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[He became] Withdrawn.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			He	became very quiet, withdrawn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.

The Classification Of Continuatives

Martin & Rose (2007: 143):

So we can classify continuatives both by the type of logical relations, and the type of expectancy they realise, as in Table 4.7.

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, firstly, in the foregoing discussion, Martin & Rose have classified a class of word, the continuative, a subtype of conjunction, and presented the classification as discourse semantic rather than grammatical.  This is inconsistent in terms of stratification.

Secondly, in doing so, Martin & Rose have taken a bottom-up perspective: beginning with forms and then classifying them in terms of function. This is the opposite perspective of SFL Theory, which takes a top-down perspective: first determining the distinctions in meaning and then identifying how such distinctions are realised.

Thirdly, in terms of SFL Theory, none of words claimed to be continuatives are actually continuatives. As previously demonstrated, they are a mixture of adverbs and conjunctions functioning as either mood Adjuncts (interpersonal metafunction) or conjunctive Adjuncts (textual metafunction). Interpreting the function of these items as logical is also theoretically inconsistent in terms of metafunction.

[2] To be clear, firstly, as previously demonstrated, in terms of SFL Theory, the items too, also and as well do mark a relation of addition, but they serve as conjunctive Adjuncts and mark a textually cohesive relation at the level of grammar, rather than continuatives marking a logically structural relation at the level of discourse semantics. The theoretical confusions here are both metafunctional and stratal.

Secondly, as previously demonstrated, in terms of SFL Theory, none of the items marks a relation of comparison. The item so (did he) serves as a conjunctive Adjunct and marks a textually cohesive relation of addition, whereas the items only, just and even function interpersonally as mood Adjuncts of intensity. The theoretical confusions here are in terms of expansion relation, metafunction and stratification.

Thirdly, as previously demonstrated, in terms of SFL Theory, the items already, finally, at last, still and again do mark temporal features, but not those ascribed to them by Martin & Rose. The items already and still function interpersonally as mood Adjuncts of temporality, whereas the items finally and at last function textually as conjunctive Adjuncts marking a cohesive relation of time. The instance provided of the item again, on the other hand, functioned experientially as a circumstance of temporal Extent. The theoretical confusions here, once more, are both metafunctional and stratal.

[3] To be clear, as previously demonstrated, in terms of SFL Theory, the only types of expectancy here are interpersonal, and apply to the mood Adjuncts of intensity and temporality (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 187-9):

• only and just: counter-expectancy: limiting;
• even: counter-expectancy: exceeding;

• already: 'by' the time at issue;
• still: 'since' the time at issue.

The theoretical confusions here, once again, are both metafunctional and stratal.

Misconstruing Mood And Conjunctive Adjuncts As 'Expectant Temporal Continuatives'

Martin & Rose (2007: 143):

Temporal continuatives indicate that something happens sooner or later, or persists longer, than one might expect. Helena is appalled at how white peoples’ greed persists longer than might be reasonably expected:

If I had to watch how white people became dissatisfied with the best and still wanted better and got it.

Helena also uses finally to signal that it took longer than expected to understand the struggle:

I finally understand what the struggle was really about.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL Theory, neither of these items is a continuative, and neither instance expresses expectation with respect to time.

When the item still expresses a temporal feature, with the sense of 'even now', it functions interpersonally as a mood Adjunct of temporality (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 188); see [3] below. However, in this instance, (and) still marks the clause complex paratactic expansion relation of concessive condition, with the sense of 'and yet' (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 614). The meaning of concessive condition is 'if P then contrary to expectation Q'. That is, this relation features 'expectation', but not 'time'.

This instance of finally, on the other hand, expresses a feature of 'time', but not a feature of 'expectation'. Here finally serves as a conjunctive Adjunct marking the textually cohesive temporal relation of 'conclusive'; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 614).

[2] Here Martin & Rose not only misunderstand the meaning of the quoted text, but also judge that it is reasonable to expect white people's greed, provided it doesn't persist too long.

[3] To be clear, the item finally gives no indication as to the expectation with regard to the speaker coming to an understanding; it merely indicates that after some time, she did. The confusion here is with the item eventually in its function as a temporal modal Adjunct that expresses 'remote future' with respect to the here-&-now of deictic time, as in:

• I will eventually understand what the struggle was really about

which is agnate to:

• I once understood what the struggle was really about ('remote non-future')
• I will soon understand what the struggle was really about ('near future')
• I just understood what the struggle was really about ('near non-future')

In contrast, the temporal modal Adjuncts that do express expectation with regard to deictic time are exemplified by:

• I still understand what the struggle was really about ('since positive')
• I no longer understand what the struggle was really about ('since negative')
• I already understand what the struggle was really about ('by positive')
• I do not yet understand what the struggle was really about ('by negative').

Misconstruing Interpersonal Counter-Expectancy As Logical Expectancy (And The Meaning Of The Texts Used As Examples)

Martin & Rose (2014: 142):

However, another perspective on continuatives is their role in managing expectancy. On this criterion we can group together already, finally, still, yet, only, just, even, since they all signal that an activity is in some way unexpected. This has already been touched on in Chapter 2 (section 2.4) in the discussion of concession as one kind of source for evaluations. For example, comparative continuatives indicate that there is more or less to a situation than might be expected. So it was more than we could expect of the relationship, to even speak about marriage:

It was the beginning of a beautiful relationship.
We even spoke about marriage.

But it was less than we might expect of amnesty, that it was only a means to the truth:

Amnesty didn't matter,
it was only a means to the truth.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL Theory, none of the listed items are continuatives, comparative or otherwise, and any expectancy involved is interpersonal, not logical (or textual); see further below.

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, these items typically function interpersonally as mood Adjuncts of intensity, of which there are two subtypes: temporality (already, still, just) and counter-expectancy (only, just even). The items only and just mark 'counterexpectancy: limiting', whereas even marks 'counterexpectancy: exceeding'; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 189).

[3] To be clear, in SFL Theory, these items typically function textually as conjunctive Adjuncts, with finally typically marking a conclusive temporal relation or a summative clarifying relation, and yet typically marking an adversative additive relation or a concessive conditional relation; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 612-3).

[4] Here Martin and Rose misunderstand the counter-expectancy of mood Adjuncts of intensity (misunderstood as continuatives), and, as a consequence, misunderstand the meaning of texts they present as examples; see [5] and [6] below. As Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 188) explain:

Those of counterexpectancy are either ‘limiting’ or ‘exceeding’ what is to be expected: the meaning is either ‘nothing else than, went no further than’ or ‘including also, went as far as’.

[5] Here Martin and Rose misunderstand meaning of the text. The meaning is not:

To even speak about marriage was more than we could expect of the relationship

but almost the opposite:

Our relationship even went as far as speaking about marriage. 

[6] Here Martin and Rose misunderstand meaning of the text. The meaning is not:

it was less than we might expect of amnesty

but the significantly different:

amnesty was nothing other than a means to the truth.

Misconstruing Conjunctive Adjuncts And Mood Adjuncts As Continuatives

Martin & Rose (2014: 142):

Instead of coming at the beginning of the clause, continuatives typically occur next to the finite verb within the clause. Finite verbs are the ones that express tense or modality (see Chapter 7, section 7.3, below). They are underlined as follows: is also, so was, even spoke, was only, still wanted, finally understand, were again…

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL Theory, (genuine) continuatives are inherently thematic and thus occur at the beginning of a clause. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 109):

Those that are inherently thematic are the (textual) continuatives and conjunctions. As the language evolved, they have, as it were, migrated to the front of the clause and stayed there. Essentially they constitute a setting for the clause (continuative), or else they locate it in a specific logical-semantic relationship to another clause in the neighbourhood (conjunction). In either case, their thematic status comes as part of a package, along with their particular discursive force.

To be clear, the elements that typically occur next to the Finite verbal operator are mood Adjuncts, some of which Martin and Rose mistake for continuatives; see [4]. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 187):

These are so called because they are closely associated with the meanings enacted by the mood system: modality and temporality, and also intensity. This means that their neutral position in the clause is next to the Finite verbal operator, either just before it or just after it.

[2] To be clear, here Martin and Rose confuse the element of clause structure that realises tense or modality, the Finite verbal operator, with a finite form of a verb.

[3] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the items also, so, finally, again are not continuatives, but can serve as conjunctive Adjuncts that mark a textually cohesive relation the preceding discourse. The distribution of conjunctive Adjuncts in the clause is similar to that of interpersonal comment modal Adjuncts (Halliday & Matthiessen 2004: 157).

[4] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the items even, only, still are not continuatives, but can serve as  interpersonal mood Adjuncts of intensity (even, only) or temporality (still).

Misconstruing A Conjunctive Adjunct (Concessive Condition) And A Circumstance (Extent) As Continuatives Of Time

Martin & Rose (2007: 142):

And other continuatives realise time:

If I had to watch how white people became dissatisfied with the best and still wanted better and got it. 

I finally understand what the struggle was really about. 

'those at the top' were again targeting the next 'permanent removal from society'.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL Theory, when still has the temporal sense of 'even now/then', as it does in this instance, it functions interpersonally as a mood Adjunct of temporality (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 188). As a conjunctive Adjunct, still — like nevertheless — marks the cohesive conjunctive relation of concessive condition (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 614)

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, this instance of finally marks the textually cohesive temporal relation of 'conclusive'; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 614).

[3] To be clear, in SFL Theory, this instance of the adverb again functions experientially as a circumstance of Extent: frequency.  As Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 158) point out:

And the same item may function sometimes circumstantially and sometimes conjunctively; for example then, at that moment, later on, again…

Misconstruing Additive Conjunction And Modal Assessment As Continuative: Comparison

Martin & Rose (2007: 142):

Other continuatives realise types of comparison so (did he), even, only, just:

It was the beginning of a beautiful relationship.
We even spoke about marriage. 

Amnesty didn't matter.
It was only a means to the truth.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the conjunctive Adjunct, so (did he) — like also (± did he) — marks the textually cohesive relation of positive addition; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 613).

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, these items function interpersonally as mood Adjuncts of intensity. The item even marks 'counterexpectancy: exceeding', whereas only and just mark 'counterexpectancy: limiting'; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 189).

Rebranding Additive Conjunction As Continuative: Addition

Martin & Rose (2007: 142):

We have actually discussed several of these already, without explicitly distinguishing them from conjunctions. We met the continuative also in Tutu’s exposition:

The Act required that the application should be dealt with in a public hearing … It is also not true that the granting of amnesty encourages impunity … because amnesty is only given to those who plead guilty ...

The kind of logical relation expressed by this continuative is addition.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, in SFL Theory, in this instance, also serves as a conjunctive Adjunct, not a continuative, and marks the textually cohesive relation of positive addition; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 613).

Misconstruing Conjunction And Modal Assessment As Continuity

Martin & Rose (2007: 141):

As we predicted at the start of this chapter, we now need to mention a small set of linkers that are different from conjunctions. We'll refer to these here as continuatives. Logical relations realised by continuatives include addition, comparison and time:

addition         too, also, as well
comparison   so (did he); only, just; even
time                already; finally, at last; still; again

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this is inconsistent with the notion of 'continuative' in SFL Theory. As Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 107) explain:

A continuative is one of a small set of words that signal a move in the discourse: a response, in dialogue, or a new move to the next point if the same speaker is continuing. The usual continuatives are yes no well oh now.

Martin & Rose provide no argument in support of the validity of their reinterpretation of the term, nor the explanatory value of doing so. As will be seen, this system is actually a confusion of Halliday's grammatical systems of cohesive conjunction (textual metafunction), marked by conjunctive Adjuncts, and modal assessment (interpersonal metafunction), marked by comment Adjuncts, that the authors rebrand as Martin's logical discourse semantic system.

[2] To be clear, in SFL Theory, as conjunctive Adjuncts, these items typically mark the textually cohesive relation of positive addition; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 613).

[3] To be clear, in SFL Theory, these items typically function interpersonally as mood Adjuncts of intensity. The items only and just mark 'counterexpectancy: limiting', whereas even marks 'counterexpectancy: exceeding'; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 189).

[4] To be clear, in SFL Theory, these items typically function interpersonally as mood Adjuncts of temporality (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 188), though in the example to be discussed (p142), still marks the clause complex relation of paratactic concessive condition (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 478).

[5] To be clear, in SFL Theory, these conjunctive Adjuncts typically mark the textually cohesive temporal relation of 'conclusive'; see Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 614).

[6] To be clear, the adverb again potentially serves many functions. For example, as a conjunctive Adjunct, it can mark a textually cohesive relation of clarifying elaboration. In the example to be discussed (p142), it functions experientially as a circumstance of Extent: frequency.

Misconstruing Continuity As Internal Consequence

Martin & Rose (2007: 139):

In the spoken mode, so is commonly used for internal consequence:

Landlady: So, you're off. (on entering room)

Coetzee: — Yes.

Landlady: — Well I hope you enjoyed your stay. Did you get what you wanted from the Grootbooms?

Coetzee: — Yes.

Landlady: — So, what is your connection with that family? Really?

Coetzee: — Good-bye. Their son Daniel didn't die in a car hijacking. He was a freedom fighter and I killed him. At the time I was in the police force. But it was murder.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, neither instance of so marks a logical relation of consequence. This can be demonstrated by substituting the 'consequence' marker consequently for the continuative so:

Consequently, you're off.

Consequently, what is your connection with that family? 

To be clear, conjunctive relations obtain to preceding text, and the absence of such for the first instance suggests that the authors have little grasp of the original model they are rebranding as their own.  In SFL Theory, each instance of so is a continuative. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 107):

A continuative is one of a small set of words that signal a move in the discourse: a response, in dialogue, or a new move to the next point if the same speaker is continuing. The usual continuatives are yes no well oh now. See Halliday & Hasan (1976: Chapter 5).

Theoretical Inconsistencies In The System Of Internal Addition

Martin & Rose (2007: 134):

Options for internal addition are summed up in Figure 4.5. 

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, only the features whose entry condition is 'developing' constitute genuine subclasses of addition.  Of the features whose entry condition is 'staging', 'framing' is a rebranding of Halliday's continuity, and 'sidetracking' is a rebranding of two distinct subclasses of Halliday's clarification (elaboration).  See the two preceding posts.

Misconstruing Continuity As Additive Conjunction

Martin & Rose (2007: 134):

There is also a set of conjunctions that are commonly used in spoken discourse to add new stages to what is being said — now, well, alright, okay. Here is an example from Chapter 7:

Luke: You know I missed you two fuckers.
Llewelyn: Sorry I can't say the same Luke.
Zuko: Yeah me too.
Luke: Well fuck you, man.

Blogger Comments:

Here Martin & Rose mistake continuatives for conjunctions, and mistake the system of continuity for the system of additive conjunction.  In additive conjunction, a conjunction serves to mark a cohesive relation of addition — X and Y — between portions of text. In the system of continuity, on the other hand, a continuative cohesively marks a move in dialogue. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 107):

A continuative is one of a small set of words that signal a move in the discourse: a response, in dialogue, or a new move to the next point if the same speaker is continuing. The usual continuatives are yes no well oh now. See Halliday & Hasan (1976: Chapter 5).