that can cover the roles, forms and functions of language and language use,
even though that is exactly what its proponents claim. The SFG community
seems to be inward looking and inbreeding, with its own conferences and
symposia at conferences like AAAL. The complexity of the formalisms is
seen as a prohibitive factor in adopting this perspective. It is generally
acknowledged that SFG was focusing on meaning, relevance and applic-
ability in different walks of life well before other UB approaches emerged. It
is a forerunner in the“eco-linguistics”trend. SFG has not been in competi-
tion with other theories the way GG and UB approaches have. It is as if the
SFG linguists and the GG linguists have been living in different realms, just
like having their own worlds that do not seem to overlap.
On the basis of comments made by the informants, a spectacular growth
of SFG in AL is not expected, though Tim McNamara feels that the United
States is ready for SFG. William Grabe disagrees:“SFG is not the solution.
There is not enough empirical evidence. The theory is arcane, the terminol-
ogy complex and the texts are often painful to read.”When asked why
Halliday never took offin the United States, he remarked jokingly:“Because
he moved to Australia!”
GG has been the dominant theory for most of the decades covered in this
book. One of the most important representatives of this approach is Lydia
White, who sees“development of generative linguistic approaches to SLA”
as one of the major trends. Similar reactions come from various researchers
from the GG community. María del Pilar García Mayo says:“I think the
field of formal SLA, led by Roger Hawkins, Bonnie Schwartz and Lydia
White has seen a tremendous growth in theoretical issues, type of data col-
lected and methodologies used.”Bill VanPatten is optimistic about what is
happening with GG:
I see growth, if you mean its use as a framework (and not how the actual
framework itself has evolved). I think it’s reached stasis though; that is,
its use to investigate SLA has neither declined nor increased recently as
I see it. What we have seen, at the same time, is an increase in other
frameworks – this is perhaps giving some people the idea that the
research from a GG perspective has declined. But it hasn’t.According to Camilla Bardel L3 research from a GG perspective has added
new air to the researchfield by reopening old discussions with fresh data.
But there are also other views. Joan Kelly Hall noticed a move away from
mainstream psychology and formal linguistics. Alan Juffs sees as one of the
major trends:“The rise, then fall of a role for formal linguistics, and the rise
of connectionist approaches.”Wolfgang Klein refers to“attempts to apply
generative grammar, in particular the notion of parameter setting, to language
acquisition.”
GG is generally seen as a declining paradigm and its proponents now tend
to stay away from conferences like AAAL (the American Association of
58 Main trends I