Discontinuous Residue and Theme in Higher-Order Semiotic: A Case for Interlocking Systems

Authors

University of Tehran

Abstract

 
The fallacy persists in discourse analysis research to explore lexicogrammatical phenomena detached from any adjacent plane of the meaning potential. In an attempt to dispel this and toss out some preconceived notions about what a modern SFG vantage point should involve, this study homes in on one aspect of SFG within prose fiction in particular, which is very revealing in terms of how separate system networks are actually in synergistic simultaneity, and how SFG allows one , phenomenally well, to bring such synergies out, getting to the heart of the fact that language pervasively operates on multiple planes of textuality simultaneously. Thus, building upon Halliday’s 2004 work, the quest is if it is interpersonally significant when the Residue is split into two parts; more importantly, if it is also laced with some lexicogrammatical quality on the textual plane, in light of the fairly well-entrenched assumption that there is always Theme at work when the Residue is split. Halliday is the only scholar to touch upon the topic of Discontinuous Residue and its relationship to Marked Theme in the culmination of his groundbreaking career, i.e. his 2004 work. Having driven home the proposal to make into a watchword the ubiquity of interlocking macro-semantic system networks, some pedagogical and research implications and suggestions flowing from this are brought up.
 
 
 

Keywords


Carter,  R., Goddard,  A., Reah, D., Sanger, K. &  Bowring,  M  .  (2001).  Working  with  texts:   A  core   introduction  to  language  analysis. London: Routledge.

Collie,  J.  & Slater,  S. (1987). Literature in the language classroom: A resource book of ideas and activities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Eggins, S. (1994).An introduction to systemic functional linguistics. London: Continuum.

Fries, H. P. (2002).  The  flow of  information   in  a  written  English  text.  In  H.P.  Fries, M. Cummings,  D.  Lockwood,   and   W.  Spruiell,  (eds),  Relations  and functions within  and around language. pp. 117-156.London: Continuum.

Fries,  H.P.  (1994). On Theme, rheme, and discourse goals. In M. Coulthard, (ed), Advances in written discourse analysis. pp. 229-250. London: Routledge.

Ghadessy, M. (1995). Thematic development in English text. London: Pinter.

Halliday,  M.A.K. &  Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. (1999).Construing experience through meaning: A language-based approach to cognition. London: Continuum.  

Halliday,  M.A.K. & Matthiessen,  C.M.I.M.  (2004).  An  introduction  to functional grammar.  London: Arnold.

Knowles, M. & Moon, R. (2006).Introducing metaphor. London: Routledge.

Long, M.  (1986).  A  Feeling  for  Language: The  Multiple  Values  of  Teaching  Literature.  In C.J. Brumfit,  and  R.A.  Carter,   (Eds),  Literature and language teaching. pp. 67-89  Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lotfipour –Saedi ,   K.    (2006).   Towards    the   textuality   of   a  text:   A grammar  for communication. Tabriz: Foruzesh.

Martin ,  J. R. ,  Matthiessen,  C. M. I. M. ,  &  Painter,  C.   (1997).   Working   with   functional grammar. London: Arnold.

Martin,  J.R.  &   Rose,  D.   (2003).  Working   with  discourse:  meaning  beyond   the  clause. London: Continuum.

Matthiessen,  C.M.I.M.  &   Halliday,  M.A.K.   (1997).   Systemic functional grammar: A first step   into   the    theory.   Internet   Document   at   ‘http :  //  minerva.  ling.  mq.  edu.  au/ . Retrieved 2005/12/25.

McKay,  S.L.  (2001).  Literature  as  content  for ESL/EFL. In M. Celce-Murcia, (ed), Teaching English as a second or foreign language. pp. 319-330. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Morley,  D.G.  (2000).  Syntax  in  functional  grammar:  An  introduction to lexicogrammar in systemic linguistics. London: Continuum.

Thompson, G. (2004).Introducing functional grammar. London: Arnold.

Ventola,  E.  (1988).   Text   analysis   in  operation:  a  multilevel approach. In R.P. Fawcett, and D. Young, (Eds), New developments in systemic linguistics. pp. 52-75.  London: Pinter.