Misrepresenting Rhematic And Ellipsed Subjects As Theme [1]

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 277):

The incursion proper begins with a marked Theme highlighting the sound of the first wave, and an unmarked Theme introducing the wave itself. Subsequently, the waves are unmarked Theme in every ranking clause. Alongside explicit unmarked Themes we've added boxes for Themes that have been ellipsed in non-finite and paratactic extending clauses; these missing Subjects all refer to the waves as well. In this respect, English is operating here like many languages that use an unmarked Theme to establish an orientation to a field and then don't mention Theme again until this orientation needs to be reinforced or changed (Caffarel et al. 2004).

Blogger Comments:

[1] Here the marked Theme is misanalysed for constituency; the embedded clause serving as Qualifier includes the conjunction like:

with a roar [[like a Bondi tram running amok]].

[2] This is misleading. Since this clause has a marked Theme, the Subject/Actor is not thematic, but falls within the Rheme (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 105). 

[3] This is misleading. Ellipsed Subjects are not unmarked Themes. The absence of elements through ellipsis marks lack of textual prominence, and the analysis of these elements as Themes misrepresents them as textually prominent. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 635):

Ellipsis thus assigns differential prominence to the elements of a structure: if they are non-prominent (continuous), they are ellipsed; if they are prominent (contrastive), they are present. The absence of elements through ellipsis is an iconic realisation of lack of prominence.

[4] To be clear, the ellipsis of the Subject signals continuity — see [3] — and its textual function is cohesive.

[5] To be clear, Martin's field, which he misconstrues as the ideational dimension of register, misconstrued as context, actually corresponds to ideational semantics in SFL Theory. Halliday & Matthiessen (1999: 407):

Thematic spaces in an ideational semantic network can be seen as a model of the systemic understanding of Theme and method of development articulated by Martin, where “field” corresponds to what has been discussed here in terms of ideational semantic networks in the ideation base.