Misanalysing Theme

Martin & Rose (2007: 191):

All the Themes are highlighted, and the marked Themes are underlined below:

He became very quiet.
[He became] Withdrawn.
Sometimes he would just press his face into his hands
and [he would] shake uncontrollably.
I realised
he was drinking too much.
Instead of resting at night, he would wander from window to window.
He tried to hide his wild consuming fear,
but I saw it.
In the early hours of the morning between two and half-past-two, I jolt awake from his rushed breathing.
[He] Rolls this way, that side of the bed.
He's pale.
[He's] ice cold in a sweltering night
[He's] — sopping wet with sweat.
[His] Eyes [are] bewildered,
but [his eyes are] dull like the dead.
And [he had] the shakes.
[He had] The terrible convulsions and blood-curdling shrieks of fear and pain from the bottom of his soul.
Sometimes he sits motionless,
just staring in front of him.

The main recurrent choice for Subject/Theme in this phase is Helena's husband, realised as he. This identity gives us our basic orientation to the field for this phase of discourse; Helena's husband is the hook round which she spins the new information she gives us in each figure. As the Theme of each clause, he is our recurrent point of departure, our angle on the field in each figure. These kinds of Subject/Themes give continuity to a phase of discourse. Because they are the most frequent kind of Theme in discourse, listeners/readers perceive them as 'unmarked' Themes; they are mildly prominent in the flow of discourse, because they are the point of departure for each clause, but because they are typical they are not especially prominent.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, as previously explained, Martin & Rose misrepresent the data by inserting Themes that the author chose not to instantiate. That is, Martin & Rose give higher textual status (Theme) to elements that the author ellipsed in order to give them lower textual status. Moreover, Martin & Rose mistake the Subjects of clauses with marked Themes for (unmarked) Themes, as previously explained. A thematic analysis that is consistent with SFL Theory is presented below for comparison.

Theme				Rheme
structural	interpersonal	topical
		marked	unmarked
			He	became very quiet, withdrawn
	Sometimes		he	would just press his face into his hands
and				shake uncontrollably
			I	realised
			he	was drinking too much
Instead of				resting at night
			he	would wander from window to window
			He	tried to hide his wild consuming fear
but			I	saw it
		In the early hours of the morning between two and half-past-two		I jolt awake from his rushed breathing
				Rolls this way, that side of the bed
			He	's pale, ice cold in a sweltering night — sopping wet with sweat
Eyes bewildered, but dull like the dead
And the shakes: The terrible convulsions and blood-curdling shrieks of fear and pain from the bottom of his soul
	Sometimes		he	sits motionless
	just			staring in front of him

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, 'field' refers to the ideational dimension of the culture as semiotic system; that is, 'field' refers to what is happening in terms of the culture. Martin's use of 'field' typically refers to the ideational semantics of a text, due to the fact that he misunderstands context as register, a sub-potential of language, such that field is the ideational dimension of register.

[3] To be clear, this confuses Rheme (the body of the clause as message) with New information. New information is not restricted to the Rheme of a clause, as demonstrated by every Theme realised by tonic prominence, the phonological realisation of the focus of New information. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 652):

… thematic status may be combined with either given or new, and the same is true of rhematic status.

[4] To be clear, the figure is a unit in the ideational semantics of Halliday & Matthiessen (1999). Since the concern here is the textual metafunction, the relevant semantic unit is the message.

[5] To be clear, a Theme is not an "angle" on field (see [2]). Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 88, 89):

We may assume that in all languages the clause has the character of a message, or quantum of information in the flow of discourse: it has some form of organisation whereby it fits in with, and contributes to, the flow of discourse. …

The Theme is the element that serves as the point of departure of the message; it is that which locates and orients the clause within its context. The speaker chooses the Theme as his or her point of departure to guide the addressee in developing an interpretation of the message; by making part of the message prominent as Theme, the speaker enables the addressee to process the message.

[6] To be clear, the author's use of ellipsis — which Martin & Rose have undone (see [1]) — gives continuity to this phase of discourse. 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.

[7] To be clear, this confuses markedness with prominence and attributes a knowledge of SFL theory — the perception of unmarked Themes — to listeners/readers. All Themes are textually prominent, but marked Themes typically carry an added feature of contrast. 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.

Marked Themes can be 'doubly prominent' if the focus of New information falls with the Theme. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 328):

One way of giving prominence to a Theme is to construe it as if it was a circumstance of Matter; e.g. as for the ghost, it hasn’t been seen since. By being first introduced circumstantially, the ghost becomes a focused Theme.

However, as will be seen, such focused Themes are not possible in the periodicity model of Martin & Rose, since it is falsely assumed that New information always falls within the Rheme of a clause.