This article presents evidence that, from selected spectroscopic articles in the earliest volumes of the Physical Review to other selected spectroscopic articles from the same journal in 1980, a shift in sentence style takes place. This shift is from what M.A.K. Halliday calls the dynamic style (which reflects happenings, processes, and actions) to the synoptic style (which reflects things, structures, and categories). The article proposes that the early writers used the dynamic style primarily to set information in a distinct time and thus to avoid giving the impression that the information should be regarded as widely generalizable. It also proposes that the later writers used the synoptic style because it allowed them to represent processes as things, to delineate many fine shades of meaning, and to extend their arguments economically. The article concludes by suggesting areas of future research for students of scientific style and for composition scholars.

This study examines the numbers of relative clauses and the percentages of subordinate clauses they comprise in two sets of research reports from the Physical Review, one from the earliest years (1893-1901) and one from 1980. It finds only a slight decrease in percentages of relative clauses from the first set of articles to the second, but it also finds some striking differences in patterns of what the relative clauses modify, particularly in references to experimental instruments and materials, experimental results or products, and equations. This study also shows evidence of a stylistic shift between the two sets of articles, from what Halliday (1987a) calls the dynamic style (that reflects processes, happenings, and actions) to the synoptic style (that reflects structures, categories, and hierarchies). It speculates that this shift would have been motivated by later physicists' wish to use tenseless expressions and to communicate effectively in an increasingly built-up web of information.

This article describes an investigation in which I explored an impression that I had developed in earlier work that the grammatical subjects in scientific discourse are markedly long. An examination of a sample of scientific discourse produced evidence that makes a fairly strong case that on the average the grammatical subjects in the sample are markedly long. A stronger case can be made that many of the specific subjects in the sample are very long indeed, probably long enough to draw some attention to themselves in most any kind of discourse. I identify three pressures that I believe operate on scientists to produce very long grammatical subjects: The pressure to be precise, the pressure to be concise, and the pressure to be efficient and progressive in constructing a set of claims that will remain true within a framework of knowledge that has been built up over time. I conclude by exploring some possible connections between both the grammatical subjects in and the overall style of the sample of discourse and what Jerome Bruner calls the paradigmatic mode of thought.

This article explores some of the confusion and sources of that confusion in the research relating parts of clauses to the communicative roles that they play. It proposes that M.A.K. Halliday's system of analyzing a sentence into one or more of three possible kinds of themes and a rheme is a useful system in which the research relating parts of clauses to their communicative roles can be carried out. The article examines and briefly critiques Halliday's system of analysis and then goes on to compare some of Halliday's terms with those used in other systems. The article concludes by discussing some implications that this system might have for understanding aspects of discourse production, structure, or reception.

(1990). Rhetorical contexts and hedges. Rhetoric Society Quarterly: Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 49-59.

Hedges, which signal writers' tentative assessments of referential information, were added to a passage from both a science and a social studies textbook. The hedges appeared in either personal or impersonal voice; in the first half, second half, or both halves of the passages; and in either a low-intensity condition or a high-intensity condition. A measure of what subjects learned from reading the passages showed that they learned most when the hedges appeared in personal voice, the second half of a passage, and low intensity. Some extensions of the implications of this work to practices in composition classes—particularly practices of evaluating whether or not material should be hedged—are recommended in order to broaden students' critical-thinking abilities and their views of language.

In sentences with validity markers in the syntactic subject and adjacent positions, the frequent correspondence between syntactic subject and sentence topic in English sentences is broken. Because this correspondence has been shown to have substantial and positive effects upon readers' processing of and perceptions about texts, breaking the correspondence might have significant negative effects on readers. This study begins to explore how such syntactic subjects affect readers. It shows that readers recall such subjects very poorly, but it also suggests that in order to discover more precisely how readers represent such subjects in memory, new and rich models of language and of possible domains in texts will be needed.