Thanks to Carolyn Hartnett for the clarification. I have
been engaged in an exchange "off stage" -- I assume there
are many such going on. I am returning to the public stage
because I don't have adequate knowledge of the various
theories referred to in this thread to ask clear questions
or to clarify my points successfully. Nor do I have time to
ferret through my literature to do so. And I was stumped by a challenge
to my critique of Grice -- I know of two linguists: one of SFG,
the other, a Silverstein student, who have published
critiques of Grice and also the speech act theorists. When I
get the cites I will post them here. I realize
that Grice (or speech act theory) can be useful for certain
kinds of analyses. The question is the questions that can be
asked and answered under a particular theory. So I have
difficulty with arguments that assume one truth of linguistic
description.

I have found SFG useful for my teaching; I think it's imperative that
students see how grammar hooks up to communicative purposes.
Two different curriculum development efforts, wh involved SFL
linguists and educators in collaborations in Great Britain, offer
excellent ideas for teacher educators in my position. But I'm certainly
eager to learn what other approaches can do for prospective
teachers of English.

 Also, like everyone else, I have
the usual pressures of academia, plus candidates coming in
for several positions. I do want to say that I hope the
committee for writing scope and sequence will take an
open-minded view towards all the various theories, practices,
and positions advanced here.

Judy


t 03:04 PM 2/13/99 -0500, you wrote:
>         You've been discussing  how SFG analyzes these sentences:
>>> >        a) Bob likes the decision to acquit the President
>>> >        b) The decision pleases Bob.
>
>SFG describes sentences as consisting of participants, processes, and
>circumstances.
>Participants are traditional subjects, direct objects, and indirect objects
>as well as noun phrases and clauses that function in these roles.
>Processes are traditional verbs.  They come in different types.  The
>largest category is material processes, which have Actors as Subjects and
>Goals as objects.  Other categories are mental and existential.
>Circumstances are conditions, often optional, of all types, mainly and
>usually our adverbials.
>(SFG does not analyze vocatives and interjections syntactically.)
>
>Beyond syntax, English  provides choices of different Subjects and Themes,
>which allow us to tailor the statements to suit the contexts and cohesive
>patterns: one way for a political discussion and another way to discuss our
>friend.  SFL has a lot to say about those patterns, but those are other
>issues.  I assumed that syntax was the issue here.
>
>        So let's look at finer details in SFG grammar. It distinguishes
>different syntactic patterns for different types of processes.  The
>processes under discussion are mental processes. One characteristic of
>mental processes is that their unmarked present tense is the simple
>present, not the two-word present that is common for material processes
>(Bob likes..., not Bob is liking...).  Another characteristic is that they
>cannot be probed with "do."  More relevantly, in mental processes at least
>one participant is treated as endowed with consciousness, and the other
>participant can be either a thing or a fact.  The participants in mental
>processes are called Sensers and Phenomena.  They are bidirectional. In
>this case, in either order, Bob is a Senser and the decision is a
>Phenomenon.
>
>>> >        a) Bob likes the decision to acquit the President
>Bob is the Sensor, likes is the affective mental process, and decision is
>the Phenomenon.
>and
>>> >        b) The decision pleases Bob.
>The decision is the Phenomenon, pleases is a different affective mental
>process, and Bob is the Sensor.
>
>        Halliday discusses sentences very much like this pair on pages
>112-119 of the second edition of Introduction to Functional Grammar.
>Please correct me if I have oversimplified or misinterpreted him.
>
>Carolyn Hartnett
>
>[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