Hi, Johanna,
I think I need to emphasize that I am NOT a linguist. When I had to teach a
course on language in an English Education program, I looked for a theory of
language that would be useful. Since then, after dissociating myself from
language education, I have continued to mine linguistic theories for my own
work. I have found SOME of it (but not formal linguistis, though) to be
enlightening and useful for thinking about widely varying data.
Nor do I speak as a systemicist, just someone who has found difficulties and
rewards working with Halllidayan ideas about language. Like any theory, SFL
becomes more comprehensible and more useful the more you work with it -- I
have turned to other theories with gratitude when SFL wasn't helpful, and I
have found new appreciation for SFL when comparing theories and getting a
sudden aha! into what SFL is about.
Part of what makes Systemics so difficult to make jibe with other (even
functional) theories is that it sets out from the 'git-go' to deal not only
with word-level semantics but also with text/context meanings -- there is no
hard and fast boundary among these "strata" of the system, as Halliday would
say, just a sliding scale. He uses the metaphor of weather & climate to
distinguish between the form/function relations that evolved over 1000s of
years and the variations and innovations that are more flexibly attuned to
shorter-term contexts. That's a gross oversimplification of the question of
what counts as 'context' but it gestures toward the problem.
As you know, Halliday also articulates meaning as BOTh referential AND
'interpersonal' (having to do with politeness, for instance) -- at once. In
this sense, he deals with the concerns of speech act theory -- with
linguistic interaction. As I understand it, Systemics deals with
perlocution/illocution sort of distinctions by insisting on the importance
of context in the making of meaning.
There is no "literal" content of an utterance, since it is ALWAYS in
context. There is no decontextualized utterance. That's a linguistic myth, a
dream. Speaking context, writing context, reading context, different places,
different times, different meaning-makers -- all of these make a difference.
Insofar as systemics fails to take account of the context of utterance, it
falls short of its promise, IMHO. I am not a grammarian, and I can't explain
or justify the probes that determine grammatical choices. I am interested in
the way language works in context & have learned from my forays into SFL.
I'm not sure that I have addressed your question. I AM sure that Bob Yates
will pose a challenge, and I want to say from the git-go that I will not
attempt to answer it, since we are speaking such different meta-languages
and concerned with fundamentally different questions. However, I am happy to
push my understanding of SFL/ its limits in conversation with anyone who is
not a committed formalist, and certainly in conversation with you.
Judy
more of its principles in working memory than I have can let me know
whether speech act theory is part of the framework or not.
The idea of indirect speech acts, and the general principle that
language form changes with politeness level, is important for students
to know, especially those who have not been subject to many demands to
modulate their speech for politeness in their home and school lives. I
can see that this finding of theoretical linguistics could be
particularly useful in middle- and high-school English classes. Part of
the function of school, after all, is to widen students' ability to
function in a variety of social situations that their home lives might
not expose them to.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanna Rubba Associate Professor, Linguistics
English Department, California Polytechnic State University
One Grand Avenue • San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
Tel. (805)-756-2184 • Fax: (805)-756-6374 • Dept. Phone. 756-2596
• E-mail: [log in to unmask] • Home page:
http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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/
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/
|
