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.

Failing To Model (Or Notice) The Interplay Of New And Theme

Martin (1992: 452-3):

Taking New as the final clause constituent in [6:36] displays the same difference in the range of realisations noted for the spoken text considered above.  The Theme grounds the genre, anchoring it to just a few meanings and News articulate the field (topical Themes are in small caps in this example to distinguish them more clearly from News; marked Themes are underlined.

[6:36]	(New interpreted as final ranking clause constituents)
	a	although the united states participated heavily in world war i,
	b	the nature of that participation was fundamentally different from what it became in World War II.
	c	the earlier conflict was a one-ocean war for the Navy and a one-theatre war for the Army;
	d	the latter was a two-ocean war for the Navy and one of five major theatres for the Army.
	e	in both wars a vital responsibility of the Navy was escort-of-convoy and anti-submarine work,
	f	but in the 1917-18 conflict it never clashed with the enemy on the surface;
	g	whilst between 1941 and 1945 it fought some twenty major and countless minor engagements with the Japanese Navy.
	h	american soldiers who engaged in world war i were taken overseas in transports
	i	and landed on docks or in protected harbours;
	j	in world war ii the art of amphibious warfare had to be revived and developed,
	k	since assault troops were forced to fight their way ashore.
	l	airpower, in the earlier conflict, was still inchoate and almost negligible;
	m	in the latter it was a determining factor.
	n	in world war i the battleship still reigned queen of the sea,
	o	as she had in changing forms, since the age of Drake.
	p	and battle line fought with tactics inherited from the age of sail;
	q	but in world war ii the capital naval force was the air-craft carrier taskgroup,
	r	for which completely new tactics had to be devised.

Blogger Comments:

[1] 'Taking New as the final clause constituent in [6:36]' seriously misrepresents the distribution of information in the text.  Not only does this fail to take into account the lexical density of the text, but it ignores the fact that the text is contrasting the participation of the U.S. in WW1 with their participation in WW2.  This contrast is effected in the text through contrastive News, in both Theme (marked and unmarked) and Rheme.  An analysis of the text — based on a spoken reading of the text — appears below, with thematic foci highlighted in green, and rhematic foci in blue.

[2] See the previous and next blog post.

[3] This completely overlooks how the structural textual resources, theme and information, collaborate in this 'compare and contrast' text type.  Contrastive New is deployed throughout, not just in Rhemes, but in all seven of the marked Themes and in five of the ten unmarked Themes; and the high proportion of marked Themes reflects the fact that such contrasts are presented as the point of departure for contextualising what follows in the clause.

[4] This is not a marked Theme.  It is a beta clause of a regressive sequence that is thematic in a clause nexus.

[5] There are several errors in Martin's analysis:

• in [b] the final ranking clause constituent is the Complement fundamentally different from what it became in World War II rather than the rank-shifted in World War II;
• [c], [d] and [l] contain two clauses rather than one, with mood ellipsis in the second clause in each instance; and
• in [r] the topical Theme is the Wh-/Adjunct  for which rather than the Subject completely new tactics.

	Theme			Rheme
	textual	topical
		marked	unmarked
a	Although		the United States	participated heavily in World War I
b			the nature of that participation	participation was fundamentally different from what it became in World War II
c			the earlier conflict	was a one-ocean war for the Navy
	and			a one-theatre war for the Army
d			the latter	was a two-ocean war for the Navy
	and			one of five major theatres for the Army
e		in both wars		a vital responsibility of the Navy was escort-of-convoy and anti-submarine work
f	but	in the 1917-18 conflict		it never clashed with the enemy on the surface
g	whilst	between 1941 and 1945		it fought some twenty major and countless minor engagements with the Japanese Navy
h			American soldiers who engaged in World War I	were taken overseas in transports
i	and			landed on docks or in protected harbours
j		in World War II		the art of amphibious warfare had to be revived and developed
k	since		assault troops	were forced to fight their way ashore
l			airpower	in the earlier conflict, was still inchoate
	and			almost negligible
m		in the latter		it was a determining factor
n		in World War I		the battleship still reigned queen of the sea
o	as		she	had in changing forms, since the age of Drake
p	and		Battle Line	fought with tactics inherited from the age of sail
q	but	in World War II		the capital naval force was the air-craft carrier taskgroup
r			for which	completely new tactics had to be devised

Misinterpreting Theme And New

Martin (1992: 452):

The main contrast is in the range of meanings woven through Theme and New.  Only a few of the text's participants and processes are selected as unmarked topical Theme, with far greater variation in New.  The Themes focus on the major participants involved in the anecdote, while the News tell the story.  Putting this in more general terms, Themes angle in on a given field, reflecting a text's genre; News elaborate the field, developing it in experiential terms.  This contrast in functions operates across text types …

Blogger Comments:

[1] None of the text's processes are selected as topical Theme — unmarked or otherwise; see the Theme analysis below.  The reason for the greater variation in New information than unmarked topical Themes is that, in these declarative clauses, the unmarked topical Theme is restricted to the Subject, whereas any information at all can be highlighted as New, including the unmarked topical Theme/Subject.

[2] This unsupported assertion is manifestly untrue.  Both Themes and News textually highlight the major participants in the anecdote — and more besides; see the Theme analysis below, in which the focus of New information is highlighted as green when also thematic and blue otherwise.

[3] This unsupported assertion also is manifestly untrue. The speaker tells the story; the News are information that the speaker presents as non-recoverable to the listener. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 118):

We can now see more clearly what the terms Given and New actually mean. The significant variable is: information that is presented by the speaker as recoverable (Given) or not recoverable (New) to the listener. … what is treated as non-recoverable may be something that has not been mentioned; but it may be something unexpected, whether previously mentioned or not. The meaning is: attend to this; this is news. One form of ‘newness’ that is frequent in dialogue is contrastive emphasis…

[4] Unmarked topical Themes present the experiential wording that is to be the point of departure for the clause as message.  In declarative clauses, as in the text under discussion, these also present the Subject, the carrier of modal responsibility, as the point of departure.

Field, in contrast, is the ideational dimension of context (the culture as a semiotic system that is realised in language).  Martin's misunderstanding of the SFL notion of field is twofold.  On the one hand, he misconstrues context as register, and so misconstrues field as a dimension of register.  On the other hand, he misconstrues some ideational semantics ('activity sequences') as field, and thus as context misconstrued as register.

Genre, in the sense of text type, is modelled in SFL as register: the sub-potential of language that realises a sub-potential of context (situation type).  Register is a point of variation on the cline of instantiation.  Martin, on the other hand, models genre as a more abstract level of context than his register.

[5] This assertion also is manifestly untrue. News do not "elaborate the field". Elaborating the meanings that realise field is effected through logical structures and conjunctive cohesion.  News present the speaker's take on what is unrecoverable to the listener.

[6] The contrast in functions of Theme and New does operate across text types, but not the functions Martin attributes to them.  Misleadingly, Martin presents Theme and New as if they always highlighted different portions of messages, whereas, in fact, the conflation of Theme with New is an important textual resource.  In the text under discussion, the conflation of Theme with New occurs 9 times (out of 44).

Theme			Rheme
textual	interpersonal	topical
		the only real accident that I’ve ever had	was in fog and ice
and		there	was a big truck parked on the side of the road about three feet away from the side of the road
and		it	was very thick fog
and		a mini	had gone into this truck
well		the mini	had just touched the offside of the truck with its nearside wing
and so		it	meant [[[when I came along || my side of the road was completely blocked]]]
and	unfortunately	I	went into a four wheel skid
			before coming up to this mini
and		at that time	I didn’t know
		how	to deal with a four wheel skid
and so		I	went into the mini
		you	hit it sideways on
		about twelve cars	went into me
and then		a friend of ours	came along
and		he	decided
			to try and overtake the lot
and so		he	went into each one
			sort of banging them sideways as it were
and oh		this	was in daylight
			because of the fog
	needless to say	I	treat fog with great respect now
yes		I	know
		they	keep happening these multiple collisions in fog
	were	you	all right though as a result of this
(oh yes)
(oh yes)
		there	was no-one injured