Cover not available
Article published In:
The dynamicity of communication below, around and above the clause
Edited by Ben Clarke and Jorge Arús-Hita
[English Text Construction 9:1] 2016
► pp. 143–164

Phasal dynamism and the unfolding of meaning as text

In this paper I explore the etic category of textuality and the emic category of Theme arguing that while Theme in English may simultaneously signal the point of departure of a clause with respect to the preceding text and also the ‘aboutness’ of the clause in relation to the method of development of a text, this is not necessarily the case with other languages. In particular I consider the rich textual resources of Scottish Gaelic, a verb-initial language with no morphological marking for Theme, to problematise standard treatments of thematicity in languages other than English. I elaborate on Cloran’s (2010) account of Rhetorical Units to present as a hypothesis for further exploration the idea that, while Gaelic and English ground clauses in both space and time, Gaelic is a process-centred language while English is a Subject-centred language and that these differences in the respective characterology of the two languages have repercussions on the process of textualisation and the method of development in each language.
Keywords: Rhetorical Unit, Gaelic, Theme, textuality, textualisation
Published online: 30 June 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.9.1.08bar
References (29)
Andersen, Thomas Hestbaek, Morten Boeris, Eva Maagerø & Elise Seip Tønnessen. 2015. Social Semiotics: Key Figures, New Directions. London and New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arús Hita, Jorge. 2007. On the aboutness of theme. In Proceedings of the 30th International AEDEAN Conference, María Losada, Pilar Ron, Sonia Hernández & Jorge Casanova (eds). Huelva: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Huelva. [URL] (Last accessed on 29 December 2015).Google Scholar
Bartlett, Tom. 2015. Multiscalar modelling of context: Some questions raised by the category of Mode. In Essays in Honour of Ruqaiya Hasan: Society in Language, Language in Society, Wendy Bowcher & Jennifer Yameng Liang (eds). London and New York: Palgrave, 166–183.Google Scholar
Berry, Margaret. 1996. What is Theme? A(nother) personal view. In Meaning and Form: Systemic Functional Perspectives, Robin P. Fawcett, Margaret Berry, Christopher Butler & Guowen W. Huang (eds). Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1–64.Google Scholar
Caffarel, Alice, James R. Martin & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen (eds). 2004. Language Typology: A Functional Perspective. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004a. Foreword. In Caffarel, et al., xi–xiii. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004b. Introduction. In Caffarel, et al., 1–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cloran, Carmel. 2010. Rhetorical unit analysis and Bakhtin’s chronotope. Functions of Language 17 (1): 9–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1994. Rhetorical Units and Decontextualisation: An Enquiry into some Relations of Context, Meaning and Grammar (Monographs in Systemic Linguistics 6). University of Nottingham.Google Scholar
Daneš, František. 1974. Functional sentence perspective and the organization of the text. In Papers on Functional Sentence Perspective, František Daneš (ed.). The Hague: Mouton, 106–128.Google Scholar
Fawcett, Robin P. 2003. The many types of ‘Theme’ in English: Their semantic systems and functional syntax. Unpublished mimeo. [URL] (Last accessed on 30 December 2015).Google Scholar
Firbas, Jan. 1992a. Functional Sentence Perspective in Written and Spoken Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1992b. On some basic problems of functional sentence perspective. In Advances in Systemic Linguistics: Recent Theory and Practice, Martin Davies & Louise Ravelli (eds). London: Pinter, 167–188.Google Scholar
Fries, Peter. 1995. Themes, methods of development, and texts. In On Subject and Theme: A Discourse Functional Perspective, Ruqaiya Hasan & Peter Fries (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 317–360. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. The textual metafunction as a site for the discussion of the goals of linguistics and techniques of linguistic analysis. In Text Type and Structure, Gail Forey & Geoff Thompson (eds). London and Oakville: Equinox, 8–44.Google Scholar
Gregory, Michael. 1988. Generic situation and register: A functional view of communication. In Linguistics in a Systemic Perspective, James D. Benson, Michael Cummings & William Greaves (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 301–329. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K. 1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 2nd edition. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K & Ruqayia Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 3rd edition. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K. & Jonathan J. Webster. 2014. Text Linguistics: The How and Why of Meaning. Sheffield and Bristol: Equinox.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. II: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
MacDonald, Flora. 2009. Còco is Crùbagan. Cocoa and Crabs. A Hebridean Childhood. South Lochs: Islands Books Trust.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, Lachlan J. 2009. Aspects of the interpersonal grammar of Gaelic. Linguistics 47 (4): 885–911. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacLean, Iain. 2009. Cogadh Ruairidh. Dingwall: Sandstone Press.Google Scholar
Mann, William C., Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen & Sandra Thompson. 1992. Rhetorical structure theory and text analysis. In Discourse Description: Diverse Linguistic Analyses of a Fund-Raising Text, William C. Mann & Sandra A. Thompson (eds). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 39–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mathesius, Vilém. 1964. On linguistic characterology with illustrations from Modern English. In A Prague School Reader in Linguistics, Josef Vachek (ed.). Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 59–67.Google Scholar
O’Grady, Gerard. 2010. A Grammar of Spoken English Discourse: the Intonation of Increments. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah. 1993. What’s in a frame? Surface evidence for underlying expectations. In Framing in Discourse, Deborah Tannen (ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 14–56.Google Scholar
Cited by (8)

Cited by eight other publications

Gentens, Caroline, Lobke Ghesquière, William B. McGregor & An Van linden
2023. Introduction. Reconnecting form and meaning. In Reconnecting Form and Meaning [Studies in Language Companion Series, 230], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Wegener, Rebekah & Lise Fontaine
2023. A Functional Approach to Context. In The Cambridge Handbook of Language in Context, ► pp. 116 ff. DOI logo
Arús-Hita, Jorge
2022. A contrastive look at Theme as point of departure in English and Spanish academic writing. English Text Construction 15:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Bartlett, Tom
2021. Interpersonal Grammar in Scottish Gaelic. In Interpersonal Grammar, ► pp. 257 ff. DOI logo
Bartlett, Tom
2023. Chapter 3. Atopicality as the unmarked logical structure in Scottish Gaelic. In Reconnecting Form and Meaning [Studies in Language Companion Series, 230], ► pp. 71 ff. DOI logo
Bowcher, Wendy L.
2021. Context of situation and the role of language. Functions of Language 28:3 ► pp. 315 ff. DOI logo
Wegener, Rebekah
2019. What makes a text a text?. Functions of Language 26:1 ► pp. 28 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2017. Looking ahead: systemic functional linguistics in the twenty-first century. In The Routledge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics, ► pp. 658 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 2 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.