Thematic Parentheticals in Dutch and English

Authors

  • Mike Hannay VU University Amsterdam
  • María de los Ángeles Gómez-González Universidade de Santiago de Compostela

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1558/lhs.v6i1-3.99

Keywords:

discourse analysis, thematic parentheticals, parenthetical expressions

Abstract

Adopting a contrastive-rhetorical stance, this study explores what we call thematic parentheticals in a comparable English-Dutch corpus comprising four written genres. Thematic parentheticals are parenthetical expressions, irrespective of form, which are marked off typographically and occur immediately after, and are triggered by, a thematic element, where the latter is defined in terms of its treatment in Systemic Functional Grammar. Our data suggest that English uses thematic parentheticals much more than Dutch. This quantitative picture is true across the genres studied, but we also see qualitative differences between Dutch and English in the use of parentheticals in news texts and academic texts in particular. In attempting to explain the quantitative difference between the languages, we conclude that an interplay between writing cultures and basic syntactic patterns contrives to facilitate the use of parentheticals in English, which also demonstrates a relatively broad range of discourse functions, whereas for Dutch this interplay leads to a dispreference for certain kinds of thematic parentheticals.

Author Biographies

Mike Hannay, VU University Amsterdam

Mike Hannay is professor of English language at the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam. His research interests lie in the relation between grammar and discourse, particularly with regard to the organization of information at the level of the complex written sentence, and he seeks to incorporate insights from relevant research into training programmes for writers, editors and translators.

María de los Ángeles Gómez-González, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela

María de los Ángeles Gómez González is Full Professor of English Language and Linguistics at the University of Santiago de Compostela. She is also the principal investigator of the research group SCIMITAR (http://www.usc.es/scimitar/) and has published articles in numerous scholarly journals such as Applied Linguistics, Discourse Studies, Language Sciences, Word, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, Functions of Language, Interface, Southwest Journal of Linguistics, or Spanish in Context, as well as the following books: The Theme-Topic Interface: Evidence from English (John Benjamins, 2001), A New Architecture for Functional Grammar (Mouton de Gruyter, 2004), Studies in Functional Discourse Grammar (Peter de Lang, 2005), The Dynamics of Language Use: Functional and Contrastive Perspectives (Benjamins, 2005), Languages and Cultures in Contrast and Comparison (Benjamins, 2008a), and Current trends in Contrastive Linguistics: Functional and Cognitive Perspectives (Benjamins, 2008b). Personal website: http://www.usc.es/scimitar/mdlagg/index.html

References

Aarts, F. and Wekker, H. (1993) A Contrastive Grammar of English and Dutch. Groningen: Martinus Nijhoff.

Berry, Margaret (1996) What is Theme? A(nother) personal view. In M. Berry, C. S. Butler, R. Fawcett and G. Huang (eds), Meaning and Form: Systemic Functional Interpretations. Meaning and Choice in Language: Studies for Michael Halliday. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1–64.

Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. and Finnegan, F. (1999) Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.

Blakemore, D. (2005) And-parentheticals. Journal of Pragmatics 37 (8): 1165–1181. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.04.003

Blakemore, D. (2006) Divisions of labour: The analysis of parentheticals. Lingua 116 (10): 1670–1687. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2005.04.007

Burton-Roberts, N. (2005) Parentheticals. In E. K. Brown (ed.) Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edition, 179–182. Oxford: Elsevier.

Butler, C. (2003) Structure and Function. A Guide to Three Major Structural Functional Theories. Part 2: From Clause to Discourse and Beyond. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.

Chafe, W. L. (1994) Discourse, Consciousness and Time. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.

Clark, H. H. and Havilland, S. E. (1977) Comprehension and the given-new contract. In R. O. Freddle (ed.) Discourse Production and Comprehension, 1–40. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Dehé, N. and Kavalova, Y. (eds) (2007) Parentheticals. Amsterdam and Philadelphia PA: Benjamins.

Downing, A. (1991) An alternative approach to theme: a systemic-functional perspective. Word 42 (2): 119–143.

Downing, A. and Locke, P. (2006) English Grammar: A University Course (2nd edn). London and New York: Routledge.

Fawcett, R. (2003) The many types of ‘theme’ in English: Their semantic systems and their functional syntax. Unpublished manuscript, available from the Systemic Paper Archive at http://www.wagsoft.com/Systemics/Archive/Fawcett-ThemePaperv3.pdf.

Fetzer, A. (2008) Theme zones in contrast: An analysis of their linguistic realization in the communicative act of a non-acceptance. In G. González, M. de los Ángeles, J. L. Mackenzie and E. M. González Álvarez (eds), Languages and Cultures in Contrast and Comparison, 3–31. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

Ghadessy, M. (ed.) (1995) Thematic Development in English Texts. London and New York: Pinter.

Gómez-González, M. de los Ángeles (1998) A corpus-based analysis of Extended Multiple Themes in PresE. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 3 (1): 81–113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.3.1.05gom

Gómez-González, M de los Ángeles (2001) The Theme-topic Interface. Evidence from English. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

Haeseryn, W., Romijn, K., Geerts, G., de Rooij, J. and van den Toorn, M. C. (1997) Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst [= ‘General Dutch Grammar’]. 2nd edition. Groningen and Deurne: Martinus Nijhoff /Wolters Plantyn.

Halliday, M. A. K. and Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004) Introduction to Functional Grammar, 3rd edition. London: Edward Arnold.

Hannay, M. (2007) Patterns of multiple theme and their role in developing English writing skills. In C. Butler, R. Hidalgo and J. Lavid (eds), Functional Perspectives in Grammar and Discourse, 257–278. Amsterdam and Philadelphia PA: Benjamins.

Hannay, M. and Keizer, M. E. (2005) A discourse treatment of English non-restrictive nominal appositions in Functional Discourse Grammar. In J. L. Mackenzie and M. L. Á. Gómez-González (eds) Studies in Functional Discourse Grammar, 159–194. Bern: Peter Lang.

Hartnett, C. G. (1995) The pit after the theme. In M. Ghadessy (ed.) Thematic Development in English Texts, 198–212. London and New York: Pinter.

Hasan, R. and Fries, P. (eds) (1995) On Subject and Theme: A Discourse Functional Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Jalilifar, A. R. (2010) The status of theme in applied linguistics articles.Asian ESP Journal 6 (2): 7–39.

Kaltenböck, G. (2007) Position, prosody and scope: The case of English comment clauses. Vienna English Working Papers, 16 (1): 3–38.

Kane, T. S. (1988) The New Oxford Guide to Writing. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Martinez Lirola, M. (2009) Main Processes of Thematization and Postponement in English(European University Studies: Series 21, Linguistics. Vol. 347). Bern: Peter Lang.

Nash, W. (1986) English Usage: A Guide to First Principles. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Nunberg, G., Briscoe, T. and Huddleston, R. (2002) Punctuation. In R. Huddleston and G. K. Pullum (eds) The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, 1723–1764. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nwogu, K. N. (1990) Discourse Variation in Medical Texts: Schema, Theme and Cohesion in Professional and Journalistic Accounts (Monographs in Systemic Linguistics, 2) Dept. of English Studies, University of Nottingham.

Onrust, M., Verhagen, A. and Doeve, R. (1993) Formuleren [= ‘Formulating’]. Houten and Zaventem: Bohn Stafleu Van Loghum.

Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. and Svartvik, J. (1985) A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.

Ravelli, L. (2003) A dynamic perspective: implications for metafunctional interaction and an understanding of theme. In A. Simon-Vandenbergen, M. Taverniers and L. Ravelli (eds), Grammatical Metaphor, 187–234. Amsterdam and Philadelphia PA: Benjamins.

Renkema, J. (2002) Schrijfwijzer [= ‘Writing guide’]. 4th edition. The Hague: Sdu.

Schelfhout, C., Coppen, P-A. and Oostdijk, N. (2004) Finite comment clauses in Dutch: A corpus-based approach. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 16 (4): 331–349. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1470542704040437

Siepmann, D., Gallagher, J. D., Hannay, M. and Mackenzie, J. L. (2011) Writing in English: A Guide for Advanced Learners, 2nd edition. Tübingen and Basel: Francke.

Smits, A. (2002) How Writers Begin their Sentences. Complex Beginnings in Native and Learner English. LOT dissertation series 67. Utrecht: LOT.

Tavecchio, L. M. (2010) Sentence Patterns in English and Dutch: A Contrastive Corpus Analysis. LOT dissertation series 248. Utrecht: LOT.

Thompson, G. (1996) Introducing Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.

Tiggeler, E. (2005) Vraagbaak Nederlands [= Handbook for Dutch], 5th edition. The Hague: Sdu.

Published

2012-12-13

How to Cite

Hannay, M., & de los Ángeles Gómez-González, M. (2012). Thematic Parentheticals in Dutch and English. Linguistics and the Human Sciences, 6(1-3), 99–127. https://doi.org/10.1558/lhs.v6i1-3.99

Issue

Section

Thematic Structure and Meaning

Most read articles by the same author(s)