Cover not available
Article published In:
English Text Construction
Vol. 17:1 (2024) ► pp.1–28

The thematic organization of consumer safety instructions in English

ORCID logo | University of Gothenburg
This study investigates how the content of consumer safety instructions is organized in Themes and N-Rhemes and connected by thematic progressions. The Themes are chiefly directives or representations of the product and its usage. The goal of safety instructions, on the other hand, i.e. avoiding dangers and their negative outcomes, is mainly represented in the N-Rhemes. Thematic progressions are frequently linear, which reflects the expert/non-expert relationship between the writers and readers, or derived, which reflects the somewhat disjointedness of this text type. There are also many Rheme iterations connecting imperative clauses. In this respect the thematic organization of procedural texts differs significantly from texts where declarative clauses are predominant.
Keywords: N-rheme, rheme, thematic progression, theme
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical background and earlier research
    • 2.1Themes and Rhemes
    • 2.2Thematic progressions
  • 3.Material
  • 4.Method
  • 5.Results and discussion
    • 5.1Themes
    • 5.2N-Rhemes
    • 5.3Progressions
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 18 October 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.22029.her
References (54)
References
Berry, Margaret. 1995. Thematic options and success in writing. In Mohsen Ghadessy (ed.), Thematic development in English texts. London: Pinter. 55–84.Google Scholar
Berry, Margaret, Geoff Thompson & Hilary Hillier. 2014. Theme and variations. In Maria Gómez González, Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez, Francisco González-Garcia & Angela Downing (eds.) Theory and practice in Functional-Cognitive space. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 107–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope & Stephen Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carroll, Tessa & Judy Delin. 1998. Written instructions in Japanese and English: a comparative analysis. Pragmatics 8(3). 339–385.Google Scholar
Christobalena Frutos, Araceli. 2018. Corpus-rhetorical analysis of the sub-genre of instruction manuals for household appliances. Ibérica, Journal of the European Association of Languages for Specific Purposes 361. 143–170.Google Scholar
Ciliberti, Anna. 1990. Instructions for use: A macrotextual and stylistic analysis. In Michael A. K. Halliday, John Gibbons & Howard Nicholas (eds.) Learning, keeping and using language. Vol. II1. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 299–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corbett, John. 2009. Theme, field and genre: thematic realisations in academic articles and their popularisations. In Gail Forey & Geoff Thompson (eds.), Text type and texture. London: Equinox. 70–93.Google Scholar
Cornelissen, Pieter A., Joris van Hoof, & Mark van Vuuren. 2014. Enabling employees to work safely: the influence of motivation and ability in the design of safety instructions. Technical Communication 61(4). 232–244.Google Scholar
Crompton, Peter. 2004. Theme in discourse. ‘Thematic progression’ and ‘method of development’ re-evaluated. Functions of Language 11(2). 213–249. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cummings, Michael. 2003. The role of Theme and Rheme in contrasting methods of organization of texts. In Christopher Butler (ed.), Dynamics of language use: Functional and contrastive perspectives. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 129–154.Google Scholar
Daneš, František. 1974. Functional sentence perspective and the organization of the text. In František Daneš (ed.), Papers on functional sentence perspective. The Hague: Mouton. 106–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Domínguez, Mónica, Juan Soler-Company & Leo Wanner. 2020. ThemePro: A toolkit for the analysis of thematic progression. Proceedings of the 12th Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation. Marseille: European Language Resources Association (ELRA). 1000–1007.Google Scholar
Downing, Angela. 1991. An alternative approach to Theme: A systemic-functional perspective. Word 421. 119–143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dubois, Betty Lou. 1987. A reformulation of thematic progression typology. Text 21. 89–116.Google Scholar
Eggins, Suzanne. 2004. An introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics, 2nd edn. New York, NY: Continuum.Google Scholar
Elgemark, Anna. 2017. To the very end. A contrastive study of N-Rhemes in English and Swedish translations. Gothenburg: Gothenburg University PhD thesis.
Enkvist, Nils Erik. 1974. Theme dynamics and style: an experiment. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 51. 127–135.Google Scholar
Fetzer, Anita. 2008. Theme zones in English media discourse: forms and functions. Journal of Pragmatics 401. 1543–1568. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fries, Peter. H. 1983. On the status of Theme in English: arguments from discourse. In János S. Petöfi & Emel Sözer (eds.), Micro and macro connexity of texts. Hamburg: Helmut Buske. 116–152.Google Scholar
1993. Information flow in written advertising. In James Alatis (ed.), Language, communication and social meaning. Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 336–352.Google Scholar
Fries, Peter H. 1995a. A personal view of Theme. In Mohsen Ghadessy (ed.), Thematic development in English texts. London: Pinter. 1–19.Google Scholar
1995b. Patterns of information in initial position in English. In Peter H. Fries & Michael Gregory (eds.), Discourse in society: Systemic Functional perspectives. Norwood: Ablex. 47–65.Google Scholar
2002. The flow of information in a written English text. In Peter H. Fries, Michael Cummings, David Lockwood & William Spruiell (eds.) Relations and functions within and around language. London: Continuum. 117–155.Google Scholar
2008. The textual metafunction as a site for a discussion of the goals of linguistics and techniques of linguistic analysis. In Gail Forey & Geoff Thompson (eds.), Text type and texture. London: Equinox. 8–44.Google Scholar
Fries, Peter H. & Gill Francis. 1992. Exploring Theme: problems for research. Occasional Papers in Systemic Linguistics 61. 45–49.Google Scholar
Ghadessy, Mohsen. 1995. Thematic development and its relationship to registers and genres. In Mohsen Ghadessy (ed.), Thematic development in English texts. London: Pinter. 129–146.Google Scholar
Gómez González, Maria. A. 2001. The Theme-topic interface. Evidence from English. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gómez González, Maria. A. & Ana P. García Varela. 2014. Discourse-organizational patterns in English and Spanish. Revista Espanola de Linguistica Aplicada 27(1). 87–117. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen 2014. Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar, 4th edn. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. & Ruqaiya Hasan. 1978. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hawes, Thomas. 2015. Thematic progression in the writing of students and professionals. Ampersand 21. 93–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herriman, Jennifer. 2011. N-rhemes in English problem-solution texts. English Text Construction 4(1). 29–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2002. Directives: arguments and engagement in academic writing. Applied Linguistics 23(2). 215–239. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kizil, Marina & Elina Kushch. 2019. Thematic progression and its types in English literary and legislative texts. Advanced Education 121. 181–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liu, Lijin. & Gordon Tucker. 2015. Thematic choice and progression in English and Chinese radio news. Text and Talk 35(4). 481–504. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, J. R. 1992. English text. System and structure. Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, J. R. & David Rose. 2007. Working with discourse. 2nd edn. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Matthiessen, Christian. 1995. THEME as an enabling resource in ideational ‘knowledge’ construction. In Mohsen Ghadessy (ed.), Thematic development in English texts. Pinter: London. 20–47.Google Scholar
Mauranen, Anna. 1993. Theme and progression in written discourse. In Mona Baker, Gill Francis & Elena Tognini-Bonelli (eds.), Text and technology. Philadelphia: Amsterdam. 95–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mehlenbacher, Brad, Michael Wogalter & Kenneth Laughery. 2002. On reading the product owner’s manuals: perceptions and product complexity. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 46th Annual Meeting. (46)61. 730–734. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nwogu, Kevin. & Thomas Bloor. 1991. Thematic progression in professional and popular medical texts. In Eija Ventola (ed.) Functional and Systemic Linguistics. Approaches and uses. Berlin: Mouton. 369–384. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paris, Cecile & Donia Scott. 1994. Stylistic Variation in Multilingual Instructions. Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Natural Language Generation. Kennebunkport, Maine. 45–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ping, Leong Alvin. 2005. Talking themes: the thematic structure of talk. Discourse Studies 7(6). 701–732. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Topical themes and thematic progression: the “picture” of research articles. Text & Talk 35(3). 289–315.Google Scholar
Povolná, Renata. 2018. On some persuasive strategies in technical discourse: cross-cultural analysis of directives in English and Czech technical manuals. Topics in Linguistics 19(2). 72–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sager, Juan, David Dungworth & Peter McDonald. 1980. English special languages. Principles and practice in science and technology. Wiesbaden: Oscar Brandstetter Verlag.Google Scholar
Sharpe, Michael. 2014. Language forms and rhetorical functions in technical instructions. English for Specific Purposes World. 15(43). 1–9.Google Scholar
Schubert, Christoph. 2016. Cohesion in contrast: A case study of English and German user manuals. SKY Journal of Linguistics 291. 95–117.Google Scholar
Trimble, Louis. 1985. English for science and technology: A discourse approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tanskanen, Sanna-Kaisa. 2006. Collaborating towards coherence. Lexical cohesion in English Discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Geoff & Susan Thompson. 2009. Theme, subject and the unfolding text. In Gail Forey, & Geoff Thompson (eds.) Text type and texture. London: Equinox. 45–69.Google Scholar
Whittaker, Rachel. 1995. Theme, processes and the realization of meanings in academic articles. In Mohsen Ghadessy (ed.), Thematic development in English texts. London: Pinter. 105–128.Google Scholar
Wright, Patricia, Patricia Crighton & S. M. Threlfall. 1982. Some factors determining when instructions will be read. Ergonomics 25(3). 225–237. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xiao, Qun. 1991. Toward thematic selection in different genre: Fables and recipes. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar