FG from its inception 61FG 4 as locating reference in the interpersonal layer; thus in R3 the speaker
refers to what R1 refers to and in R4 the speaker refers to the lexeme con-
cert. This allows direct entry in the representational layer of the pronominal
forms the speaker chooses to ‘represent’ the content of the referential acts
R3–4.- A similar problem regarding the use of Tails to clarify the main clause in
response to a non-verbal clue from the Addressee was noted by Piťha
(1980). - Some sources of pressure include the SoA typology (Rijksbaron 1989);
Subject and Object in patient-prominent languages such as Lak (Helmbrecht
1992); the problem of assigning semantic functions to terms with no rela-
tionship to a predicate (Mackenzie 1990); and the presence of linguistically
questionable primitives such as ‘sim’ and ‘post’ in the FG notation (Harder
1995: 232–235).
References
Auwera, Johan van der
1983 Review of Bolkestein et al. (eds), Predication and expression in
Functional Grammar 1981. Journal of Pragmatics 7: 433–442.
1992 Free relatives. In: Michael Fortescue, Peter Harder and Lars Kristof-
fersen (eds), 329–354.
1997 Cosubordination. Working Papers in Functional Grammar 63. Am-
sterdam: University of Amsterdam.
Auwera, Johan van der, and Louis Goossens (eds)
1987 Ins and Outs of the Predication. Dordrecht: Foris.
Bach, Emmon
1968 Nouns and noun phrases. In: Emmon Bach and Robert T. Harms
(eds), Universals in Linguistic Theory, 91–122. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.
Bakker, Dik
1994 Some formal and computational aspects of the Functional Grammar
machine model. In: Elisabeth Engberg-Pedersen, Lisbeth Falster Ja-
kobsen and Lone Schack Rasmussen (eds), 421–440.
1998 Language change: Some implications for the theory of Functional
Grammar. Working Papers in Functional Grammar 66. Amsterdam:
University of Amsterdam.
Bakker, Dik and Anna Siewierska
2002 Adpositions, the lexicon and expression rules. In: Ricardo Mairal
Usón and Maria Jesús Pérez Quintero (eds), 125–177.