My voice in this exchange will lack credibility for some,
because I do not claim linguistic training.
However, I too object to misrepresentations, and there
is one with respect to the term "actor" which I introduced
based on Halliday's description of language
FIRST
Robert wrote:
>To change the term "subject" to "actant" is really a step backwards.
>Here's why:
>
>The main noun in a clause is not a "doer" of the verb; it is a
>"subject" about which we predicate a statement. A "noun" is called a
>"substantive" because of the distinction between "substance" and
>"attribute" that underlies the concept of a clause. A clause is the
>combining of a substance and some attributes.
Referring to medieval grammarians, Halliday (see cite below) uses
their (and our) concept of "subject" to examine its grammatical function
or what have been called its functions. As he writes, "it is difficult
to find in the grammatical tradition a definitive account of what the
role of Subject means."
Using as example the phrase,
The duke gave my aunt this teapot
Halliday shows that "the duke" serves MORE THAN ONE grammatical function -
it serves, in 'traditional' or 'popular' conception,
THREE functions:
the concern of the message
that of which something is predicated
the doer of the action
and then, rearranging the 'parts' of the sentence
this teapot my aunt was given by the duke
he breaks apart these functions, and builds up a description of
language that accounts for all THREE functions (what he calls
'meta functions') that language simultaneously serves
when "what comes first" is treated as the concern of the
message, he calls that the sentence THEME (like Martha Kohln does in
rhetorical grammar) -- the rest of the sentence is RHEME
when "what comes first" is treated as that of which
something is predicated, he call that, just like Robert and everyone
else, traditional or not, the SUBJECT
when "what comes first" is treated as "the doer of the action"
he calls that the ACTOR
And he builds a description of language on THREE LINES OF
ANALYSIS accordingly, to SHOW HOW LANGUAGE WORKS
AND IT DOES WORK LIKE THAT!
Before dismissing Halliday out of hand, read him, and try his
system, and see what is illuminated by it. Then please, do
critique him, challenge what's inaccurate, propose alternatives.
M.A.K. Halliday, 1994. _An Introduction to Functional Grammar_ Edward Arnold
I introduced another confusion in my attempt to compensate for
the general lack of familiarity with Halliday's work in the U.S. --
I used the terms "noun" and "verb" when referring to a clause.
I have a hard time believing that "Subjects" can be easily identified
on any definition. Nor do I believe, based on my work with prospective
teachers, that it is "subjectness" that is the defining
feature of a clause -- it is, rather, the relationship between
the subject and the finite, and identifying the finite verb within
the predicate is key to identifying a clause.
I do believe also that any account of language that "shows"
the relations between grammar and text-level meaning MUST
account for the multifunctionality of language.
Johanna Rubba accounts for the multi-functionality of language when
she discusses the pronoun "SHE" -- However, I wonder if it makes sense
to discuss the referential function of such words without marking
their special role as indexicals. It doesn't make any sense to me to
say that "SHE" refers to a particular person.
It does seem like there are quite serious differences in the
way members of the ATEG community discuss language. I am disappointed
that some want to close the door on new or different descriptions of
language. I myself would not support the use of traditional grammar because
it doesn't work the magic that a more functional approach to
language offers. But I am one voice at the margin of this
community.
Judy
Judith Diamondstone (732) 932-7496 Ext. 352
Graduate School of Education
Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
10 Seminary Place
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1183
Eternity is in love with the productions of time - Wm Blake
|
