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.
[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.
