This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
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
SGoens ( talk) 04:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)SGoens
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)
The result of the move request was: moved. ErikHaugen ( talk | 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)
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
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
SGoens ( talk) 04:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)SGoens
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)
The result of the move request was: moved. ErikHaugen ( talk | 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)