Talk:Systemic functional grammar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Linguistics / Theoretical Linguistics / Systemic Functional Linguistics  (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Theoretical Linguistics Task Force.
This article is supported by Systemic Functional Linguistics Task Force.

School Curriculum Applications[edit]

Good day! Would this be the right page to discuss how SFL is being introduced internationally in school curricula? If so, what section? I have just written a summary on the Australian Curriculum in a blog post and wanted to contribute a couple of sentences on this page. However, the current entry does not even mention the work of the "Sydney School", or how SFL theory is being implemented in schools internationally ... --David Haberlah (talk) 07:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Jargon Issue[edit]

The jargon issue is not a problem restricted to this page. It is a very recurrent problem through out the theory. I guess there must be a way to demetaphorize the theory for the uninitiated...

I think this article works OK at the moment. At least some focus should be on expanding the article rather than clarifying existing information. Narssarssuaq 09:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
It's not what I'd call "OK"; it's appalling. I intend to remove the link to "Word grammar", which is so far off the mark it's not funny. Tony 11:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, it's not OK. Narssarssuaq 14:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

There is another system called functional grammar[edit]

Contributors who know more about this than I do should explain the differences between Dik's functional grammar and Halliday's systemic functional grammar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SixWingedSeraph (talkcontribs) 21:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Major changes[edit]

I’ve had a go at expanding and clarifying the article. I’ve removed the cleanup and expansion tags and added the expert one. The section on the ideational metafunction needs attention – I only have information on the experiential part of it and don’t know what is meant by the logical metafunction. The stuff about Chomsky and instantiations back-feeded by instantiations (WTF?) also needs clarifying and referencing. Finally, I took out a bunch of links in the ‘See also’ section that didn’t lead anywhere. - Snookerfran (talk) 14:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll clarify the Chomsky part. It was meant for people who know a structuralist theory of language and who have a Chomskyian background. most people with Linguistics background and every one with Computer Science background fall in this category. - Daniel Vortisto (talk) 22:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to expand the ideational metafunction by adding the distinction between the experiential and the logical metafunctions. The section now needs a revision of a native speaker and a clean up. Daniel Vortisto (talk) 23:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Remove/fix the Chomsky reference in 'Relation to other branches of grammar'

It is correctly labeled with 'citation needed' and I submit it should be removed.

I'll disagree with User: Daniel Vortisto...first, yes everyone with a Linguistics or Computer Science background has read Chomsky. That **does not** mean they would agree with the article's analysis of Chomsky's ideas in relation to SFG!

There is NO CONSENSUS as to if Chomsky would agree or disagree with SFG. I can make a case that Chomsky's universal language acquisistion ideas fit perfectly into SFG and in greater Systematic Functional Linguistic. SFL and SFG are more than Halliday.

That is a rather absurd statement. Chomsky has spent his life promoting a view of language that is the opposite of everything Halliday and the systemic functionalists work for. He has never to my knowledge suggested that his views are compatible with any type of functionalism. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's get a start on this![edit]

Hi there. I've done a quick copy-edit of the lead. May I suggest that we:

  1. gather more folk around this task;
  2. create a list of items that might well be linked, eventually, and stubs created (lexis and "lexicogrammar" are two I see in the lead); and
  3. decide which variety of English this should be in.

I'd go for AusEng, since Halliday has done just about all of his major work as foundation professor of linguistics at the University of Sydney, and is now happily retired adjacent to a long sunny beach north of here. But it's no big deal. Comments?

Tony (talk) 01:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I've left notes at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Linguistics#invitation_to_collaborate and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Theoretical_Linguistics#SFG_renovation:_anyone_interested.3F. Tony (talk) 05:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for putting those requests out; it'd be fantastic if we could get more people to help.
Australian English is fine by me - is this with preference to -ise rather than -ize endings? Either way's good.
Re: words which will need stubs (or at the least, explanations), the following spring immediately to mind: 'process', 'participant' and 'circumstance'; and 'tonality' and 'tonicity' (these could be explained in a separate phonology section in this article, perhaps).
A few other general thoughts: 1. At the moment, it's unclear how the metafunctions relate to the semantic, phonological, and lexicogrammatical strata. This will need explaining. 2. The metafunctions section should probably be called 'theory', and there should probably be a 'history' section first. 3. The metafunctions section will need a full rewrite; what I put down there is very rushed. 4. The last two sections also need a rewrite.
Finally, does the linguistics sidebar belong in this article, or would the semiotics one be better? Or neither? SFG seems linked to both, but neither say anything about SFG. - snookerfran (talk) 14:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)e
OK Fran: AusEng is pretty firmly "-ise" and variants; so is BrEng although, strangely, the OED still puts the zed as first spelling.
I'll need to think carefully about the metafunctions section; I have time at the moment to brush up again with IFG3 (2004). Is that the edition you have? You sound like a professional linguist; I'm only an amateur, but a serious one. I've never formally studied SFG, but was close friends with two of Halliday's doctoral students.
In terms of packaging SFG in greater detail than this summary article, my long-term strategy has been to write reasonably concise articles on the more containable topics. You'll see the two I've done listed in the "See also" section. The article on nominal groups needs a little massaging, I think. I'm itching to do one on tone groups, including the five tones. Curiously, I find this topic easier to locate and digest in IFG2 than in the recent edition. Tony (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Fran, please let me know if you're around WP. Tony (talk) 03:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Merge Systemic linguistics and Systemic functional grammar[edit]

Per the lead section of each article, both Systemic linguistics and Systemic functional grammar treat systemic functional linguistics. In addition, there are maintenance tags on the former page suggesting that it is unclear and needs expert attention.

Therefore, I propose that Systemic linguistics and Systemic functional grammar be merged into a single page, either at Systemic functional grammar or at Systemic functional linguistics (which is currently a redirect to Systemic functional grammar). See Help:Merging for technical advice; I would also be happy to help carry out the actual merger myself if there is consensus to do so. Cnilep (talk) 00:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
This is actually not appropriate: systemic linguistics / systemic-functional linguistics is a general theory of language with components ranging from phonetics to register and text variation; systemic-functional grammar refers to the work done within this tradition that applies to the stratum of lexicogrammar only. This difference should be reflected more appropriately in how the entries are written as it seems that not everyone is aware that grammar=/=language. Jonh bateman (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Maunus, I hope you don't mind my removing the merge tag. It seems inappropriate. Please note that there's an RM at Talk:Systemic linguistics. Tony (talk) 08:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The merge tag is still on this page. Is it possible to get it removed? Cheers Annabelle Annabelle Lukin 04:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Overhaul of this article[edit]

Dear all contributors or watchers of this page, I feel strongly that this entry needs a serious overhaul. It needs to have a clearer flow to it, and some of the complex ideas need to be explained a little more clearly. I hope I am not offending anyone by saying this! I am a member of the systemic functional linguistics taskforce. I lecture at Macquarie U in undergraduate and postgrad courses based on Halliday's work, so I hope you will allow me to begin a review of it to make it a more substantial and more connected entry. I have a user page naturally, so I am keen to hear from anyone who has any ideas or concerns about this. Best wishes Annabelle Annabelle Lukin 04:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annabelle Lukin (talkcontribs)

Please do! All of the articles on the main functional theories of grammar are in a terrible state. I recently expanded Functional theories of grammar, but it is still in a sad state and needs attention from a true specialist.