FG and the dynamics of discourse 227being accorded intonational prominence, more processing time and thus a
fuller realization. The two implementations are quite distinct both experi-
entially and at the level of motor activity. And, most importantly, they
show that – as noted above – different structural configurations involve
some differences in conceptual organization.
In keeping with this, another issue that we will consider before closing
this section is the cognitive repercussions of the different arrangements of
the orientational subfields, i.e. ET, IT, TT, within the Theme zone. Here
we shall assume that the order of expression always induces a conceptual
ordering of the notions symbolized, as one facet of our dynamic apprehen-
sion of linguistic meaning. But, needless to say, not every facet of dynamic
conceptualization is necessarily correlated with expression order; neither
does the sequence of presentation in discourse necessarily coincide with
the chronological ordering implied.
The data handled in Gómez-González (1998a, 2001) reveal that EMTs
tend to display the organization TT^IT^ET^IT^TT – as shown in excerpts
(6) – (9) above and Figure 2 below – with the constraint that, if TTs and/or
ITs occur in the pre-ET subfield, then items of the same kind do not recur
in the post-ET subfield (for a classification of the types of TTs and ITs see
Gómez-González 2001: 110, 180–185). Further, an utterance may mini-
mally consist of one kind of Theme only, be it TT, IT, or ET, which will
therefore be in Focus (e.g. Tomorrow?, Fine and Great) as possible reac-
tions to Maria is coming for a visit).
y
x
2 1 H 1 2
(TT) ^ (IT) ^ ET ^ (IT) ^ (TT)
PRE-ORIENTATION INTERNAL POST-ORIENTATION
ORIENTATION
narrowest scope
experiential meaning
interpersonal meaning
textual meaning
widest scope
Figure 2. The Theme zone’s maximal expansion