Talk:Systemic functional linguistics

Simplify introduction
To respond to Vortisto's thoughts on this being to excessive in detail, I agree. I feel that the introduction is a too complex and abstract. I am graduate student in linguistics with some experience in SFL (I have attended a few lectures this year), yet I still find this intro very hard to follow.

The introduction should give the reader a quick, concise summary of the entry, correct? Perhaps there should be more emphasis on how SFL contrasts from other branches of linguistics. I am not knowledgeable enough to do this, so hopefully someone else can. Then the info currently in the intro can be moved downward into the article body.

--EJ


 * I have had a good go. Done. It was full of the sort of anaphora (or other types of niche, promotional or just bad form repetition) and didacticisms (by which I mean condescending or bespoke new terms then saying that is to say or i.e. "choices" or other simple concepts, without putting them in quotation marks or linking to decent articles on them if they are that much of a breakthrough) that it was a little unwieldy. To most of my average friends it would be considered near-impenetrable so offends the guides in WP:JARGON. This is by no means to debase the linguists, current or past using or teaching SFL, but it is perfectly clear to someone highly educated in (other) Social Sciences that the lead needed trimming. I have done so deferentially to every single word written and as I would like my own life's work to be summarised.- Adam37 Talk  18:56, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I am an undergraduate student starting off into the world of linguistics and found this article to be term heavy without much in the way of explanation as to what some of these terms were. I pieced my way through it, however, a "for dummies" section would be much appreciated. Also, I noted that Simon C. Dik was not linked to an associated article or mentioned beyond his last name once in the Lead.

SGoens (talk) 04:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)SGoens

Clarity and Property
I think my explanation turned out to be excessive in detail and too short. It would be nice if another person from Systemic Theory expanded it a bit more. Daniel Vortisto (talk) 23:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't really understand the purpose for the explanation of drawbacks. In my opinion, it explains that, whenever there is a conflict between two "Systems" (models?) those two systems cannot be merged. That generally holds true (systems must be modified before merging). I don't see why this is a problem specific to Systemic Linguistics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.48.14.179 (talk) 12:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 18:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Systemic linguistics → Systemic functional linguistics –

This should be uncontroversial.

After discussion with User:Annabelle Lukin, it was obvious that several article titles are in a mess; this is one of them. I've removed the redirect of Systemic functional linguistics to Systemic functional grammar, which is a different topic (linguistics is not grammar). relisted-Mike Cline (talk) 12:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC) Tony   (talk)  08:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - I support the general idea, and Google searches for "systemic linguistics" more often than not turn up some variation on "systemic functional linguistics", a tell-tale sign that the current title is sub-optimal. However, I wonder whether the title shouldn't be "systemic-functional linguistics" with a hyphen, as that cropped up in quite a few sources that I found, and it looks more in-line with the manual of style. (I think that should be a hyphen and not an en-dash, but I'm not 100% on that.) Does that sound plausible to you? —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 20:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's quite a different matter from second-language acquisition, where second language is a compound adjective. Here, the linguistics at issue is systemic and it is functional: they are both stand-alone adjectives. Tony   (talk)  14:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - I shall bow to your judgement. I was never one to worry unduly about punctuation in any case. —  Mr... Stradivarius  ♫ 15:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per my comments above. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 15:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.