I am not aware that anyone has produced a typology of predicates in the sense of semantic predicate-argument structures. Of course loads and loads is written about semantic predicate-argument structures, but any attempt to produce a typology of these predicates is going to be fraught with much difficulty, since determining exactly what should and should not count as a predicate is difficult. I myself have written about how predicates are manifest in syntax, so perhaps I can help by illustrating the difficulty facing the intended endeavor.
But first a couple of points of opinion: I suggest ejecting the "CFG" part of the question. Attempting to produce a typology of predicates based on a CFG backbone is going to be difficult and convoluted. Predicate-argument structures are much easier to deal with using a dependency-based model. I can back this claim up with my own research (if anyone is interested).
Assuming a dependency-based model of syntax and semantics, Igor Melʹc̆uk's works are a good place to start. Two of his most known works are listed here:
Melʹc̆uk, Igor A. (1987). Dependency syntax : theory and practice. Albany: State University Press of New York. ISBN 978-0-88706-450-0. Retrieved 24 August 2012.
Melʹc̆uk, I. (2003). Levels of dependency in linguistic description: Concepts and problems. In Ágel et al., 170-187.
Melʹc̆uk also has a more recent book that focuses on semantics. I haven't looked at it personally, but I imagine it is going to have a detailed account of semantic predicate-argument structures. Note as well that Melʹc̆uk is Russian. But also beware, Melʹc̆uk's works can be difficult to access for those who do not have a firm basis in the theory of grammar.
If a typology of lexical verbs is actually what you are interested in, many dictionaries provide sentence frames indicating how verbs are used. For instance, I have Wahrig's Woerterbuch der deutschen Sprache here in front of me now. It classifies verbs into about 100 different types according to their valency. Perhaps this is what you are actually interested in. If so, I imagine that there are dictionaries of Russian that also provide sentence frames indicating the valency of verbs. If the term "valency" does not call up clear associations, try reading this article here.
Now on to actual predicate-argument structures. A typology of predicates would have to be able to accommodate the following data:
1a. The house is new.
1b. the new house
The predicate-argument structure across these two utterances should be closely similar. Using simplified predicate-calculus-style representations, this is what one gets:
1a'. is new [the house]
1b'. new [the...house]
In both cases, one views (is) new as a predicate taking the house as its argument. Yet from a syntactic point of view, the two utterances are obviously quite different structurally. Thus if one is interested in producing a typology of predicates, the typology should accommodate this sort variation in syntactic structures.
A second example should further illustrate the challenge of establishing a typology of predicates:
2a. The people are laughing at him.
2b. The people laughing at him are mean.
Again using simplified predicate-calculus-style representations, one might assume the following predicate-argument analyses:
2a'. are laughing [the people, at him]
2b'. are mean [laughing [the people, at him]]
The thing to note in this case is the manner in which one predicate-argument structure serves as the argument of another predicate. In other words, the theory of predicate-argument structures that one employs should be able to recognize the embedding of predicate-argument structures.
There are many many further challenges facing any attempt to produce a typology of predicates. A third example:
3a. Fred showered.
3b. Fred took a shower.
These sentences are almost synonymous, which means they should have almost identical predicate-argument structures:
3a'. showered [Fred]
3b'. took a shower [Fred]
The challenge that such data present should be apparent. The theory of predicate-argument structures that one assumes should be in a position to recognize when the object is part of the predicate (as opposed to being an argument of the predicate). In this case, a shower is not an argument of took, but rather it forms the predicate with took.
In sum, I think the endeavor is facing major challenges. There is no consensus about what does and does not count as a predicate in theories of semantics and syntax. The difficulties sketched here are going to require a decision after every turn.