As part of her response to Bob Yates' comments, Judy Diamondstone makes the
following assestion about Halliday's Systemic Functional Grammar (SFG).



"Halliday distinguishes six primary process types for English and shows how
each distinction has a reflex in the grammar. See his work."

Bob had cited 10  sentences from an SFG textbook (Thompson) intended to
illustrate the notion of "material processes."



He has been shaving.
The young girl bounded out of the gate.
Edward was sawing the wood.
Her mother smashed the glass.

The car slithered off the road.
Coarse grass was growing.
The unhappiness disappeared.

The fire had destroyed everything.
Scores of tiny brambles scratched him.
The pounding rhythm shook walls and floors.


One reason that SFG is rejected as a theory of language by many is the
difficulty of seeing how "material processes," for example, have "a reflex
in the grammar."  In the 10 sentences here, given the wide variety of verb
structures in addition to both animate and inanimate subjects, it is hard to
perceive any "grammatical reflex."

What is at issue here is not the claim that SFG might be useful as a
framework for describing what people do with language and the media and
contexts in which they do it. (I can't speak to whether it has advantages or
disadvantages in this respect.) No one is denying that people use language
to communicate notions of "material processes" such as "scratching,"
"shaking," "growth" etc. What is being discussed with reference to these 10
sentences is Halliday's specific claim that "[every grammatical structure]
can be explained, ultimately, by reference to how language is used."  (See
his Introduction to Functional Grammar 2nd edition, pages xiii-xiv.)

        In Judy's terms, each  choice of meaning or function has "a reflex
in the grammar." I don't have time  right now to "see Halliday's work," but
perhaps a person with more understanding of SFG than me can point out what
the "reflex" is in the 10 sentences above illustrating "material processes."
It may be that my formalist training keeps me from seeing the systematic
form-meaning/function connection in these sentences. Or perhaps Thompson
didn't use good examples in his text?


                Jim Kenkel
                Department of English
                Eastern Kentucky 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/