Recover what each version changed
Retrieval · Lesson 3 listener test
Open the neutral control, two marked versions, their discourse contexts and the blind listener results saved in Lesson 3.
Explain why one marked form improved focus recovery and why one neutral clause worked better.
- For each version, label given frame, focal value, implied alternative and strongest prominence.
- State the question the audience could reasonably have been asking before the sentence.
- Circle any wording that changed evidence strength rather than information placement.
- Keep all versions. Today you will decide where each type belongs in a longer argument.
Choose the sequence that gives a cleft a clear discourse job.
1. Which preceding sentence best prepares “What the current plan lacks is a route for alternative proof”?
Marked grammar cannot carry every sentence
Draft A · Every point announced as the point
What the Vista Line offers is a step-free cabin. What the drawings omit is the clinic route. It is informal tenants who may be unable to claim the resident fare. What the housing data show is a larger rise near the stations. It is the market traders who face relocation. What the council must do is impose conditions. The thing is, what matters is mobility justice.
Draft B · A recoverable focus trajectory
The Vista Line would replace 286 steps with a step-free cabin journey, a substantial gain for many passengers. Yet the published drawings end at the upper station. What they do not show is a step-free route to the clinic. Accessibility therefore has to be judged across the whole journey, not only inside the vehicle.
The same distinction applies to price. The two-credit resident fare appears protective, but eligibility depends on documents some informal tenants and seasonal workers may not possess. It is the proof rule, not simply the fare level, that may exclude local users. A credible approval condition would establish alternative evidence of residence before service begins.
These conditions will not settle every distributional question. Nearby advertised rents have risen faster than the citywide figure, although the data do not prove that the announcement caused the difference. The council should therefore pair approval with tenant monitoring and a published response trigger. What matters at this stage is not a promise that no pressure will occur, but an accountable way to detect and address it.
Match each observation to Draft A, Draft B or both.
A Cleft-saturated draft
B Controlled focus trajectory
Both Both drafts
1. Addresses cabin access, proof requirements, housing pressure and council action.
2. Introduces repeated focal frames without first establishing a recoverable question or contrast.
3. Uses neutral clauses to establish the apparent benefit before marking the missing clinic route.
4. Makes the proof rule contrast with the fare level after both have become relevant.
5. Ends with an abstract evaluative label that has not been converted into an accountable action.
6. Keeps the rent association cautious before foregrounding a monitoring response.
7. Uses cleft or pseudo-cleft grammar.
Manage the audience’s question state
Six decisions across an argument
| Decision | Control question | Useful move |
|---|---|---|
| Establish common ground | What fact or apparent benefit must be available before a contrast makes sense? | Use a neutral finite clause with clear actor and evidence status |
| Open a contrast set | Which rival value is explicit or readily recoverable? | Use not X but Y, concession or a question before the cleft if needed |
| Select the focal value | Is the value a person, object, time, place, reason, missing element or scope limit? | Choose an it-cleft, what/reversed/where/why/all pseudo-cleft or specified-noun pattern |
| Release the focus | What does the audience need to infer or do after receiving the marked value? | Return to neutral clauses for consequence, evidence and accountable action |
| Link forward | Can the focused value become the next sentence’s topic? | Repeat the key noun precisely or use a clear reference rather than opening another cleft |
| Retest prominence | Did the listener hear the selected value and the intended rival? | Deaccent the given frame, place nuclear stress on the value and avoid a pause that separates value from its completion |
Focus trajectory
Neutral ground → pressure or rival → marked value → consequence or action. This is a diagnostic sequence, not a mandatory four-sentence template. A single sentence can perform two stages, and a direct neutral clause may remain the clearest choice. The test is whether each marked form changes the audience’s information state for a reason.
Match each marked sentence to the continuation that develops rather than repeats its focus.
Prosody chain · Given → focus → consequence
Read one three-sentence sequence from Draft B while a listener marks the strongest prominence in each sentence.
Make the focal value prominent once, then let it become less prominent as the next sentence develops its consequence.
- Mark / at thought-group boundaries and underline one nuclear stress per group.
- Avoid giving the repeated topic full corrective stress after it becomes given.
- Retest with the same wording and one changed prominence pattern; keep the listener map.
Repair the trajectory, not only the sentence
Order the sentences so a warranted marked focus leads to a specific action.
- The council should therefore publish an alternative eligibility route before tickets go on sale.
- However, the draft accepts only standard address documents, which some informal tenants may not possess.
- That route should be tested with informal tenants and seasonal workers before approval.
- The two-credit resident fare appears to protect everyday access.
- It is the proof rule, not simply the fare level, that may exclude local users.
Repair the named discourse fault while preserving the documented Vista Line facts.
1. What matters is access. What matters is housing. What matters is trade. — competing unranked focus
2. It is the market that moves. Therefore, it is the market that needs a contract. It is the contract that must be fair. — repeated reset
3. The line is step-free. What the city must do is approve it. — missing whole-journey premise
4. It is the 12% rise that proves the line displaced tenants. — evidence drift
5. What consultation needs is access. What access needs is participation. What participation needs is legitimacy. — abstract chain
Build and test a midpoint recommendation
Midpoint critical briefing · Writing and speaking
The council asks for a concise conditional-approval briefing that identifies one real mobility gain, two distributional risks and three enforceable conditions. Use the existing Vista Line dossier; do not invent new survey results or promises.
Write 180–220 words and deliver the briefing in two to three minutes so a listener can recover both the focus trajectory and the policy action.
- Minutes 1–3 · map: choose one gain, two risks and three conditions. For each paragraph, label neutral ground, pressure or rival, focal value and consequence or action.
- Minutes 4–9 · write: produce 180–220 words. Use at least two different cleft families where a recoverable contrast, missing value, reason, place or scope limit earns them. Keep at least half the finite clauses neutral.
- Minute 10 · evidence audit: check every number, actor, modality and causal limit against the Lesson 1 dossier. A marked value cannot become stronger than its source.
- Minutes 11–13 · deliver: speak for two to three minutes. Deaccent given frames, place nuclear prominence on focal values and let each value become the next neutral topic where useful.
- Minutes 14–15 · listener trace: the listener records the gain, two risks, selected focal values, implied rivals and three conditions. Working alone, wait before reconstructing from audio without the text.
- Minute 16 · save: retain the writing, recording, annotations and listener trace. Mark one secure trajectory and one seam for the pushed discussion in Lesson 5 and repair work in Lesson 6.
Midpoint evidence record
| Check | Evidence |
|---|---|
| Word and time range | 180–220 words; 2–3 minutes |
| Critical content | One gain, two distributed risks and three enforceable conditions |
| Focus range | Two different earned cleft families plus neutral clauses |
| Information flow | Ground → pressure/rival → value → consequence/action remains recoverable |
| Evidence integrity | Numbers, modality, attribution and causal limits preserved |
| Prosody | Given frames deaccented; focal values prominent; repeated topics released |
Keep the form that changes audience recovery
Choose the feedback supported by the listener trace.
1. The listener recovers the proof rule as the focal barrier and the alternative eligibility route as the consequence. What can be retained?
2. Three clefts are well formed, but the listener cannot rank the risks or name the conditions. What should be revised first?
3. The listener hears “the line caused the rent rise” after a strongly stressed cleft. What must the repair preserve?
Midpoint log · Carry into Lessons 5 and 6
Align the annotated briefing with the blind listener trace.
Record one retained focus trajectory and one local retest hypothesis.
- Cite the exact marked sentence, its preceding ground and following consequence.
- Classify the retest as formation, warrant, sequence, evidence strength, prominence or release to given topic.
- Use Brazilian-Portuguese comparison only where repeated evidence from your own recordings supports it; otherwise keep the transfer status open.
Carry a focus trajectory into live discussion
Choose the principle that carries into Lesson 5.
1. How should marked information packaging work in an extended critical discussion?
Standing informal-input bridge
Continue the same long 99% Invisible episode and long-form urban-geography essay. Choose one 45–75-second audio sequence and one paragraph sequence that moves from shared ground through a marked contrast or missing value to a consequence. Map each stage in your own words, preserve the source’s evidence limits and note the prominence or punctuation that manages the transition. Bring the maps and midpoint briefing to the critical-geography discussion in Lesson 5.