Johanna,
Halliday doesn't define subject as actor; in fact, hasn't since at least
the 60s, if he ever did at all. The strand of labels for what we might
call "participant roles" (actor, beneficiary, etc.) is entirely separate
from the strand of labels that includes "subject" (and "subject" is in a
different strand than "theme"). Thus, as in most modern syntactic
theories, one can mix-and-match roles with "subject," allowing one to
deal nicely with active/passive pairs, etc. With the kind of
introductory "reference" adverbials we've been discussing, Halliday's
model would present them as being theme, but not subject, (and not any
of the participant roles either, other than "circumstance").
Eg:
In Hrothgar's speech to Beowulf, he cautions against X.
[ Theme ] [
Rheme ]
[Subj]
[Actor]
Actually, I should probably be using a different label than "actor," but
I can't decide exactly how to treat "caution" in this case.
Halliday's definition of subject does vary slightly from a traditional
one: he considers the subject to be the nominal element that gets picked
up as a pronoun in a tag question ("The spokeman was Ari Fleisher,
wasn't *he*?" with "he" being A.F.). In practical terms, this produces
the same result as traditional grammar except with there-constructions.
Bill Spruiell
Dept. of English
Central Michigan University
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Johanna Rubba
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 5:26 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Syntax question
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/
|
