Asking for help

[Mohamad Zaki Hussein]

Dear Zouhair,

Thank you very much for your responses. My comments are below:

> (i) The answer to your first and second questions depends on a clear view of
> theme/rheme. According to Halliday (1973), the textual function of language
> depends on two types of organizing structures: the thematic and the
> information structure. In English, the clause is organised as a message
> including a theme and a rheme. The theme is WHAT THE SENTENCE IS ABOUT; the
> rheme is THE INFORMATION THE SPEAKER INTENDS TO CONVEY TO THE HEARER ABOUT
> THE THEME. I hope this answers both questions.

But I think the 'information focus' is different from the 'rheme'. While the
position of the information focus is somewhere in the rheme, it is not equal
with the rheme, it is more like the part of the rheme. So I think we could not
said that the the part which is not the theme is the 'information focus'.

> (ii) The third question has arisen because two different levels are
> confused: the paradigmatic level in the clause system corresponding to the
> thematic and the information structure and the level of processing. There is
> no problem in having new information of an implicit kind in the rheme,
> because this is in line with the inferential view of communication. NEW does
> not contradict with implicit as our inferential system takes care of
> whatever implicit meanings arise anywhere in the clause/discourse structure
> (presupposition, implicature, general inferences, etc.). It is new, but
> requiring more elaborate inferencing: what's wrong with this?

Hmm, I think I'm wrong with that illogical things, but what about "projection",
could it be that the 'information focus'  is the projection? My opinion is off
course "no", since projection is not anymore a part of the main clause, it is
already a new clause in itself. But I want to know other opinions beside mine.

> (iii) Your fourth question needs to capture the said/unsaid in discourse as
> is the practice in CDA. But again there are two levels here: It is
> understood that the employers are the implicit recipients of the demands,
> and that's why it is too obvious to mention. This implicitness is
> effortlessly recovered in calculating meaning. Even because this implicit
> part is not spelled out, we cannot classify it technically as absence.

But what do you think about this kind of 'obvious implicitness'? Isn't it
ideological in terms of omitting the one who has the power to fulfill the
demands (to increase the wages) from the text? Doesn't 'implicitness' related
with 'backgrounding' which could be potentially ideological?

Anyway in this sentence: "the company's letter says to my aunt that she is
entitled to a new teapot" (example taken from Matthiessen and Halliday, 1997),
must we said that there is an 'implicit verbiage' in the sentence, which is say
"kind things", so that the complete sentence would be: "the company's letter
says (kind things) to my aunt that she is entitled to a new teapot? Should we
call that verbiage as 'implicit meaning'  or 'absence'? Also in this sentence:
"she saw that they had crossed the road" (taken from Matthiessen and Halliday,
1997), must we said that there is an 'implicit phenomenon' in the sentence,
which is say "the evidence," so that the sentence should be like this: "she saw
(the evidence) that they had crossed the road"? Should we consider the
phenomenon as 'implicit' or 'absence'? Also in this sentence: "Should we observe
or shoot the enemy", must we said that there is an 'implicit goal' in the first
clause (Should we observe), so that it will sound  like this: "Should we observe
(the enemy) or shoot the enemy? Should we consider the goal as 'implicit' or
'absent'?

I think that's all for now. Thank you very much.

Regards,
Zaki