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.

Misunderstanding Internal Conjunction (inter alia)

Martin (1992: 436):

This interaction of lexical strings with Theme is itself associated with [6:34]'s internal conjunctive structure.  The text justifies the claim that the English constitution is the child of wisdom and chance with two examples ([6:34e-f] and [6:34g-q]).  The Themes in [6:34e+f] and in [6:34g+i] scaffold this rhetorical structure.  This three-way pattern of interaction (conjunctive relations, lexical strings and Theme) is outlined in Fig. 6.8.

Figure 6.8. Interaction of internal conjunction, lexical strings and Theme in [6:34]

Blogger Comments:

[1] Contrary to the analysis depicted in Figure 6.8, two of the examples presented as Theme, [d] and [k], do not constitute the Theme of their respective clauses.  In the case of [d], this is acknowledged in the text of the following page, but its inclusion in the diagram is a deliberate fudge in order to ease in the notion of hyper-Theme (see the following posts).

[2] There are no internal conjunctive relations in this text — implicit or otherwise.  As previously explained, in the case of temporal conjunction in textual cohesion, the distinction between internal and external relations is the distinction between the temporal unfolding of the discourse (interpersonal time) and the temporal sequence of the processes referred to (experiential time), respectively (Halliday & Matthiessen 2004: 545).  Here is the complete text for verification:

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.  It is the child of wisdom and chance.  The wise men of 1688 moulded it into the shape we know, but the chance that George I could not speak English gave it one of its essential peculiarities — the system of a cabinet independent of the crown and subordinate to the Prime Minister.  The wisdom of Lord Grey saved it from petrification, and set it upon the path of democracy.  Then chance intervened once more.  A female sovereign happened to marry an able and pertinacious man, and it seemed likely that an element which had been quiescent within it for years — the element of irresponsible administrative power — was about to become its predominant characteristic and change completely the direction of its growth.  But what chance gave chance took away.  The Consort perished in his prime, and the English Constitution, … , continued its mysterious life dropping the dead limb with hardly a tremor as if he had never been.

[3] This confuses metafunctions.  'Justifying a claim' describes the text in terms of its interpersonal enactments (and ideational construals), rather than in terms of its textual highlighting (e.g Theme) and textual transitions (e.g. cohesive conjunction).

[4] What the author does textually is to take the New information in [d] wisdom and chance and highlight each of them in turn by giving thematic status, thereby making them the (Given) point of departure for the introduction of further New information.  In SFL theory, it is this, combined with the non-structural textual resources — those of lexical and grammatical cohesion — that create the texture of this text.

Misanalysing A Clause Complex And Its Clauses

Martin (1992: 434-6):

Topical Themes are in bold face in this text, and marked topical Themes are underlined … .

[6:34]	topical themes (underlined) [sic]
	j.	A female soverieign happened to marry an able and pertinaceous man,
	k.	and it seemed likely that an element which had been quiescent within it for years — the element of irresponsible administrative power — was about to become its predominate characteristic
	l.	and change completely the direction of its growth.

… Note that grammatical metaphor has been drawn on to weave these particular strings through Theme and to formulate the appropriate "hyper-Theme" predicting this interaction pattern.  … modalisation is dressed up as a quality in [6:34k] — likely.

Blogger Comments:

[1] There are only two, not three, ranking clauses in this clause complex; clause [l] is embedded:

A female sovereign happened to marry an able and pertinacious man,	and it seemed likely [[that an element which had been quiescent within it for years — the element of irresponsible administrative power — was about to become its predominate characteristic || and change completely the direction of its growth.]]
1	+ 2

[2] The (unmarked topical) Theme of the second clause is it.  The word likely is within the Rheme — not marked topical Theme.  This is an instance of postposed Subject, not predicated Theme, and as an interpersonal metaphor of modality, it seemed likely is an interpersonal Theme, not a topical Theme.

and	it	seemed	likely	[[that an element which had been quiescent within it for years — the element of irresponsible administrative power — was about to become its predominate characteristic || and change completely the direction of its growth.]]
Theme		Rheme

[3] In terms of ideational meaning, this is a quality of projection; see Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 211).  The realisation of a quality as an Attribute, as it is here, is not metaphorical.

and	it	seemed	likely	[[that an element which had been quiescent within it for years — the element of irresponsible administrative power — was about to become its predominate characteristic || and change completely the direction of its growth.]]
	Carr-	Process: relational	Attribute	-ier

The grammatical metaphor with regard to likely is interpersonal — a metaphor of modality: the explicit objective realisation of probability as it seemed likely.

It is this interpersonal metaphor that engenders a postposed Subject — see Halliday & Matthiessen 2004: 97-8) — which is realised by an embedded clause complex that is lexically dense with ideational metaphor:

and	it	seemed		likely	[[that an element which had been quiescent within it for years — the element of irresponsible administrative power — was about to become its predominate characteristic || and change completely the direction of its growth.]]
	Subject	Finite	Predicator	Complement	postposed Subject

In terms of the textual metafunction, all the work here is being done by the marked distribution of information units, not by thematic structure.  The combined effect of the interpersonal and ideational metaphor is to package the quanta of information into four or five information units, highlighting four or five elements of New information, co-extensive with the postposed Subject.  It is New information that is most textually relevant here, not Theme.

that an element which had been quiescent within it	for years
Given	New

the element of	irresponsible administrative power
Given	New

was about to become	its predominate characteristic
Given	New

and change	completely
Given	New

the direction of its growth

New