Both doctors and researchers and writing teachers and those who
attempt to describe language want a description of their domain
which is relatively accurate.

Jeff Wiemelt wrote:

> [On Friday, Craig Hancock said:]
>
>  Whether or not Halliday is able to account
> for all forms as functionally driven is absolutely irrelevant in that =
> day to day task. A doctor and a research biologist have different =
> problems to solve, and mine is much closer to the doctors.
>
>  So I want a "consumer-oriented" linguistics, a view of language =
> that has heuristic value for my students. Those students want a view of =
> language that opens up a range of nuanced choices about the kinds of =
> symbolic actions they negotiate, the subject matters they engage, the =
> role relationships they enact.

I guess this is reasonable, but when it comes to systemic-functional grammar, I
wonder
how valuable the following statement by Halliday can be to understanding the "range
of
nuanced choices about the kinds of symbolic actions" people negotiate.  When
reading this
passage remember that Halliday has a very strong commitment to showing that
linguistic
function determines linguistic form.

"The relationship [between the semantic categories of statement, question, offer
and command] is a rather complex one.  For statements and questions there is a
clear pattern of congruence: typically, a statement is realized as declarative and
a question as interrogative -- but at the same time in both instances there are
alternative realizations.  For offers and commands the picture is even less
determinate.  A command is usually cited, in grammatical examples, as imperative,
but it is just as likely to be a modulated interrogative or declarative, as in
“Will you be quiet?”, “You must be quiet!” while for offers there is no distinct
mood category at all, just a special interrogative form “shall I” ..., “shall we
...?” which again is simply one possible realization among many.   . . .  There is
rarely any misunderstanding, since the listener operates on the basic principle of
all linguistic interaction -- the principle that what the speaker says makes sense
in the context in which he is saying it.   (Halliday, 1994, p. 95)

In this passage, Halliday recognizes his entire descriptive apparatus can not
work.  He recognizes that indirect speak acts (for example, using an question for a
command) undermines his entire assumption that the structure of language is
fundamentally related to meaning.

Although doctors and research biologists may have different problems to solve, I
sure hope my doctor's understanding of how the body works is relatively accurate.
I wonder how far a writing teacher can go with a flawed description of language.

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/