Jeff Wiemelt wrote:

> By the way, anyone interested in getting a quick grounding in Halliday's
> approach should check out the novice-friendly Oxford/Deakin 1989 series, =
> which includes Spoken and Written Language.  . . . .

> Concerning the linguistic "turf wars"--probably not an apt =
> characterization anymore as it seems most linguists have given up the =
> idea of deciding who's right, or who's approach is more useful--have you =
> seen Newmeyer's recent book on formal-functional theory?

Several years Jim Kenkel and I took a serious look at the claims of
systemic-functional
grammar for a presentation at one of ATEG's annual conferences.  A version of that
paper will appear in the fall issue of the Academic Exchange Quarterly.

Let us take seriously one of the meanings Halliday attaches to functional grammar.
On page xiii of An introduction to functional grammar (2nd Edition), Halliday notes
his grammar is functional in three distinct ways.  Here is what he says about the
first sense:

"It is function in the sense that it is designed to account for how the language is
used.  Every text -- that is, everything that is said or written -- unfolds in some
context of use; furthermore, it is the uses of language that over tens of thousands
of generations, have shaped the system.  Language has evolved to satisfy human
needs; and the way it is organized is functional with respect to those needs -- it
is not arbitrary."

This claim about language is one that divides approaches to how language is
studied.  Newmeyer's book, which Jeff Wiemelt refers to,  is directly related to
how much of language can be fruitfully analyzed by assuming linguistic structure is
not arbitrary.  Newmeyer does find some structures which have functional
explanations.

However, I believe Halliday's strong claim about grammar being functional is
demonstrably false.   Bickerton, in his 1995 book Language and human behavior,
challenges Halliday's claim about language with the following sentences.

First, Bickerton asks what the cultural explanation is for the
fact that the following sentences have different meanings.

1) John wants someone to work for.
2) John wants someone to work for him.

Second, given the fact that absence of the pronoun “him” in (1) and (2) make a
difference,
Bickerton then asks why, with or without the pronoun, (3) and (4) have the same
meaning (for
those who find such sentences possible in their dialect).

3) Which letters did Bill destroy without reading?
4) Which letters did Bill destroy without reading them?

Finally, Bickerton asks what are the far-reaching cultural, social, and economic
advantages
obtained by allowing (5) and (6) but which would have been frustrated if (7) had
been allowed.

5) Mary is someone that people like as soon as they see.
6) Mary is someone that people like as soon as they see her.
7) *Mary is someone that people like her as soon as they see.

I will note that the interpretation of sentences 1-7 are the same regardless of
social context.

I have wondered how someone committed to systemic-functional grammar would respond
to Bickerton's sentences.  I have yet to find any attempt at a explanation and
Halliday's Introduction to Functional Grammar does not provide any.  The
systemic-functional literature that I have consulted completely ignores Bickerton's
challenge.  If anyone knows of any response to a challenge like Bickerton's, I
would love to know about it.

Bob Yates, Central Missouri State University

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/