The "Grammaticalisation" Of Periodicity

Martin & Rose (2007: 214):

In summary then, where hierarchy of periodicity is used across many registers to orchestrate information flow, in the Act this packaging is as far as possible grammaticalised. The Act uses complex sentences where other registers would use introductions, topic sentences and paragraphs.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the only registers in which the authors' hierarchy of periodicity might be said to be used are those of written mode where writers conform to principles of writing pedagogy such as introductory paragraph (rebranded "macroTheme"), topic sentence (rebranded "hyperTheme"), paragraph summary (rebranded "hyperNew") and text summary (rebranded "macroNew"). Writing pedagogy is not linguistic theory, and spoken language does not conform to its principles.

[2] This misunderstands both grammaticalisation and stratification. To be clear, grammaticalisation is a shift in function from the lexical zone of lexicogrammar to the grammatical zone — just as lexicalisation is a shift in function from the grammatical zone of lexicogrammar to the lexical zone. Grammaticalisation cannot refer to a shift in function from semantics to grammar because semantics and grammar are different levels of abstraction of the same phenomenon: the content plane of language. It is therefore nonsensical to claim that a function can shift from semantics (Value) to grammar (Token). Again, this reflects the authors' mistaken view that strata are modules.

[3] To be clear, the "complex sentences" in the Act are clause complexes, in terms of lexicogrammar, and sequences, in terms of semantics. But, because the text makes extensive use of ideational metaphor, its sequences are incongruently realised as clauses, rather than congruently as clause complexes.