Herb,
   Your anlaysis might convince me if we were using "default position" to
predict how a sentence might be intoned in speech (independent of
written form.) We do very much have alternative intonations available,
and any good actor/actress will play with lines that way. When we
write, though, unless we want to use the BOLDFACE option in typeface,
with no human voice available to intone it, all we have available is
the organization of the clause (helped by punctuation), and in that
situation, default patterns are hugely operative. Put quite bluntly,
some writers sound good and some sound awkward, and we ought to be able
to make observations about that based on a sense of how language works
in a discourse context, in this case writing. Believe me, I use this
insight all the time, and I suspect many writing teachers, who may just
put "awkward" in the margin in these cases, might benefit from a closer
look.
   Maybe there is a huge problem created by different mind-frames in
trying to use knowledge about language in service of literacy and
writing. I give you a number of sentences that seem to me to show that
effective writing is patterned a certain way,(to take advantage of
default patterns of stress), and you write back that the theory behind
this is wrong. Are the examples irrelevant? Is there no way to harness
linguistics to observations about effective writing? Since awkward
sentence and effective sentences are equally grammatical, does the
science end there?
   Halliday makes it clear that tonic stress is functional, and he does
present theme/rheme, given/new, and tonal stress patterns as
independent, but closely interconnected. There are good functional
reasons for altering default patterns, but that does not mean that the
"normal" category isn't pulled into play when a human voice is
unavailable and all we have are written words. Some writers have an
"ear" for writing, and I believe that we can understand what the ear is
hearing when it hears so well.
  These aren't rules in the way the term gets bandied about on list, but
patterns, meaning-making patterns, that a careful writer can exploit.

Craig

Craig,
>
>
>
> The next couple of points are obvious, and I state them only to provide
> context.  English, like many languages, prefers to place new information
> at the end of a sentence and to that information with tonic accent.
> However, we are also able to place tonic accent just about anywhere we
> want in a sentence, not just at the end.  We may also choose to
> introduce new information initially as marked theme, in which tonic
> accent is on that initial element.  When Halliday says that tonal stress
> tends to fall on the last lexical elements of the clause, he is not
> saying why, and that is because focus position will draw tonic accent.
> He does, of course, make that point elsewhere.  However, it's because
> the distribution information and of tonic accent are partially
> independent of one another that I object to the notion "default
> intonation."  What used to be describes as the 231 intonation pattern of
> a declarative sentence may be the most frequent, although I don't know
> of any statistical work on this, but that doesn't make it the default
> pattern.  Too many variables are involved.
>
>
>
> Herb
>
>
>
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
> Sent: 2008-02-29 11:52
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Right- and left-branching sentences and intonation
>
>
>
> Herb,
>   I think there are default positions, and it has been laid out.
> Halliday at least says that tonal stress tends to fall on the last
> lexical elements in the clause. One problem might be that a linguist
> feels constrained about proclaiming one text more effective than
> another, but the ear certainly hears it.
>     Have you seen "No country for Old Men?"
>     "Yes, I have seen it twice." The emphasis here is on "yes" (marked
> theme) and "twice" (clause ending prominence.)
>     "Yes, twice I have seen it" sounds awkward precisely because the
> clause ends with given information, not new information, so there's a
> disjunct between form (tonal prominence) and salience. The reader tries
> to put default emphasis on "it" or "seen". The second feels wordy even
> though the words are the same.
>     "Give me liberty or give me death." Compare that to "give me liberty
> or death should be given." Or even "give me liberty or death." The first
> portions emphasis out in two spots, the second is discordant, and the
> third reduces tonal emphasis to one.
>    "These are the times that try men's souls" is much better than "the
> times that try men's souls are these."
>    Writing tends to load more information into a clause. (Halliday calls
> it "lexically dense".) Much of the pressure comes on the nominal groups.
> But there's no question that lexical density severely impacts
> readability. That's the argument Christensen makes against the sentence
> combining advocates who see lexical density as a sign of "mature style."
> The free modifier adds an intonation group. (Not his term, but it wasn't
> available to him at the time.) It's a very detail rich way of writing,
> but also very accessible. Counting it as part of the main clause can be
> misleading.
>
> Craig
>
>
> STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote:
>
> Craig,
>
> This is generally a reasonable description of some of the relationships
> between intonation, structure, and punctuation.  As a functionalist, I'm
> surprised you didn't add some comments on information loading as well.
> The one point I'd disagree with is your reference to default intonation.
> I don't think there is such a thing.  A default intonation pattern
> presupposes that there are default distributions of information, and we
> don't know enough about discourse production to define that notion.
>
> Herb
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> interface at:
>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
>
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
>
>
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
> at:
>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/