Rhapsodising On The Complementarity Of Method Of Development And Point

Martin (1992: 489):

In short, method of development is where a text is coming from; point is where it's going to.  Theme is how a speaker looks at things; New is where she takes the listener to.  Hyper-Theme is what a speaker is going to say; hyper-New is what a listener's learned.  Macro-Theme is their way in; macro-New is where they've been.  A text is a trip: method of development is the route taken, while point is why you went there in the first place — what you've seen/learned/experienced/taken away.  Method of development is the plan; point is the holiday.

Blogger Comments:

[1] These characterisations of method of development and point are concerned with the experiential meaning that is textually highlighted, rather than the textual highlighting itself.  This can be demonstrated by glossing the two terms as follows:

• introductory paragraph, topic sentences and Themes is where the text is coming from;
• News, paragraph summaries and text summary is where it's going to.

[2] Again, these characterisations of Theme and New are concerned with the experiential meaning that is textually highlighted, rather than the textual highlighting itself.  Theme is the giving of textual prominence to what is the point of departure of the clause as message.  Theme can highlight textual and interpersonal elements as well as the experiential.  New is the giving of textual prominence to what the speaker regards as unrecoverable to the listener.  New can highlight textual and interpersonal elements as well as the experiential.

[3] Here the concern is writing pedagogy, not linguistic theory, and the focus is on experiential meaning, rather than textual highlighting.  This can be demonstrated by glossing the two terms as follows:

• topic sentence is what a speaker is going to say
• paragraph summary is what a listener's learned

[4] A paragraph summary is meaning created by the speaker (writer).  In contradistinction, what a listener has learned from a text is meaning created by the listener.

[5] Here the concern is again writing pedagogy, not linguistic theory, and the focus is on experiential meaning, rather than textual highlighting.  This can be demonstrated by glossing the two terms as follows:

• introductory paragraph is their way in
• text summary is where they've been.

[6] In terms of the metaphor 'a text is a trip', 'the route taken' also includes the meanings not included in the introductory paragraph, topic sentences and Themes.  The entire text is 'the route taken'.

[7] The claim of this metaphor is that News, paragraph summaries and text summary is 'why you went there in the first place'.  This misconstrues the meaning of point in terms of cause: purpose, and ascribes it to the interlocutors, rather than the text.

[8] This can be glossed as follows:

• introductory paragraph, topic sentences and Themes are the plan (of the trip);
• News, paragraph summaries and text summary are the holiday (of the trip).

In terms of the metaphor 'a text is a trip', all the meanings of the entire text constitute the trip (holiday).

Rhapsodising On Method Of Development

Martin (1992: 489):

Method of development takes these harmonising meanings, and finds a peg to hang them on — it establishes an angle on the field.  This angle will be sensitive to a text's generic structure where this is realised in stages.  Method of development is the lens through which a field is constructed; of all the experiential meanings available in a given field, it will pick on just a few, and weave them through Theme time and again to ground the text — to give interlocutors something to hang onto, something to come back to — an orientation, a perspective, a point of view, a perch, a purchase.

Blogger Comments:

[1] It is instructive to compare these metaphors with Martin's model.  Martin's method of development is a mixture of writing pedagogy and linguistic theory.  Martin supplies the writing pedagogy, rebranding introductory paragraph as macro-Theme, and topic sentence as hyper-Theme, whereas Halliday supplies the linguistic theory: Theme as point of departure for the clause as message (textual metafunction).  Martin's method of development is the progression of experiential meaning that is highlighted by inclusion in an introductory paragraph, topic sentences, and clause Themes.

[2] It is because Martin focuses on the experiential meaning that is textually highlighted, rather than on the textual system that does the highlighting, that he believes that method of development 'establishes an angle on the field' — the ideational dimension of context — keeping in mind that what Martin regards as "field" includes ideational semantics and involves a misconstrual of context as register.

Importantly, interpersonal and textual meanings are also given thematic prominence — e.g. modal adjuncts such as allegedly and conjunctive adjuncts such as nevertheless, respectively — but these are ignored in this focus on experiential meaning.

[3] Consider the "development" of a text that keeps returning to the same Theme, the same point of departure 'time and again'.

Misconstruing A Grammatical Reference Item As An Accumulation Of New Information

Martin (1992: 459):

Hyper- and macro-News, like hyper- and macro-Themes are more prominent in written than spoken English.  However, just as marked Themes were shown to functional [sic] in parallel ways to hyper-Themes in spoken mode, so extended reference can be shown to function in parallel ways to hyper-News.  Two excerpts from text [4:2] are re-presented below to illustrate this point.  This in [4:2ff & ii] and that in [4:2aaa & ccc] are used to accumulate the actions in the activity sequences that have gone before in a way which complements their scaffolding with marked Themes as discussed in 6.3.2.  Extended reference is in other words to hyper-New as marked Theme is to hyper-Theme:

Synoptic : Dynamic ::

(WRITTEN : SPOKEN ::)

hyper-Theme : marked Theme ::

hyper-New : extended reference

Blogger Comments:

[1] In text [4:2], or any other text, the grammatical items this and that do not "accumulate" (or summarise) previous New information.  As instances of anaphoric demonstrative reference, they refer back to earlier information, which may have been presented as Given and/or New.

[2] For Martin, activity sequences in the text are misconstrued as field, the ideational dimension of context, and this, in turn, is misconstrued as register.

[3] Glossing Martin's terms, these proportionalities become:

• an anaphoric demonstrative reference item in spoken mode is to
• a paragraph summary in written mode as
• a marked Theme of a clause in spoken mode is to
• a topic sentence in written mode.

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.

Misrepresenting New Information

Martin (1992: 453-4):

The pattern of hyper- and macro-Themes recognised in 6.3.2 above raises the question of whether a similar symbolic pattern arises based on New.  Reviewing text [6:23] it can be seen that hyper- and macro-New are also important aspects of texture, particularly in abstract writing.  The function of hyper-New is illustrated in [6:23l] below; this clause pulls together and summarises the information build up in the rest of the paragraph. … 

Hyper-New [is] single underlined … in the following representation of [6:23]; the minimal News of remaining clauses appear in bold-face.

[6:23]	(illustrating New, hyper-New …)
	a	Wars are costly exercises.
	b	They cause death and destruction
	c	and put resources to non-productive uses
	d	but they also promote industrial and economic change.
	e	This benefit does not mean that war is a good thing, but that it sometimes brings useful developments.
	f	The Second World War further encouraged the restructuring of the Australian economy towards a manufacturing basis.
	g	Between 1937 and 1945 the value of industrial production almost doubled.
	h	This increase was faster than otherwise would have occurred.
	i	The momentum was maintained in the post-war years
	j	and by 1954-5 the value of manufacturing output was three times that of 1944-5.
	k	The enlargement of Australia’s steel-making capacity, and of chemicals, rubber, metal goods and motor vehicles all owed something to the demands of war.
	l	The war had acted as something of a hothouse for technological progress and economic change.

Blogger Comments:

[1] The field here is again writing pedagogy, rather than linguistic theory.

[2] The paragraph is a unit of graphology, the expression plane of language realising written mode.  It is not a unit of linguistic content.

[3] New is not a functional component of the clause.  It is the obligatory element of the information unit, which is parallel with the clause.  The distribution of information units in a text is indicated by the phonological system of tonality, which specifies the distribution of tone groups, because an information unit is realised by a tone group.  The culmination of New information, the information focus, is indicated by the phonological system of tonicity, which specifies the location of tonic prominence, because the information focus is realised by tonic prominence.

In contrast, in the analysis of text [6:23], the New is arbitrarily assigned to the last functional element of the Rheme of the clause, regardless of intonation, graphological indications of tone group boundaries, lexical density, and so on.  The possibility of New information in the Theme, a very frequent feature of discourse, is ruled out by such a rigid, arbitrary approach.

Some of the likely foci of New information in text [6:23], based on a spoken reading, and overlooked by the arbitrary approach, are highlighted above in dark red.

Confusing The Textual And Interpersonal Metafunctions

Martin (1992: 448):

Considered from the the perspective of group rank as opposed to clause rank meanings, all of the topical Themes in [6:30] are in fact 'interpersonal' ones: first and second person pronouns (I, you, you, you, I, we, you, you, we) and the metaphorical modulation my responsibilities.  So the method of development of this text is an interactive one: the sitting member is concerned to engage his constituent.  The association of unmarked Theme and Subject in English means that these interpersonal considerations are better pursued during the discussion of modal responsibility in 6.3.4 below.  It is important to note at this point however that a pattern of Theme selection which foregrounds interpersonal meaning will not lend itself to he experientially oriented macro-Theme, hyper-Theme, Theme interaction reviewed above.  It is for this reason that school rhetoric has long cautioned against writing in the first person (although it has also long forgotten why this is so).

Blogger Comments:

[1] This confuses the textual metafunction (method of development) with the interpersonal metafunction (speaker-addressee 'engagement').

[2] To be clear, the "interaction" in this written monologic text is merely the use of the 'speech rôle' pronouns I, we (speaker) and you (addressee).

[3] This confuses the textual metafunction (Theme and method of development) with the interpersonal metafunction (Subject as the carrier of modal responsibility).

[4] To be clear, in saying 'a pattern of Theme selection which foregrounds interpersonal meaning' Martin means 'speech rôle' personal pronouns serving as topical (experiential) Themes.

[5] This is even manifestly untrue within Martin's model, since macro-Themes (Introductory Paragraphs) and hyper-Themes (Topic Sentences) can "predict" the appearance of (anaphorically referring) personal pronouns as Themes.

[6] Clearly, any proscriptions against writing in the first person do not derive from writers being unable to apply Martin's pedagogical model.

In SFL theory, this is a matter of variation according to the text type (register) and the situation type (cultural context) it realises.  Prescription and proscription arise in pedagogy when usuality (modalisation) is reconstrued as obligation (modulation).

A False Conclusion Invalidly Argued From False Premises

Martin (1992: 447):

This pattern of marked Themes in [4:2] is the dynamic equivalent of the synoptic metaphorical hyper-Themes discussed above. But in spoken mode the marked Themes punctuate rather than predict, annotating the text in episodes as it unfolds rather than scaffolding it as a macro-constituent structure that is in some sense preconceived. Seen in this light hyper-Themes can be interpreted as a further category of textual metaphor: a hyper-Theme is an [sic] metaphorical marked Theme.

Blogger Comment:

The invalidity of this argument can be made more obvious by making the text less opaque.  This can be done by glossing three of the terms used, as follows:

• (metaphorical) hyper-Theme = Topic Sentence (involving nominalisation)
• punctuate = interrupt
• annotate = add notes to a text, giving explanation or comment

Martin's argument now becomes:

This pattern of marked Themes in [4:2] is the dynamic equivalent of the synoptic Topic Sentences involving nominalisation discussed above. But in spoken mode the marked Themes interrupt rather than predict, providing comments on the text in episodes as it unfolds rather than scaffolding it as a macro-constituent structure that is in some sense preconceived. Seen in this light Topic Sentences can be interpreted as a further category of textual metaphor: a Topic Sentence is a metaphorical marked Theme.

The argument, then, is as follows.

Because

• marked topical Themes interrupting and providing comments on a spoken text (in episodes as it unfolds) 
• are the (dynamic) equivalent of 
• (synoptic) Topic sentences involving nominalisations scaffolding a written text (as a macro-constituent structure),

it logically follows that

• a Topic sentence involving nominalisation 
• is a metaphorical 
• marked Theme.

Leaving aside the false claims of the premises — including the claim that marked topical Themes provide comments on ("annotate") spoken texts — the validity of the argument rests on the assumption that the written counterpart of a spoken language feature constitutes textual grammatical metaphor.

This, of course, is not consistent with the notion of grammatical metaphor.

Grammatical metaphor is the incongruent grammatical realisation of semantic selections.  It is, in the first instance, an incongruent relation between the two levels of content: semantics (meaning) and lexicogrammar (wording).

Considering now the conclusion of the argument, to say that 'a hyper-Theme is a metaphorical marked Theme' is to say that:

• a Topic Sentence is the metaphorical realisation of what would be congruently realised as a marked topical Theme of a clause.

That is to say, an unspecified semantic choice (textual metafunction) is realised 

• congruently in the grammar as a marked topical Theme, and 
• incongruently in the grammar as a Topic Sentence, which is itself a type of graphological unit construed as part of a discourse semantic interaction pattern.

Conclusion:

Martin's argument proceeds from false premises, is invalidated by a false assumption, and ends with a false (and internally inconsistent) conclusion.

Confusing Writing Pedagogy With Linguistic Theory

Martin (1992: 444):

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.

Blogger Comments:

[1] 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.

[2] 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.

[3] 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.

[4] Professional public speakers who write their speeches beforehand can also make use of the scaffolding offered by writing pedagogy.

[5] 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.

[6] 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).

[7] 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.

Locating Graphological Units 'Above' A Grammatical Unit

Martin (1992: 443-4):

Clearly, in longer texts, this pattern of macro-Themes predicting hyper-Themes can be extended, with hyper-Themes themselves functioning as macro-Themes in their own right… .  Schematically, the thematic relationships being introduced here are outlined in Fig. 6.10, with the proviso that a text may be organised thematically around more than the three levels shown.  As noted above, the lowest level hyper-Themes in a text are referred to traditionally as Topic Sentences and the highest level "macro"-Themes as Introductions.

 

Fig. 6.10. Solidarity across levels of Theme

Blogger Comments:

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

Clearly, in longer texts, this pattern of Introductory Paragraphs predicting Topic Sentences can be extended, with Topic Sentences themselves functioning as Introductory Paragraphs in their own right.

[2] In SFL theory, these "predictions" correspond to non-structural cohesive relations — lexical and grammatical (reference) — between the wording realised in Introductory Paragraphs, the wording realised in Topic Sentences, and the wording of clause Themes.

[3] To be clear, removing Martin's re-brandings, this schema becomes:

[4] To be clear, in this model, the levels of "Theme" are the Introductory Paragraph, the Topic Sentence and the Theme of a clause.  The top two levels, the paragraph and the sentence, are rank units of the expression plane: the stratum of graphology, whereas the lowest level, the clause, is a rank unit of the content plane: the stratum of lexicogrammar.

The re-branding of Introductory Paragraph and Topic Sentence as macro-Theme and hyper-Theme helps to conceal this theoretical inconsistency.

Questions "Predicting" Answers

Martin (1992: 438):

The obvious candidate for macro-Theme in a writing exercise of this kind is the question: What would you like to do at the end of your rehabilitation? And like to do does predict the hyper-Themes of the reply:

My first choice is to go back to work at the hospital.
I would also like to go to a sheltered workshop.

Blogger Comments:

[1] A macro-Theme (of a text) is Martin's rebranding of 'introductory paragraph'; see previous post.  Here a question from an interviewer — which the interviewee spends the rest of the text answering — is interpreted as functioning the same an introductory paragraph.

[2] A hyper-Theme (of a paragraph) is Martin's rebranding of 'topic sentence'; see previous post. Here two of the interviewee's responses to the interviewer's question are each interpreted as functioning the same as a topic sentence.

[3] Here an interviewer's demand for information is interpreted as "predicting" the requested information given by an interviewee.  That is, a question is said to "predict" the answer it requests.  However, the question only solicits a reply, it does not predict the actual information given in the reply — the lexical cohesion of like–choice–like notwithstanding.

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.

Confusing Graphology And Semantics

Martin (1992: 437):

For English Text then, a hyper-Theme is an introductory sentence or group of sentences which is established to predict a particular pattern of interaction among strings, chains and Theme selection in following sentences — It is the child of wisdom and chance is the hyper-Theme of [6:34].  On the basis of this definition of hyper-Theme, the term macro-Theme can be defined as [a] sentence or group of sentences (possibly a paragraph) which predicts a set of hyper-Themes; this is the introductory paragraph of school rhetoric.  The proportionalities being set up here [are] as follows:

macro-Theme : text ::  hyper-Theme : paragraph ::  Theme : clause

Blogger Comments:

[1] Sentences and paragraphs are graphological units — units of the expression plane in written not spoken mode.  Here they are misconstrued as semantic units.

[2] In the dynamic unfolding of a text, logogenesis, a hyper-Theme does not predict future Themes. Any "prediction" is a retrospective analysis that is only made after the fact by taking a synoptic view of a written text.

[3] This "introductory (Topic) sentence" is preceded by a three-clause complex that introduces the topic of the discourse: the English Constitution.

[4] Just as the meaning of the Greek prefix 'hyper-' is above, over or beyond, the meaning of the Greek prefix 'macro-' is long or large.  That is, this (poor) choice of terminology results in the Theme of the largest unit, the (semantic) text, being a long- or large-Theme, and the Theme of the next largest unit, the (graphological) paragraph, being an above-, over- or beyond-Theme.

[5] That is, 'macro-Theme' is merely Martin's re-branding of 'introductory paragraph'.

[6] The proportionalities being set up here are as follows:

textual function of semantic unit : 

textual function of graphological unit :

textual function of grammatical unit

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.