Talk:Systemic functional grammar

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: OK, it's not OK. Narssarssuaq 14:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jargon Issue 

message: 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 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is another system called functional grammar 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Major changes 

message: 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)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Merge Systemic linguistics and Systemic functional grammar 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maunus (talk • contribs) 04:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Overhaul of this article

message: 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 http://haberlah.edublogs.org/2017/03/16/systemic-functional-linguistics-in-the-australian-curriculum-english 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)
thread_title: School Curriculum Applications