Misrepresenting Ellipsed Subjects As Unmarked Themes

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 282):

As noted above however, the text does feature a number of non-finite clauses, many with an implicit Subject/unmarked Theme. All except one (to be restored...) are imperfective and construct action that is underway and overlapping with the alpha clause on which they depend for temporal deixis (past) and to which they defer in terms of arguability (declarative). These clauses in effect help the text accelerate as a number of synchronous events are canvassed, thereby foregrounding the encompassing chaos of the waves' incursion and the cooperative intensity of the Bondi Boys' rescue.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading. Ellipsed Subjects are not unmarked Themes. The absence of elements through ellipsis iconically 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.

[2] To be clear, this is merely an impressionistic interpretation, unsupported by grammatical evidence. Synchronous events can be construed paratactically or hypotactically, and through finite or non-finite clauses. Moreover, foregrounding is a function of the textual metafunction, not of non-finite dependent clauses.

Misrepresenting The General Thematic Pattern Of A Text

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 278):

The general pattern, as we can see, is for marked Themes to punctuate the text at intervals, shifting our gaze, and for unmarked Themes to sustain our orientation to the field in between.

 

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, this assessment is based on a misapplication of Theme to a single text. Compare the following SFL-consistent analysis:

To be clear, the marked Themes are:

• With a roar like a Bondi tram running amok
• In no more than 20 seconds
• In their long and glorious history
• As one
• On the shore

and the unmarked Themes are:

• it (an enormous wave)
• three huge waves
• the boiling surf
• yet more large waves
• some (Bondi boys)
• some (Bondi boys)
• the Bondi clubhouse
• ambulances from all over Sydney town

It can seen that the context for what follows can be switched by either marked or unmarked Themes, and that continuity is maintained by the ellipsis of Subjects that would otherwise have been Themes. Importantly, the authors ignore the role of textual Themes in organising the text.

Misrepresenting Rhematic And Ellipsed Subjects As Theme [4]

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 277-8):

And then we shift focus again, via another marked Theme, to the rescue on shore:

Blogger Comments:

The authors' analysis is misleading. On the one hand, since the first clause has a marked Theme, the Subject many survivors is not thematic, but falls within the Rheme (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 105). On the other hand, since the final clause has an ellipsed Subject, it has no Theme. The absence of elements through ellipsis marks lack of textual prominence, and the analysis of ellipsed elements as Themes misrepresents them as textually prominent; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 635).

Misrepresenting Rhematic And Ellipsed Subjects As Theme [3]

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 277):

We then shift via a marked Theme to the Bondi Boys, who are unmarked Theme in every clause involving the rescue; in addition we find another marked Theme, as one, emphasising the intensity of their cooperation.

Blogger Comments:

The authors' analysis is misleading. On the one hand, since the first and last clauses have marked Themes, the Subjects this and they are not thematic, but fall within the Rheme (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 105). On the other hand, since the included dependent clause << ignoring their own possible peril >> has an ellipsed Subject, it has no Theme. The absence of elements through ellipsis marks lack of textual prominence, and the analysis of ellipsed elements as Themes misrepresents them as textually prominent; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 635).

The analysis also falsely interprets the included dependent clause as a marked Theme within its clause complex. To be clear, such clauses are not marked Themes, because there is no agnate unmarked Theme for such instances. See Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 549-53).

Misrepresenting Rhematic And Ellipsed Subjects As Theme [2]

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 277):

Subsequently another marked theme shifts our attention to the waves' impact:

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is misleading, because it is untrue. The marked Theme In no more than 20 seconds highlights a temporal circumstance as the context for what follows as the body of the message.

[2] This is analysis misleading. On the one hand, since the first clause has a marked Theme, the Subject that peaceful scene is not thematic, but falls within the Rheme (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 105). 

On the other hand, the authors misconstrue an embedded clause serving as Qualifier, waving for help, as a ranking clause, and misrepresent its ellipsed Subject as Theme. To be clear, the absence of elements through ellipsis marks lack of textual prominence, and the analysis of ellipsed elements as Themes misrepresents them as textually prominent; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 635).

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.

Ellipsed Topical Theme

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 29):

Where two clauses are linked by coordination – in a paratactic structure – the Subject of the second clause may be ellipsed or ‘understood’:

He roared in fury || and ( ) struggled with all his might

In such a case the ellipsed Subject of the second clause counts as the (ellipsed) topical Theme. Consequently, the Process (struggled) is not the Theme.

Blogger Comments:

This is potentially misleading. The ellipsed Subject would have been topical Theme, if it hadn't been ellipsed. Since the Subject is ellipsed, it is not topical Theme. In such clauses, the topical Theme is omitted. Importantly, the function of ellipsis is remove an element from textual prominence, and so to assign it thematic status is to contradict the textual function of ellipsis. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 635):

Ellipsis marks the textual status of continuous information within a certain grammatical structure. At the same time, the non-ellipsed elements of that structure are given the status of being contrastive in the environment of continuous information. 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.