Several years ago at ATEG Jim Kenkel and I presented a paper on the
conceptual problems with systemic functional grammar. We would be happy
to share that paper with anyone who is interested. Judy Diamondstone
wrote:
> I suppose it does not make much sense to argue here again for more
> consideration of systemic functional grammar as a 'lens' -- even in
> Australia, where it has had real influence on curriculum and pedagogy, there
> is no hard evidence that it has been helpful in the ways it has been used.
There are two major problems with the following.
> And idealistically, I'd like to see ever
> deeper understanding of language _as our means for making meaning_ in talk
> as well as writing -- that is, ultimately, to aim for showing students not
> how sentences work but how meanings happen (a much more difficult, complex
> problem than how to talk about grammar to help students revise their
> writing).
If I understand systemic functional grammar, the goal is to ultimately
explain the structure of language because of the meaning which is
conveyed by that structure. This is wrong in two different ways.
There are important components of meaning which have NOTHING to do with
a particular language structure.
Consider a child who asks her parent the following question:
Is the Pope Catholic?
This is a real request about what religion the Pope is.
On the other hand, my wife has just asked me whether I wanted a beer
while I am typing this post. I responded
Is the Pope Catholic?
My wife understood perfectly well that I am not asking about the Pope's
religion. In fact, being the nice person that she is, she is getting me
a beer right now.
I have tried to read SFG, but I have never found an explanation for how
the EXACT same string can have very different meanings.
There are aspects of language structure which have absolutely nothing to
do with meaning. Consider the interesting constraint on affirmative
preposing.
It is possible to follow sentence (1) with either 2a of 2b.
1) Last night, John meant to insult his aunt.
2a) And, he did offend her.
b) And, he did insult her.
However, only the verb phrase in 2b can be preposed.
3a) Last night, John meant to insult his aunt. ?And, offend her he
did.
b) Last night, John meant to insult his aunt. And, insult her he did.
If language is the means for making meaning, it seems to me that 3a
should be just as good as 3b.
The second major problem I have to the concept "language _as our means
for making meaning_ in talk as well as writing -- that is, ultimately,
to aim for showing students not how sentences work but how meanings
happen" is what it says about language variation. If we take seriously
this claim, I think it follows that variations in language convey
different meanings. This gives support to the most unreconstructed
prescriptivists who claim that standard structures are superior to
non-standard structures. For example, I have no idea what meaning
difference is happening in sentences 4 and 5.
4) These data are interesting.
5) This data is interesting.
I have the same question about 6 and 7.
6) In the European Championship yesterday, England were not playing
very well.
7) In the European Championship yesterday, England was not playing
very well.
As an American, I really like (7) over (6). Which clause should follow
(6) and (7)?
8) However, they beat Germany anyway.
9) *However, it beat Germany anyway.
Even as an America, I must grant that (8) is good after both (6) and (7)
and (9) is bad after (6) and (7). Yet, if language is "our means for
making meaning," then (8) should only work after (6) and (9) should be
perfectly acceptable after (7) for those of us who prefer (7) over (6).
I may have missed something in my reading of SFG, but I have never read
a discussion of these issues.
Bob Yates, Central Missouri State University
|
