Remarks on layering 277Predication operators (π 2 ) and satellites (σ 2 ): setting of the SoA
π 2 : tense, quantificational aspect (iterative, semelfactive, etc.), objective modality
(epistemic and deontic), polarity
σ 2 : spatial and temporal setting, setting relative to other SoAs (cause, co-
occurrence, condition, reason, purpose)
Proposition operators (π 3 ) and satellites (σ 3 ): validity of the propositional content
π 3 : subjective modality (epistemic, boulomaic), evidentiality (inferential, quotative,
experiential)
σ 3 : propositional attitude, validity of proposition (source, evidence, motivation,
condition)
Illocution operators (π 4 ) and satellites (σ 4 ): communicative strategy of the speaker
π 4 : mitigation or reinforcement of illocutionary force
σ 4 : manner of speech act, communicative setting of speech act
- A basic assumption: Linguistic and conceptual structure are
substantially different
I should start by briefly repeating a basic assumption which is critical for
understanding the present cognitive-pragmatic view of layered representa-
tion, concerning the nature of the human conceptual apparatus and its
relation to the linguistic systems.^3 Pace Dik’s (1987, 1989a) view that FG
predications might serve as the coding device for conceptual representa-
tion, there is good evidence for assuming that conceptualization is non-
linguistic.
Probably the strongest argument for this assumption derives from a
combination of empirical observations about the structural and functional
nature of sets of semantically related expression types (henceforth called
‘semantic paradigms’), and basic functionalist views (also accepted in FG)
on what a grammar can and cannot do. Firstly, among (the numerous ex-
amples of) such semantic paradigms are the alternative expressions of
epistemic modality (Nuyts 1993a, 2001a), or the alternative expressions of
a basic action scene such as the ‘commercial event’ (Fillmore 1977, 1985,
Kay 1996). The variants in such paradigms can be shown to be due to vari-
ous functional factors which are essentially independent of the basic
semantic categories underlying the paradigm, including (quite prominently)
matters of perspectivization and information structure. From a language
production perspective, this means that all those variants can be considered
to originate in one common conceptual notion or cluster, the differences
between them emerging in the course of the production process due to, in-
ter alia, contextualization procedures adjusting the information to the local