Dear All:

 

I'd like to address one point in the recent debate about developmental
phases of grammar - but I want to be careful to emphasize that it's a
very focused (in other words, it doesn't have a large impact on the
debate as a whole, but hey, it came up).  And I think I may be able to
address it noninflammatorily (Word just red-lined that, but I have a
deriving license). 

 

Halliday is quite clear about his grammatical model being a statement
about social practice, rather than about cognition. In a sense, he's
recapitulating an old trend in linguistics: we're much more confident
with statements about what we observe going on than we are with
statements about what we think might be going on in people's heads,
unless we have some way to measure the latter directly. He's also from
the "hocus-pocus" approach to linguistics rather than the "god's truth"
approach, for the same kinds of reasons. In other words, if the grammar
describes what's going on well, and acts as an explanation insofar as
it lets you predict the kinds of things you'll encounter, why go out on
a limb and claim Full Truthiness?

 

Cognitive grammar, a la Langacker and others, is a "god's truth" model,
and does make claims about what's going on in people's heads. It would
thus seem at first to stand in opposition to Halliday's - and it does,
if the only dimension we're organizing along is the
internal/external-phenomena one.

 

There are, however, other dimensions along which CG and SLF tend to
"cluster" together. Both acknowledge that social context directly
affects what is produced, and more importantly, both consider the social
environment to have a *direct* effect on the basic structure of
language. In most Generative approaches I'm familiar with, any kind of
selection effect due to social context is outside the scope of "grammar"
- the grammar defines the set of what is within the realm of
possibility, and that set has nothing to do with social interaction. In
a particular social situation, a speaker might choose a subset of that
set, but that's not an issue for the grammar. There's a sense in which
sociolinguists, to generativists, are looking at something fundamentally
different from what "core linguists" look at. 

 

There's an additional reason for CG/SFL clustering, but it's one that
exists "outside" either theory.  CG, by its nature, must also
acknowledge that cognitive processing constraints - short term memory
limitations, etc. - have a direct effect on the structure (and
structures) of language. SFL theorists have spent a fair amount of time
describing what Halliday terms the "textual metafunction," which among
other things is concerned with maintaining new vs. old information
contrasts, and cohesion. The kinds of constructs one needs for the
textual metafunction happen to dovetail fairly well with notions of
processing constraints - in other words, part of CG may be quite useful
as a kind of backdrop to SFL and vice versa. In generative models, the
*basic* structure of language has nothing to do with more general
nonlinguistic processing constraints, so there isn't that kind of
"contact point" between the theories.

 

Sincerely,

 

Bill Spruiell

 


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/