A Short Summary Of Some Of The Misunderstandings Of Chapter 6

Martin (1992: 488):

The basic strategy adopted to explore this question [how do modules of the semiotic model interface?] was to look closely at the interaction of reference chains and lexical strings with specific lexicogrammatical and phonological variables — specifically TRANSITIVITY rôles, Theme, New and Subject.  The texture deriving from these four types of interaction was discussed under the headings of cohesive harmony, method of development, point and modal responsibility.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This confuses the content plane (New information) with the expression plane (phonology).

[2] The term and concept of 'texture' come from Halliday & Hasan (1976).  Texture is the property of being a text, and is created by the textual metafunction.  Here it is misapplied to the experiential metafunction (TRANSITIVITY rôles) and the interpersonal metafunction (Subject).

[3] The term and concept of 'cohesive harmony' come from Hasan (1984, 1985).  Martin misunderstands and misrepresents Hasan's model and critiques these as if they were her model.  See the evidence in previous posts here, here, here, and here.

[4] The term and concept of 'method of development' come from Fries (1981).  Martin's 'method of development' is writing pedagogy masquerading as linguistic theory.  He rebrands 'topic sentence' as 'hyper-Theme' — a term taken from Daneš (1974) but redefined — and 'introductory paragraph' as 'macro-Theme'.

[5] The term and concept of 'point' come from Fries (1981).  Martin's 'point' is, again, writing pedagogy masquerading as linguistic theory.  He rebrands  'paragraph summary' as 'hyper-New', and 'text summary' as 'macro-New'.

[6] The term and concept of 'modal responsibility' come from Halliday (1985), where it is the meaning of 'Subject': that on which the validity of a proposition or proposal rests.  Martin first misunderstands 'modal responsibility', in proposals, as 'the constituent responsible for seeing that goods are exchanged or a service performed' (p461).  He then misinterprets the meaning of Subject from a discourse perspective, in terms of exchange resolution (p462), as 'what is at stake' (p464) and as 'participant at risk' (p477).

Confusing Writing Pedagogy With Linguistic Theory

Martin (1992: 456):

Macro-Theme, hyper-Themes and clause Themes project forward, scaffolding the text with respect to its rhetorical purpose (i.e. its genre); macro-New, hyper-News and clause News on the other hand look back, gathering up the meanings which have accumulated to elaborate a text's field.  The result is a textured sandwich in which texts project both forward and back as they unfold.  Texture of this kind, which is a tendency in writing (by no means a categorical rule) is outlined schematically in Fig. 6.12.

 

Fig. 6.12. Sandwich texture in abstract written discourse

Blogger Comments:

[1] The field here is writing pedagogy, not linguistic theory:

• macro-Theme is Martin's rebranding of introductory paragraph; 
• hyper-Theme is Martin's use of Daneš's (1974) term to rebrand topic sentence;
• macro-New is Martin's term for a text summary (and so 'New' is a misnomer);
• hyper-New is Martin's term for a paragraph summary (and so 'New' is again a misnomer).

[2] This confuses context (which is more abstract than language) with register (which is a functional variety of language).  The rôle of language in context is its rhetorical mode.  A genre, on the other hand, as a text type, is register viewed from the instance pole of the cline of instantiation.

[3] 'New' is a functional element of the information unit, not the clause. The domain of an information unit may be shorter or longer than a single clause.

[4] The meanings that 'elaborate' the field of a context of situation are all the meanings of a text, not just those that are presented as New to the addressee or re-presented in summaries.

[5] The relation between meaning (semantics) and field (context) is realisation, which is both an elaborating and an identifying relation.  It is the identifying component of the relation that marks the two as different levels of symbolic abstraction.  The use of the term 'elaboration' betrays the fact that Martin does not understand strata as different levels of symbolic abstraction, as has been demonstrated in numerous previous posts (here).

Problems With The Complementarity Of Hyper-Theme & Hyper-New

Martin (1992: 454):

This complementarity of hyper-Theme predicting a text's method of development and hyper-New accumulating its point is outlined in Fig. 6.11.

 

Fig. 6.11. Complementarity of hyper-Theme & hyper-New

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is potentially misleading, to the extent that it represents Theme and New as always distinct.

[2] As previously explained, a hyper-Theme — Martin's rebranding of Topic Sentence, using a term coined for other purposes by Daneš (1974) — does not "predict" what experiential content will be highlighted in subsequent Themes.

Any relations between the experiential content of Topic Sentences and the experiential content of subsequent Themes are those of lexical cohesion and grammatical reference, two non-structural resources of the textual metafunction.

Intuiting Others' Assessments of Coherence

Martin (1992: 437):

In writing, the use of macro-Themes to predict hyper-Themes, which in turn predict a sequence of clause Themes is an important aspect of texture; and texts which do not make use of predicted patterns of interaction in this way may be read as less than coherent.

Blogger Comments:

[1] The field of Martin's discourse has shifted here from building a theory of spoken and written language to prescribing the use of his model for the writing of coherent texts (pedagogy). Removing Martin's re-brandings, this sentence becomes:

In writing, the use of introductory paragraphs to predict topic sentences, which in turn predict a sequence of clause Themes is an important aspect of texture.

[2] A text that is restricted to this pattern cannot develop, because it must always revert back to the same point of departure. On the model of Daneš (1974) — the source of the notion of hypertheme — there are three main types of thematic progression:

1. a preceding Rheme becomes the next Theme;
2. a repetition of the same Theme, the first appearance termed a 'hypertheme';
3. a progression of derived Themes

For a text to develop, New information has to be introduced — in the Rheme in the unmarked case — and later taken as the point of the departure (Theme) in a subsequent clause, thereby providing the context for the introduction of further New information.

[3] Consider the likelihood that a text that doesn't develop would be 'read' as coherent with respect to its context of situation.

Note that here Martin provides his own intuition of what unidentified readers might regard as 'less than coherent'. See the related post Misrepresenting Hasan's Work On Coherence As Formalist.

Problems With The Argument For Hyper-Theme

Martin (1992: 437):

Daneš (1974: 118-9) suggests a number of ways in which strings, chains, Themes and Rhemes may interact in text. In some texts Themes typically relate to immediately preceding Rhemes, in others to immediately preceding Themes. Of special interest is the pattern suggested by Daneš whereby successive Themes are related to a single preceding Theme (or hyper-Theme as he terms it). This is the pattern that [6:34] would have displayed had wisdom and chance been made thematic in clause [6:34d] (e.g. Wisdom and chance gave birth to the English Constitution). As [6:34] stands however, Themes are predicted by clause [6:34d]'s New, not its Theme.

The important point here however is that [6:34d] stands in a predictive relationship to the interaction between lexical strings and Theme selection.  It thus functions as the Topic Sentence in school rhetoric — as the Theme of the paragraph in other words, rather than as the Theme of a clause.  Daneš's term hyper-Theme will be extended here to refer to paragraph Themes of this kind.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Daneš (1974) identifies three main types of thematic progression:

1. a preceding Rheme becomes the next Theme;
2. a repetition of the same Theme, the first appearance termed a 'hypertheme';
3. a progression of derived Themes

[2] The relation here is one of identity. In SFL theory, this is lexical cohesion (elaborating: identity) working with Theme. That is, it is the non-structural and structural resources of the textual metafunction creating texture.

[3] The Greek prefix 'hyper-' means over; beyond; above.  The 'hypertheme' of Daneš (1974) is 'over' or 'above' its later repetitions.

[4] If the type 2 ('hypertheme') thematic progression had been used, it would have had a significant deleterious effect on the texture:

The English Constitution — that indescribable entity — is a living thing, growing with the growth of men, and assuming ever-varying forms in accordance with the subtle and complex laws of human character. Wisdom and chance gave birth to the English Constitution.

[5] On the model of Daneš (1974), the thematic progression from [6:34d] to [6:34e] is type 1 (above), at least to the extent that the preceding Rheme is the child of wisdom and chance can be said to be taken up in the following Theme the wise men of 1688.  But, strictly speaking, the Rheme does not become the following Theme; the relation between the two is the lexical cohesion between wisdom and wise.

[6] Any "prediction" in what will be taken up as subsequent Theme can only be made with hindsight — by taking a synoptic perspective on the text.  This is inconsistent with — contrary to — Martin's claim (1992: 401) that interaction patterns — here: mode of development — will be interpreted as a process rather than as a synoptic system:

Grammatical metaphor, like interaction patterns, will be interpreted as a process here, rather than as a synoptic system…

[7] To be clear:

In prescriptive grammar, the topic sentence is the sentence in an expository paragraph which summarises the main idea of that paragraph. It is usually the first sentence in a paragraph. 

Also known as a focus sentence, it encapsulates or organises an entire paragraph. Although topic sentences may appear anywhere in a paragraph, in academic essays they often appear at the beginning. The topic sentence acts as a kind of summary, and offers the reader an insightful view of the writer’s main ideas for the following paragraph. More than just being a mere summary, however, a topic sentence often provides a claim or an insight directly or indirectly related to the thesis. It adds cohesion to a paper and helps organise ideas both within the paragraph and the whole body of work at large. As the topic sentence encapsulates the idea of the paragraph, serving as a sub-thesis, it remains general enough to cover the support given in the body paragraph while being more direct than the thesis of the paper.

[8] The paragraph is a unit of graphology.  It is a unit of the expression plane form, but restricted to written mode.  The paragraph is not a unit of spoken language; no-one speaks in paragraphs.  Here it is misapplied to semantics, the stratum of meaning on the content plane.

[9] This extension of the term 'hypertheme' is not justified by Martin's exposition.  Here is a summary of the 'argument':

First, two of the three types of thematic progression in Daneš (1974) are introduced.

Second, an example in text [6:34] that actually demonstrates type 1 (Rheme > Theme) is used to make the case for type 2 (Theme repetition): hyper-Theme > Theme.

Third, the clause featuring the New/Rheme ([6:34d]) is claimed to have the same function as a Topic Sentence.

Fourth, the (clause featuring the New/Rheme that is misconstrued as functioning as a) Topic Sentence is deemed to be the Theme of a graphological unit, the sentence, and termed a hyper-Theme.


In short, this convoluted argument merely disguises the fact that Martin has just rebranded Topic Sentence as hyper-Theme.