Instead of conceiving the divide in linguistics between formalists and
functionalists, I think the last post of Judy Diamondstone provides the real
division, especially for those who teach about the nature of  language to students
and future teachers.

Diamondstone writes:

> There is no "literal" content of an utterance, since it is ALWAYS in
> context. There is no decontextualized utterance. That's a linguistic myth, a
> dream. Speaking context, writing context, reading context, different places,
> different times, different meaning-makers -- all of these make a difference.

This claim goes directly to whether it is even possible to talk about what people
know about language and ignore what people actually do with language.  My reading
of SFG and my discussions with people who are committed to SFG have convinced me
that they believe that no utterance can be analyzed out of its context.  In other
words, the distinction between competence (what people know about language) and
performance (what people actually do with language) is a false distinction.

Of course, all utterances have a context.  I know of no one who maintains that any
utterance is decontextualized.  Perhaps, someone can provide a source for this
"myth."

However, if one wants to understand what knowledge a person has about language,
then it might be useful to consider utterances without any context. For example,
without any context, sentence (a) means that John is looking for a job and sentence
(b) means John wants to employ someone.  (I recognize another reading of (b) is
possible, but that does not change the observation that (a) and (b) have different
meanings without any context.)

    a) John wants someone to work for.
    b) John wants someone to work for him.

Or, consider the placement of NOT in a clause.  The principles of where NOT goes
can be stated without any reference to context.  It is unclear how NOT is actually
used in any particular text or whether it would serve any purpose to try to
describe the actual use of NOT.

Because I teach about the nature of language, I too am interested in how language
works and how  linguistic choices affect meaning.  A prescriptive rule of English
is that double negatives should not be used because two negatives make a positive.
It is interesting to note that (c) is less positive than (d).

   c) SFG is not an unclear description of how language works.
   d) SFG is a clear description of how language works.

In fact, strings like (c) are always less positive than strings like (d) (not
uninteresting vs. interesting; not distasteful vs. tasteful; not undrinkable vs.
drinkable, not uncivil vs. civil, etc.)  This is a claim made without putting these
strings into any context.  If I understand Diamondstone correctly about SFG, such a
claim should not be possible.  In fact, from the perspective that context always
makes a difference, the observation about (c) and (d) would not even be possible
because the sentences are presented without context.

I am a linguist interested in what future teachers and educated people need to know
about the nature of language.  In the last ten years, I have noticed in the States
a growing interest in SFG, so I have tried to read its literature.  I read this
literature as someone whose training is in linguistics and who has some knowledge
of grammar.

My questions and reservations about SFG are based on what I have actually read  and
my training as it prepared me to think about language.  As best as I can tell,  I
have not misrepresented any claim made by proponents of SFG.

Bob Yates

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/