FG from its inception 29(2) ile(s (sdecl (SUBJ (np (npsg (DET(art(the) )+HEAD (nsg (man) ) ) ) )+PRED
(fv (fvintr (fvintr past (fvintr past 3d ps sg(came) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Dik considers the various possible relationships between semantics and
grammar and concludes, along the lines of Weinrich (1966), “[i]n my opin-
ion these various developments point to the possibility that [grammar is
dependent on semantics] might finally prove to the right one” (1968: 293).
This revealing quotation underlines the grammatical nature of the functions
Dik posits. “Perhaps we could even go further”, he continues, “and include
the full semantic description of a linguistic expression in its grammatical
specification”. These are, however, “speculations which have little more
than a programmatic value. They might, however, provide interesting pos-
sibilities for a further elaboration of the theory of functional grammar”
(1968: 293).
Thus, for Dik FG 0 is an exclusively grammatical, non-semantic system,
yet it includes ‘functional primitives’. The semantics of a language is a dif-
ferent matter. This bracketing out of semantics from the system of
grammar will change in subsequent FG models, where the UR is inter-
preted as conveying grammar and meaning.
Matthews’s (1969: 350) review of Dik’s dissertation is noteworthy. He
views the dissertation positively but has grave doubts about FG 0. Although
modelled after tagmemics,^8 FG 0 , unlike tagmemics, has no primitive that
corresponds to syntagmeme (or to Halliday’s structure). Matthews takes
this oversight as problematic to the whole concept of FG 0 : “But until he
does so, his present formalization is literally not worth a moment’s consid-
eration” (1969: 358). In other words, this is the first sign of the problem of
structure (PR1). Matthews’s observation boils down to asserting that the
URs of FG 0 contain insufficient information to generate (via expression
rules) the correct surface form. Bakker and Siewierska (2000), over thirty
years later, conclusively demonstrate that this problem remains; but see
Bakker and Siewierska (this volume).^9
- Dik’s writings between 1968 and 1978
The “interesting possibilities” that a semantically based grammar could of-
fer occupied Dik for the rest of his life. In particular, the decade after his
dissertation was spent on eclectically combining various components to as-
semble FG 1. Three of his publications in this period are illustrative.
Dik (1973b: 838) first refers to the predicate frame and operators when