ‘syntacticon’ could contribute to
solving this problem and provide a natural place to provide discourse parti-
cles and other clause combiners. Incidentally, the term ‘semanticon’
actually comes from Dik (1973b). - ‘Mr Smith’, Mr Smith, and /mωstχ smωθ/ etc. represent conceptual, lexical,
and (Australian English) phonological encoding respectively. I understand
the expression layer to signify that which is input for the articulatory com-
ponent of Functional Grammar. - Hengeveld writes that “... the demonstrative that refers to the preceding
move”, which is why ‘Am 1 ’ is the subject of S 2 in line (f). In FG, ‘A’ is
used for anaphora, and coreferential uses of pronouns are understood to be
anaphoric. It should be noted that Hengeveld’s statement is not unproblem-
atic. The pronoun that may be a case of what Lyons calls impure textual
deixis (quoted in Levinson 1983: 87 from Lyons 1977: 670). Such uses of
pronouns seem both to refer (in this case to the state of affairs referred to be
the first speaker’s utterance) and to be anaphoric (in this case to the state-
ment/move made by the first speaker’s utterance). - The numbers represent a possible order of production. ‘CC’ stands for
‘communicative context’, and ‘Ph 1 ’ for ‘phrase one’. The fifth line repre-
sents the copying mechanism proposed in FG 4 to account for verbal
interaction. I am assuming that the two ascriptive acts in step #6 are want
and call and that the three referential acts are you, it, and that, since anaph-
ora and discourse deixis are both referential. - The notation of steps ##6–7 is not at all straightforward. In FG1-3 one would
probably have something as follows for step #7: (f 1 : want (xj: you)Ag [f 2 : call
(Ø)Ag (Ae 1 )Go (Al 1 )Ref]Go, where Aei (‘it’) is coreferential with ei: concertlex1
and Al 1 (‘that’) is discourse-deictic (see Levinson 1983: 86) with (just the
lexeme) concertlex1, the “l” standing for ‘lexeme’. This perfectly illustrates
the sort of pragmatic-semantic conflation FG 4 seeks to avoid. I understand