David Rose Misunderstanding Markedness

David Rose replied to Brad Smith on asflanet on 2 Sept 2024, at 21:21:

As you say, it’s related to instantiation, specifically the probability of instantiation... less likely choices are more marked. That gets you into knots with tone 1 imperatives here, which you say are ‘unmarked’ but are no more frequent than other tones in your data. A problem may be ambiguity of the term ‘neutral’. It can mean unmarked, but in Halliday’s key system it means neutral force, in contrast to mild, strong etc.

PS Key treats grammar/tone couplings as delicate mood choices, but another perspective is delicate speech function and appraisal choices... ‘what a command is trying to get done ‘

and on 3 Sept, at 13:27:

In contrast, marked/unmarked are used technically as feature labels in textual systems, theme and information focus. Could we perhaps avoid using these terms quasi-technically in pedagogic contexts, and reserve them for textual features? The ‘good reason’ is textual prominence.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, there is no problem here because markedness is not defined by frequency. Halliday (2005 [1991]: 68):

An unmarked term is a default condition: that which is selected unless there is good reason for selecting some other term. It is not defined by frequency, but it is likely to correspond to the more probable term in a system whose probabilities are skew.

Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 169) identify the different speech functions realised by imperative mood realised by different tones as follows:

command: tone 1 (unmarked in positive)
invitation: tone 3 (unmarked in negative)
request (marked polarity): tone 13, with tonic on do/don’t
plea: tone 4

The frequency of a selected tone will thus vary with the frequency of a selected speech function realised by imperative mood in a given text type, and this varies with the tenor relations of the interlocutors.

[2] This misunderstands the distinction between a feature and a classification of feature. In Halliday's system of KEY, Halliday & Greaves (2008: 208) 'neutral' is one of the features, not a classification of a feature as neutral or unmarked:

[3] This misrepresents the SFL model. To be clear, SPEECH FUNCTION (semantics) is realised by MOOD (lexicogrammar), and different features of KEY (lexicogrammar), realised by different features of TONE (phonology), differentiate the SPEECH FUNCTION of a MOOD into more delicate types. An example is the case of commands being differentiated into invitations, requests and pleas according to the tone selection, as in [1] above.

[4] To be clear, the unmarked/marked distinction is not restricted to features of textual systems, as demonstrated by the unmarked/marked distinction for the system of TONE, which realises interpersonal systems. Another interpersonal example is the unmarked choice of Subject; Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 194):

For any clause, there is one choice of Subject that is ‘unmarked’ – that is assumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary. In a giving clause (offer or statement), the unmarked Subject is ‘I’; while in a demanding clause (question or command), the unmarked Subject is ‘you’.

An experiential example is unmarked/marked distinction for present tense, which varies according to PROCESS TYPE. 

[5] This misunderstands the 'good reason' principle. To be clear, 'textual prominence' is what choosing an element as Theme or New affords, and this is the case whether the choice is unmarked or marked. The 'good reason' principle, on the other hand, is what lies behind the choice of a marked option in preference to the unmarked option.

David Rose On "Tonic Focus" As A Probe For Markedness

David Rose replied to Dongbing Zhang on SYSFLING on 18 Mar 2023, at 15:21:

Ah, but isn’t the probe for markedness tonic focus? (Themes underlined)...

unmarked

// those who have guns have them lègally //

marked

equative

// those who have gùns // are the ones who have them lègally //

predicated

// it is those who have gùns // who have them lègally //

So the textual function of the Qualifier is IDENTIFICATION rather than PERIODICITY. Back to Bea’s questions, those is esphoric to the embedded Attribute have guns and them is anaphoric to guns (per ET).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, "tonic focus" is not the probe for markedness. Tonic prominence is the phonological realisation of the focus of New information. An unmarked Theme can be realised by tonic prominence, making it New as well as unmarked Theme.

[2] As a spoken reading reveals, the most likely first tonic in these instances is hàve, not gùns, making the possessing of guns the focus of New information, which is consistent with the issue at stake.

[3] To be clear, the Theme in this thematic equative construction is unmarked, because it conflates with the Subject in a declarative clause:

[4] To be clear, this non-sequitur is a bare assertion, unsupported by evidence. The Qualifier in question is who have guns. IDENTIFICATION is Martin's rebranding of Halliday & Hasan's (1976) grammatical system of reference as his discourse semantic system, and PERIODICITY is Martin's rebranding of writing pedagogy ('Topic Sentence' etc.) mixed with Halliday's grammatical systems of THEME and INFORMATION.

In terms of SFL Theory, textually, the Qualifier is the referent of a demonstrative reference item (those, the) in the same nominal group, and has the status of Given or New information in an unmarked Theme:

[5] This is essentially true, except for the misleading omission of the very important fact that the analysis actually derives from Cohesion In English (Halliday & Hasan 1976). The only contribution of English Text (Martin 1992) was to relabel Halliday & Hasan 'structural cataphora' as Martin's 'esphora' — a term adapted from Ellis (1971). It is very misleading indeed to credit Martin with Halliday & Hasan's original ideas.

David Rose Misunderstanding Textual Prominence

 After BEATRIZ QUIROZ asked on SYSFLING on 18 Mar 2023, at 02:19:

How would you analyse the following clauses in terms of the ideational (transitivity) and textual metafunctions:

Those who have guns have them legally, …

the majority of people who have guns have them to protect themselves

(no any other punctuation in the original clauses found on the internet)

If “those who have guns” and “the majority of people who have guns” are [nominal groups with] embedded clauses realising a Participant within their respective single clauses, what is the function of “them”? a[s] an Attribute in a attributive possessive clause picking out “guns” from the embedded clause realising the Carrier (IFG4, p. 289)? Or is this some kind of structure giving special textual prominence to “those who have guns” and “the majority of people who have guns”? Or both?

 

David Rose replied on SYSFLING on 18 Mar 2023, 10:07:

Here’s my auty answer. First question -Yes. Second question -No. The Qualifiers function to specify the Carriers’ identity, not to mark them textually. So much of this has been worked out or flagged for further work in English Text, which continually acknowledges the work of others who went before it. ...

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the 'special textual prominence' of those who have guns and the majority of people who have guns, that Quiroz seeks, is simply that each of these unmarked Themes is also coterminous with an information unit:

(The information analysis is based on the tonic falling on the first have and legally in the first clause, and on majority and protect in the clause complex.)

The important difference between the two is that the first has unmarked information structure (Given^New), whereas the second has marked information structure (New^Given).

[2] To be clear, on the one hand, the question is about the nominal groups serving as Carrier, not about the Qualifiers of such nominal groups, and on the other hand, a Qualifier relates to the Thing of the nominal group, so it does not "specify the Carrier's identity".

[3] To be clear, "so much of this" was first "worked out" by Halliday. English Text (1992) is merely Martin's later misunderstanding of Halliday's original theorising, as demonstrated here.

[4] This is misleading, because it is untrue. See David Rose Positively Judging Martin (1992).

David Rose On Voice And Notional Reasoning

David Rose replied to David Banks on SYSFLING on 6 Mar 2022, 22:20:

… ‘reversible’ means operative/receptive:

[identifying] ‘a happy mother is made by a happy baby’

[attributive] ‘a mother is happy’/*’happy is a mother’ (except poetically)

‘Notional reasoning’ here means deriving grammatical categories from lexical notions. …

and to Tom Bartlett on SYSFLING on 6 Mar 2022, at 22:43:

… Features like [identifying] and [attributive] are defined in relation to each other (eg by your examples), not by dictionary-like glosses. Notional reasoning imagines such glosses.

 

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the agnation here is in terms of thematicity, not voice. What Rose presents as the poetic 'receptive voice' agnate is actually a 'marked thematicity' agnate:

Even in assigned attributive clauses, which do admit a voice contrast, Attribute can never conflate with Subject:

[2] This misunderstands the meaning of 'notional reasoning'. In grammatical analysis, 'notional reasoning' means arguing for a analysis solely on the basis of the meanings being construed, without grounding the analysis in the lexicogrammatical systems of the wording, as exemplified by the previous two posts by David Banks. As Halliday (1985: xx) explains:

If we simply took account of differences in meaning, then any set of clauses or phrases could be analysed in all kinds of different ways; there would be no way of preferring one scheme over another. The fact that it is a 'functional' grammar means that it is based on meaning; but the fact that it is a 'grammar' means that it is an interpretation of linguistic forms. Every distinction that is recognised in the grammar — every set of options, or 'system' in systemic terms — makes some contribution to the form of the wording.

Beatriz Quiroz On Value In Thematic Equatives

Beatriz Quiroz wrote to SYSFLING on 20 Nov 2021, at 02:28:

Could any one explain why 'nominalised' clauses in thematic equatives should be analysed always as Value, as Halliday an Matthiessen (2014) say on p. 285? Is there any lexicogrammatical pattern substantiating such analysis? Somewhere in the SFL literature?

and then on 21 Nov 2021, at 10:58:

I'll give you a full translation of the original example in Spanish:

"What we can notice when we follow this path is a clear evolutionary tendency towards centralisation".

The original example in Spanish appears in a pedagogic text in high-chool Biology. It's the last clause, serving as a hiperNew in a paragraph that explains the different characteristics of nervous systems in various species, going from intertebrates to vertebrates, scaffolding (without saying it until the very end) 'the tendency towards centralisation' as we move from simpler to more complex nervous systems. The paragraph itself is the macroTheme in a section on the nervous systems in the animal kingdom.

We've been discussing a simplified version of this example off list with Tom Barlett, trying to use 'represent' and 'exemplify as an agnate verb, with rather weird results! So here it goes:

"What we can notice when we follow this path is (represented by/exemplified by) a clear evolutionary tendency towards centralisation", and therefore "A clear evolutionary tendency towards centralisation represents/exemplifies what we can notice when we follow this path" (!?)

Apart from the fact the agnations sound weird to me both in English and in Spanish, semantically (I mean, in the wider context of the whole paragraph and within the text), I think the previous clauses in the paragraph are the ones serving as examples of 'a clear evolutionary tendency towards centralisation', rather than the other way around. But perhaps the 'what we can notice ...' clause makes the difference?

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the lexicogrammatical pattern that substantiates the analysis is that, in every instance of a thematic equative clause, it is always the Value participant — rather than the Token — that is realised by the nominalisation. That is, the question is poorly conceived. See also here.

[2] To be clear, this instance conforms to the claim (Halliday & Matthiessen 2014: 285) that 

in a thematic equative, the nominalisation is always the Value. 

That is, what we can notice is expressed by a clear evolutionary tendency towards centralisation — not what we can notice expresses a clear evolutionary tendency towards centralisation.

Significantly, Quiroz did not provide any alternative analysis of her own.

[3] To be clear, other clauses in the co-text are irrelevant to the question of whether the nominalisation serves as Value or Token in the identifying clause. The clause relates these two participants, and nothing else.

[4] To be clear, any perceived semantic "weirdness" here can be attributed to the very technical grammatical metaphor in the Token participant, combined with the fact that Quiroz and Bartlett have not distinguished the nested dependent clause when we follow this path from the dominant thematic equative clause what we can notice is a clear evolutionary tendency towards centralisation.

Robin Fawcett On Michæl Halliday's Grammatical Systems As Semantic

Robin Fawcett wrote to Sysfling on 23 Jun 2019 at 15:49:

My concern in my short memoir was to remind us all of his role in welcoming and re-enforcing the fundamental message of Halliday''s important 1966 paper — and in particular through his insightful introductions to the sections of the book. These were the first intimations of a concept that Halliday was exploring — and often seems completely committed to — in his writings on the late 1960s and early 1970s (and indeed in Halliday 1985, though less so in Halliday 1994). This was the concept that the system networks of TRANSITIVITY, MOOD, THEME and LOGIOC-SEMANTIC RELATIONS provide choices between meaning — i.e. semantic features), not forms …

Blogger Comments:

See the immediately preceding post.

For the second time in two days, Fawcett uses the tragic untimely death of a colleague as a pretext for promoting the SFL theoretical architecture that Halliday abandoned after 1978, largely because Fawcett mistakenly believes that Halliday's superseded model leaves room in the SFL architecture for his theory of syntax at the level below semantics.

For why Fawcett's model does not withstand close scrutiny, see the explanations here.

With regard to Fawcett and tragic untimely deaths, see here for Fawcett's public dishonest treatment of me at the time of my mother's cruel, premature death from mesothelioma.

David Rose Using Theme To Promote Discourse Semantics

David Rose wrote to sysfling on 18 Jun 2019 at 10:24:

Can I make explicit that the job is either grammatical description or discourse semantic description ? 

One is concerned with classifying clause patterns and the other with discourse patterns. 

Discourse semantic description explains functions of variations in grammar patterns such as types of Theme.

Typological comparisons might start with discourse semantic functions and ask how they are realised in grammar.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, this refers to Margaret Berry's previous post (here) in which she redefines a clause function, Theme, in terms of two logogenetic patterns of instantiation: the selection of both Theme and Subject in the unfolding of text.

Here Rose misconstrues the lexicogrammatical distinction between this clause function and logogenetic patterns of its instantiation as a stratal distinction between lexicogrammar and discourse semantics.  In doing so, Rose rebrands Margaret Berry's approach to grammar as Martin's discourse semantics.

[2] This is a bare assertion, unsupported by argument. To be clear, the "function" of logogenetic patterns of instantiation, such as varying the selection of Theme, is to develop the text.

Moreover, as demonstrated in detail here, Martin's discourse semantic notions of 'macroTheme' and 'hyperTheme' are the notions of 'introductory paragraph' and 'topic sentence', respectively, taken from writing pedagogy and rebranded as Martin's linguistic theory.  Because they are concepts designed to help people write, rather than concepts designed to describe what people actually say, sign or write, they cannot shed theoretical light on actual Theme selection.

[3] Or perhaps, since it is the lexicogrammar that construes the semantics, and not the other way around, a Systemic Functional approach might be to ask what paradigmatic contrasts in meaning are being construed by paradigmatic contrasts in the wording.

Margaret Berry On Theme

Margaret Berry wrote to sysfling on 17 Jun 2019 at 00:32:

I agree with Mick and Nick that what is the best approach to Theme and Rheme depends on what you want to do with it. Like them I’m particularly interested in patterns across texts. 

It could be said that in English the main function of Theme is to show whether the perspective of the text changes or whether it remains the same, in particular whether the main topic entity changes or stays the same and whether the setting changes or stays the same. 

In Mick’s example, the ‘He’s show that the writer is staying with the same main topic entity. But at intervals the temporal setting changes, as shown by the initial Adjuncts. As Mick has shown, for me both the continuity of main topic entity and the changes of setting are relevant to the ongoing perspective of the text. So I want the Subjects to count as Themes as well as the Adjuncts. (Which Halliday wouldn’t allow when a Subject is preceded by an Adjunct.)

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, if a theoretical term like 'Theme' is not used in the original formulation, the use of the term is no longer valid, since the theoretical valeur of the term has changed. Moreover, this can have unintended consequences for systemic relationships, the basis of explanation in SFL.  Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 49):

Giving priority to the view ‘from above’ means that the organising principle adopted is that of system: the grammar is seen as a network of interrelated meaningful choices. In other words, the dominant axis is the paradigmatic one: the fundamental components of the grammar are sets of mutually defining contrastive features. Explaining something consists not in stating how it is structured but in showing how it is related to other things: its pattern of systemic relationships, or agnateness (agnation…).

[2] To be clear, thematic patterns across texts can be examined using the original formulation of Theme.  That is, this does not constitute an argument in support of varying the theoretical valeur of 'Theme'.

[3] To be clear, this characterisation of Theme confuses Theme, a functional element of the clause, with the logogenetic pattern known as the method of development.  As Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 89, 126) explain:

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. The remainder of the message, the part in which the Theme is developed, is called in Prague school terminology the Rheme. …

The choice of clause Themes plays a fundamental part in the way discourse is organised; it is this, in fact, that constitutes what has been called the ‘method of development’ of the text…

[4] To be clear, this argues for a reformulation of a clause function (Theme), not on the basis of its function in the clause, but on the basis of logogenetic patterns, and in doing so, confuses two distinct logogenetic patterns: choice of Theme and choice of Subject.

Mick O'Donnell On Theme

Michael O'Donnell wrote to sysfling on 16 Jun 2019 at 18:24:

In Halliday's approach (for English), Theme stops with the first topical (experiential) element, which in this case is the circumstance of time, "in 1925". "Halliday" is thus Rheme. 

I myself am a proponent of the Berry approach (which I believe is similar to the Fawcett approach), whereby one has Subject-theme, and elements in front of that are also "Additional Theme", e.g. 

Additional-Theme	Subject Theme	Rheme
In May 1476,	he	He took part in an armed convoy sent by Genoa to carry a valuable cargo to northern Europe.
	He	docked in Bristol, Galway, in Ireland and was possibly in Iceland in 1477.
In 1479	Columbus	reached his brother Bartolomeo in Lisbon, keeping on trading for the Centurione family.
	He	married Filipa Moniz Perestrello, daughter of the Porto Santo governor, the Portuguese nobleman of Genoese origin Bartolomeu Perestrello.
In 1479 or 1480,	his son Diego	was born.

This approach better captures the continuity or discontinuity of the Subject selections, and allows for the presence of marked elements in front of the Subject.

Blogger Comments:

Applying this model yields:

Additional-Theme	Rheme	Subject Theme
blessed	are	the meek
on your left	is	the main bedroom
a little further on	is	the Rijksmuseum

Additional-Theme	Additional-Theme		Rheme	Subject Theme
where	precisely	in that case	are	they?

[1] This is the opposite of what is true. Unsurprisingly, the "continuity or discontinuity" of the Subject selections is shown by the selection of Subjects.  The question of the "continuity or discontinuity" of Subject selections as Theme is nullified by this approach, since all Subjects are claimed to be Themes.

[2] To be clear, this approach adds nothing with regard to "the presence of marked elements in front of the Subject", since 'Additional Theme' is just a rebranding of 'marked Theme', without acknowledging its markedness.  Moreover, it is the distinction between Theme and Subject that provides the criterion for the distinction between marked and unmarked Theme in declarative clauses.

∞

To be clear, this approach merely confuses the interpersonal selection of Subject, the carrier of modal responsibility in a clause as exchange, with the textual selection of Theme, the point of departure for a clause as message.  Subject is reprised in a Mood Tag; Theme is realised by everything up to and including the first experiential element.

Beatriz Quiroz On Markedness

Replying to Alice Caffarel-Cayron, Beatriz Quiroz wrote to sysfling and sys-func on 14 November 2016 at 01:16:

Wondering now about 'markedness' again in terms of the textual metafunction. If markedness has only to do with probabilities in lexicogrammatical choices, then it makes sense. I find this criterion problematic in Spanish, though, because then a number of other patterns would be indeed marked, but they don't make much sense from the point of view of text analysis - e.g. non-modally responsible Participants at initial position, which to me are NOT marked Themes, even though they are relatively infrequent. The reason is that they do seem to sustain the angle on the field and thus contribute to the method of development (in ways beta clauses and circu[m]stances don't) across registers. This may even be related to an explanation of 'doubling' in clitic-doubling varieties, such as Chilean and Buenos Aires Spanish. 

On the other hand, if we consider interactions with higher level choices (discourse-semantic, generic), how do we treat patterns that are indeed productive in text analysis (such as beta clauses at initial position)? You then suggest this would be solved by taking into account different layers, without talking about marked or unmarked Themes?

Blogger Comments:

[1] This misunderstands the notion of markedness in SFL theory.  The unmarked option is 'the form we tend to use if there is no prior context leading up to it, and no positive reason for choosing anything else' (Halliday & Matthiessen 2004: 58), in contradistinction to marked, which means that the option is less frequent and 'carries a special interpretation' (Halliday & Matthiessen 2004: 207).  For example, the unmarked option for present tense in material processes is the present-in-present, and the marked option, the simple present, carries the 'special interpretation' of habitual.

Difference in probability of selection, on the other hand, is what distinguishes different registers.

[2] To be clear, "non-modally responsible Participants" means Complements and some Adjuncts (e.g. Beneficiaries and Agents realised by prepositional phrases).  In SFL theory, these are regarded as marked Themes in declarative clauses, because there is a textual motivation for these, rather than the Subject, to be thematic.

[3] The notion of "the angle on the field" is from Martin (1992: 452, 489). See the theoretical misunderstandings from which this notion proceeds identified at:

• Misinterpreting Theme And New
• Rhapsodising On Method Of Development

[4] The assumption here is that marked Themes do not contribute to a text's method of development.  This is inconsistent with the model being used, 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.

Martin (1992: 474): 

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.

The source of the confusion may be a reading of 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 …

[5] The mistaken notion of genre as a higher stratum derives from Martin (1992).  For some of the reasons why the notion of genre as a stratum of context is mistaken, see:

1. Problems With The Non-Argument For Genre As Context
2. Seven Problems With The First Justification For A Genre Stratum
3. Two Problems With The Second Justification For A Genre Stratum
4. Eight Problems With The Third Justification For A Genre Stratum
5. Two Problems With The Fourth Justification For A Genre Stratum
6. Two Problems With The Fifth Justification For A Genre Stratum

[6] The point is simply that the marked vs unmarked Theme distinction does not apply to dependent clauses in regressive sequences.  If the dependent clause is the point of departure for the clause nexus, then it is thematic.  It is not marked because there is no unmarked Theme of the clause nexus with which it can be contrasted. This misunderstanding derives from Martin (1992: 240, 241).

Margaret Berry On Beta Clause As Part Of The Alpha Clause

Margaret Berry wrote to sysfling and sys-func on 14 November 2016 at 00:47:

Geoff Thompson (2014) in the 3rd edition of his Introducing Functional Grammar, page 170, has a system network for Theme, in which one of the options for marked Theme is 'dependent clause'. He gives examples on page 160. 

It probably depends on whether you think a Beta clause is actually part of the Alpha clause. I do.

• After he'd finished his supper, he went straight to bed.
• After supper, he went straight to bed.

After he'd finished his supper and After supper have the same function, even though they differ in form. (SFL is supposed to be a functional grammar!) 

As you say, one has to decide what one wants to account for at what layer of organisation.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This is the view of traditional grammar.  The explanatory advantages provided by the SFL distinction between tactic relations and embedding include the ability to distinguish:

• in expansion, between non-defining (hypotaxis) and defining (embedding) relative clauses, and
• in projection, between projected reports (hypotaxis) and pre-projected facts (embedding).

[2] These two forms, the beta clause and the prepositional phrase, do have the same function: Theme.  The principal difference between them is the domain in which each functions as Theme.  The beta clause functions as Theme in a clause nexus, whereas the prepositional phrase functions as (marked) Theme in a clause.

[3] SFG is a functional grammar, but what this means, in terms of the theory, is generally not well understood.  Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 31):

Being a ‘functional grammar’ means that priority is given to the view ‘from above’; that is, grammar is seen as a resource for making meaning — it is a ‘semanticky’ kind of grammar. But the focus of attention is still on the grammar itself. 

Giving priority to the view ‘from above’ means that the organising principle adopted is one of system: the grammar is seen as a network of interrelated meaningful choices. In other words, the dominant axis is the paradigmatic one: the fundamental components of the grammar are sets of mutually defining contrastive features. Explaining something consists not of stating how it is structured but in showing how it is related to other things: its pattern of systemic relationships, or agnateness (agnation).

Beatriz Quiroz On Beta Clauses As Marked Themes

Beatriz Quiroz wrote to sysfling and sys-func on 13 November 2016 at 03:11:

Thanks for all of your replies. I think I will still analyse beta clauses at initial position as marked Themes, since in all the texts I've been analysing (in Spanish, across registers) this pattern does seem to signal discontinuities/shifts very clearly, which is very helpful in text analysis. Perhaps, as you seem to suggest, the thing is to decide how carefully you want to account for different layers of textual organisation and on which grounds (clause to clause within complexes...or higher-level waves, as in the analysis put forward by e.g. Martin 1992 and Martin & Rose 2007).

I was just curious about that change in IFG! So in a way, perhaps, IFG's now sticking to (single) clause-wide patterns in a more strict way (without dismissing, neces[s]arily, the possibility of higher-level patterns, as the quote Hailing posted suggests)?

Blogger Comments:

[1] A beta clause in a regressive sequence is not a marked Theme of a clause nexus; it is merely the Theme of a clause nexus.  In order for it to be a marked Theme, there would have to be an unmarked Theme of a clause nexus with which it contrasts; there isn't.  This theoretical misinterpretation can be sourced Martin (1992: 445ff).

[2] There is no change in IFG on the matter of beta clause as Theme in a clause nexus.  The discussion has, instead, been given greater prominence in IFG4.

[3] The post from Hailing Yu included a quote (p551) from the discussion of beta clause as Theme in a clause nexus in IFG4 (pp549-53).

Mick O'Donnell On The Thematic Status Of Beta Clauses

After Beatriz Quiroz wrote to sysfling and sys-func on 12 November 2016 at 07:06:

Does anyone know why in IFG4 beta clauses at initial position are not considered marked Themes any longer (cf. IFG2 and IFG3)? I don't seem to find any reference to the previous analysis there. I've checked both the chapter on Theme and the chapter on clause complexes.

Michael O'Donnell replied on 12 November 2016 at 09:59:

Perhaps as beta clauses are not elements of the clause, they are no longer considered thematic in the alpha clause structure.

Blogger Comments:

[1] In IFG, beta clauses in regressive sequences have never been 'considered thematic in the alpha clause structure'.  The beta clause is thematic in the clause nexus.

[2] The beta clause in a regressive sequence is neither marked nor unmarked Theme.  The features unmarked or marked Theme — not both — are systemic options that are realised in clause structure. The misconstrual of beta clauses in regressive sequences as marked Themes can be traced to Martin (1992: 445).

[3] In IFG4, the discussion of Theme in clause complexes occurs in section 7.6 The Clause Complex as Textual Domain (pp549-53).  That is, in IFG4 the discussion has been made more prominent by being given its own separate section — in IFG3 it was included in the section 7.3 TAXIS: parataxis and hypotaxis (pp383-95), and in IFG2 it was included in the section 3.6 Clauses as Themes (pp54-8).

David Rose Misrepresenting Lexicogrammar As Discourse Semantics: Textual Metafunction

At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.

[see grammatical analysis here.]

David Rose wrote to sys-func and Sysfling on 18 March 2015 at 09:15, analysing the above clause complex from Barack Obama's Inauguration Speech:

Now from discourse semantics… 

3. textually 

‘America’ and ‘We the People’ are parallel Themes, implying synonymy, implied again graphologically with Caps 

…

‘these moments’ classifies the event (as a national emergency?)

Blogger Comments: 

[1] 'America' is not Theme.  The first clause has a marked Theme At these moments, which also New, as indicated by the comma marking it off as an information unit.  This is grammar, not discourse semantics.

[2] The fact that two elements are both Themes of their respective clauses does not imply synonymy. Rather, the textual resources of cohesion — in this instance lexical cohesion: synonymy — and Theme can create texture by the way they work together.  This is grammar, not discourse semantics.

[3] The event is the 2009 inauguration of an American president, not a national emergency — a serious misreading of the text, as well as the theory.

David Rose On Theme

David Rose wrote to the Sysfling list on 24 June 2014 at 21:07:

If theme is a clause rank system, whose textual function is point of departure for a message, and a message is realised by a finite ranking clause +/- dependent clauses, and an unmarked Theme is realised (in English) by the Subject of a clause, then a prepositional phrase or dependent clause preceding the Subject of the primary clause functions textually as a marked Theme of the message (if the duke gives anything to my aunt, it'll be that teapot; from the duke, my aunt received a teapot). An embedded (downranked) clause may function as Subject (what the duke gave my aunt was that teapot). (IFG editions notwithstanding:)

Blogger Comment:

Themes may be unmarked or marked, but not both; i.e. marked^unmarked is not a structural configuration of (topical) Theme.  When a marked Theme — Adjunct or Complement — is chosen in a declarative clause, the Subject does not function as (unmarked) Theme.  For example:

from the duke	my aunt	received	a teapot
Adjunct	Subject	Finite/Predicator	Complement
Theme	Rheme