Bob, I think you are missing Halliday's point entirely. He is saying that
there is some pragmatic value in grammar -- not that grammar explains all.
Since he does not attempt to explain the language system apart from its
uses, he would never attempt to explain a string of words outside its
context of use. That is what makes SFG exciting to me. There is no language
system that exists independently of its uses -- a theory of the structure of
language freezes in time what is in fact a dynamic, changing system --
Halliday explains the relationship between "time depths" as like that
between weather and climate.

I miss your point entirely on the second example.  On the 3rd example,
Halliday would discriminate between usage and grammar -- between "mere"
convention and meaningful structures; thus, he makes moot the
prescriptivists' arguments.


Judy


At 10:04 PM 6/18/00 -0500, you wrote:
>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
>


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