Bob, I do happen to believe that language must be studied in context, which
is why I opt for probing utterances at different 'levels' of meaning. But I
do NOT believe that everyone will agree with me. YOu, for one, do not.

I try to frame my own strong positions as my own, specific to my concerns,
my work, but possibly bearing relevance for others who share my concerns.
Sometimes I miss, rhetorically speaking, the mark. What I find objectionable
is your campaign against Systemics; apparently, SOME teachers and teacher
educators have found it useful. What is their problem, anyway? Why are you
right?

My response to your comments on the competence/performance distinction were
perhaps misplaced, since I did not respond directly to your point. In fact,
Herb Stahlke made the interesting point -- why we can identify certain
sentences as well-formed without any context is more remarkable than that we
understand ill-formed strings IN context. Perhaps the answer is that we can
IMAGINE the context.

In any case, one problem with not getting the context right is that it's
different for different participants in an exchange, depending on their
relationship to the topic and their purpose for engaging in an exchange. In
email, being explicit about the points we address and how and why we take
positions certainly helps. But it won't dissolve a  difference in AGENDA
that makes any difference in PERSPECTIVE so hard to cross.

Judy



-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Bob Yates
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 2:40 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Context


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/

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/