Bob,

There's a basic difference in how theories go about dealing with
different kinds of low-frequency phenomena. In the case of what I called
anomalous argument structures -- "spontaneous causatives" like that in
the Ivins quote, or even "spontaneous benefactives" such as "I
programmed him a subroutine" -- the typical theoretic responses are (1)
treat these as exceptions, not part of the regular functioning of
language that needs to be accounted for by the machinery of the theory,
or (2) treat them as within the domain of "core" linguistic theory. 

My "thetastrophe" argument, which I should have clarified (I was too
happy with my own word coinage), is as follows: *If* the determining
factor for argument structure is the lexical choice of verb (i.e.,
verbs' lexical entries specify the arguments they must have), then it's
difficult to explain how a well-known verb could suddenly end up with a
different argument structure. If, on the other hand, speakers work with
categories of processes to construct particular kinds of meanings
(which, again, are realized as verbs and arguments, not just as verbs),
then realizing part of a process via a verb not normally associated with
it only involves running counter to a trend, not violating a rule. And
if you counter the trend often enough, your usage becomes the trend.
Verbs are associated with process types, but they don't determine them.

I prefer to treat these kinds of phenomena as within the core domain of
linguistics, not as interesting-but-peripheral exceptions (and I'd point
out that the choice of method (1) or (2) from the first paragraph is not
something easily resolvable on empirical grounds; it's definitional). 

As for SFG's lack of internal consistency, I obviously will have to read
your argument before I can make any valid comments on it. In any theory
that's been around for over thirty years, with hundreds of publications
using it, one can find some problems (and these are frequently topics of
discussion in the SFG literature). Are there more in SFG than in other
theories? Have you read Postal's "Skeptical Linguistics" lately?

Bill Spruiell

Dept. of English
Central Michigan University

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/