But meaning is compositional! At least in large part. Most sentences we encounter are novel, and yet they're understood. So, somehow, we break up the meaning o

But meaning is compositional! At least in large part. Most sentences we encounter are novel, and yet they're understood. So, somehow, we break up the meaning of the novel sentence, relating it to sentences we've seen. And actually the process there isn't that mysterious. The basic facts of English syntax are pretty obvious. Any English speaker will agree that "The blahdies merikaled the beemers" implies "The beemers were merikaled by the blahdies", without knowing what these words mean. I see from your Dad's comment below that he's fond of the systemicist school, following Halliday etc. I've done substantial work with this theory, as it's what I learned in my undergrad. The rest of my career has been spent working with others.[1] If I had to identify a central objection to SFL, I might say this: SFL is very fond of proposing non-linear effects. The theory goes that it's all about interactions, and if you study anything in isolation, you won't find anything out --- because everything's non-linear. This assertion is basically unsupported. It just sort of sits there as an assumption. But we should assume simplicity, not complexity. The simplest assumption is that there is no relationship between X and Y, but the next simplest is that there's a linear relationship. If you want to tell me there's a non linear relationship, you'd better come with evidence. And SFL never does. [1] https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=FXwlnmAAAAAJ&hl=en https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=FXwlnmAAAAAJ&hl=en