The interaction patterns considered to this point have focussed on written text; the compositional scaffolding discussed depends for its development on a degree of consciousness not associated with spontaneous spoken monologue… — although professional public speakers do make use of scaffolding of a not unrelated kind. Spontaneous spoken text however unfolds dynamically; it is not configured as a thing, with an elaborated part/whole structure.
 This is misleading. Text [6:35] was falsely presented as a text in written mode, despite the fact that it was actually a written transcript of an interview (spoken mode). See the evidence at Falsifying Data: Misrepresenting An Interview Transcript As A Writing Exercise.
 As the term 'scaffolding' makes clear, this model of method of development — using macro-Theme (Introductory Paragraph) and hyper-Theme (Topic Sentence) — is actually a model of writing pedagogy.
 The "degree of consciousness" not associated with spoken monologue — or indeed spoken dialogue — is the possibility, afforded by written mode, of planning and editing a text, with the further option of using a model of writing pedagogy.
 Professional public speakers who write their speeches beforehand can also make use of the scaffolding offered by writing pedagogy.
 All texts unfold dynamically — since unfolding is a process, it would be hard to unfold any other way. In SFL theory, this semogenic (meaning-making) process is modelled as logogenesis: the unfolding of the text at the instance pole of the cline of instantiation.
 To claim that a written text is 'configured as a thing' is to confuse the text as material object (e.g. ink on paper, etc.) with the text as semiotic object (an instance of a linguistic content).
 On the contrary, even spontaneous spoken text is highly structured. As Halliday (1985: 79) explains:
The spoken language is, in fact, no less structured and highly organised than the written. It could not be otherwise, since both are manifestations of the same system.