I have tried to read the SFG literature and have had great difficulty in
understanding why it makes the distinctions it does.
Craig provides an example of the difficulty I have had.

Craig wrote:

>My point, I guess, is that we run into trouble if we think of=20
>complements as dictated by the nature of the verb (like indirect object=20
>or beneficiary, which only certain verbs will support) and as occurring=20
>in the predicate, precisely because that doesn't allow us to acknowledge=20
>the flexibility available to us as we construct meaningful discourse.
>
I always thought that complements are dictated by the verb.  If a verb
does not allow an indirect object, it seems to me
that NO discourse property will force the speaker/writer to create an
indirect object for such a verb.  This simple observation
suggests that discourse cannot change underlying properties of verbs.

(I think this observation is correct, but perhaps there are examples I
don't know about. )

I have no idea what the category "process" verb gets us.  Perhaps, we
can have some examples to show us how it provides insight into
texts not available from other perspectives.

Bob Yates, Central Missouri State 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/