Martin (1992: 532):
A number of the key realisations for involved and uninvolved contact are surveyed below.
Pre-tonic delicacy basic tone marked tonality unmarked tonality varied rhythm constant rhythm fluent hesitant reduction processes full syllables native accent standard accent range of accents single accent acronym full form
Blogger Comments:
The claim here is that:
- the phonological feature of 'marked tonicity' construes the tenor feature of 'involved' contact (a lot of previous contact between interlocutors), whereas
- the phonological feature of 'unmarked tonicity' construes the tenor feature of 'uninvolved' contact (less previous contact between interlocutors).
Unmarked tonicity is when tonic prominence falls on the last element of clause structure containing a lexical item (or of group structure in cases where the tone group realises less than a clause). Any other tonic placement is marked (Halliday 1967: 22-3).
Martin's claim can be falsified by a concrete example. For the clause Victor Meldrew was played by Richard Wilson:
Martin's claim can be falsified by a concrete example. For the clause Victor Meldrew was played by Richard Wilson:
- tonic prominence within Victor Meldrew is claimed to construe the tenor feature of 'involved' contact (a lot of previous contact between interlocutors), whereas
- tonic prominence within Richard Wilson is claimed to construe the tenor feature of 'uninvolved' contact (less previous contact between interlocutors).
For the record, the differences between the two variants actually include:
- agency: middle vs effective, and
- direction of coding: decoding vs encoding.
middle clause decoding a Token:
Victor Meldrew
|
was played
|
by Richard Wilson
|
Identifier/Value
|
Process: relational
|
Identified/Token
|
New
|
Given
|
effective clause encoding a Value:
Victor Meldrew
|
was played
|
by Richard Wilson
|
Identified/Value
|
Process: relational
|
Identifier/Token
|
Given
|
New
|
