Under-Acknowledging A Significant Intellectual Source

Martin (1992: 491):

NOTES

1. …
2. The conjunction so that has been selected here since it codes the meaning of inclination; see Chapter 4.
3. …
4. The topical Theme clear in r is metaphorical (experiential) realisation of an interpersonal Theme (congruently clearly).
5. …
6. The modalised conjunctions whether, whether and if have been treated as interpersonal Themes in this analysis.
7. Fries (1981/1983: 135) complements his notion of development with that of point, which he sees as realised through Rheme; his point is interpreted as "pattern of news" here. …

Blogger Comments:

[1] The conjunction group so that realises logical meaning, a relation of expansion: enhancement: cause: purpose or result, between two clauses in a nexus.  It does not realise inclination, which is interpersonal meaning: modality: modulation; see Chapter 4 critiques.

[2] The topical Theme in clause [r] (It is clear that future generations…) is it, not clear.  Both it and clear function both experientially (Carrier and Attribute) and interpersonally (Subject and Complement).  In interpersonal terms, clearly functions as a comment Adjunct, whereas it is clear enacts a comment (modal assessment) on a proposition as an objectively oriented proposition in its own right.  If the comment Adjunct clearly had been used, then the topical Theme would have been future generations, but this is not acknowledged as a Theme in the analysis of the text.

[3] The conjunctions whether and if function as structural Themes, because they realise a logico-semantic relation between clauses in a clause nexus.  They do not function as interpersonal Themes because they do not realise values of modality.

[4] This endnote — 42 pages after the discussion — is the only acknowledgement that Martin's 'point' derives from Fries (1981).  Since Martin interprets New as the last element of clause structure, his point, like Fries', is also "realised through Rheme".