Sara raises an interesting question -- Does "subject" somehow
belong developmentally prior to the terms "actor" and "process" --
Actually I do think so. Halliday, I assume you know, reserves the
term "subject" for what he calls "interpersonal" grammar. And
in fact, for me, the relationship between the subject and the
finite, or marker of 'finiteness' in the verb phrase, is
the very heart of grammar. As a first step into what
counts as a clause or a sentence, the distinction has
to be made between the finite and other non-finite forms of the
verb. I am struck by SFG discussions that show
mood (subject-finite relationship) to be the bare bones
of an argument (I can do anything better than you can;
no you can't; yes I can; can't; can) -- I have used
role play successfully to demonstrate the use-value of 'mood' and
'modality' In fact, it's through role play that we (my students &
I) get to "WHY" questions (we first USE language to do something,
then we notice HOW we have used language (what bits of language do
we use if we want to demonstrate a relationship between two characters,
or what bits of language do we use to CHANGE the relationship without
changing the content of what's said), and so we can understand
WHY a certain terminology before we get to WHAT it is.
Michael, I believe the SFG terms for the parts of your sentence,
"Love is blind" would be TOKEN/ VALUE -- the terms for the [2 necessary]
parts of utterances used to name or define things. So I wouldn't
use that sentence to introduce students to functional grammar --
I'd start with the more common-sense distinction ACTOR/ PROCESS
then build up (out?) gradually.
I'm no expert on SFG. The "ideational" grammar is
frustrating to me, precisely because I have not yet learned
the sorts of distinctions needed for very basic sentence
types -- I have yet to work through the "texts" to learn
the grammar. But it tantalizes me, and I keep working
at ways to make use of it in my teaching.
Judy
At 03:42 PM 2/2/99 -0500, you wrote:
>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]
>
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
|
