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.

The Problem With Macro-Theme As Linguistic Theory

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 278):

Pushing this a step further, the Kicker of FitzSimon's text arguably functions as a macro-Theme for the text as a whole, with its long wave length reinforced graphologically through its superordinate position on the page and large bold font:

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this is a text about FitzSimon's text, and as such, not a section of FitzSimon's text.

[2] To be clear, macro-Theme is writing pedagogy ('introductory paragraph') masquerading as linguistic theory, and analysing a written text for macro-Themes is merely confirming the extent to which a writer has deployed this writing strategy. Moreover, in linguistic theory, Theme is one element of a structure along with Rheme. In the case of macro-Theme, no contrasting macro-Rheme is identified. A close examination of Martin (1992) on macro-Theme can be viewed here.

[3] To be clear, since Theme is a matter of higher textual status, the appropriate metaphor here would be amplitude, not wavelength.

The Problems With Hyper-Theme And Hyper-New As Linguistic Theory

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 278):

Similarly, the waves' attack is introduced with a pair of clauses prefacing what is to come; in addition the results of the waves' incursion is summed once they've left the beach:

Technically speaking, forward looking topic sentences can be referred to as hyper-Themes (higher level Themes in other words), and retrospective summary comments as hyper-New. Both are a common feature of planned edited written discourse, and can be used to reinforce the partitioning of the text into phases signalled by marked Themes.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Again, hyper-Theme is writing pedagogy (topic sentence) masquerading as linguistic theory, and analysing a written text for hyper-Themes is merely confirming the extent to which a writer has deployed this writing strategy. Moreover, in linguistic theory, the function of Theme is to set the context of what follows, rather than to 'preface' it, and it is one element of a structure along with Rheme. In the case of hyper-Theme, no structure featuring a contrasting hyper-Rheme is identified.

[2] To be clear, hyper-New is also writing pedagogy (paragraph summary) masquerading as linguistic theory, and analysing a written text for hyper-News is merely confirming the extent to which a writer has deployed this writing strategy. Moreover, in linguistic theory, New information may either follow or precede Given information in a structural configuration. In the case of hyper-New, no structure featuring a contrasting hyper-Given is identified. A close examination of Martin (1992) on hyper-Theme can be viewed here.

[3] Again, Martin (1992) took the term 'hypertheme' from Daneš (1974), where it refers to the first of repeated themes (the theme that is 'over' or 'above' later repetitions).

[4] Again, this is writing pedagogy (proposals on how to write), not linguistic theory (propositions that model language).

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.

Misrepresenting Theme

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 276):

Let's begin with a theme analysis, focussing on ranking clauses. We'll box in Themes, shading marked Themes and treating as unmarked Theme any Subject Themes which follow them. Our reason for doing this is to highlight the complementary role played by marked and unmarked Themes – marked Themes to shift our orientation; unmarked Themes to sustain our perspective.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, this seriously misrepresents Theme, and is even inconsistent with the authors' own account of Theme in Chapter 2. In SFL Theory, there is only one topical Theme to a clause: either unmarked or marked. In a declarative clause, a Subject that follows a marked Theme falls within the Rheme. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 105):

When some other element comes first, it constitutes a ‘marked’ choice of Theme; such marked Themes usually either express some kind of setting for the clause or carry a feature of contrast. Note that in such instances the element that would have been the unmarked choice as Theme is now part of the Rheme. …

The guiding principle of thematic structure is this: the Theme contains one, and only one, of these experiential elements. This means that the Theme of a clause ends with the first constituent that is either participant, circumstance or process. We refer to this constituent, in its textual function, as the topical Theme.

‘Hypotactic’ Clause As Theme

Martin, Matthiessen & Painter (2010: 37):

A different kind of long Theme can be found if we extend the thematic principle beyond the clause to the ‘clause complex’ (the ‘sentence’ of the written language). This can be illustrated by comparing the following:

Were you lonely in Paris, || when I was in the concentration camp?

When I was in the concentration camp, || were you lonely in Paris?

The first example can be regarded as an unmarked ordering of clauses, where a ‘main’ clause is followed by a modifying clause. It will simply be analysed as shown above. In the second example, the when clause in its entirety can be regarded as functioning as an orienting context for the question Were you lonely in Paris? The when clause thus provides a marked Theme to which the second clause is Rheme (IFG2: 56-7; IFG3: 392-33) …

Note that it is only ‘hypotactic’ (i.e. dependent, modifying) clauses which have the possibility of occurring in this initial position as a marked Theme of the clause complex. Non-finite clauses are one such type of hypotactic clause. Here are some examples of non-finite clauses functioning as marked Theme of a clause complex:

To strengthen his knee, he did the exercise routine twice daily.

Blinking nervously, he tried to think of something to say.

Blogger Comments:

This is misleading. To be clear, such dependent clauses function simply as Theme, not marked Theme. For there to be a marked option, there has to be an agnate unmarked option (unmarked ordering is not unmarked Theme). Cf. IFG2 (Halliday 1994: 57):

and IFG3 (Halliday & Matthiessen 2004: 393):

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.