I greatly appreciate it when someone who claims that language MUST be studied in
context recognizes that interesting aspects of language can be discovered without
reference to context.

Judy Diamondstone wrote:

> The next day, Rumsfield tells the nation:
>
>  a)   The bombing in Afgh. has not been ineffective.
>  b)     The bombing in Afgh. has been effective.
>
> Sentence a) is AT LEAST as positive in this context as b)  -- if anything,
> the understatement is more forceful. You [a reference to Bob Yates] will say that
> "AHA! You admit it's an understatement. It wouldn't be if you couldn't see the
> difference between
> a) and b) out of context." I answer: Of course I see the formal distinction.

Judy continues:

> The MEANING it has varies by context. The semantic value has a pragmatic
> dimension that has to be recognized to fully understand how language WORKS.
> Traditionally, interest in the pragmatic dimension has been relegated to a
> separate discipline. There are some who see the disciplinary rift as
> problematic. Others don't. Some choose to work interdisciplinarily or across
> disciplines. There are various ways of getting at what language is & how it
> works. Systemics is just ONE of those ways...

As someone who believes that pragmatics must be separated from grammar, this is not
problematic for  me.  Of course, there are always various ways to getting at what
language
is and how it works.  The question is what approaches are more insightful than
others.
Just saying that SFG is another possible approach does not say anything about
how useful it is.

Judy's discussion above required none of the rather formidable apparatus of SFG to
explain how "understatement" works in a particular context.

*********************
My observation about the teaching tip was not quoted correctly.   Judy quotes me as
citing the the tip as saying.

> "Otherwise, it's a fragment. Every time."

She then cites this string as an example.

> This example seems to demonstrate pretty clearly that not all fragments are
> "ungrammatical." There is nothing ungrammatical about the wording of the
> example -- it is, in fact, rhetorically effective, even though "They refused
> to believe the idea that every time" is NOT a sentence.

{An aside: Neither I nor the teaching tip claimed fragments are "ungrammatical."
Fragments are inappropriate in standard written English.  The exercise is designed
for students to recognize fragments and, as Judy's comments above demonstrate,
"every time" is a fragment if punctuated like a sentence.}

Judy clipped this part of the teaching tip which I quoted which demonstrate how the
test frame works.

1.  Whatever you could do to help my sister.
     *They refused to believe the idea that whatever you could do to help my
sister. "

This is the example I was referring to.  I think the writer of this tip was making
a joke at the expense of anyone who claims fragments are always wrong when he said
wrote: "Otherwise, it's a fragment.  Every time."

It appears even someone committed to understanding language in context can miss the
ENTIRE  context of an utterance.

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/