Judy Diamondstone wrote:

> Most linguistic schools build on Saussure, drawing a clear line
> between langue and parole.

I think this is an absolutely clear point.  This distinction (and there
is different terminology) is important in what it means to "know a
language."

> It gets a little dizzying to sort out the different use of terms.
> It would help me tremendously to have an explicit account of the
> differences that make a difference between different maps of the
> same territory :)

You bet it does.  So, why go through it all?
My objection to the summary (which is how I read the SFG literature) is
that it
is dizzying and I am not quite sure what being made dizzy gets us.

Let me ask about something that may get us to understand each other.

Judy, is it your understanding of SFG that there is a kind of one-to-one
mapping between
the form of an utterance and its function?

In other words, do questions (my previous sentence is an example) have a
particular function or functions from the SFG perspective?  If the
answer is yes, what is/are it/they?

I can not speak for Johanna, but the kind of semantics she is talking
about is very different from the kind in your message.  The actual
semantic relationships between the underlying subjects and objects of a
particular verb can't be reduced to one particular relationship for the
subjects of all verbs or the objects of all verbs.  It is something
different for each verb.

I think when you talk about semantics in the note about SFG you are
talking about something very different.

Bob Yates