Linguistics and the Human Sciences, Vol 14, No 1-2 (2018)

Linguistic Rhythm and its Meaning: Rhythm Waves and Semantic Fields

Radan Martinec
Issued Date: 10 Apr 2020


Linguistic rhythm has generally not been considered to realize semantic units.Exceptions are van Leeuwen (1992) and Martinec (1996, 2000, 2002). This articledevelops further Martinec's hierarchical model of rhythm by relating it to semanticfields. The semantic units realized by rhythmic units in his model are wavesof import, which belong to the textual metafunction (see e.g. Halliday and Matthiessen,2014). They are shown to be mapped onto semantic fields, signalling theirgreater or lesser importance. Import foci fall on those members of the semanticfields which have the most import and thus also attract attention to importantsemantic fields. The two criteria often harmonize with one another and when theydo not, this is explained by textual and lexicogrammatical reasons. The model isalso further developed by the principle of frustrated expectations being added tothe contextual factors from which import is derived.

Download Media


DOI: 10.1558/lhs.38410


Abercrombie, D. (1965). A phonetician’s view of verse structure. In D. Abercrombie (Ed.), Studies in Phonetics and Linguistics, 16–25. London: Oxford University Press.

Arvaniti, A. and Baltazani, M. (2005). Intonational Analysis and Prosodic Annotation of Greek Spoken Corpora. In Jun Sun-Ah (Ed.), Prosodic Typology: The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing, 84–117. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bolinger, D. (1961). Generality, Gradience and the All-or-None. The Hague: Mouton.

Bolinger, D. (1965). Pitch accent and sentence rhythm. In I. Abe and T. Kanekiyo (Eds), Forms of English, 139–180. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Brazil, D. (1997). The Communicative Value of Intonation in English. London: Cambridge University Press.

Couper-Kuhlen, E. (1993). English Speech Rhythm. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Crystal, D. (1969). Prosodic Systems and Intonation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Daneš, F. (1960). Sentence intonation from a functional point of view. Word, 16: 34–54.

Firth, J. R. (1957). A synopsis of linguistic theory, 1930–1955. In J. R. Firth (Ed.), Studies in Linguistic Analysis (Special Volume of the Philological Society), 1–31. London: Blackwell.

Gregory, M. (1985). Towards communication linguistics: A framework. In J. D. Benson and W. S. Greaves (Eds), Systemic Perspectives on Discourse: Vol 1: Selected Theoretical Papers from the 9th International Systemic Workshop, 136–151. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1966). Lexis as a linguistic level. In C. E. Bazell, J. C. Catford and M. A. K. Halliday (Eds), In Memory of J. R. Firth, 148–162. London: Longman.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1967). Intonation and Grammar in British English. The Hague: Mouton.

Halliday M. A. K. (1970). A Course in Spoken English: Intonation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as Social Semiotic. London: Arnold.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An Introduction to Functional Grammar (First Edition). London: Arnold.

Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, R. (1974). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.

Halliday, M. A. K. and Greaves, W. S. (2008). Intonation in the Grammar of British English. London: Equinox.

Halliday, M. A. K. and Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2014). An Introduction to Functional Grammar (Fourth Edition). Abingdon and New York: Routledge.

Hasan, R. (1984). Coherence and cohesive harmony. In J. Flood (Ed.), Understanding Reading Comprehension: Cognition, Language and the Structure of Prose, 181–219. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Hasan, R. (1987). The grammarian’s dream: Lexis as most delicate grammar. In M. A. K. Halliday and R. P. Fawcett (Eds), New Developments in Systemic Linguistics: Theory and Description, 184–211. London: Pinter.

Hasan, R. (1989). The texture of a text. In M. A. K. Halliday and R. Hasan (Eds), Language, Text and Context: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective, 70–96. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jones, S. (2002). Antonymy. A Corpus-based Perspective. London: Routledge.

Kingdon, R. (1958). Groundwork of English Intonation. London: Longman.

Ladd, R. (2008). Intonational Phonology (Second Edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lehrer, A. (1974). Semantic Fields and Lexical Structure. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Lehrer, A. (2002). Gradable antonymy and complementarity. In D. A. Cruse, F. Hundsnurscher, M. Job and P. R. Lutzeier (Eds), Handbook of Lexicology, 498–506. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Levelt, W. J. M., Roelofs, A., and Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22: 1–75.

Liberman, M. and Prince, A. (1977). On stress and linguistic rhythm. Linguistic Inquiry, 8 (2): 249–336.

Longacre, R. E. (1976). An Anatomy of Speech Notions. Lisse: Peter de Ridder.

Lyons, J. (1963). Structural Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.

Lyons, J. (1968). Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics, Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Malcolm, K. (1985). Communication linguistics: A sample analysis. In J. D. Benson and W. S. Greaves (Eds), Systemic Perspectives on Discourse: Vol 2: Selected Applied Papers from the 9th International Systemic Workshop, 136–151. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Mandelbrot, B. (1983). The Fractal Geometry of Nature. New York: W. H. Freeman.

Martin, J. R. (1992). English Text: System and Structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Martinec, R. (1996). Hierarchy of Rhythm in English Speech. Ph.D. thesis. Sydney University.

Martinec, R. (2000). Rhythm in multimodal texts. Leonardo, 33 (4): 289–297.

Martinec, R. (2002). Rhythmic hierarchy in monologue and dialogue. Functions of Language, 9 (1): 39–59.

Martinec, R. (2003). Concept evaluation in focus groups: Semantic fields and evaluative strategies. Semiotica, 147 (1/4): 357–388.

Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2014). Extending the description of process type within the system of transitivity in delicacy based on Levinian verb classes. Functions of Language, 21 (2): 139–175.

Mettinger, A. (1994). Aspects of Semantic Opposition in English. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Murphy, M. L. (2003). Semantic Relations and the Lexicon: Antonymy, Synonymy, and Other Paradigms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nespor, M. and Vogel, I. (1986). Prosodic Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.

Nespor, M. and Vogel, I. (1989) On clashes and lapses. Phonology, 6: 69–116.

O’Grady, G. N. (2017). Intonation and SFL: The way forward. In T. A. M. Bartlett and G. N. O’Grady (Eds), The Routledge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics. Abingdon and New York: Routledge.

Pierrehumbert, J. (1980). The Phonology and Phonetics of English Intonation. Doctoral Dissertation. MIT.

Pierrehumbert, J. and Hirschberg, J. (1990). The meaning of intonation contours in the interpretation of discourse. In P. R. Cohen, J. Morgan and M. E. Pollack (Eds), Intentions in Communication, 271–312. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Pike, K. L. (1945). The Intonation of American English. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Publications.

Pike, K. L. (1962). Practical phonetics of rhythm waves. Phonetica, 8: 9–30.

Porzig, W. (1930). Wesenhafte Bedeutungsbeziehungen. Beitrage zur Deutche Sprache und Literatur, 58: 70–97.

Porzig, W. (1950). Das Wunder der Sprache. Bern: Francke.

Selkirk, E. (1984). Phonology and Syntax: The Relation between Sound and Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Thibault, P. (1987). An interview with Michael Halliday. In R. Steele and T. Threadgold (Eds), Language Topics: Essays in Honour of Michael Halliday, Vol. 2, 599–627. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Tucker, G. H. (1998). The Lexicogrammar of Adjectives: A Systemic Functional Approach to Lexis. London: Cassell.

van Leeuwen, T. (1992). Rhythm and social context: Accent and juncture in the speech of professional radio announcers. In P. Tench (Ed.), Systemic Phonology, 231–262. London: Pinter.

Wingfield, A. and Butterworth, B. (1984). Running memory for sentences and parts of sentences: Syntactic parsing as control function in working memory. In H. Bouma and D. G. Bouwhuis (Eds), Attention and Performance X: Control of Language Processes, 351–364. London: Erlbaum.

Winston, M. E., Chaffin, R., and Herrmann, D. (1987). A taxonomy of part-whole relations. Cognitive Science, 11: 417–444.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Equinox Publishing Ltd - 415 The Workstation 15 Paternoster Row, Sheffield, S1 2BX United Kingdom
Telephone: +44 (0)114 221-0285 - Email: [email protected]

Privacy Policy