UNSUBSCRIBe ATEG

> Judy, et al.,

> I'm tuning in late, but regarding your suggestion about turning to
> Halliday's functional grammar, I have the following observation.  I visited
> a class a few years ago in which the professor, a well-trained linguist,
> was using functional terminology and concepts as an alternative to
> traditional terms and concepts.  The motive was convincing: for the
> students to understand how the language was working.  The results were less
> than convincing in this instance, however.  The upper-level English majors
> were not "ready" (in my opinion) for this analysis, for their  questions
> were still at the concrete level: what is this, what is that?  with an
> absence of "why" questions.  The students were still trying to figure out
> what a subject was, let alone whether the "subject" was an actor or a
> perceiver.  So, is there a logical progression?  Is a "subject" somehow a
> term and concept that's prior to and implied by a term like "actor"?

> I want my students to go beyond "what" to "why" and "how", but how does it
> happen?  What has your experience been?

> Sara Garnes
> At 07:11 PM 2/2/99 +0000, Judy Diamondstone wrote:
> >Edward, Johanna, and others on the list,
> >
> >I am not qualified to propose terms from linguistics because
> >I've not been trained as a linguist.
> >
> >On the other hand, I AM qualified to say which terms have
> >helped me to understand language, which have helped me to
> >"open up" language for prospective teachers, and which hold
> >promise from my perspective for learning language across
> >grades and curricula.
> >
> >As these negotiations proceed, I hope you will consider
> >a language of function terms as well as class terms. Although
> >everyone including myself despairs at the idea of
> >teaching systemic functional grammar -- a huge
> >apparatus, admittedly -- the more I learn about language
> >the more a meta-language of referential functions (Halliday's "ideational
> >grammar") make sense to me, as a "way in" to how language works.
> >
> >For those who might know less even than I about SFG,
> >the grammar I am referring to names grammatical functions
> >like "actor"**  and "process" instead of class terms like "noun" and "verb"
> >(** I actually prefer the term "actant" following Bruno Latour)
> >
> >One advantage of such terms for breaking up clause constructions
> >is that most people have an intuitive grasp of the distinction
> >"actor/process" which can be built on to develop a more elaborate
> >and less intuitive sense of grammar. Another advantage, from my point
> >of view, is that it DISRUPTS traditional grammar terms, which come
> >with a load of prescriptivism, arbitrariness, boredom, in the
> >experience of most non-linguists, and opens up the possibility
> >for a different experience of language analysis.
> >
> >If anyone has  interest in pursuing this line of conversation,
> >I hope you will contact me via my personal email. It's hard to
> >know what others in the ATEG community, which is new to me,
> >want or expect from the discussion.
> >
> >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
> >
> >
> Sara Garnes
> Associate Professor of English
> Ohio State University
> e-mail: [log in to unmask]