will have finished + yesterday

Duncan Powrie · Post by **Duncan Powrie** » Mon Jul 19, 2004 11:31 am

Thanks for the recommendation, Prawn! I hope that book will be as widely available as the others I mentioned (I may in fact have seen it lurking on a top shelf in the bookstore I go to...rings a bell, anyway).

Wow this pissing contest is warming up nicely! Shame the bodily fluid wastes that are being emitted will probably freeze in the chilly air...better zip yourselves back up fellas before somebody gets a frozen pecker!

The main weakness of Lewis to me is that, whilst he bangs on about lexis so much, he rather deals in isolated (seemingly invented or very selective) examples, or creates binary oppositions in the verb system especially that he forces us to accept by the sheer unrelenting force of his argument. I think it's a shame that he hasn't dealt with more genuine examples and texts more widely (perhaps with a view to writing a complete grammar beyond the verb-phrase).

Halliday would seem to offer a much wider vision, and is probably more internally consistent, once one has got to grips with the terminology. I just know that things such as topic, and theme vs. rheme etc seem very important, and are given only sparing or sporadic treatment in other grammars/approaches to grammar, so I for one would be willing to see if the underlying concepts such labels sought to describe were, in fact, as rigorously identified or described in whatever grammar(s) I were using at the moment.

But you are maybe presuming a bit too much, Prawn, in expecting those who seem to already be competent grammarians to add yet another layer of terminology on faith to that which they already use, just so they can accept what you say without question or indeed complaint (and in forcing them to do so, are you seeking to make them Halliday's, or your own, disciples?!).

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Mon Jul 19, 2004 11:45 am

The main beef I have with Lewis is "reification". That is to say he is attributing some kind of independent existence to the labels he uses to clarify his distinctions.

I am always suspicious of those that try and apply simple solutions to language. Language is messy and has evolved over time.

Duncan Powrie · Post by **Duncan Powrie** » Mon Jul 19, 2004 12:03 pm

I just said: "But you are maybe presuming a bit too much, Prawn, in expecting those who seem to already be competent grammarians to add yet another layer of terminology on faith to that which they already use, just so they can accept what you say without question or indeed complaint..."

Now I'm not so sure. I mean, SFL is a pretty major whopping branch of linguistics, and has functional written all over it, so I think it's possibly just a bit inexcusable that most teachers (myself included) haven't got much clue about it, and will only really get to grips with it when we are dragged, kicking and screaming, into the sort of Master's classes that Prawn has so obviously benefitted from.

Duncan Powrie · Post by **Duncan Powrie** » Mon Jul 19, 2004 12:18 pm

Oh, by the way, nice point about Lewis, SJ!

Hopefully Prawn won't notice the fact you avoided mentioning Halliday again - perhaps he has, as we Brits might say, other fish (or scampi) to fry...in LL-sized portions.

YUMMY!

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Mon Jul 19, 2004 12:22 pm

It's the fact that the terminology keeps changing that I find depressing.

For example I suspect that the difference between theme and rheme is the same as the difference between theme and focus that Quirk and Greenbaum refer to, and I would say it is central to any study of English or another language, but I feel reluctant to learn a complete new terminology before I can have any idea as to whether it is effective or not, particularly when it produces disciples such as prawn.

Duncan Powrie · Post by **Duncan Powrie** » Mon Jul 19, 2004 12:33 pm

Yes, Stephen, I know what you mean (I read that your favorite grammar was the Quirk and Greenbaum University grammar, right?). Not having read that, or a SF grammar, or even the whole of my Biber et al, I can't say for sure if SFG is a complete break, or builds upon what went before...who knows, if you read up on it, you might find yourself pleasantly relieved!

Hmm would there be much point in the enterprise if you were just reeling off slightly different names for categories you already knew about? Certainly not, if it were just to gain acceptance with certain individuals. BUT that being said, a lot of the debate on these forums (especially this one) is caused by people refusing to speak the same language, or learn new ones...it's just, at whose feet do we sit?! This is why I always offer book recommendations, or ask for them...I'd prefer to read a book than read somebody's soles!

YUCKY!

Duncan Powrie · Post by **Duncan Powrie** » Mon Jul 19, 2004 12:41 pm

By saying I don't want to sit at somebody's feet, I simply mean to say that I for one would need time to read up on things before I get into a discussion with somebody who seems to know more, and not that I don't think I have anything to learn.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Mon Jul 19, 2004 2:56 pm

The main weakness of Lewis to me is that, whilst he bangs on about lexis so much, he rather deals in isolated (seemingly invented or very selective) examples,

Curious you should see it that way. In his seminars, I've only ever known lewis to deal with real examples:

He does here also:

Talking point

Many of the following examples have been demonstrated at recent conferences by Michael Lewis - including IATEFL POLAND.

So, how reliable are some familiar grammar rules?
http://www.ltpwebsite.com/talkingpoint.htm

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Mon Jul 19, 2004 2:58 pm

Stephen Jones wrote:The main beef I have with Lewis is "reification". That is to say he is attributing some kind of independent existence to the labels he uses to clarify his distinctions.

For example?

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Mon Jul 19, 2004 3:01 pm

BUT that being said, a lot of the debate on these forums (especially this one) is caused by people refusing to speak the same language, or learn new ones...it's just, at whose feet do we sit?! This is why I always offer book recommendations, or ask for them...I'd prefer to read a book than read somebody's soles! YUCKY!

In addition to reading so many books, try thinking for yourself. What shoe size did you say you were?

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Mon Jul 19, 2004 3:20 pm

'Modality' for example and the idea Larry keeps harping on about that all modal verbs express the speakers point of view.

Core meanings.

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Mon Jul 19, 2004 3:24 pm

In addition to reading so many books, try thinking for yourself. What shoe size did you say you were?

Any more profound contributions?

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Mon Jul 19, 2004 3:29 pm

Lewis, and you, are setting up strawmen here though.

The 'rules' they refer to are tendencies which are given to students because of their predictive value.

An approach such as Buckmeister's (apart from being glaringly amateurish and sometimes plain wrong) does not help students decide which form to use.

LarryLatham · Post by **LarryLatham** » Mon Jul 19, 2004 11:04 pm

Stephen, sometimes it seems as though you're just spoiling for a fight...any fight. That's pretty boring, especially since you have a fine mind and a lot of knowledge to teach us (or at least me). But why the combative stance so much of the time? Isn't that best left on the playground?

Larry Latham

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Tue Jul 20, 2004 12:33 am

Stephen Jones wrote:
In addition to reading so many books, try thinking for yourself. What shoe size did you say you were?
Any more profound contributions?

And you?