Bob,
     I'm bobbing in and out of final grades, so I'll just give a quick 
response. I really hope this time we can agree to disagree and do so 
rather collegially.
    1) Biber makes it clear in a number of places that he believes these 
patterns are highly functional. In order to do the work of a news story, 
for example, it is typical to construe happenings (headlines and leads) 
in present tense. To characterize reliability of sources, it is very 
common to use a significant number of appositional phrases.  Scientific 
writing is characterized by a high number of passive verb phrases 
precisely because agency is often not important. You don't need to agree 
with that, but it is one way of explaining the patterns we see when we 
look at different genres.
    For Langacker on effectiveness, I would certainly recommend his 
chapter on discourse in Cognitive Grammar (2008).  "Although discourse 
is often considered a separate topic, requiring different methods and 
descriptive constructs, the contrast with lower levels is at most a 
matter of degree. Discourse is in fact the very basis for language 
structure and is thus essential for understanding grammar" (p.457).
    Langacker covers context quite well in that chapter. It is certainly 
true that meaning occurs within context. Any choice on the part of a 
writer needs to be attentive to that context, including the needs of a 
reader.  I don't think we disagree on that one.  Langacker uses the term 
Current Discourse Space (CDS) to describe the way a sentence functions. 
CDS refers to "everything presumed to be shared by the speaker and 
hearer as the basis for discourse at a given moment" (p. 59), and this 
clearly, in Langacker's mind, includes the preceding text. Meaning is 
built through text, and language choice needs to attend to that.
    I suspect we differ mainly on the level of contribution grammar 
makes to the meaning. A writer's job is to make the reader's work easy. 
I certainly feel the most effective texts are interpreted in similar 
ways by a large number of people.  This happens in large part because 
the sentences work in harmony with each other.

Craig


On 5/12/2011 4:18 PM, Robert Yates wrote:
> Craig,
>
> You have just changed the goal posts.
>
> Biber et al. says nothing about effectiveness.  Are you suggesting that a text whose grammatical structures are not in percentages for that particular genre (although you need to remind everyone how general the categories are) is not effective?
>
> And I doubt seriously that Langacker has anything to say about effectiveness.  If so, please point us to the relevant text.
>
> And, I have no idea how a functional grammar defines effectiveness.  Please cite the relevant passages.
>
> We have had this discussion before and you still haven't made any attempt to understand the point that I have made repeatedly.  Of course, the meaning of a passage is not determined by grammar alone.  I have given countless examples in which the SAME passage can have different meaning crucially depending on context.
>
> If you truly are interested in the following (and of course it is right -- language as a formal system does not say what a particular text means) :
>
> Even if you treat language as a purely formal system, you still
> need to figure out how understanding that system might be of use in
> reading and writing.
>
> then you need a theory of interpretation.   That theory needs to go beyond grammatical form for that interpretation.
>
> What is YOUR theory of interpretation?
>
> (This is important to me because a theory of interpretation is crucial for understanding why developing writers' texts are inappropriate.  My late colleague Jim Kenkel and i have several papers which do exactly that.)
>
> Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri
>
>
>
>
>>>> Craig Hancock<[log in to unmask]>  05/12/11 11:52 AM>>>
> Bob,
>       You can make the case that classical rhetoric (and the whole 19th
> century rhetorical tradition) was essentially a study of effective
> communication, one that didn't see a separation between studying
> language and studying effective use. I'm not as well versed in it as I'd
> like to be.
>       The Australians have done a great deal with genre as intermediary
> focus.  Cognitive grammar asserts a direct connection between language
> and discourse (see Langacker, certainly, but others as well).   The
> Longman Grammar (Biber et. al.) looks at language patterns in different
> kinds of language use, notably conversation, fiction, news writing, and
> academic writing. Rhetorical grammar tries to connect grammatical choice
> to effective text.  Functional grammar sees form and function as
> seamlessly connected, and they assert a textual metafunction woven into
> the fabric of the clause.  From that perspective, language is what it is
> because of what it does, and constructing text is part of that. If
> grammar limits itself to the study of discreet sentences, it may have
> little to offer reading and writing.
>       Even if you treat language as a purely formal system, you still
> need to figure out how understanding that system might be of use in
> reading and writing.
>       I'm certainly not the only person who believes language choice is
> enormously important in the creation of an effective text.
>
> Craig
>
>
> On 5/12/2011 10:17 AM, Robert Yates wrote:
>> Colleagues,
>>
>> I have no idea where the following statement by Craig comes from.
>>
>>
>>>>> Craig Hancock<[log in to unmask]>   05/11/11 9:46 PM>>>
>>       Karl points out that we can't judge a theory of language on the basis
>> of its pedagogical utility, but pedagogical utility is very much at
>> stake here. Can a theory of language (should a theory of language) be
>> both true and useful? I think it should help us understand the nature
>> of effective text.
>>
>> I know of no theory of language which lays out the principles of an "effective text."
>>
>> Perhaps, Craig would like to share with us what those principles might be.
>>
>> For example, is Huck Finn an effective text?  Is Hamlet an effective text?  Is the Gettysburg Address an effective text?
>>
>> If these are "effective texts," what principles, especially with regard to language, do they all appear to have?
>>
>> Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri
>>
>> 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/
>
> 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/