Johanna,
   Halliday uses "actor" as a temporary term  when he first introduces 
the notion of subject function, but he quickly expands the term out when 
he writes about all representational processes. (We act, think, feel, 
perceive, behave, say, have identities and attributes and so on, and 
each of these has a different kind of entity to carry out the process, 
many of them metaphoric, as in "Her face told me I said something 
wrong.")  And in his view of language, "actor" or its equivalent is not 
always in grammatical subject role, often not even present. In ergative 
processes, for example, the only essential element is the "medium". 
 (The shirt tore.  The fields dried up.  The car exploded. The ball 
sailed through the goal posts.) We also have agentless passives.(She was 
threatened.)  He spends a great deal of attention to the differences 
between speech and writing, and he has much to say about nominalization 
as an inevitable part of the evolution of a technical discipline. (See, 
for example, his work with Jim Martin on Writing Science.) 
     I think if you explored his work in more detail, it would more than 
meet your objections.

Craig
Johanna Rubba wrote:

> I'll have to dig up a few examples of repeat-reference sentences from 
> my student papers.
>
> I've just been looking at various bits of Talmy Givon's "English 
> Grammar: A Functional-Typological Introduction" that are about topic 
> and focus. In the second volume of this pair of books, he discusses 
> "topicalizing constructions", under which he includes both left- and 
> right-dislocation ("My father, he rarely votes - He rarely votes, my 
> father"). These books are challenging to make one's way through, but 
> reveal a great deal about the relation between grammar and function. I 
> know that some people in the functional/typological field have some 
> problems with Givon's work, but I think, in the main, it is very 
> valuable (as is functional syntax generally).
>
> As to Hallidayan functional syntax (I call it systemic-functional 
> grammar to distinguish it from American funcitonalism): I haven't read 
> extensively into this theory, but what I have read is both satisfying 
> and unsatisfying. I believe the various notions are not adequately 
> refined and teased apart. Perhaps this has been done over the history 
> of the theory.
>
> Defining "subject" as "actor" is not a good idea, for example. All 
> sorts of semantic roles get into subject position. While "actor" may 
> be a preferred choice because of certain cognitive biases, the actual 
> range of subjects found in text makes the "actor" definition too 
> misleading. Just looking at one of today's headline stories in the NY 
> Times, there is, indeed, a good number of actor-subjects, but there is 
> also a large number of other kinds, e.g., "the nomination", "an up or 
> down vote", "The president's new effort to fill a second Supreme Court 
> vacancy", "public opinion polls", "American casualties", "parts of the 
> president's domestic agenda", etc.
>
> As to grading drafts of papers, I just can't fit this in in many 
> cases. My classes have 30 students, and there is a lot of content to 
> cover. I usually have 3 classes of 30 students each on a 10-week 
> quarter. In one class, I have the paper come in in three installments. 
> Students do like this idea. I also got my best batch of papers in this 
> class one quarter, when I really pushed them to work hard on meeting 
> my formal-writing standards. I also got very low evaluation scores 
> that quarter!
>
> My classes are junior-level, for the most part, and they aren't 
> intended as writing classes.  By their junior year, students should 
> have had their comp and some practice writing for their courses. It's 
> time for them to take responsibility for their editing and 
> proofreading. I'm not saying they should be totally mature writers at 
> that stage, but they should be _working on it_ -- taking a second look 
> at their writing to see if they can make it more concise. Too often, 
> they are rewarded for bulk. I also often get papers that really don't 
> look like they have been proofread, or at least proofread carefully.
>
> Johanna Rubba, Assoc. Prof., Linguistics
> Linguistics Minor Advisor
> English Department
> Cal Poly State University
> San Luis Obispo, CA 93047
> Tel. 805.756.2184
> Dept. Tel. 805.756.6374
> 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/