This is the third post in our Fundamentals of Communication series. This series provides a very high-level overview of the key concepts that undergird human communication. These concepts are the building blocks we will use to build a foundation for future learning. They are the moving pieces that make everything else work. They are so basic that we rarely think about them consciously, but they are critically important nonetheless. The power of understanding them comes from recognizing how they interact and each contributes in a given context.

As we've read in the first and second posts of this series, the communicative intent, or the reason motivating whatever is said, accomplishes a higher-level organizing purpose. The things that are said accomplish one of two functions: either moving you closer to achieving the intended goal?the themeline?or filling in information needed to understand or bolster the themeline, i.e., the support. 

As Mary Breeze states, the themeline ?presents the backbone of the discourse?whether this is the main events of a narrative [story], the main steps of a procedure, the main points of an argument, or the main commands of an exhortation?while the supportive material provides all that is necessary as a background for understanding the story, procedure, or argument as a whole.? 1

Themeline

If we think of the communicative intent as the desired destination of a metaphorical journey, the themeline would be the main roads that take you to the destination. With most journeys, there are a variety of ways to get from Point A to Point B, with each one having advantages and disadvantages. The same holds true for communication: there are lots of different ways to convey the same propositional content, and the speaker chooses the approach that best fits the objectives. The key point here is that each themeline statement moves you closer to the intended outcome. 

Support

There are also stops that need to be made for fuel or something to eat, perhaps some errands too. Such detours would be akin to a speaker needing to fill in various kinds of supportive information in order to help the listener arrive at the desired destination. It might seem like supportive information is unimportant or a distraction because it suspends the progress being made. But think about what would happen on a trip if you ran out of gas or passed out from hunger or dehydration. 

As we will see below, the supportive information often receives far more attention in Bible study than the themeline, so much so that few even know from memory what is being supported! Both themeline and support play important roles in discourse, the critical thing distinguishing them is the task that each accomplishes. 

This could be backfilling a story that offers needed context for the hearer to understand the current one. Support might also take the form of motivational information to move the hearer to action. Regardless of whether we are talking about narrative stories like the Gospels and Acts, or the NT epistles that exhort and explain, there is the same basic division of labor between themeline and support. 

Ordering of Themeline and Support

There are two basic reasoning styles that differ only in the ordering of the material: inductive and deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning begins with the supporting material and places the themeline thesis statement at the end. Deductive reasoning reverses this order, beginning with the thesis statement and placing the support after it. 

In verb-prominent languages like English, Greek, and Hebrew, it is normal to employ a deductive reasoning style when instructing or exhorting. Inductive reasoning is more commonly used for persuasion, especially where the speaker is not in a position of authority over the hearer. 

There are linguistic implications for each of these reasoning styles when it comes to signaling the transition from one to the other. In most deductive reasoning situations in English, there is no requirement to explicitly signal the transition from supportive material to the themeline thesis or exhortation. Inferential conjunctions like therefore or thus are typically used, but they can sound stilted and overly formal in many contexts.

Imagine that we are out for a day of hiking. We?ve finished a morning hike and are contemplating what to do next. Someone in the group has suggested a couple of longer hikes, but I have some misgivings. 

Inductive reasoning, on the other hand, generally requires an explicit signal to mark the transition from themeline to support. Words like because, since, and for create a dependency relationship, subordinating the support to the themeline. For larger chunks of information, a more colloquial strategy would be rhetorical questions like Why? or What for? Here is the same basic content reframed inductively. 

Framing these propositions inductively using dependency relationships renders it into one main clause with what feels like three bullet points. It conveys the same big idea and support, but the reordering impacts how we package it. The primary inductive context where you would not use an explicit marker to introduce is right after an exhortation like ?Do the shorter hike!? The shift from exhortation to explanation is enough of a transition. 

I have noted that language is wonderfully messy, and this holds true for themeline and support. Here is an example from Philippians that is a blend of both reasoning styles as a result of Paul reaffirming his original statement. It also features some embedding, where a supporting statement has its own support. 

The big idea for this section is introduced in Phil. 2:19 and reiterated again in Phil. 2:23: Paul?s hope of sending Timothy to visit the Philippian church so that Paul can learn how they are doing. Why send Timothy and not someone else? This statement is introduced by for (??? gar) to signal that it supports what immediately precedes, and indented to visually represent its logical dependency on what precedes. 

But this supporting statement in Phil. 2:20 is itself supported by the two statements in Phil. 2:21?22, bolstering what sets Timothy apart as a like-minded co-laborer for Christ. If we wanted to get technical, we could say that Phil. 2:20 acts as an embedded themeline for the support of Phil. 2:21?22, with all three verses bolstering the argument of Phil. 2:19. At Phil 2:23, Paul signals his transition from support back to the themeline with therefore (??? oun), the workhorse inferential conjunction in English (and ??? in Greek).

Conclusion

What are the key takeaways about reasoning styles? First, the goal is not for you to set about labeling everything you read and hear. You can see how quickly such decisions become messy. Deciding whether this passage is inductive or deductive is kind of like trying to decide if a spork is a fork or a spoon. These categories allow us to think about the characteristics and implications of different structures. It is not a matter of either/or but of more or less. 

So, while technically we can say that Phil 2:19?24 exemplifies both inductive and deductive styles, it is more helpful to say it is more inductive. The ?deductive? themeline statement is really a restatement setting the stage for Paul to add himself to the potential guest list the Philippians might see. 

The same holds true for the labels themeline and support. Deciding about the categorization of Phil 2:20 puts us in another spork situation, but this time it is a both/and. The answer to which it is depends on what level of the discourse you are talking about. If we are looking at the whole passage, Phil. 2:20?22 act as support for Phil. 2:19. But within this smaller unit of Phil. 2:20?22, verse 20 is the themeline that is supported by verses 21?22. We can summarize this using nested boxes like this:

The leftmost column is the highest level of the themeline. Movement to the right represents dependency (whether logical or grammatical). Movement down the column represents the advancement of the discourse, even if it is within an embedded themeline as in verses 21?22. We will talk more about charting strategies in the future; the goal here is to summarize what we?ve talked about thus far. Categories are rarely ever absolute, but they can be mighty handy if used properly. 

Second, Paul?s choice to lead with his big idea in verse 19 (instead of just concluding with it in v. 23) creates the need for marking the support with for ???. The same holds true for the use of therefore ??? in verse 23, the need for it is a natural consequence of transitioning from a fair amount of supporting information (back) to the themeline. Omitting it would not have made the transition unintelligible, just more difficult to successfully navigate.  

Finally, we don?t always have a choice about which reasoning style to use. A strict deductive structure would really only be appropriate in a context where Paul?s intention to send someone is presupposed and it is just a matter of whom to select. So while there is theoretically always a choice about reasoning styles, in reality, each style is best suited to certain discourse contexts. 

FOOTNOTES:

1 Mary Breeze, ?Hortatory Discourse in Ephesians,? Journal of Translation and Textlingustics 5, no. 4 (1992): 314.