Under-Acknowledging A Significant Intellectual Source

Martin (1992: 491):

NOTES

1. …
2. The conjunction so that has been selected here since it codes the meaning of inclination; see Chapter 4.
3. …
4. The topical Theme clear in r is metaphorical (experiential) realisation of an interpersonal Theme (congruently clearly).
5. …
6. The modalised conjunctions whether, whether and if have been treated as interpersonal Themes in this analysis.
7. Fries (1981/1983: 135) complements his notion of development with that of point, which he sees as realised through Rheme; his point is interpreted as "pattern of news" here. …

Blogger Comments:

[1] The conjunction group so that realises logical meaning, a relation of expansion: enhancement: cause: purpose or result, between two clauses in a nexus.  It does not realise inclination, which is interpersonal meaning: modality: modulation; see Chapter 4 critiques.

[2] The topical Theme in clause [r] (It is clear that future generations…) is it, not clear.  Both it and clear function both experientially (Carrier and Attribute) and interpersonally (Subject and Complement).  In interpersonal terms, clearly functions as a comment Adjunct, whereas it is clear enacts a comment (modal assessment) on a proposition as an objectively oriented proposition in its own right.  If the comment Adjunct clearly had been used, then the topical Theme would have been future generations, but this is not acknowledged as a Theme in the analysis of the text.

[3] The conjunctions whether and if function as structural Themes, because they realise a logico-semantic relation between clauses in a clause nexus.  They do not function as interpersonal Themes because they do not realise values of modality.

[4] This endnote — 42 pages after the discussion — is the only acknowledgement that Martin's 'point' derives from Fries (1981).  Since Martin interprets New as the last element of clause structure, his point, like Fries', is also "realised through Rheme".

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.

Not Understanding Interstratal Realisation

Martin (1992: 460):

In Chapters 1 and 5 it was noted that one essential interpretation of "A realises B" in functional linguistics is that A is symbolically related to B — relationships between levels (beyond that between content and expression form) are natural.  The discussion of Theme and New in clauses, paragraphs and texts presented to this point in sections 6.3.2 and 6.3.3 illustrates clearly the symbolic way in which text can be said to be realised by clause.  Clause grammar is a metaphor for text structure; patterns of interaction between discourse semantics and lexicogrammar echo the textual organisation of the clause.  It is in this sense that a functional grammar is a critical resource for textlinguistics.

Blogger Comments:

This demonstrates most clearly that Martin (1992) does not understand the meaning of 'realisation' in the architecture of SFL theory.

[1] The clause A realises B construes an intensive identifying relation between A and B, such that A is the Token (the lower level of abstraction) and B is the Value (the higher level of abstraction).  Like verbs such as express, signify, spell, stand for, mean, the verb realise serves as a Process construing a symbolic identifying relation; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 238; 2014: 269).

[2] The clause A realises B does not specify whether the relation of symbolic identity between levels is natural or otherwise.

A	realises	B
expression	realises	content
phonology	realises	lexicogrammar
lexicogrammar	realises	semantics
Token	Process: intensive: symbol	Value

[3] In terms of stratification, 'text' refers to the highest unit of the semantic stratum, and 'clause' refers to the highest unit of the lexicogrammatical stratum.  The semantic stratum (meaning) is realised by the lexicogrammatical stratum (wording).  The 'symbolic way' that 'text is realised by clause' is just this interstratal relation.

[4] The claim here is that clause rank lexicogrammar (textual metafunction) is a metaphor (incongruent realisation) of text structure.

[5] In terms of the architecture of SFL theory, 'patterns of interaction between discourse semantics and lexicogrammar' are patterns of realisation relations between the systems of each stratum.  Thus, the claim here is actually that patterns of interstratal realisation of discourse semantics in lexicogrammar reflect the Theme^Rheme structure of the clause.

[6] The reason why a functional grammar is a critical resource for textlinguistics is actually because of the relation between text and system: instantiation.  Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 658):

A text is meaningful because it is an actualisation of the potential that constitutes the linguistic system; it is for this reason that the study of discourse (‘text linguistics’) cannot properly be separated from the study of the grammar that lies behind it.

Halliday (2008: 192):

The system and the text are not two different phenomena: what we call the “system” of a language is equivalent to its “text potential”. Analysing discourse means, first and foremost, relating the text to the potential that lies behind it.

When An Abstract Is A Summary And A Summary Is An Introduction

Martin (1992: 458):

The consideration of macro-Theme and macro-New in Matthiessen and Halliday's paper points to the difference between what are often referred to as an abstract and a summary. A[n] abstract is essentially a dislocated macro-New (typically "Theme marked" at a text's beginning or published elsewhere); it presents the essence of what can be learned by reading the text the abstract functions as macro-New for.  A summary on the other hand is more like a dislocated macro-Theme (often "Rhematic" at the end of a text or published elsewhere); it provides an outline of what can or has been read, re-scaffolding by way of review.

Blogger Comments:

[1] On this model, the difference between an abstract and a summary is that an abstract is a summary and a summary is an introductory paragraph; see the next two points, below.

[2] Glossing the term macro-New as 'text summary' (p454), this becomes:

A[n] abstract is essentially a dislocated text summary; it presents the essence of what can be learned by reading the text the abstract functions as text summary for.

[3] Glossing the term macro-Theme as 'introductory paragraph' (p437), this becomes:

A summary on the other hand is more like a dislocated introductory paragraph; it provides an outline of what can or has been read, re-scaffolding by way of review.

[4] An abstract or summary that is published elsewhere, rather than as part of the text in question, though related (intertextually), is not part of the logogenesis of the actual text it abstracts or summarises, and so does not function as its macro-New or macro-Theme.

Presenting Prescription As Theoretical Description

Martin (1992: 456):

Importantly, macro-News are not simply a replay of macro-Themes; they draw together new meanings which could not have been predicted by macro-Theme because they had not been made.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This translates as: 'text summaries are not simply a replay of introductory paragraphs'.  The field here, still, is writing pedagogy — prescribing how to structure written texts — rather than theorising the system of the English language by examining instances (texts).  Moreover, the situation is quite different when an actual text is closely examined.

In text [6:23], the introductory paragraph ('macro-Theme') is given by Martin as:

Wars are costly exercises. They cause death and destruction and put resources to non-productive uses but they also promote industrial and economic change. This benefit does not mean that war is a good thing, but that it sometimes brings useful developments.

and the text summary ('macro-New') is given by Martin as:

… it is clear that future generations not only enjoyed the security and peace won by their forefathers but also the benefits of war-time economic expansion.

It can be seen that, rather than accumulate the New meanings of the preceding co-text (Martin's claim), what actually happens in this particular text summary ('macro-New') is:

1. first, content not previously discussed in the text is introduced (it is clear that future generations not only enjoyed the security and peace won by their forefathers), and
2. second, one piece of New information from the introductory paragraph (promote industrial and economic change) is reworded (lexical cohesion) and again presented as New information (the benefits of war-time economic expansion).

[2] The claim here is that new meanings could not have been predicted by the introductory paragraph on account of the fact that these new meanings had not been made.  The logic here is as follows:

• Q could not have been predicted from P because Q had not yet happened.

The notion of prediction only applies to events that have not yet happened.

Confusing Writing Pedagogy With Linguistic Theory

Martin (1992: 456):

Macro-Theme, hyper-Themes and clause Themes project forward, scaffolding the text with respect to its rhetorical purpose (i.e. its genre); macro-New, hyper-News and clause News on the other hand look back, gathering up the meanings which have accumulated to elaborate a text's field.  The result is a textured sandwich in which texts project both forward and back as they unfold.  Texture of this kind, which is a tendency in writing (by no means a categorical rule) is outlined schematically in Fig. 6.12.

 

Fig. 6.12. Sandwich texture in abstract written discourse

Blogger Comments:

[1] The field here is writing pedagogy, not linguistic theory:

• macro-Theme is Martin's rebranding of introductory paragraph; 
• hyper-Theme is Martin's use of Daneš's (1974) term to rebrand topic sentence;
• macro-New is Martin's term for a text summary (and so 'New' is a misnomer);
• hyper-New is Martin's term for a paragraph summary (and so 'New' is again a misnomer).

[2] This confuses context (which is more abstract than language) with register (which is a functional variety of language).  The rôle of language in context is its rhetorical mode.  A genre, on the other hand, as a text type, is register viewed from the instance pole of the cline of instantiation.

[3] 'New' is a functional element of the information unit, not the clause. The domain of an information unit may be shorter or longer than a single clause.

[4] The meanings that 'elaborate' the field of a context of situation are all the meanings of a text, not just those that are presented as New to the addressee or re-presented in summaries.

[5] The relation between meaning (semantics) and field (context) is realisation, which is both an elaborating and an identifying relation.  It is the identifying component of the relation that marks the two as different levels of symbolic abstraction.  The use of the term 'elaboration' betrays the fact that Martin does not understand strata as different levels of symbolic abstraction, as has been demonstrated in numerous previous posts (here).

Confusing Textual Phase With Textual Status

Martin (1992: 456):

Public speakers (and even writers, at a time when composition was taught in schools) are commonly advised: "tell your audience what you're going to say, say it, and then remind them what you've said".  The generally cited Introduction ^ Body ^ Conclusion formula for expository texts makes the same point (as does Orientation ^ Complication/Resolution ^ Coda for narrative).  What this wise counsel represents is the tendency for whole texts in English to symbolise the Theme ^ Rheme and Given ^ New structure of the English clause.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As this demonstrates, the field here is writing pedagogy, not linguistic theory.

[2] What these three schemas actually have in common is that they are ways of naming the time-phases (inception, duration and termination) of a process — in this case, the unfolding of text (logogenesis).  This is quite distinct from Theme and New, which highlight the textual status of experiential and interpersonal content.

[3] Given ^ New is not a structure of the English clause.  They are functional elements of the information unit.

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.