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/