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/