Asking for help

[Zouhair Maalej]

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'?

This is what Halliday and Hasan (1976) call ellipsis, which is required for
cohesion. Non-technically, the first occurrence of "the enemy" is elided
because it can be recovered therough a simple mathematical associativity
operation like you did it in "Should we observe (the enemy) or shoot the
enemy? since the goal is the same for both processes.
***************************
Dr Zouhair Maalej
Senior Fulbright Scholar
University of New Mexico
Department of Linguistics
Humanities Building 112
Albuquerque, NM 87131-1196

E-mails: zmaalej at unm.edu / zmaalej at gnet.tn / zmaalej at mail.fulbrightweb.org
URL: http://simsim.rug.ac.be/ZMaalej

Home phone: 505 / 764-6693
Office phone: 505 / 277-0928
Office fax: 505 / 277-1754
****************************************************************************
**********
ALL OUTGOING MESSAGES ARE VIRUS-SCANNED WITH Norton SystemWorks 2003
****************************************************************************
**********
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mohamad Zaki Hussein" <zaki at CENTRIN.NET.ID>
To: <DISCOURS at listserv.linguistlist.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2003 3:49 PM
Subject: Re: Asking for help


> 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
>