As in most things in life, orientations to language come in a variety of "flavors."

Johanna Rubba wrote:

> The turf wars are far from  over in modern linguistics. There is still a
> strong divide between 'formalists' and 'functionalists'. I haven't seen
> Newmeyer's new book, but judging from his past books and what my
> functionalist friends have reported, I wouldn't trust him to give an
> objective view of the field.

In the book, that Johanna has cited but not read,  Newmeyer gives a flavor of the
debate by imagining the discussion two new Ph.D's have while waiting to be
interviewed for a job.  I found it a very accessible overview of what is at stake in
these turf wars.

> As to Halliday's functional grammar, I was thinking of it as systemics,
> and inadvertently left it out of my list of functional grammars. I have
> read a few of the basic introductions.

Newmeyer does not consider Halliday's SFG because I don't think it offers any
particularly rigorous analysis of any aspect of grammar.  Newmeyer is much more
attentive to other kinds of functionalist approaches because they actually have
analyses  worth considering.

Halliday, as Judy Diamondstone correctly points out, "chooses not to differentiate
the formal elements except in terms of their functionality in making meaning."  It is
this claim that I was thinking about when I presented my sentences.


> I don't see any mystery with these sentences:

> a. John wants someone to work for.
> b. John wants someone to work for him (= John).
> c. John wants someone to work for him  (=not John).
>
> The phrasal verb 'work for' has an argument frame of 'X work for Y'.
> Either X or Y can be gapped and coded with 'someone'.  When there is no
> pronoun after the verb, we understand the 'someone' to fill the gap
> after the verb, and be participant Y. If the pronoun is present, we
> understand 'someone' to fill the gap before the verb 'work', being
> participant X. The presence or absence of the pronoun triggers which
> interpretation we go for. What is so challenging about these constructions?

The challenge of these sentences is not that they are unanalyzable, but that there is
no  apparatus in systemic functional grammar for Johanna's analysis.  Johanna
acknowledges that she has read some of the introductory texts which explain SFG.  In
my own reading, I have never come across an SFG analysis using the concept of a gap.
Halliday's Introduction to Functional Grammar does not index the word gap.  I would
appreciate any assistance that will point me to SFG analysis about gaps that I am not
aware of.

I now want to return to the reason why I cited these sentences. I quoted the
following from Halliday: "Language has evolved to satisfy human needs -- it is not
arbitrary."

Johanna's analysis is a very formal one and, I believe, no SFG adherent could accept.

I paired the sentences in a-c with the following sentences:

d) Which letters did Bill destroy without reading?
e) Which letters did Bill destroy without reading them?

They also have gaps but here the presence or absence of the final pronoun does not
change meaning.

And, then there are these sentences.

f) Mary is someone that people like as soon as they see.
g) Mary is someone that people like as soon as they see her.
h) *Mary is someone that people like her as soon as they see.

Citing Bickerton, I wondered how these sentences, with their variety of different
"gaps" and their variety meanings,  "evolved to satisfy human needs"  in the way they
did.

We must always entertain the possibility that Halliday is correct and we can develop
a grammar which "is essentially a `natural ' grammar, in the sense that everything in
it can be explained, ultimately, by reference to how language is used."

I suggest that the sentences I cited here and in an early post defy such an
explanation.  Johanna's explanation is certainly not is in the spirit of SFG.

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/