{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.008908685968819599, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.808080808080808, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The interaction and rhetorical conflict between systemic linguistics and generative linguistics

Abstract The distinction of systemic linguistics and generative linguistics has led to more problems for systemicists than for generativists: Halliday’s theory has been widely applied but has not been adequately valued as an influential strand of functional grammars in discussions on functionalism and formalism in linguistics; Halliday recognizes Chomsky’s theoretical importance but fails to get Chomsky to respond to his questioning. By focusing on the complementarity and reconcilability of functionalist and formalist approaches to language, this paper discusses the common concerns and dialogues along with discursive differences and rhetorical conflicts between Halliday and Chomsky, and proposes that what stands between them is a difference of discourses of argumentation rather than an opposition of functionalism and formalism. It suggests a few things that at least some systemic linguists need to do in order to further interact with generative linguists who may not be interested in the systemic enterprise. It concludes that since Halliday’s social semiotic theory aims at everyday problems of living and learning, it should not be difficult for systemic linguists to solve the problem of communicating with Chomsky and his followers.