Post Titles For Chapter 6 — Texture: Interleaving Discourse Semantics, Lexicogrammar And Phonology

The titles of the posts that evaluate chapter 6 provide a glimpse of some of its theoretical shortcomings.

1. Misrepresenting Hasan And Confusing Strata And Metafunctions
2. Misrepresenting Inconsistency As Consistency
3. Misconstruing Collocation And Interstratal Relations
4. Misconstruing Substitution–&–Ellipsis
5. Misrepresenting Halliday & Hasan
6. Misconstruing Stratification And Grammatical Metaphor
7. Resorting To A Misconstrual of Stratification
8. Misconstruing Cataphoric Reference
9. Misconstruing Stratification
10. Misconstruing Textual Grammar As "Redounding With" Interpersonal And Experiential Semantics
11. Misrepresenting Halliday & Hasan And Confusing Metafunctions
12. Misrepresenting Interstratal Realisation, Grammatical Metaphor & Register
13. Misconstruing Strata And Metafunctions As Modules
14. Misrepresenting Realisation And Preselection
15. Misunderstanding Stratification
16. Blurring The Distinction Between Realisation And Instantiation
17. Misrepresenting Intrastratal Studies As Interstratal
18. Misrepresenting Grammatical Metaphor
19. Misrepresenting Halliday On The Stratification Of Content
20. Misunderstanding The Principles Of Metafunction And Stratification
21. Misunderstanding The Textual Metafunction And Misrepresenting Context As Register
22. Misrepresenting Tenor As A 'Register Variable'
23. Misrepresenting The Grammatical Realisation Of Discourse Semantic Ideation
24. Misrepresenting The Grammatical Realisation Of Discourse Semantic Identification
25. Misrepresenting The Grammatical Realisation Of Discourse Semantic Conjunction
26. Ideational Metaphor And Mode
27. Misconstruing Non-Structural Cohesion As Discourse Structure
28. Misconstruing Types Of Language As More Abstract Than Language
29. Misconstruing Contextual Systems And 'Text Forming Resources'
30. Misrepresenting Grammatical Metaphor
31. Taking A Monostratal Approach To Grammatical Metaphor
32. Mistaking Ideational Metaphor For Metaphor
33. Misrepresenting Ideational Metaphor
34. Claiming That Location Circumstances Realise Relations Between Clauses
35. Misrepresenting Ideational Metaphor As An Interaction Of Logical & Experiential Metaphors
36. Reducing Expansion To Conjunctive Relations
37. Misconstruing Ideational Metaphor
38. Misrepresenting Internal Conjunctive Relations
39. Misconstruing Experiential Manifestations Of Expansion As Logical Metaphor
40. Under-Representing The Scope Of Ideational Metaphor
41. Misconstruing Technical Terms As Grammatical Metaphors
42. Reducing Ideational Metaphor To The Transcategorisation Of Elements
43. Confusing Logogenesis With Text Analysis & Misrepresenting The Unpacking Of Metaphor
44. Misrepresenting The Unpacking Of Metaphor
45. Misconstruing Modal Adjuncts As Interpersonal Metaphor
46. Misconstruing Congruent Obligation As Metaphorical Inclination
47. Misconstruing Metaphors Of Mood
48. Misrepresenting Metaphors Of Mood
49. On The Ineffability Of Interpersonal Texturing
50. Misrepresenting (The Unpacking Of) Interpersonal Metaphor
51. Confusing Metalanguage And Language
52. Misunderstanding (The Unpacking Of) Interpersonal Metaphor
53. Problems With The Argument For "Textual" Metaphor
54. The Confused Notion Of "Logically Oriented Textual Metaphor"
55. The Confused Notion Of "Interpersonally Oriented Textual Metaphor"
56. Misunderstanding The Trinocular Perspective And Misconstruing Context As Register
57. Confusing Text Type With Text Structure And Misrepresenting Hasan's Work On Cohesive Harmony
58. Misrepresenting Hasan's Work On Cohesion
59. “One Apparently Unresolved Problem With Hasan's Technique”
60. Misconstruing Enhancement As Elaboration And Misidentifying Metaphor
61. The Problem Of Overlapping Lexical Strings And Reference Chains
62. Misrepresenting Hasan's Cohesive Harmony
63. Presenting Misunderstandings Of Hasan's Cohesive Harmony As Deficiencies In The Model
64. Misrepresenting Hasan's Work On Coherence As Formalist
65. Misrepresenting Information Structure
66. The Origin Of 'Method Of Development': Peter Fries
67. Misconstruing Marked Topical Theme
68. Adjusting The Data To Fit The Theory
69. Misunderstanding Internal Conjunction
70. Problems With The Argument For Hyper-Theme
71. Misconstruing A Graphological Unit As Semantic
72. Intuiting Others' Assessments of Coherence
73. Falsifying Data: Misrepresenting An Interview Transcript As A Writing Exercise
74. Questions “Predicting” Answers
75. Locating Graphological Units 'Above' A Grammatical Unit
76. Confusing Writing Pedagogy With Linguistic Theory
77. Misrepresenting Halliday On 'Theme'
78. Assigning A Text To The Wrong “Genre” (Register)
79. A False Conclusion Invalidly Argued From False Premises
80. Misconstruing Theme Selection As An Interpersonal Resource
81. Misconstruing Stratification, Metafunction And Metaphor
82. Confusing The Textual And Interpersonal Metafunctions
83. Misrepresenting Phonology
84. Misrepresenting Textual Analysis
85. Misinterpreting Theme And New
86. Failing To Model (Or Notice) The Interplay Of New And (Marked) Theme
87. Not Accounting For A Distinctive Mode Of Development
88. Misrepresenting New Information
89. Problems With The Complementarity Of Hyper-Theme & Hyper-New
90. Misidentifying New Information
91. When New Information Isn't — But Repeated Information Is
92. Confusing Textual Phase With Textual Status
93. Confusing Writing Pedagogy With Linguistic Theory
94. Presenting Prescription As Theoretical Description
95. When An Abstract Is A Summary And A Summary Is An Introduction
96. Misconstruing A Grammatical Reference Item As An Accumulation Of New Information
97. Not Understanding Interstratal Realisation
98. Misconstruing Modal Responsibility (Semiotic Order) As Social Responsibility (Material Order)
99. Misconstruing Subject And Theme
100. Confusing Metafunctions And Axes
101. Misconstruing Modal Responsibility In Terms Of Exchange Resolution
102. Confusing Subject With Validity
103. Misunderstanding The Metafunctions
104. Blurring Metafunctions
105. Misconstruing Semiotic Validity As Social Success
106. Confusing Metafunctions, Misunderstanding Modal Responsibility And Misinterpreting Data
107. The Argument That "Verbal Processes Are Fundamentally Metaphorical In Nature"
108. Using Embedding To Argue About Hypotaxis
109. Misconstruing Modal Responsibility As Speaker At Risk
110. Using A Middle Clause To Illustrate Agency
111. Misconstruing Strata As Modules
112. A Short Summary Of Some Of The Misunderstandings Of Chapter 6
113. Misrepresenting Cohesive Harmony
114. Rhapsodising On Method Of Development
115. Rhapsodising On Point
116. Rhapsodising On The Complementarity Of Method Of Development And Point
117. Rhapsodising On Modal Responsibility
118. Using Allegory To Misrepresent The Rôle Of Mood And Residue In Modal Responsibility
119. Rhapsodising On Grammatical Metaphor
120. Misrepresenting Grammatical Metaphor
121. Using Metaphor To Misrepresent Grammatical Metaphor
122. Under-Acknowledging A Significant Intellectual Source

Misrepresenting Halliday On Formal And Contextual Meaning

Martin (1992: 497-8):

Halliday (1961) similarly includes context as a level of language concerned with the relationship between form and extra-textual features of the situation.  This is glossed as semantics in Fig. 7.4 (from Halliday, McIntosh and Strevens 1964: 18), although it is important to keep in mind that Halliday (1961) recognises both formal and contextual meaning, with contextual meaning "an extension of the popular — an traditional linguistic — notion of meaning" (1961: 245).  As Halliday clarifies in Thibault (1987: 614), 

"the whole system is meaning creating.  Meaning is the product of the interrelations among the parts";

 it is a mistake in other words to make

"too close a tie-up between 'meaning' and the notion of a specifically 'semantic' level."

Blogger Comments:

[1] See the clarification in the preceding post.

[2] This is very misleading, especially when juxtaposed with this co-text. In this very early paper by Halliday, 'formal meaning' is the "information" of information theory, and 'contextual meaning' Halliday equates with 'semantics', as stated in Halliday et al. (1964). The following quote from Halliday (1961) clarifies the matter:

Language has formal meaning and contextual meaning. Formal meaning is the "information" of information theory, though (i) it can be stated without being quantified and was in fact formulated in linguistics independently of the development of information theory as a means of quantifying it, and (ii) formal meaning in lexis cannot be quantified until a method is found for measuring the information of non-finite ("open") sets. The formal meaning of an item is its operation in the network of formal relations. 

Contextual meaning, which is an extension of the popular — and traditional linguistic — notion of meaning, is quite distinct from formal meaning and has nothing whatsoever to do with 'information'. The contextual meaning of an item is its relation to extratextual features; but this is not a direct relation of the item as such, but of the item in its place in linguistic form: contextual meaning is therefore logically dependent on formal meaning.

[3] This continues the confusion between stratification and semogenesis. To be clear, this quote from Halliday refers to semogenesis — 'meaning creating' — not to stratification.

[4] The notion of meaning as a semantic level is meaning as a stratum in the stratification hierarchy, which is a means of parcelling out the complexity of the meaning making process into levels of symbolic abstraction.  Halliday (2008: 14) clarifies this narrower use of the word 'meaning':

Realisation is the relationship among strata… wordings realise patterns of meaning, which we refer to as the stratum of semantics. (Note that “meaning” is here being used in its narrower, more specific sense, to refer just to patterns in semantics.)

Rhapsodising On The Complementarity Of Method Of Development And Point

Martin (1992: 489):

In short, method of development is where a text is coming from; point is where it's going to.  Theme is how a speaker looks at things; New is where she takes the listener to.  Hyper-Theme is what a speaker is going to say; hyper-New is what a listener's learned.  Macro-Theme is their way in; macro-New is where they've been.  A text is a trip: method of development is the route taken, while point is why you went there in the first place — what you've seen/learned/experienced/taken away.  Method of development is the plan; point is the holiday.

Blogger Comments:

[1] These characterisations of method of development and point are concerned with the experiential meaning that is textually highlighted, rather than the textual highlighting itself.  This can be demonstrated by glossing the two terms as follows:

• introductory paragraph, topic sentences and Themes is where the text is coming from;
• News, paragraph summaries and text summary is where it's going to.

[2] Again, these characterisations of Theme and New are concerned with the experiential meaning that is textually highlighted, rather than the textual highlighting itself.  Theme is the giving of textual prominence to what is the point of departure of the clause as message.  Theme can highlight textual and interpersonal elements as well as the experiential.  New is the giving of textual prominence to what the speaker regards as unrecoverable to the listener.  New can highlight textual and interpersonal elements as well as the experiential.

[3] Here the concern is writing pedagogy, not linguistic theory, and the focus is on experiential meaning, rather than textual highlighting.  This can be demonstrated by glossing the two terms as follows:

• topic sentence is what a speaker is going to say
• paragraph summary is what a listener's learned

[4] A paragraph summary is meaning created by the speaker (writer).  In contradistinction, what a listener has learned from a text is meaning created by the listener.

[5] Here the concern is again writing pedagogy, not linguistic theory, and the focus is on experiential meaning, rather than textual highlighting.  This can be demonstrated by glossing the two terms as follows:

• introductory paragraph is their way in
• text summary is where they've been.

[6] In terms of the metaphor 'a text is a trip', 'the route taken' also includes the meanings not included in the introductory paragraph, topic sentences and Themes.  The entire text is 'the route taken'.

[7] The claim of this metaphor is that News, paragraph summaries and text summary is 'why you went there in the first place'.  This misconstrues the meaning of point in terms of cause: purpose, and ascribes it to the interlocutors, rather than the text.

[8] This can be glossed as follows:

• introductory paragraph, topic sentences and Themes are the plan (of the trip);
• News, paragraph summaries and text summary are the holiday (of the trip).

In terms of the metaphor 'a text is a trip', all the meanings of the entire text constitute the trip (holiday).

Rhapsodising On Point

Martin (1992: 489):

Point is the discourse complement of method of development.  Where Theme ties the text down, point elaborates it, developing it as news.  A much greater range of meanings with be realised in New than Theme, though not a random set.  A text's principle [sic] strings and chains will still be there, constrained by cohesive harmony; but there will be lesser [sic] strings and chains and odds and ends as well.  A text is never hermetically sealed; a text, like the system behind it, is a dynamic open process — and point is a source of openness: a resistance to the closure predicated on cohesive harmony and method of development.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Again, it is instructive to compare these metaphors with Martin's model.  Martin's point is, again, a mixture of writing pedagogy and linguistic theory.  Martin supplies the writing pedagogy, rebranding paragraph summary as hyper-New, and text summary as macro-New, whereas Halliday supplies the linguistic theory: New as information deemed unrecoverable to the listener (textual metafunction).

Martin's point is the accumulation of experiential meaning that is highlighted as New information and included in a paragraph summary and text summary.  Importantly, interpersonal and textual meanings are also highlighted as New information — e.g. modal adjuncts such as allegedly and conjunctive adjuncts such as nevertheless, respectively — but these are ignored in this focus on experiential meaning.

Martin's deployment of the linguistic theory is internally inconsistent, given that New information is located on the phonological stratum, and yet construed as an element of the clause (lexicogrammar), rather than the information unit.

[2] Theme, as the point of departure of a message, does not "tie a text down" — anymore than airports, as points of departure during a holiday, "tie a holiday down".

[3] Point does not "develop the text as news".  New is information that is presented as unrecoverable to the listener; hyper-New is a paragraph summary of what has already been written; and macro-New is a text summary of what has already been written.

[4] Cohesive harmony does not constrain a text.  Hasan's cohesive harmony describes the synergy of the non-structural resources of the textual metafunction, cohesion, and the meanings of the experiential metafunction (and potentially the interpersonal metafunction).

[5] To be clear, system and text are related by the vector of instantiation.  In SFL theory, 'system' is short for 'system–&–process' (Halliday & Matthiessen 1999: 507), and text is an instance of the 'system–&–process'.  The unfolding of the text at the instance pole of the cline of instantiation is the process of logogenesis.

[7] By definition, New information may be "a source of openness", but summaries of what has already been written (hyper-New and macro-New) are not.  They are repetitions of meanings internal to the text.

[8] This is manifestly untrue.  See [2] and [4] above.

Rhapsodising On Method Of Development

Martin (1992: 489):

Method of development takes these harmonising meanings, and finds a peg to hang them on — it establishes an angle on the field.  This angle will be sensitive to a text's generic structure where this is realised in stages.  Method of development is the lens through which a field is constructed; of all the experiential meanings available in a given field, it will pick on just a few, and weave them through Theme time and again to ground the text — to give interlocutors something to hang onto, something to come back to — an orientation, a perspective, a point of view, a perch, a purchase.

Blogger Comments:

[1] It is instructive to compare these metaphors with Martin's model.  Martin's method of development is a mixture of writing pedagogy and linguistic theory.  Martin supplies the writing pedagogy, rebranding introductory paragraph as macro-Theme, and topic sentence as hyper-Theme, whereas Halliday supplies the linguistic theory: Theme as point of departure for the clause as message (textual metafunction).  Martin's method of development is the progression of experiential meaning that is highlighted by inclusion in an introductory paragraph, topic sentences, and clause Themes.

[2] It is because Martin focuses on the experiential meaning that is textually highlighted, rather than on the textual system that does the highlighting, that he believes that method of development 'establishes an angle on the field' — the ideational dimension of context — keeping in mind that what Martin regards as "field" includes ideational semantics and involves a misconstrual of context as register.

Importantly, interpersonal and textual meanings are also given thematic prominence — e.g. modal adjuncts such as allegedly and conjunctive adjuncts such as nevertheless, respectively — but these are ignored in this focus on experiential meaning.

[3] Consider the "development" of a text that keeps returning to the same Theme, the same point of departure 'time and again'.

A Short Summary Of Some Of The Misunderstandings Of Chapter 6

Martin (1992: 488):

The basic strategy adopted to explore this question [how do modules of the semiotic model interface?] was to look closely at the interaction of reference chains and lexical strings with specific lexicogrammatical and phonological variables — specifically TRANSITIVITY rôles, Theme, New and Subject.  The texture deriving from these four types of interaction was discussed under the headings of cohesive harmony, method of development, point and modal responsibility.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This confuses the content plane (New information) with the expression plane (phonology).

[2] The term and concept of 'texture' come from Halliday & Hasan (1976).  Texture is the property of being a text, and is created by the textual metafunction.  Here it is misapplied to the experiential metafunction (TRANSITIVITY rôles) and the interpersonal metafunction (Subject).

[3] The term and concept of 'cohesive harmony' come from Hasan (1984, 1985).  Martin misunderstands and misrepresents Hasan's model and critiques these as if they were her model.  See the evidence in previous posts here, here, here, and here.

[4] The term and concept of 'method of development' come from Fries (1981).  Martin's 'method of development' is writing pedagogy masquerading as linguistic theory.  He rebrands 'topic sentence' as 'hyper-Theme' — a term taken from Daneš (1974) but redefined — and 'introductory paragraph' as 'macro-Theme'.

[5] The term and concept of 'point' come from Fries (1981).  Martin's 'point' is, again, writing pedagogy masquerading as linguistic theory.  He rebrands  'paragraph summary' as 'hyper-New', and 'text summary' as 'macro-New'.

[6] The term and concept of 'modal responsibility' come from Halliday (1985), where it is the meaning of 'Subject': that on which the validity of a proposition or proposal rests.  Martin first misunderstands 'modal responsibility', in proposals, as 'the constituent responsible for seeing that goods are exchanged or a service performed' (p461).  He then misinterprets the meaning of Subject from a discourse perspective, in terms of exchange resolution (p462), as 'what is at stake' (p464) and as 'participant at risk' (p477).

Blurring Metafunctions

Martin (1992: 474, 476):

Although it is harder to unpick the meaning of Subject in written monologue [than in spoken mode] from the meaning of Theme and Given, texts such as [6:36] above which realise their method of development through marked Themes demonstrate the significance of modal responsibility in this mode. …

Unlike Theme, Subject selection in [6:36] does not reflect the text's contrastive method of development.

Blogger Comment:

The meanings of these grammatical functions are metafunctionally distinct.  The meaning of Subject is interpersonal (modal responsibility) whereas the meanings of Theme (point of departure of the message) and Given (recoverable information) are textual.  Because 'method of development' is a concern of the textual metafunction, Subject selection is irrelevant to a text's method of development.

Misconstruing Subject And Theme

Martin (1992: 461):

The concept of modal responsibility is less obvious in propositions, and the meaning of Subject is hard to isolate because of the fact that in English declaratives and interrogatives Subject conflates with unmarked topical Theme.  However, it is clear in contexts where marked Themes are used to scaffold a text's method of development that Subject selection is in principle independent of Theme selection.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is not true.  The concept of modal responsibility is no less obvious in propositions.  In propositions, modal responsibility is responsibility for the validity of what is being stated or questioned (rather than offered or commanded, as in proposals).

[2] The meaning of Subject is modal responsibility.  The identity of Subject is "isolated" by Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 149) as follows:

In fact the Subject in English has got a distinct identity, as we have pointed out; its identity can be established if we adopt a trinocular perspective, as suggested by the stratificational model of language. 

(i) From below, it is that nominal element (nominal group or nominalised phrase or clause) that is picked up by the pronoun in the mood tag. 

(ii) From round about, it is that which combines with the Finite (operator) to form the Mood element in the clause; it is also that which constitutes the unmarked Theme if the mood is declarative, and which switches place with the Finite if the mood is yes/no interrogative. 

(iii) From above, it is that which carries the modal responsibility: that is, responsibility for the validity of what is being predicated (stated, questioned, commanded or offered) in the clause.

[3] The conflation of Subject with Theme in the unmarked case in declarative clauses has no bearing on the meaning or identity of Subject.  Subject is an interpersonal function (modal responsibility of the clause as exchange), whereas Theme is a textual function (point of departure of the clause as message).

[4] Subject does not conflate with unmarked topical Theme in declarative clauses.  This wording betrays Martin's misunderstanding of un/marked Theme.  If Theme conflates with Subject in declarative clauses, then the Theme is said to be unmarked (whereas if it conflates with Adjunct or Complement, it is said to be marked).  Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 73, 74):

In a declarative clause, the typical pattern is one in which Theme is conflated with Subject; … We shall refer to the mapping of Theme on to Subject as the unmarked Theme of a declarative clause. The Subject is the element that is chosen as Theme unless there is good reason for choosing something else. 

A Theme that is something other than the Subject, in a declarative clause, we shall refer to as a marked Theme. The most usual form of marked Theme is an adverbial group … or prepositional phrase … functioning as Adjunct in the clause. Least likely to be thematic is a Complement, which is a nominal group that is not functioning as Subject — something that could have been a Subject but is not … . Sometimes even the Complement from within a prepositional phrase functions as Theme … .

[5] Whatever the context, Subject selection is independent of Theme selection — regardless of whether the functions are conflated or not.  Subject selection is an interpersonal choice — one which identifies where the responsibility for the validity of the predication lies.  Theme selection is a textual choice — one which identifies the element that is highlighted as the point of departure for what follows in the message.

When New Information Isn't

Martin (1992: 455):

The pattern of interaction in [6:23] is outlined below, listing the text's News, hyper-New and macro-New.  The News of the introduction are listed (in plain face) but do not participate in this pattern; they participate instead in the complementary function of predicting the text's method of development reviewed above.

Blogger Comment:

To be clear, on this model, information that is presented by the writer as New to the reader in the introduction (Martin's macro-Theme) does not participate in the 'accumulation of New information'.

Problems With The Complementarity Of Hyper-Theme & Hyper-New

Martin (1992: 454):

This complementarity of hyper-Theme predicting a text's method of development and hyper-New accumulating its point is outlined in Fig. 6.11.

 

Fig. 6.11. Complementarity of hyper-Theme & hyper-New

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is potentially misleading, to the extent that it represents Theme and New as always distinct.

[2] As previously explained, a hyper-Theme — Martin's rebranding of Topic Sentence, using a term coined for other purposes by Daneš (1974) — does not "predict" what experiential content will be highlighted in subsequent Themes.

Any relations between the experiential content of Topic Sentences and the experiential content of subsequent Themes are those of lexical cohesion and grammatical reference, two non-structural resources of the textual metafunction.

Not Accounting For A Distinctive Mode Of Development

Martin (1992: 453):

Theme selection in [6:36] is mainly restricted to the two World Wars alongside an army/navy/airforce string (assault troops, airpower, she, Battle Line).  The text's method of development in other words narrowly circumscribes its selection of Themes.  Choices for New are not restricted in this way; they open up the field of naval history, a small portion of which is being constructed in this text.

minimal news in [6:36]	topical themes in [6:36]
in World War I	World War I (4)
in World War II	World War II (5)
for the Army	both wars
for the Army	participation
escort-of-convoy and anti-submarine work	assault troops
on the surface	airpower
with the Japanese Navy	battleship
in transports	Battle Line
on docks or in protected harbours	new tactics
had to be revived and developed
ashore
inchoate and almost negligible
a determining factor
queen of the sea
since the age of Drake
with tactics inherited from the age of sail
had to be devised

Blogger Comments:

[1] The actual topical Themes in [6:36] are as follows, with likely foci of (largely contrastive) New highlighted:

topical Theme
marked	unmarked
	the United States
	the nature of that participation
	the earlier conflict
	the latter
in both wars
in the 1917-18 conflict
between 1941 and 1945
	American soldiers who engaged in World War I
in World War II
	assault troops
	airpower
in the latter
in World War I
	she
	Battle Line
in World War II
	for which

[2] Text [6:36] contrasts the participation of the U.S. armed forces in WWI with their participation in WWII. To this end, each war-time is thematised, by turns, to provide the point of the departure that contextualises what is to follow in each clause, as the contrasts are accumulated through the text.

In contrast, merely to say that the text's method of development 'narrowly circumscribes its selection of Themes' does not begin to account for the use of theme selection in this text.

[3] Arbitrarily restricting the choices of New to the last functional element of clause structure seriously misrepresents the packaging of information in text [6:36].  The more likely foci of New information, based on reading the text aloud, are the thematic New highlighted in green, above, and the rhematic New highlighted in blue, below.

Rheme

participated heavily in World War I

participation was fundamentally different from what it became in World War II

was a one-ocean war for the Navy

a one-theatre war for the Army

was a two-ocean war for the Navy

one of five major theatres for the Army

a vital responsibility of the Navy was escort-of-convoy and anti-submarine work

it never clashed with the enemy on the surface

it fought some twenty major and countless minor engagements with the Japanese Navy

were taken overseas in transports

landed on docks or in protected harbours

the art of amphibious warfare had to be revived and developed

were forced to fight their way ashore

in the earlier conflict, was still inchoate

almost negligible

it was a determining factor

the battleship still reigned queen of the sea

had in changing forms, since the age of Drake

fought with tactics inherited from the age of sail

the capital naval force was the air-craft carrier taskgroup

completely new tactics had to be devised

[4] It is all the content of the text that construes the field; New merely highlights textually what the author deems unrecoverable to the reader.  Martin here confuses the textual highlighting (New) with the experiential content being highlighted.