[asflanet] Re: grammar analysis only

  • From: Pin Wang <wangpin@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <asflanet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2024 10:23:21 +0800

Yes, David, I would say ‘dative’ realises Time and ‘accusative’ Duration. Prep phrases are not necessarily used for Marked Themes; they often realise specific relations in time, e.g. ‘before…’, ‘after…’, ‘within…’, ‘during…’ etc. And very often prep phrases with on (+ nom gp in the dative) are used for Time as well, e.g. on þissum geare ‘in this year’.

 

Indeed the ‘accusative’ and ‘dative’ here have nothing to do with direct and indirect objects. They are there to remind us of the morpheme-centric perspective inherited from Greek/Latin traditions ;-)

 

Pin

 

From: asflanet-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <asflanet-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of David Rose <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, 8 February 2024 at 6:26 am
To: asflanet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <asflanet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [asflanet] Re: grammar analysis only

Thanks Pin

Consistent with the Latin comparison, would you say ‘dative’ eall-um dag-um realises Time and ‘accusative’ eal-ne þo-ne winter realises Duration?

And do prep phrases tend to be used for marked Themes?

 

I often find case labels confusing. They postulate generalised functions from the forms of morphemes, which can conflict with group and clause rank functions.

 

For example, ‘accusative’ implies a ‘direct object’ function in transitive clauses, and ‘dative’ implies an ‘indirect object’ function. But the suffixes in your examples mean nothing of the kind.

 

I find it easier to understand a language by first looking for functions of groups in each clause of a text. The roles of nominal inflections then become apparent, and can be glossed with English grammatical items, instead of Latinate case names. Ditto for verbal inflections E.g.

 

eall

-um

dag

-um

all

at.pl

day

at.pl

‘in all days’

Time

 

eal

-ne

þo

-ne

winter

all

for

the

for

winter

‘for all the winter’

Duration

 

But getting this accepted would be like trying to get the Latin Bible translated into English ;-)

David

 

From: asflanet-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <asflanet-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Pin Wang <wangpin@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, 7 February 2024 at 10:56 pm
To: asflanet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <asflanet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [asflanet] Re: grammar analysis only

Hi David,

 

Here’s an example with accusative time:

 

Her gewende Cnut cyng to Denemearcon, and ðær wunode ealne þone winter.

‘Here (this year) King Cnut returned to Denmark, and there he stayed all the winter.’ 

(Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Year 1019, my own tentative translation)

 

OE uses prepositional phrases too, like in the famous opening line of Beowulf:

 

Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum…

‘in days of yore’

 

And

 

on dæge and æfter dæge

’in (his) day and after (his) day’

 

More often the accusative realises duration (like the Latin ‘accusative of duration of time’); the dative is comparable, I think, to the Latin ‘ablative of time when’ or ‘ablative of time within which’.

 

Pin

 

 

From: asflanet-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <asflanet-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of David Rose <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, 7 February 2024 at 7:12 pm
To: asflanet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <asflanet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [asflanet] Re: grammar analysis only

Thanks Pin! Very perceptive analysis of ‘the problem’

So ago has drifted towards away, but not all the way ;-)

And this is why I asked Rosemary for OE examples...

 

>on geswyncum ðu etst of ðære eorðan eallum dagum ðines lifes

>‘in pain you shall eat of the earth all the days of your life’

>Eallum dagum ‘all days’ is in plural dative.

 

So OE nom gp+dative becomes a prep phr in modern English ‘for all the days [[of your life]]’

Both realising Duration

I’d be interested to see ‘accusative’ time too

 

David

 

From: asflanet-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <asflanet-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Pin Wang <wangpin@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, 7 February 2024 at 9:21 pm
To: asflanet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <asflanet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [asflanet] Re: grammar analysis only

Dear colleagues,

 

Thanks very much for the interesting discussion.

 

I agree with David on this one. From above, a Qualifier serves to identify an entity, answering which Thing is being talked about.

 

E.g.

 

- Which children?

- The children [in blue hats].

 

But not:

 

- Which years?

- Some 4,600 years [ago].

 

So not a nominal group, but an adverbial group. The problem may have arisen from the incomplete proportionality in Modern English:

 

(*ago) : long ago : some 4,600 years ago ::

away: far away: about 4,600 miles away

 

In Old English, as Rosemary pointed out, Circumstances of Location in time can be realised by case-inflected nominal groups. 

 

E.g.

 

on geswyncum ðu etst of ðære eorðan eallum dagum ðines lifes

‘in pain you shall eat of the earth all the days of your life’ (Genesis 3:17)

 

Eallum dagum ‘all days’ is in plural dative.

 

Pin

 

 

From: asflanet-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <asflanet-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of David Rose <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, 7 February 2024 at 5:01 pm
To: asflanet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <asflanet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [asflanet] Re: grammar analysis only

Quite understandable; I can be clumsy... much better to let Michael define the Qualifier function than me...

 

Like the other, ‘ranking’ (i.e. non-embedded) elements of the nominal group, the Qualifier

also has the function of characterizing the Thing; and again the Deictic the serves to signal

that the characteristic in question is defining. But the characterization here is in terms of

some process within which the Thing is, directly or indirectly, a participant. It may be a

major process – that is, a clause, finite or non-finite; or a minor process – a prepositional

phrase (see Section 6.5). Figure 6-3 exemplifies these three variants.

 

 

David

 

From: asflanet-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <asflanet-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Rosemary Huisman <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, 7 February 2024 at 7:36 pm
To: asflanet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <asflanet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [asflanet] Re: grammar analysis only

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

I genuinely don't follow your understanding of "ago" (= past) as not qualifying years. It is an anomalous little word, having begun its life rank-shifted (a past-participle of a verb, an implicit reduced non-finite clause).

R.

 

From: asflanet-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <asflanet-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of David Rose <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, 7 February 2024 7:20 PM
To: asflanet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <asflanet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [asflanet] Re: grammar analysis only

 

Many thanks Rosemary

That answers my original question. It’s so helpful to talk these things through

 

You can still hear MAKH’s 1985 IFG wording here (emphases his)...

6.2.2.2 Qualifier

What of the element which follows the Thing? The original example, Look at those two splendid old electric trains with pantographs, ended with the phrase with pantographs; this also is part of the nominal group, having a function we shall refer to as Qualifier.

Unlike the elements that precede the Thing, which are words (or sometimes word complexes, like two hundred, very big; see Section 6.3.2), what follows the Thing is either

a phrase or a clause.

.. With only rare exceptions, all Qualifiers are rankshifted.

... Like the other, ‘ranking’ (i.e. non-embedded) elements of the nominal group, the Qualifier

also has the function of characterizing the Thing; and again the Deictic the serves to signal

that the characteristic in question is defining.

 

In some 4,600 years ago, it’s not the adverb ago that is rankshifted, but the nominal group some 4,600 years.

The adverb ago doesn’t ‘characterize’ or define the Thing years. Rather some 4,600 years specifies ‘how long ago’.

 

This is brought out by proportionalities like...

how long ago : how far away ::

very long ago : so far away ::

some 4,600 years ago : about 4,600 miles away

 

thanks again

David

 

From: asflanet-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <asflanet-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Rosemary Huisman <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, 7 February 2024 at 5:52 pm
To: asflanet@freelistsorg <asflanet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [asflanet] Re: grammar analysis only

Another pennyworth:

Experiential structure

some

4,600

years

ago

Deictic

Numerative

Thing

Qualifier

determiner

numeral

noun

adverb

 

Logical structure

some 4,600

years

ago

Modifier

Head

Postmodifier

some

4,600

 

 

gamma

beta

alpha

 

 

A surprise to me to see "ago" labelled as "adverb" but I see this labelling is now conventional (used in various dictionaries) so I accept it above.

Etymology: ago - from a Middle English contraction of the past participle of the Old English strong verb agangan = "to come to pass", "to befall".  

 

Note "some" realizes meanings of indefinite plural; compare:

a year ago

some years ago

 

Rosemary.

 

From: asflanet-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <asflanet-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of David Rose <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, 7 February 2024 5:10 PM
To: asflanet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <asflanet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [asflanet] Re: grammar analysis only

 

Re further research...

Analyses like these are rough and ready...

 

Here’s a puzzle. Of these b units, which instantiates comparison, intensification or negation?

not

so

very

much

more

easily

b

 

 

 

 

a

b

 

 

 

a

 

b

 

a

 

 

 

b

a

b

a

 

 

 

Fester Bestertester

 

From: asflanet-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <asflanet-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of David Rose <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, 7 February 2024 at 1:59 pm
To: asflanet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <asflanet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [asflanet] Re: grammar analysis only

Heh heh!

IFG at 30 paces...

 

Interestingly IFG contains many instances with adverb ago/away as Head and nom gp as Premodifier but doesn't attempt to analyse them, even tho they are so common. Of the three types of adv gp Premodifiers listed, they realise [intensification] metaphorically (perhaps one of Whorf’s SAE cryptotypes). E.g.

 

 

This area of grammar is opening up for research e.g

Martin, J. R., Doran, Y. J., & Zhang, D. (2021). Nominal group grammar: System and structure. Word, 67(3), 248-280.

 

best

Lester Scruggs

 

From: asflanet-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <asflanet-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Dr ChRIS CLÉiRIGh <c.cleirigh@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, 7 February 2024 at 10:27 am
To: asflanet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <asflanet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [asflanet] Re: grammar analysis only

Dear Scholars,

 

The following might be helpful to anyone who has difficulty in distinguishing nominal groups from adverbial groups.

 

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 419-22):

The adverbial group has an adverb as Head, which may or may not be accompanied by modifying elements. …

Premodifiers are grammatical items like not and rather and so; there is no lexical premodification in the adverbial group. …

The items serving as Premodifiers are adverbs belonging to one of three types – polarity (not), comparison (more, less; as, so) and intensification. …

Postmodification is of one type only, namely comparison.

 

 

ChEeRS,

ChRIS

 

 

On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 at 08:25, David Rose <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Rosemary

Is it the nom gp serving as Premodifier that makes them look like nom gps?

Here with just adverbs...

Long ago and so far away....

long

ago

and

so

far

away

Time

 

 

Place

 

 

adv gp

 

 

adv gp

 

 

b

a

 

b

 

a

adv

adv

 

adv

adv

adv

 

Here with nom gp as Premodifier

some

4,600

years

ago

Time

 

 

 

adv gp

 

 

 

b

 

 

a

nom gp

 

 

 

Num

 

Thing

 

b

a

 

 

 

PS

Can you give us some Old English clauses with Time in accusative and dative case?

Many thanks

David

 

From: asflanet-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <asflanet-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Rosemary Huisman <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tuesday, 6 February 2024 at 10:53 pm
To: asflanet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <asflanet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [asflanet] Re: grammar analysis only

Hi again - as in my first post - a circumstance of time. It's realized by the nominal group ("some 4,600 years ago"), as is usual for constituents of temporal meaning in the English clause. In Old English, such meanings were typically realized by a nominal group in the accusative case (or occasionally - confused through Latin?- by the dative). Perhaps because of their frequent use such realization without preposition for temporal meanings has persisted into Modern English, whereas other circumstantial meanings are usually realized by a prepositional phrase or adverbial group (as was already becoming established in Old English, ie pre- 1100).

Rosemary.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: asflanet-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <asflanet-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Annabelle Lukin <annabelle.lukin@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, 6 February 2024 7:07 PM
To: asflanet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <asflanet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [asflanet] Re: grammar analysis only

 

Love these messages - what kind of constituent is 'some 4,600 years ago'? I've been debating this with one of my colleagues for a while now,

Cheers

Annabelle

 

 

Annabelle Lukin (she, her, hers)
Associate Professor Linguistics

Department HDR Director

 

 

Department of Linguistics
Level 5, 12 Second Way Room 507
Macquarie University, NSW 2109, Australia

Climate Crisis: the Magnitude of the Challenge

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/feb/28/before-the-floods-i-thought-climate-change-wasnt-my-problem-now-im-not-waiting-for-someone-else-to-fix-it

NTEU delegate: Latest news http://www.nteu.org.au/mq/

T: +61 (2) 9850 8607  | 
E:  annabelle.lukin@xxxxxxxxx  |  mq.edu.au

CRICOS Provider 00002J. ABN: 90 952 801 237.

This message is intended for the addressee named and may
contain confidential information. If you are not the intended
recipient, please delete the message and notify the sender.
Views expressed in this message are those of the individual
sender and are not necessarily the views of Macquarie
University and its controlled entities.

 

 

Affiliated to Sydney Corpus Lab

 

Latest column:

What linguistics can teach us about how to talk to people with dementia

 

Latest book

Lukin, Annabelle. 2019. War and its Ideologies: A Social-Semiotic Theory and Description. Singapore: Springer.

 

Latest book chapter

Lukin, Annabelle and Butt, David. 2022. Neurosemiotics and ideology: a linguistic view. In García, Adolfo, and Ibañez, Águstin (eds) Routledge Handbook of Semiotics and the Brain. Routledge: New York.

 

Latest journal article

Lukin, Annabelle, and Araújo e Castro, Rodrigo. 2022. Macquarie Laws of War Corpus (MQLWC): design, construction and use. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law. 35(5). 2167-2186. 

From: asflanet-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <asflanet-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of David Rose <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, 6 February 2024 6:21 PM
To: asflanet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <asflanet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [asflanet] Re: grammar analysis only

 

Agreed Shooshi... bit of indeterminacy here between Means and Place

 

From: asflanet-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <asflanet-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Shoshana Dreyfus <shooshi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tuesday, 6 February 2024 at 6:07 pm
To: asflanet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <asflanet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [asflanet] Re: grammar analysis only

Thinking more about this – maybe the last circ isn’t causative. And in fact maybe that’s the point – construe this intransitively so they don’t even have to engage with whether anything caused the earth to form...

 

From: asflanet-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <asflanet-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Shoshana Dreyfus <shooshi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tuesday, 6 February 2024 at 5:46 pm
To: asflanet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <asflanet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [asflanet] Re: grammar analysis only

This email contains suspicious characteristics and has originated from outside your organisation. Only click links, open attachments or follow guidance if you have verified with the sender and know the content is safe.

 

It’s an interesting way of expressing how things happened, isn’t it? I love these clauses – representing events as if things happened all by themselves (ie intransitively), though the causative bit is there, just relegated to the end of the clause in the circumstance, so yes need both transitivity AND ergativity to understand this one:

 

The earth

formed

some 4,600 years ago

from a vast cloud of gas and dust

 

Actor

Process: material

Circ: temp loc

Circ: manner/means

Medium

Process

 

 

 

And probably a look at the periodicity/thematic development of this text would be useful because maybe the writer wants to keep the Theme constant so has structured the clause in this way to do so.

 

 

From: asflanet-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <asflanet-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Rosemary Huisman <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Monday, 5 February 2024 at 8:23 pm
To: asflanet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <asflanet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [asflanet] Re: grammar analysis only

Sensible thoughts, David.

A causative transitivity analysis might be more helpful: "Rocks" is Medium.

 

Table below is a bit misaligned!

Rosemary

 

IFG(2014) 52.3

..of ‘material’ clauses.1 The most general contrast is between (i) ‘creative’ clauses, where the Actor or Goal is construed as being brought into existence as the process unfolds, and (ii) ‘transformative’ ones, where a pre-existing Actor or Goal is construed as being transformed as theprocess unfolds: see Figure 5-10. Examples are given in Table 5-4.

 

Table 5-4 type of doing: ‘creative’/‘transformative’

 

 

Creative

Transformative

intransitive

transitive

intransitive

transitive

what happened

Whathappened? –Rocksformed.

Whathappened? –The pressureformed rocks

What happened –The rocksbroke (intosmall pieces)

What happened –The pressure broke therocks (intosmall

pieces).

Whathappened –He ran(away).

What happened

– Shechased him(away).

what happenedto X?

What happenedto

rocks? – Theyformed

Whathappened torocks? –*Thepressureformed hem.

Whathappened tothe rocks? –They broke(into smallpieces).

Whathappened tohe rocks? –The pressurebroke them(into smallpieces).

what did X do

 

What did thepressure

do? – It formedrocks.

 

What did thepressure do? – Itbroke the rocks(into pieces).

What did hedo? – He ran(away).

What did shedo?

– Shechased him(away).

what did X do toY?

 

What did thepressure do torocks? – *Itformed them.

 

What did thepressure do tothe rocks? – Itbroke them (intopieces)

 

What did she do to him? – She chasedhim (away).

 

 

 

 

 

From: asflanet-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <asflanet-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of David Banks <david.banks@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, 5 February 2024 7:40 PM
To: asflanet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <asflanet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [asflanet] Re: grammar analysis only

 

Hello Rosemay and Annabelle,

 

If "formed" is a creative process, and "the earth" is what is created, it can't exist before the process takes place. So it can't be the actor of that process. My memory tells me that somewhere (but I haven't got a refrerence to hand) Halliday talks about an "effected" - the participant created by a process (as opposed to an "affected" - the participant altered by a process). To avoid any confusion, with my (non-anglophone) students I used to use the term "result". I would suggest that "the earth" is effected/result.

 

All the best,

 

David

 

De: "Rosemary Huisman" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
À: asflanet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Envoyé: Lundi 5 Février 2024 07:47:08
Objet: [asflanet] Re: grammar analysis only

 

Hi Annabelle -   an effort:

 

The earth            Actor

formed                 Creative process, intransitive

some 4,600 years ago                             circumstance of Location: time

from a vast cloud of gas and dust   circumstance of Manner

 

See IFG(2014)

Table 5-4 on Creative processes

Table 5.28 on Types of circumstantial element.

 

More cheers,

Rosemary (Huisman).

 

From: asflanet-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <asflanet-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Annabelle Lukin <annabelle.lukin@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, 5 February 2024 11:55 AM
To: asflanet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <asflanet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [asflanet] grammar analysis only

 

Dear colleagues,

 

I'm keen to hear thoughts on the analysis of this clause:

 

The earth formed some 4,600 years ago from a vast cloud of gas and dust.

 

Cheers

Annabelle

 

Annabelle Lukin (she, her, hers)
Associate Professor Linguistics

Department HDR Director

 

 

Department of Linguistics
Level 5, 12 Second Way Room 507
Macquarie University, NSW 2109, Australia

Climate Crisis: the Magnitude of the Challenge

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/feb/28/before-the-floods-i-thought-climate-change-wasnt-my-problem-now-im-not-waiting-for-someone-else-to-fix-it

NTEU delegate: Latest news http://www.nteu.org.au/mq/

T: +61 (2) 9850 8607  | 
E:  annabelle.lukin@xxxxxxxxx  |  mq.edu.au

Error! Filename not specified.

CRICOS Provider 00002J. ABN: 90 952 801 237.

This message is intended for the addressee named and may
contain confidential information. If you are not the intended
recipient, please delete the message and notify the sender.
Views expressed in this message are those of the individual
sender and are not necessarily the views of Macquarie
University and its controlled entities.

 

 

Affiliated to Sydney Corpus Lab

 

Latest column:

What linguistics can teach us about how to talk to people with dementia

 

Latest book

Lukin, Annabelle. 2019. War and its Ideologies: A Social-Semiotic Theory and Description. Singapore: Springer.

 

Latest book chapter

Lukin, Annabelle and Butt, David. 2022. Neurosemiotics and ideology: a linguistic view. In García, Adolfo, and Ibañez, Águstin (eds) Routledge Handbook of Semiotics and the Brain. Routledge: New York.

 

Latest journal article

Lukin, Annabelle, and Araújo e Castro, Rodrigo. 2022. Macquarie Laws of War Corpus (MQLWC): design, construction and use. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law. 35(5). 2167-2186. 

 

 

 

--

dr chris cléirigh

We cannot teach people anything;
we can only help them discover it within themselves

— Galileo Galilei

====================================

Some Of My Sites

Review of Martin & Doran (2023)

Review of Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022)

Review of Doran (2021)

Review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019)

Review of Fontaine (2017)

Review of Martin (2013)

Review of Fawcett (2010)

Review of Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010)

Review of Martin & Rose (2007)

Review of Bateman (1998)

Review of Matthiessen (1995)

Review of Martin (1992)

Email List Posts as Pedagogical Tools

Appraisal Analyses of Email List Posts

The Culture of the SFL Community

SFL Theory

Sample SFL Analyses

Answers to Analysis Questions on Email Lists

General SFL Matters

Intellectual Applications of SFL Theory

Conclusions from Intellectual Applications of SFL Theory

The Opposite of Social Media

====================================

PNG image

PNG image

PNG image

PNG image

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. asflanet
  3. Archive
  4. 02-2024