Some reflections on Systemic Functional Grammar

Word

ISSN: 0043-7956 (Print) 2373-5112 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rwrd20

Some reflections on Systemic Functional Grammar: With a focus on Theme María Ángeles Gómez-González To cite this article: María Ángeles Gómez-González (2001) Some reflections on Systemic Functional Grammar: With a focus on Theme, Word, 52:1, 1-28, DOI: 10.1080/00437956.2001.11432506 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.2001.11432506

Published online: 15 May 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1053

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rwrd20

MARiA ANGELES GOMEZ-GONzALEZ

Some reflections on Systemic Functional Grammar: With a focus on Theme Abstract. This article addresses some theoretical issues and empirical problems which emerge from, and which seem to limit, Systemic Functional Grammar (SFG), in particular the analysis of Theme and other related notions, as presented by M. A. K. Halliday in his 1994 book Introduction to Functional Grammar (IFG). My discussion is developed from a position drawing from the works of both defenders and detractors of the SFG program. The paper includes first a description of the foundations of SFG: secondly, an exposition of some moot points of the model, focusing on its treatment of Theme: and thirdly, a summary of the conclusions reached in this investigation. In the present paper, such claims and programmatic suggestions can at best be hinted at, but it is to be hoped that they will at least point to directions for future research in SFG. 1

1. An overview ofSFG. SFG is presented as a tristratal grammatical model involving the levels of semantics, lexico-grammar and phonology, and comprising four clause rank system networks: Conjunction, Transitivity, Mood and the Theme system complex, which correspond to four metafunctions, or universal components along which the meaning potential of languages is organized, logical, experiential, interpersonal and textual (Halliday 1974:52; Martin 1992a:493-588). The experiential and the logical metafunctions constitute the ideational component, whereby language represents content, including the world around us and our imagination. The experiential function concerns the expression of experience in terms of processes, entities, qualities and so on; while the logical one comprises the logical relations of languages such as co-ordination, subordination, apposition, modification and the like. The interpersonal metafunction invokes the speaker/ writer's use of language to express her/his participation in the speech event: their choice of speech role and their assessment of what s/he is saying or writing. And the textual component embodies the text/texturecreating function of languages, that is to say, the resources languages have to be operationally relevant in real contexts of situation. Choices from these four grammatical components are described as simultaneously mapped onto each other by realization (i.e. the relationship between grammatical layers), with lexico-grammar acting as a nat-

WORD. VOLUME 52, NUMBER I (APRIL, 2001)

2

ural, or non-arbitrary, integrative system in a process of instantiation (i.e. a dynamic, non-directional type of relationship between the system and instances of the system). This process generates multilayered structural compositions consisting of complex functional roles (IFG:371; Bloor and Bloor 1996; Lock 1996). Within this framework, Halliday (IFG:334) proposes a separating approach 2 to the textual resources of languages as follows: A. STRUCTURAL.

1. Thematic structure: Theme and Rheme. 2. Information structure and Focus: Given and New. 3. Identification (within the noun group and the clause). B. COHESIVE (identification). 1. 2. 3. 4.

Reference. Ellipsis and substitution. Conjunction. Lexical cohesion.

Cohesion (B) embraces different types of non structural relationships of presupposition, which occur" ... where the INTERPRETATION of some element in the discourse is dependent on that of another" (Halliday and Hasan 1976:4 [emphasis in original]). Reference retrieves different types of referential meaning (e.g. it in The little boy had a frog in a jar. It ran away, Martin 1992a:99 [3:4]). By contrast, substitution and ellipsis presuppose grammatical functions: the former entails text-referring items like one and do (e.g. Do they tack often enough?-/ don't believe they do, Martin 1992a:99 [5:38]), whereas ellipsis involves systemic features having no realization in structure (e.g. Will they tack now?They may, Martin 1992a:374 [5:37]). Conjunctive items, on the other hand, include those elements that refer to the preceding text and those which introduce a new move in discourse (and, or, nor, but, yet, so then, etc.); while lexical cohesion comprises such phenomena as repetition, synonymy, eo-occurrence and collocation (e.g. train, track, baggagecar, rails, etc.). Alternatively, structural textual resources include the functions of Theme-Rheme, Given-New and those derived from the mapping of structural identification. Structural relations of identification are said to occur within the noun group (e.g. Deictics (e.g. this, my), post-Deictics (other, same, different, proper nouns, etc.)) and within the clause (e.g. cleft

GONzALEZ: SYSTEMIC FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR AND THEME

3

clauses, pseudo-cleft clauses, appositive structures, etc.). In turn, information structure involves the mapping of intonational given and new information (the Given and the New). It is suggested that, since in English the New tends to fall on the accented syllable ofthe last lexical item 3 of the tone group, tone units normally display the structure (optional) (Given) followed by New (e.g. 11 John painted the shed yesterday 11; Halliday 1967a:208) while any other placing of the tonic realizes marked Tonicity. This assigns the function of Given to the remainder of the tone unit and establishes some sort of contrast with respect to the co(n)text (e.g., II John painted the shed yesterday II, which may imply 'who painted the shed yesterday?' (or 'did Mary paint ... ?') Halliday 1967a:207). Lastly, with regard to Theme, the main focus of the present paper, systemicists remark that this category is ineffable (as it happens to all functional categories) and therefore cannot be defined, but can only be glossed using, for example, Mathesius's (1939) metaphor point of departure, that "from which the speaker begins", as opposed to Rheme, or "the remainder of the message" [Halliday's personal communication, Seminar on Systemic Functional Linguistics, Cordoba May 5-7, 1993]. In keeping with this, Theme is described relationally, that is, in terms of its relationships from above the linguistic system, from below it and at the same level of description. Thus, from above, in semantic terms, Theme represents the speaker's angle on the message and is glossed as tbe 'starting point' and/or as 'what the message is about' (Halliday 1967a:200, 212; IFG:299, 37). Considering its relationships with other categories, Theme is said to normally coalesce with the Given as a result of the tendency oflanguages to abide by the Given-before-New principle, although speakers may also do otherwise (Halliday 1967a:212). Finally, from below the linguistic system, that is, observing how the function is expressed, in English (topical) Theme (underlined below) extends up to (and includes) the first transitivity constituent in the clause, namely a participant, an attribute, a circumstance or a process, which may be announced explicitly by means of some special expression like as for ... , with regard to ... , about . . . (e.g. As for my aunt. the duke has given her that teapot, IFG:39). In addition, this category displays the following options: (1) simple vs. complex, (2) unmarked vs. marked, (3) multiple, (4) displaced, (5) metaphorical and (6) special. While simple Topical Themes are realized by a single syntactic constituent (e.g. The Queen ofHearts she made some tarts, IFG:39), complex ones entail a complex of single elements that are linked by a relationship of embedd;ing, parataxis or hypotaxis (e.g. The Walrus and the

4

WORD, VOLUME 52, NUMBER 1 (APRIL, 2001)

Carpenter were walking close at hand, IFG:40). 4 Besides, Topical Themes are considered as unmarked when this category is realized by the corresponding first constituent in the mood structure5 of the clause, and to be marked when it is some other constituent. It follows that the unmarked Theme of English declarative clauses conftates with Subject (e.g. Little Eo-peep has lost her sheep, IFG:43), with a WH-element in exclamatives (e.g. how cheerfully he seems to grin, IFG:47), and in interrogatives with: (a) the Finite verb (carrying the expression of polari. ty) plus the Subject, in yes/no questions (e.g. can you find me an acre of land?, IFG:48); or (b) the WH-element (including the group or phrase in which it occurs) in WH-questions (who killed Cock Robin?, IFG:48). In their turn, the unmarked Theme of imperatives is identified with: (a) you (e.g. you keep quiet, IFG:47); (b) do (e.g. do take care, IFG:47); (c) don't or let's (not) in negative imperatives (e.g. don't [you! argue, IFG:47); or (d) Predicator (e.g. keep quiet, ibid.). 6 By contrast, any other clause initial mood element realizes a marked Theme (e.g. merrily we roll along, IFG:46; this responsibility we accept wholly, IFG:45; yesterday did John see the play?, Halliday 1967a:214). Nevertheless, the description above provides no analysis for a whole range of non-topical constituents that can occur clause-initially and can therefore be seen as having an orientational thematic function. To account for these cases the category of Multiple Theme comprises a simple Topical Theme preceded by one or several textual and/or interpersonal items of different kinds, as listed below (e.g. Well. but. then. Ann. surely. wouldn't the best idea be to join the group?, IFG:55, 56): A. Textual Themes: clause-initial textual elements.

1. Continuatives: yes, no, well, oh, now. 2. Structural Themes. a. Conjunction. a. Co-ordinator: and, or, nor, neither, but, yet, so. ~- Subordinator: when, because, though, if, even if b. WH-relative. a. Definite: which, who, that, whose, when, where. ~- Indefinite: whatever, whichever, whoever. 3. Conjunctive Themes. a. Elaborating: that is, or rather, in any case, briefly, actually.

GONZALEZ: SYSTEMIC FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR AND THEME

5

b. Extending: also, on the other hand, instead. c. Enhancing: meanwhile, likewise, therefore, in that case, nevertheless. B. Interpersonal Themes: clause initial interpersonal elements. 1. Vocative: Oh, soldier. soldier, won't you marry me. 2. Modal Adjunct. a. Mood: probably, usually, in my opinion. b. Comment:frankly, honestly, evidently, (un)fortunately. 3. Finite: Oh, soldier, soldier, won't you marry me. 4. WH-interrogative: who killed Cock Robin?. C. Topical Themes: experiential elements (including WH-interrogatives

and WH-relatives). Broadly, Textual Themes, either Continuative, Structural or Conjunctive, may be used to refer to the preceding (or following) text and/or to the context of situation, punctuating an exchange or staging discourse turns (Halliday and Hasan 1976, 267-71; IFG:48 ff.; Martin 1992a, 218 ff.). On the other hand, Vocatives, Mood and Comment Adjuncts, Finites and WH-interrogative elements are regarded as interpersonal devices used to exchange roles in rhetorical interactions with addressee(s) (statements, questions, offers, etc.) and to express the speaker's own angle on the matter in terms of modalization (i.e. probability and usuality) or modulation (i.e. inclination and obligation) (Downing 1991; Vasconcellos 1992; Martin 1995a, 255 fn. 5). The unmarked display of Multiple Themes is claimed to be: Textual A Interpersonal A Topical, on the assumption that Textual Themes tend to precede Interpersonal ones, which in turn precede Topical Themes, although sometimes Textual and Interpersonal Themes may be switched (IFG:53-4). In addition, in a note at the end of a textual analysis (IFG:64), the category of displaced Theme (marked off with an asterisk '*') is ascribed to Themes that would be unmarked in the ensuing clause, if the existing marked Topical Theme was reworded as a dependent clause, as Robert in (1) below: ( 1)

Apart from a need to create his own identity «having been well and truly trained and educated and, indeed, used by his father for so long, emotionally and practically» Robert* felt that at

6

WORD, VOLUME 52, NUMBER

I (APRIL, 2001)

twenty the last thing he wanted to do was to join a family firm in Newcastle. The reason adduced is that if we reworded this example as Besides needing to create his own identity, Robert ... , then in the ensuing clause Robert becomes an unmarked Theme. Still another subcategory Themes is that expressed by grammatical metaphors. 7 These tend to be of the ideational type "whereby any element or group of elements takes on the function of a nominal group in the clause" (e.g. what the duke gave my aunt was that teapot, IFG:58), but they may also have an interpersonal orientation, expressing some sort of modalization or modulation (e.g. I don't believe that pudding ever will be cooked, IFG:58, where I don't believe is functioning as an expression of modality, as can be shown by the tag, which would be will it?, not do 1?). Lastly, the category of Special Theme is based on the contrast between the presence/absence of certain syntactic structures used to highlight the thematic and/or the rhematic part of a message by means of such devices as: (a) predication (e.g. it was fwasn 't 1John who broke the. window, Halliday 1967a:236); (b) identification (e.g. what John saw was the play, IFG:223); (c) substitution (e.g. they don't seem to match, these colors, IFG:239); and (d) reference (e.g. Britain it's all roads, IFG:241).

2. Some reflections on SFG with a focus on Theme. 2.1. SFG as a model of grammar. So far we have explained the essentials of the SFG grammatical model in a fairly uncritical manner. There exist, however, three general areas of controversy in the literature, which, due to space constraints, will be only pinpointed here: (a) the syntax and semantics relationship; (b) the functional components hypothesis; (c) the SFG general approach to language and linguistic theorizing. With regard to (a) above, broadly speaking, it seems very difficult to decide from systemic writings what the precise relationship is between: (i) the meaning potential of language, (ii) its realization at the level of form, (iii) the realizational rules which connect meaning and linguistic expressions, and (iv) the place of (i), (ii) and (iii) within a comprehen-


7

sive social theory oflanguage (on this issue, see Butler 1985:77-81 and references there). It would appear that most of these issues could benefit from a clarification of the shifts in the SFG position and/or from detailed reasons explaining the whys and wherefores of these shifts (Halliday 1967a; 1972; 1977; IFG). On the other hand, the functional components hypothesis is open to debate for several reasons. Firstly, there is no agreement with regard to the number of metafunctions and functional components to be distinguished (Fawcett 1973a, b; 1980:34-8). Secondly, the relationship between the metafunctions and the system networks remains to be clearly established because: (a) the criteria for the construction of system networks are, in Halliday's words (IFG:xx), "still far from being clearly defined"; (b) as noted by Berry (1982:77) or Butler (1985:84; 1990), for example, system networks are not explicit enough for the analyst to attest their components and realizational expressions in stretches of language; and (c) the major justification of the functional components hypothesis, namely Halliday's claim (1968:207; 1977; 1979:61; 1980a, b) that options from different systems are "comparatively independent", tries to explain those cases in which choices from one metafunction do affect choices from another (Berry 1982:77; Butler 1982:245). 8 Furthermore, it seems that Halliday's claim is, by definition, virtually untestable since the "comparatively" qualification makes the claimed independence of system choices intrinsically relative and therefore not liable to objective assessment. Finally, further research testing the applicability of the functional components hypothesis at all levels of linguistic description would also contribute towards making the case for the theory. So far, SFG has focused almost exclusively on the analysis of two units, the clause and the group, admittedly, not only in English-as remarked by Hudson 1974-, but also in other languages such as Tagalog, Gooniyandi, French, Pitjantjatjara, Finnish, Spanish, etc. (Martin 1981, 1983, 1988, 1990, 1993, 1995b, 1996a, b, c; Hasan, Cloran and Butt 1996; Hasan and Fries 1995). Further problems are posed by the modes of realization theory, which, deriving from the functional components hypothesis, establishes correlations between the experiential, logical, interpersonal and textual metafunctions, on the one hand, and the part-whole (constituency), partpart (dependency), whole-whole (prosodic) and a-structural (wave-like) types of syntagmatic relations, on the other (see Butler 1985:86-7; Halliday 1979:61, IFG: 169; McGregor 1990). This theory raises questions such as (a) whether the posited correlations are not invariable (e.g. in English, choices of Mood are expressed both prosodically and non-

8


prosodically by the presence and/or ordering of constituents), and (b) whether such correlations may or may not hold for languages other than English. In addition, systemic theorizing has come in for criticism concerning: (a) the kind of data provided, regarded as limited in number and range, and as not always relevant to the theoretical claims made; (b) the lack of explicitness in explanations and definitions; (c) the relative absence of syntagmatic criteria to account for syntagmatic phenomena in a model which is paradigmatically-biased; and (d) the difficulty that analysts find in distinguishing clearly between facts and hypotheses (the latter sometimes appear to be presented as the former) (Berry 1982; Butler 1985:90-3; Huddleston 1978, 1988, 1991, 1992; Hudson 1984; 1986). Moreover, in Halliday 1994:xxxv) one can read that "our understanding of the meaning system is itself very deficient; so the face of a grammar turned towards semantics is still hardly illuminated". This statement could perhaps be interpreted as an indication that SFG is still an incomplete model of grammatical description, making it liable to criticism by other equally multilayered functional accounts (Danes 1964, 1974a, b; Dik 1978, 1980, 1997; Firbas 1964, 1974; Jimenez Julia 1986; Lambrecht 1994:4-5; Leech 1983; Rojo 1979). Broadly, these other approaches recognize a tighter bond between the levels equivalent to the ideational and interpersonal components in contrast with the level(s) comparable to the textual component, usually labeled as the pragmatic level. By contrast, as already noted, the systemic model is represented as a simultaneous tristratal clause-centered grammar dealing with resources, rather than with rules (Halliday 1978;191-2). Nonetheless, it would appear that SFG is ultimately a rule-based grammar too, for it is implemented by means of system networks, which are themselves sets of rules involving choices from taxonomic classifications (Butler 1988:15-6). Thus, having to predict explicitly which features can and cannot be in a selection expression representing a stretch of language, system networks are prone to oversimplify and give too rigid a view of the essentially negotiable nature of communication. In conclusion, it seems that in order to fulfil its major goal, that is, to describe how people actually interact verbally, the SFG model should allow for more flexibility by means of, for example, placing more emphasis on such notions as variable rules (Berry 1982:6; Butler 1985:93) and prototypical categories (Taylor 1996), making at the same time the concept of delicacy (i.e. degree of descriptive detail in SFG) a more profitable one (Halliday 1964: 16; Martin 1981 :22), although, admitted-


9

ly, some work has already been done in this direction (Nesbit and Plum 1988; Martin and Matthiessen 1991; Martin 1997). 2.2. Theme. We discussed in Section 2.1 three general areas of controversy arising within SFG. Now in what follows, we shall consider four debatable issues referring to the systemic treatment of Theme and other related notions (G6mez-Gonzalez 1996a, b, 1997, 1998, 2000): (a) the co(n)text-(in)dependence ofthematic choices; (b) the type of structure imposed by Theme-Rheme patterns; (c) the supposedly double-sided nature of Hallidayan Theme; (d) the validity of initial position as criterial for thematic status.

2.2.1. The independence of Theme choices. Halliday' s ( 1967a:217) affirmation that "thematization is independent of what has gone before" has been criticized by a number of authors such as Danes (1964:109, 1974b:108-9), Kuno (1975:326 Footnote 1) and Firbas (1974:25), among others. When asked about this issue, Halliday replied that Theme-Rheme choices are "independent from the context" in the sense that they are neither necessarily pre-selected by any previous or high level choice nor are they determined by the preceding clause [Personal communication, Seminar on Systemic Functional Linguistics, Cordoba May 5-7, 1993] ~ However, the claim that "the speaker has within certain limits the option of selecting any element in the clause as thematic" (Halliday 1967b:205) seems to make the case for the context-dependence of thematic choices. These "certain limits" refer to the constraints imposed on speakers' thematic choices by the system of the language, which, in its turn, is affected by the co(n)text in which language is used, so that we can to a certain extent predict that given types of co(n)texts will demand specific types of Theme. Consequently, though being a property of the clause, Theme, in this general and broadest sense, as Halliday himself admits, is concerned not only with "what is being said", but also with "what has gone before in the discourse" (1967a: 199), carrying forward the development of the text as a whole (IFG:64-7; 368-91). Furthermore, thematic (and rhematic) choices interact with texts of similar kinds, as suggested by the notion of intertextuality, because the semantic and syntactic structures of sentences and discourses reflect basic categories and structures

10

WORD, VOLUME 52, NUMBER I (APRIL, 2001)

of our cognitive models of reality (van Dijk 1987: 173; Lernke 1985; de Beaugrande and Dressier 1981).

2.2.2. Theme-Rheme patterns. Now, turning to the type of structure imposed by thematic patterns, there seems to be a case for Huddleston's ( 1991: 106) observation that "constituency is not the appropriate concept for the strings that Halliday labels [Multiple] Theme", since, arguing for the realization modes hypothesis, systemicists insist that the Theme system comprises non-constructional, non-discrete categories, assigning wave-like peaks of prominence to the beginning and end of the English clause. Furthermore, it could be adduced that the exposition in this respect does lack some rigor when talking about the "layered constituent structure" of Multiple Themes, about the order of "elements" within it and about the marked or unmarked nature of its "constituents". It would appear that the fact that elements fulfilling a logical and/or an interpersonal function may precede the first experientiaVinterpersonal item cannot be taken as a constructional argument for three reasons. One is that, as advanced, textual patterns are described as non-constructional. Secondly, if different metafunctions are said to have different patterns of realization, then it follows that the different classes of Theme (viz. experientiaVtransitivity, interpersonal and logical) should also impose different patterns and/or vary with respect to their scope of influence. Furthermore, if the mappings of the three metafunctions are simultaneous, as remarked by Halliday ( 1978: 134), it does not seem to be very consistent to dissociate the three metafunctions arguing for three classes of Theme. Similarly, it remains to be explained how a thematic item may fulfill a conjunctive and/or interpersonal and/or transivity/ mood function (all of them described as different types of constituency multivariate relationships) and at the same time impose non-constructional patterns in discourse. Possibly, all these issues deserve further discussion and clarification. Bearing the above in mind, G6mez-Gonzalez ( 1998, 2000) proposes the notion of Extended Theme Zone (ETZ), an orientational zone which departs from Halliday's Multiple Theme in four main respects. First, while Multiple Themes, as the reader will remember, occur only when one or several textual and/or interpersonal items precede a simple Topical Theme, under the broader scope of the ETZ, there may stand (simple or complex) Topical Themes as well as any other eo-occurring pre-topical and/or post-topical textual and/or interpersonal elements, as illustrated in the excerpts in (2) below (taken from the IBM/Lancaster Spoken English Corpus (henceforth IBMLSEC)):


(2) (a)

11

I i'this of course was 'not because the 'government 'jailed in its su pposed 'duty as provvider I ibut !largely I be 0

0

cause_energy prices rose convsiderably I in re!lation to 'other prices I (IBMLSECCPTOI: 199) (b) I Westvmorland for e 0 xample I became par'ticularly vpassionate I when 'talking about the 0 influence -television revportingfrom Viet 0 nam I had 'had on the vwhite 0 House I in the 0 late 'sixties (IBMLSECAPT03:030) The assumption is that post-topical interpersonal and/or textual elements can be considered as metafunctional boundaries that separate off the Theme, or the orientation zone of the message, from the Rheme, or what follows. In fact such a boundary is often reinforced suprasegmentally, by means of one or more of the following three devices: (a) Tone sequence, i.e. two or more instances of the same tone marking paratactic or hypotactic elaboration, as in (3): (3)

and he -knew that now 1-this vnoment 1when his -nose had only just 0 stopped\bleeding I when his -head was still-sore and 'throbbing I 'this I was the -moment when he would \try (IBMLSECGPT01:208-21) (Tone 1 sequence); (b) Tone concord, i.e. 1-1, 3-1 and 4-1, which are assumed to be unmarked realizations of Themes involving a relationship of cohesion, parataxis and hypotaxis respectively, as in (4): 0

(4)

ah that's 'totally unlike Su'dan I because 0 obviously suvdan is I 0 by and large a v Muslim country I and of course vthere you I don't have vvery many 0 holidays I but I the month gJ_v Ramadan I when people are -.fasting lfi·om 'sunrise to sun -set I every 0 day I then 'very little work 'does get done I (IBMLSECJPT06:299-301) (4-1 Tone concord: hypotaxis) (c) a tone group boundary, as in (5):

(5)

I!What for e 0 xample I is he -doing to en°sure that 'his grip on \power I is v strong e 0 nough I to _make the 0 necessary \changes (IBMLSECAPTll :031)

The examples in (3) and (4) above illustrate my second claim. I suggest that in the ETZ, not only textual and interpersonal items, as pro-


12

I (APRIL, 2001)

posed by Halliday, but also Topical ones, may be complex. For I believe that topical, interpersonal and textual elements can be equally used recursively within (or outside) the Theme zone, by entailing different kinds of logico-semantic and tactic relationships (viz. paratactic or hypotactic expansions or projections, or embeddings), as exemplified in the excerpts in (6) below: (6) (a) 1 perhaps 1 with the dilvisions 1 that have 0 opened 1Y:P 1 1and

I with -all the re crimination I the 'Pale stinian vmovement I thought there was -little !hope I for a PN_C at \all I (IBMLSECAPT02:036) (ETZ with a Complex Marked Top0

0

0

0

ical Theme). (b) ltoften I though not valways I the 'case for self-su 0 fjiciency is

vargued I with -reference to a 0 country 's 0 need to en_sure se vcurity I by-minimising de!pendence on !foreign \sources I (IBMLSECCPT01:249) (ETZ with a complex Interpersonal Theme). Moreover, I suggest the label Textual Theme be replaced by that of Logico-Conjunctive Theme on the assumption that: (a) the latter is a more appropriate term to designate an initial item fulfilling a logico-conjunctive and/or a conjunctive function (although logico-conjunctive and conjunctive elements may also occur within the Rheme ), and (b) all classes of Theme are textual in nature. And last, but not least, contra Halliday's suggestion that the unmarked display of Multiple Themes is Textual A Interpersonal A Topical, my results reveal that in English the ETZ tends to display a centripetal organization (Dik 1989:342), that is to say, unmarked hierarchical relations between y (Logico-Conjunctive items) and x (Interpersonal items) with respect to H (Topical Themes, or Head (obligatory element) of ETZ), as illustrated in Figure 1. Figure 1 represents y and x as arranged in relation to their scope of influence, suggesting that x tends to occupy position 1 and y position 2 because the former is in the scope of the latter. This organization is described as centripetal on the assumption that both y and x hinge on H, which represents the pivotal or nuclear slot within the Theme zone and which lies within the scope of textual and interpersonal relations (for more details, see G6mez-Gonzalez 2000). 2.2.3. The double sided-nature ofHallidayan Theme. Many scholars, both within and outside the systemic literature, have debated this


2

1

H

13

2

1

(Logico-Conjunctive)"(lnterpersonai)"Topical"(lnterpersonai)"(Logico-Conjunctive) experiential meaning

narrowest scope

l

interpersonal meaning logico-conjunctive meaning

widest scope

Figure 1 Unmarked scopal and centripetal relations in the ETZ issue. 9 All these linguists seem to agree that systemic Theme blends two distinct notions: (a) the spatial metaphor, or 'the point of departure of a message' (realized by the first experiential/mood element) and (b) the matter metaphor, or 'what a message is about', usually referred to as Topic. As a result, the clause initial constituents in (7) are excluded from topical status: (7) (a) non-referential participants such as negative (i.e. nothing, nowhere etc.) and impersonal Subjects (e.g. You in You can define a net in one of two ways, depending on your point of view, Downing 1990:123) (b) Fronted circumstantial (including presentative) Adjuncts (e.g. At seventeen in At seventeen, he announces . .. , Downing 1990: 124) (c) There in Existential constructions (e.g. There in There was once an ugly bear who hid from the world, Downing 1990: 126) (d) Fronted Attributes (e.g. Worst of all in Worst of all was the emasculation of the League of Nations, Downing 1990: 127) However, while some authors divest clause initial position of any grammatical relevance and understand Topic (aboutness) as an intuitive referent that can be inferred only from the co(n)text (e.g. Hudson 1986; Hudd1eston 1988, 1991, 1992), others argue for the functional validity of both notions. Emblematically, Downing ( 1990, 1991) describes

14


Table 1 Trends in the interpretation of aboutness message centred

context-centred interpretations

interpretation clause level of analysis relational interpretation

discourse level of analysis referential interpretation contextual

activated

Interpretation

interpretation

interactive interpretation

sentence Topic

discourse Topic

speaker's Topic

utterance entity/proposition in a

discourse entity

propositionaVproblem framework

(complex) clause

discourse proposition

saliency/relevance

Theme as the clause initial slot that acts as a framework-setting device, and distinguishes between superordinate, or text level, Topics (i.e. 'what a text is about'), defined as cognitive schemata that compress the Topic of a whole text into a single proposition, on the one hand, and, on the other, clause level Topics (i.e. 'what a clause is about'), which are identified with Subject and Object participants. In my opinion, behind this first point of conflict lie three different interpretations of aboutness, expounded in Table 1, which may, but need not, coalesce in the same wording (G6mez-Gonzalez 1996a, b, 2000). Table 1 indicates that while relational aboutness refers to a message-centered (clausal) notion, referential and interactive aboutness evoke two distinct context-centered categories. I would contend that most scholars' notions of Topic allude either to referential aboutness, i.e. a relationship of aboutness established between a clause/utterance referent and the overall discourse (discourse Topics), or to interactive aboutness, representing speakers' discourse perspectives on what is at issue at a given point of discourse (speaker's Topics), rather than analysts' perceptions of contextual incidentals. Alternatively, the aboutness feature of Halliday's Theme could be interpreted relationally. That is to say, it could be said to entail a syntactically-coded relation of aboutness derived from the linear quality of language that is established between a message-initial transitivity/mood constituent and the remainder of the message, or Rheme. These three different readings of aboutness lead to


15

different Topicffheme identifications, as shown in the excerpts in (8), (9) and (1 0) below. (8) Interactive aboutness (in this excerpt two participants (Land M) express by means of their 'personal Topics' (usually introduced through first person reference and becoming salient only if re-introduced) their personal experience within the general Topic framework of the conversation, i.e. the effect of restoring old buildings): L: M: L: M:

L:

M: L:

I quite like the way they've done the Mile though+ I think it's quite nice yes[Ah]Ayes the bottom of it anyway it is -it is quite good they've certainly kept within the+ em++ preserved it reasonably well or conserved it but we were up in Aberdeen this year for a holiday and we were staying right within the University complex there in Old Aberdeen + and + oh some of the buildings there are beautiful really they are nice + but er Y was quite impressed with it- it's the first holiday we've had up there+ I was noticing - I was down by Queen Street or + the bottom of Hanover Street or somewhere + and they've just cleaned up some of the buildings down there + and what a difference it makes + yes I know because there are some beautiful buildings oh it was really nice (Brown and Yule 1983:88)

(9) Referential aboutness (Topicsffhemes =Subject/Object referential participants) Dear Abby: There's this guy I've been going with for near three years. Well, the problem is that he hits me. He started last year. He has done it only four or five times, but each time it was worse than before. Every time he hits me it was because he thought I was flirting (I wasn't). Last time he accused me of coming on to a friend of his. First he called me a lot of dirty names, then he punched my face so bad it left me with a black eye and black-and-blue bruises over half of my face. It was very noticeable, so I told my folks that the car I was riding in stopped suddenly and my face hit the windshield. Abby, he's 19 and I'm 17, and already I feel like an old married lady who lets her husband push her around. I haven't spoken to him since this happened. He keeps hugging me to give him one more chance. I think I've given him enough chances. Should I keep avoiding him or what? (Giv6n 1993:206 [emphasis in original])

( 10) Relational aboutness (a) John saw the play yesterday. (b) Yesterday John saw the play.

16


I (APRIL, 2001)

(c) The play John saw yesterday. (d) You can define a net in one oftwo ways, depending on your point of view. (e) There was once an ugly bear who hid from the world. (g) Worst of all was the emasculation of the League of Nations. (h) The boy, I went out with yesterday (vs. *With the boy, I went out with yesterday) (i) As for the student, well, let me see ... (j) As for Paris, the Eiffel Tower is really spectacular. Behind the relational analyses in (1 0) above stands the rationale that 'what a message is about' is iconically coded by message initial experiential/transitivity position, i.e. a participant, an attribute, a circumstance or a process, which serves an anchoring or orientating role for the subsequent message. Thus, from this relational perspective it would be consistent to treat the matter metaphor (aboutness) and the spatial metaphor ('point of departure') as two different aspects of Theme, i.e. the relational semantic and the psycholinguistic and syntactic, respectively. Accordingly, such examples as those in ( 10) could be said to be 'about' and have as 'point of departure' nothing, impersonal you or there, for example, because these items express the speaker's experiential/interpersonal onset of the message to be constructed, whether or not they have referential nominal status. The functional relevance of these points of departure lies in their orientational function and their paradigmatic value, that is to say, in the different perspectives they impose and the contrasts they establish with respect to other thematic and rhematic choices in given co(n)texts. Drawing on this issue, Matthiessen and Martin ( 1991 :43-8) explain that negative Themes such as Nothing contrast with positive Themes (something, somebody, everybody, etc.) and with rhematic instances, thematizing the polarity of the clause (except that the negative feature is restricted to the Theme) as well as a participant, which (when the participant is not Subject) leads to Finite preceding Subject (e.g. Nowhere would you get a better offer, Matthiessen and Martin 1991:44). Likewise, there-structures are described as ideally designed for introducing participants as unmarked news at the end of the clause (Martin 1992b). There, the unmarked Theme (i.e. the Subject) of this clause type does not realize a participant, but acts as an anticipatory framework that signals that something is coming, namely a new participant in a story, which is

GONzALEZ: SYSTEMIC FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR AND THEME

17

often picked up referentially and thematically in the subsequent discourse. Other cases in point are It- Themes and instances of postponed (or discontinuous) Themes, which, acting negatively, endow with End Focus and/or End Weight prominence items that otherwise would not get this type of discourse prominence, easing, at the same time, the information processing of the sequence(s) (for more details on the formal and discoursal-cognitive intricacies of different Theme-Rheme choices in English, see G6mez-Gonzalez 2000).

2.2.4. Initial position. A more serious allegation is whether or not the clause initial transitivity/mood slot is the cut-off point between Theme and Rheme, and whether or not there is a single invariant meaning attached to this category (Hudson 1986:798; Taglicht 1984:14; Huddleston 1988, 1991, 1992). In this connection, systemic descriptions seem to be somewhat vague. Now the lack of explicitness appears to stem from a two-fold source: (a) the claim that functional categories are inherently ineffable (i.e. they cannot be defined), and that, therefore, it is impossible to lexicalize grammatical categories just as it is impossible to grammaticalize lexical ones (IFG:38; Martin and Matthiessen 1992; Hasan and Fries 1995); (b) the interpretation of the textual metafunction, which, not being representational, cannot be turned back on itself to represent itself, and so the category of Theme must be articulated in terms of metaphors. Be that as it may, of importance here is the fact that in the systemic literature five different, and, in my view, not necessarily concurrent, accounts of Theme are used: (a) a psycholinguistic notion, i.e. 'psychological Subject', or "the concern of the message( ... ) the point of embarkation of the clause", in contrast with (i) the grammatical Subject, or the one of whom a statement is predicated, and (ii) the logical Subject, the one "who is said to have carried out the process that the clause represents" (IFG:32); (b) a spatial metaphor, i.e. 'point of departure/takeoff point' or 'the point of embarkation of the clause'; in other words, "what I, the speaker, choose to take as my point of departure" (Halliday

18


I (APRIL, 2001)

1967a:200, 205; 1994:299;), "the peg on which the message is hung" (Halliday 1970: 161 ), "the heading to what I am saying" (Halliday 1970:163); (c) a matter metaphor, i.e. 'aboutness/concern', glossed as "the concern of the message"; "what is being talked about" (... ) "what I am talking about" (or "what I am talking about now" (Halliday 1967a:212); "that with which the clause is concerned" (IFG:37); (d) a realizational statement, i.e. initial position, "[a]s a general guide, (... ) that element which comes in first position in the clause" (IFG:38); (e) a functional description, that is to say, "one element in a particular functional configuration which, taken as a whole, organizes the clause as a message" (IFG:38). Halliday readily abandons gloss (a), psychological Subject, arguing that there is no way of knowing "what the speaker has in his mind at the moment of speaking" (Personal communication, Seminar on Systemic Functional Linguistics, Cordoba May 5-7, 1993]. Instead, the matter and spatial metaphors are used as two different, but equivalent, glosses of Theme (they are presented in apposition at least three times (IFG: 32-42)), which opens up the debate already discussed in section 2.2.3 above. Yet, we are still left with three different cues of thematic status, namely: (a) semantic cues, the initial experiential function, (b) syntactic cues, the initial transitivity element, and (c) phonological cues, the initial tone group, which, as shall be shown, seem inaccurate and not necessarily coterminous criteria. First, if Themes may "stack" within a metafunctional slot, then there may be more than just one constituent in this and/or the previous functional slots, linked by any type of tactic and logico-semantic relationships. Besides, if, as suggested by Halliday, recursive Themes are phonologically coded by tone concord or tone sequences, then it follows that they do not belong to the same information unit, either. Furthermore, in spoken (especially spontaneous) speech all sorts of pauses and hesitations could be regarded as legitimate Themes since they act as the psychological "crutch" on which the speaker relies to continue her/his discourse. Aware of this situation, some scholars suggest that the basic unit for the thematic analysis of speech is not the clause, but the Phonemic Clause, i.e. "a phonologically marked macrosegment which contains one and only one primary stress and ends in a terminal juncture"


19

(Trager and Smith (1951) in Boomer (1965: 149); Goldman-Eisler 1972; Romero-Trillo 1994). In addition, as pointed out in G6mez-Gonzalez (1996a, 1997, 2000), the category of displaced Theme also seems to be somehow inconsistent with the treatment of initial position as an identification criterion of thematic status (Downing 1991). For one thing, the idea of a 'displaced', or non initial, Topical Theme, violates Halliday's description of this category as extending up to (and including) the first experiential/ transitivity element, and so, on not being initial, 'displaced' transitivity constituents could not be regarded as thematic. Moreover, the characterization of displaced Theme as that which "would be unmarked Theme in the ensuing clause, if the existing marked Topical Theme was reworded as a dependent clause" is so vague that virtually all marked Themes could be considered to precede a displaced Theme. This would imply a shift in the theory that, to my knowledge, systemicists have never intended. Rather, in IFG we are given only three examples of different types of displaced Themes, as shown in (11) (IFG:64-5), which reveals the account of this category as relatively ad hoc: (11) (a) Apart from a need to create his own identity «having been well and truly trained and educated and. indeed. used by his father for so long. emotionally and practically» Robert* felt that at twenty the last thing he wanted to do was to join a family firm in Newcastle. (b) For all his integrity and high principles. Robert* pulled a slightly fast one over his father and business partners. (c) In a letter [written to Longridge 1on 7 June. eleven days before Robert's departure. George* sounds distinctly miserable, even bitter, at the prospect of travelling to Liverpool in time to see e.g. Robert off. Indeed, if it could be admitted that the Topical Themes in ( 11 a) and (11b) do display some sort of semantic dependency on Robert, which could support the analysis of this constituent as a displaced Theme, that is not the case in ( 11 c), where an independent place Adjunct is also analyzed as displacing the Topical Theme. This could be a consistent analysis if the category of Theme was assigned only to referential participants (as claimed in referential analyses such as (9) above). But, it seems that this is not the case, for in most systemic descriptions initial circumstances are presented as a central type of marked Topical Theme.

20


Lastly, several scholars have questioned the general soundness of Halliday's approach to Theme. Chafe (1976:38), for example, believes that Halliday mixes up the notion of Given with that of Focus, whereas Allerton (1978:156-7) and Danes (1974b:l10-l) argue that the confusion lies between the notions of Theme and Given and those of Given and Rheme, respectively (Firbas 1974; Brazil et al. 1980:112). In my view, behind this controversy lies the question as to whether initial position should be used as a language-specific (English) identificational criterion of what a message is about, or rather it should be interpreted relationally as an orientational zone, here called ETZ, which has (cross-) linguistic validity as a result of the universal principle of linear organization of discourse (the staging of information). Systemicists explain that clause initial position is the expression of Theme in languages such as English, whereas in other languages this category may be coded morphologically and/or it may be placed in other positions. The first controversial issue arises from the circular and tautological argumentation that leads to this conclusion. Initial position is claimed to be the natural position for Theme provided that: (a) in any given language the message is organized as a Theme-Rheme structure, and (b) this structure is expressed by the sequence in which the elements occur in the clause (IFG:39). The first proviso implies that there may be languages lacking the Theme-Rheme patterns, which contravenes Halliday's belief that these patterns are universal principles of organization instrumental to the ideational and interpersonal meanings. The second proviso, on the other hand, suggests that Theme-Rheme patterns may or may not be expressed by the sequence in which these functions occur. This seems to depend on whether or not a language displays morphological cues that allegedly mark the thematic status of items. This assumption has two further problems. The first is that, as noted in G6mezGonzalez ( 1996a, 2000), none of the postulated Topic markers (e.g. Japanese (-wa), Tagalog (-ang), and Korean (-nun)) can be simply equated with any existing definition ofTopicffheme, while all messages have an orientational zone (=initial position), its intrinsic functional relevance being language-dependent. The second hindrance is that, as a corollary, regardless of the grammatical structure of languages, clause initial experiential position remains a communicatively important position. In other words, it may be concluded that, deriving from the linear quality of language, clause initial experiential position codes relational aboutness, that is, the speaker's point of departure setting her/his angle on the experience being constructed, syntactically across different languages, although the relevance of this position varies depending on the


21

morpho-syntactic structure of specific languages. From this relational perspective, then, initial position is not simply used as a language-specific (present-day English) identification criterion, but rather is claimed to create a discoursal and cognitive zone of cross-linguistic validity. SFG eo-workers do acknowledge the functional relevance of initial position when claiming that the effects of linearization are not restricted to the Theme of clauses (Halliday 1967a:199; IFG:54, 187, 197, 387; Fries 1983 [1981]; Martin 1992a, 1994, 1995). However, some degree of confusion could be detected when it is argued that Theme-Rheme patterns operate only in structural units (the clause, the group or the phrase), while it is similarly admitted that those patterns are also present in non-structural constructs such as paragraphs and texts, but should be excluded from minor clauses or "little texts", instances of texts in any case (IFG:392-7). To account for this confusion, the justification is adduced that the phenomenon of thematization operates at all levels of linguistic description whereas Theme represents a structural category at the level of the clause (complex). Be that as it may, as remarked in G6mezGonzalez ( 1994, 1996a, b, 1997, 2000), IFG discusses the discourse motivations underlying different thematic/rhematic choices only in passing (pp. 64-7; 368-91), focusing on how this textual category affects the grammatical structure of clauses in isolation.

3. Conclusions. In this paper we have discussed different moot points emerging in SFG, firstly, with regard to it as a grammatical framework, and secondly, in connection with the textual dimension of languages, in particular with its treatment of Theme-Rheme patterns. As a general conclusion, it could be suggested that SFG could perhaps make a stronger case for a functional organization of semantics, as well as for its position in other controversial issues such as e.g.: (a) the syntax-semantics interface and the criteria to distinguish different types of processes, participants and circumstances, and all possible relationships established among them; (b) the paradigmatic criterion explaining clearly whether systems from different or similar metafunctions do or do not interact. In addition, systemic Theme has been interpreted relationally, as entailing a syntactically-coded relation between an initial entity/proposition, or Theme, and a non-initial clausal (complex) predication, or Rheme. In contrast, it has been argued that most scholars use the labels

22


"Topic" or "Theme" to allude to different versions of either interactive aboutness (i.e. "what each speaker thinks is at issue in discourse") or referential aboutness (i.e. a relationship of aboutness established by a referential entity with respect to the context). Nevertheless, we have shown that systemic descriptions are sometimes vague as regards e.g. the definition of Multiple, Displaced and Textual Theme. As an alternative we have proposed the notion of Extended Theme Zone (ETZ) including Topical Themes (clause-initial transitivity/mood elements) eo-occurring with pre-topical and/or post-topical textual and/or interpersonal elements. Also, it has been stressed that systemicists should make it clear whether Theme invokes a structural category of cross-linguistic validity (message-initial position), or rather refers to a language-dependent identificational criterion (English). To sum up, we have argued for the cognitive-linguistic salience of the Theme zone (initial position vs. non-initial slot) which could be viewed as an orientation zone in natural language giving orientation or perspective for what is to follow in the background of a co(n)text across different languages and different genres (Lehman 1992; Mackenzie 1998, 2000; G6mez-Gonzalez 2000). And, more generally, we would like to suggest that in order to increase its analytical potential as a grammatical model, SFG could benefit from the insights of other functionalcognitive descriptions in issues such as e.g.: (a) the differentiation of focal scopes, contrasting e.g. potential Focus Domain, actual Focus Domain, predicate Focus, Argument Focus, sentence Focus, and Narrow Focus (Lambrecht 1988, 1994); (b) the distinction between presupposition and assertion (Kempson 1975:190; Lambrecht 1988:1, 1994:127); or (c) the existence of scopal relations, as implied by the layering theory, among both the metafunctions and the different types and levels of core/nucleus operators, arguments and satellites (Dik 1989, 1997; Hengeveld 1988, 1989, 1990, 2000; Foley and Van Valin 1984; Van Valin 1993). Universidade de Santiago de Compostela Departamento de Filolox{a Inglesa e Alemana Avda. Castelao, sin E-15704 Santiago de Compostela Spain [email protected]


23

END NOTES 1

The first draft of this paper was written in 1995, and its central ideas are included in G6mezGonzalez (2000). I am grateful to Professors M. A. K. Halliday, C. S. Butler, Lachlan Mackenzie, T. Fanego, A. Downing, 1. G6mez-Soliiio, and to the anonymous referees for WORD, for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this article, which inspired me to present my arguments more cogently; naturally, the above are not responsible for the use I have made of their suggestions. For their financial support, thanks also to the Xunta de Galicia and to the Spanish Ministry of Education and Science, DGICYT (PB90-0370, PB94-0619) and DGES (PB97-D507). 2 Research on Theme has been characterized by a separating versus combining dichotomy (cf. Fries 1983 [1881]; G6mez-Gonzatez 1994, 1996a, 2000). Separators maintain that Theme is not to be identified either with Topic or with contextually Given or New information. Rather, these are regarded as different categories belonging to different systems with different means of realization. By contrast, combinors interpret these categories as different aspects of the Given-New contrast. 3 "Lexical items" exclude closed systems, which occur as the unique realization of a grammatical feature and thus form one-member classes, such as anaphoric items, elements which point to the here-and-now of discourse, and non-anaphoric items like verbal auxiliaries and prepositions. 4 In SFG the system of interdependency establishes three types of constructional relationships within the same complex clause: (a) hypotaxis (in which a secondary process (~)depends on a primary one (a), regardless of their sequential order); (b) parataxis (in which processes have equal status, allowing internal bracketing, or nesting, and branching structures of the type e.g. John came, but Peter didn't); and (c) embedding, (i.e. the "mechanism whereby a clause or phrase comes to function as a constituent within the structure of a group, which itself is a constituent of a clause" (IFG:242)). These tactic relationships may entail two types of logico-semantic structural relations: projection and expansion. In projection the reporting clause instantiates the reported clause as a locution(") or as an idea('). By contrast, in expansion a process expands another by: (I) elaborating it(=) (i.e. re-stating it, specifying it or commenting it); (2) extending it(+) (i.e. adding some newelement, and exception or an alternative to it); or (3) enhancing it (x) (i.e. qualifying it with some circumstantial feature). 5 Mood structure refers to the presence/absence of five functional elements: (I) Subject; (2) Finite (i.e. element expressing primary tense (viz. past, present or future) and modality (viz. can, will, must, etc.)); (3) Predicator (i.e. verbal group minus the temporal or modal operator); (4) Complement (i.e. element that has the potential of being Subject but is not); (5) Adjunct (i.e. element that has not the potential of being Subject. 6 Besides this analysis, in IFG, page 49, the possibility is also admitted that this type of imperative consist ofRheme only (the thematic value 'I want you to' being left implicit). 7 For a discussion of the concept of metaphor; see Martin (1992a), Halliday and Martin (1993). 8 Take, for example, the treatment of passivization, of Modality and Modulation. Passivization is used as a device to distinguish Mood choices, but, paradoxically enough, it is included within the system of Transitivity as a means to mark different semantic roles as the Subject of a given Process, whereby it is also treated as an inherently textual device. Modality and modulation, in their turn, although reduced to the Mood network (Halliday 1970:245-50), are described as fulfilling different functions, i.e. interpersonal and ideational respectively, thereby contravening the paradigmatic criterion that semantically parallel systems arise from the same metafunction. 9 See, for example, Bazell (1973:201), Firbas (1974:25, 212), Gundel (1974:47, 87), Dahl (1976:48), Creiden (1978:200), Kuno (1975:326, Footnote 1), Allerton (1978:166), Fronek (1983:312), Fries (1983 [1981], 1987, 1992b), Taglicht (1984:14), Davison and Lutz (1985:33), Hudson (1986:797, 798), Huddleston (1988, 1991, 1992), Siewierska(l991:149 note 3) and Downing (1990, 1991 ).

24

WORD, VOLUME 52, NUMBER I (APRIL, 2001) REFERENCES

Allerton, David J. 1978. "The notion of 'givenness' and its relations to presupposition and to theme." Lingua 44: 133-68. Bazell, C. E. 1973. Review of J. Lyons, ed., New horizons in linguistics. Journal of linguistics 9:198-202. Berry, Margaret. 1982. Review of Language as social semiotic, by M. A. K. Halliday. Nottingham linguistic circular 11:120-45. Berry, Margaret, Christopher S. Butler and Robin Fawcett, eds. 1996. Meaning and form: Systemic functional interpretations. Norwood, N. J.: Ablex. Bloor, Meriel and Thomas Bloor. 1996. The functional analysis of English. A Hallidayan approach. London: Edward Arnold. Boomer, D. S. 1965. "Hesitation and grammatical encoding." Language and speech 8:14858. Brazil, D., M. Coulthard and C. Johns. 1980. Discourse intonation and language teaching. London: Longman. Brown, Gillian and George Yule. 1983. Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Butler, Christopher S. 1982. "The directive function of English modals." Ph. D. dissertation, University of Nottingham. - - - . 1985. Systemic linguistics: Theory and applications. London: Batsford Academic and Educational. - - - . 1988. "Pragmatics and systemic linguistics." Journal of pragmatics 12:83-102. Chafe, Wallace L. 1976. "Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view." Subject and topic. Ed. C. Li. New York: Academic Press. 1976. Pp. 26-56. Creiden, C. 1978. "Anaphora in Kalenjin." Anaphora in discourse. Ed. J. Hinds. Current inquiry into language and linguistics, 22. Pp. 180-222. Dahl, Osten. 1976. "What is new information?" Reports on text linguistics: Approaches to word order. Eds. N.E. Enkvist and V. Kohonen. Meddelanden frim Stiftelsens for Abo Akademi Forskningsinstitut no. 8. Aboffurku. Pp. 37-50. DaneS, Frantisek. 1964. "A three level approach to syntax." Travaux Linguistiques de Prague 1:225-40. - - - . 1974a. Papers on functional sentence perspective. The Hague: Mouton. - - - . 1974b. "Functional sentence perspective and the organisation of the text." Papers on functional sentence perspective. Ed. F. DaneS. The Hague: Mouton. Pp. 106-28. Davies, Martin. 1998. "Wording without meaning and meaning without wording. Theme, information, and non-prosodic cohesion." Paper presented at the 25 1h International Systemic Functional Congress, at University of Cardiff, 13th-l81h July. Davison, Alice and Richard Lutz 1985. "Measuring syntactic complexity relative to discourse context." Natural language parsing. Eds. R. 0., Dowty, L. Kartunen and A. M. Zwicky. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 26-66. De Beaugrande, R. and Wolfgang U. Dressier. 1981./ntroduction to text linguistics. London: Longman. Dik, Simon C. 1978. Functional grammar. Amsterdam: North Holland. - - - . 1980. Studies in functional grammar. London and New York: Academic Press. - - - . 1997. The theory offunctional grammar. Parts I and 2. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Downing, Angela. 1990. "Sobre et tema t6pico en Ingh!s." Revista Espaiiola de Lingiifstica Aplicada. Anejo I.


25

- - - . 1991. "An alternative approach to theme: A systemic-functional perspective." WORD 42.2: 119-43. Fawcett, Robin P. 1973a. Systemic functional grammar in a cognitive model of language. Mimeographed. London: University College, London. - - - . 1973b. Generating a sentence in systemic functional grammar. Mimeographed. London: University College, London. - - - . 1980. Cognitive linguistics and social interaction: Towards an integrated model of a systemic functional grammar and the other components of a communicating mind. Heidelberg: Julius Groos Verlag. Firbas, Jan. 1964. "On defining theme in functional sentence analysis." Travaux Linguistiques de Prague I :267-80. - - - . 1974. "Some aspects of the Czechoslovak approach to problems of functional sentence perspective." Papers on functional sentence perspective. Ed. F. DaneS. The Hague: Mouton. Pp. 11-37. Foley, William A. and Robert D. Van Valin, Jr. 1984. Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fries, Peter H. 1983. "On the status of theme in English: Arguments from discourse." Micro and macro connexity of texts. Eds. 1. S. Petofi and E. Sozer. Papiere zu Textlinguistik, 45. Hamburg: Buske Verlag. Pp. 116-52. Fronek, J. 1983. "Some criticisms of Halliday's 'Information Systems'." Lingua 60:311-29. Giv6n, Talmy. 1993. English grammar. Vol. 2. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Goldman-Eisler, F. 1972. "Pauses, clauses, sentences." Language and speech 15:103-13. G6mez-Gonzalez, Marfa Angeles. 1994. ''The relevance of theme in the textual organisation of BBC news reports." WORD 45:3.293-305. - - - . 1996a. "A corpus-based approach to theme in Present-Day British English. Towards analternative moderate functionalist interpretation." Ph. D. dissertation, University of Santiago de Compos tela. - - - . 1996b. "Theme: Topic or discourse framework?" Miscelanea 17:123--40. - - - . 1997. "A contrastive critique of topic and theme in Functional Grammar (FG) and Systemic Functional Grammar (SFG)." RESI.A 10. - - - . 1998 "A corpus-based analysis of extended multiple themes in PresE." International journal of corpus linguistics 3.1:81-114. ---.2000. The theme-topic interface: Evidence from English. Amsterdam and New York: John Benjamins. Gundel, Janette, K. 1974. ''The role of topic and comment in linguistic theory." Ph. D. dissertation, University of Texas. - - - . 1988. "Universals of topic-comment structure." Studies in syntactic typology. Eds. M. E. Hammond, A. Moravcsik and J. R. Wirth. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 209-33. Halliday, M. A. K. 1964. "Syntax and the consumer." In C. I. J. M. Report of the fifteenth annual (first international) round table meeting on linguistic and language study. Monograph series in language and linguistics, 17. Washington D. C.: Georgetown University Press. Pp. 1124. - - - . 1967a. "Notes on transitivity and theme in English, part 1." Journal of linguistics 3:199-244. - - - . 1967b. Intonation and grammar in British English. The Hague: Mouton. - - - . 1968. "Notes on transitivity and theme in English, part 3." Journal of linguistics 4:179-215. - - - . 1970. "Language structure and language function." New horizons in linguistics. Vol. I. Ed. John Lyons. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Pp. 140--65.

26


- - - . 1972. Towards a sociological semantics. Working papers and prebublications, 14. Urbino: Centro internazionale di semiotica e di linguistica, University of Urbino. - - - . 1974. "The place of 'functional sentence perspective' in the system of linguistic description." Papers on functional sentence perspective. Ed. F. Danes. The Hague: Mouton. Pp. 43-53. - - - . 1977. "Text as semantic choice in social contexts." Research in text theory. Voll. Grammars and descriptions. Eds. T.A. Van Dijk and J.S. Petofi. New York: Waiter de Gruyter. Pp. 176-225. - - - . 1978. Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold. - - - . 1979. "Modes of meanings and modes of expression: Types of grammatical structure and their determination by different semantic functions." Function and context in linguistics analysis: Essays offered to William Haas. Eds. D.J. Allerton et al. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 57-79. - - - . 1980a. "Context of situation." Sophia linguistica 6:4-15. - - - . 1980b. "Functions of language." Sophia linguistica 6:60-74. - - - . 1994. An introduction to functional grammar. 2nd. ed. London: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M. A. K. and Jim R. Martin. 1993. Writing science. Literacy and discursive power. London: Palmer Press. Halliday, M. A. K. and Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman. Hasan, Ruqaiya, Carmel Cloran and David G. Butt, eds. 1996. Functional descriptions: Theory and practice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hasan, Ruqaiya and Peter H. Fries, eds. 1995. On subject and theme. A discourse functional perspective. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Hengeveld, Kees. 1988. "IIIocution, mood and modality in a functional grammar of Spanish." Journal of semantics 6:227-69. - - - . 1989. "Layers and operators in functional grammar." Journal of linguistics 25:12757. - - - . 1990a. "The hierarchical structure of utterances." Layers and levels of representation in language theory: A functional overview. Eds. J. Nayts et al. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 1-24. - - - . 1990b. "A new architecture for functional discourse grammar." Paper delivered to the 9th International Conference on Functional Grammar. Madrid: UNED. 71h-9th September. Huddleston, Rodney D. 1978. Review of Cohesion in English, by M.A.K. Halliday and Ruqaiya Hasan. Lingua 45:335-54. _ - - - . 1988. "Constituency, multi-functionality and grammaticalization in Halliday's functional grammar." Journal of linguistics 24:137-74. - - - . 1991. "Further remarks on Halliday's functional grammar: A reply to Mathiessen and Martin." Occasional papers in systemic linguistics 5:75-129. - - - . 1992. "On Halliday's functional grammar: A reply to Martin and Matthiessen." Occasional papers in systemic linguistics 6:197-211. Hudson, Richard. A. 1974. "Systemic generative grammar." Linguistics 139:5-42. - - - . 1984. Word grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. - - - . 1986. "Systemic grammar [A review article]." Linguistics 24:791-815. Jimenez-Julia, Tomas. 1986. Aproximacion a/ estudio de /as funciones informativas. Malaga: Agora. Kempson, Ruth. 1975. Presupposition and the delimitation of semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kuno, Susumu. 1975. "Three perspectives in the functional approach to syntax." Papers from the


27

parasession on functionalism. Eds. R. E. Grossman et al. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Pp. 276-336. Lambrecht, Knud. 1988. When subjects behave like topics: A markedness analysis of sentence focus constructions across languages. Manuscript. Austin: University of Texas. - - - . 1994. Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Leech, Geoffrey N. 1983. Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman. Lehman, Christian. 1992. "Word order change by grammaticalisation." Internal and external factors in syntactic change. Eds. D. Stein and M. Gerritsen. Berlin: Mouton. Pp. 395-417. Lemke, Jay L. 1985. "Ideology, intertextuality and the notion of register." Systemic functional approaches to discourse, 26. Eds. J. Benson and W.S. Greaves. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex. Pp. 275-294. Lock, Graham. 1996. An introduction to functional English grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mackenzie, J. Lachlan. 1998. "Incremental functional grammar: An application to spoken utterances in English." Paper delivered to the 8th International Conference on Functional Grammar. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit. 6th-!! th July. - - - . 2000. "Forms and functions in the grammar of spoken English." Paper delivered to the 9th International Conference on Functional Grammar. Madrid: UNED. 7th_gth September. Martin, James R. 1981. "Conjunction and continuity in Tagalog." In Halliday, M. A. K. and J. R. Martin,eds.Pp.310-36. - - - . 1983. "Participant identification in English, Tagalog and Kate." Australian journal of linguistics 3.1. 45-74. - - - . 1984. "Functional components in a grammar: A review of deployable recognition criteria." Nottingham linguistic circular 13:35-70. - - - . 1988. "Grammatical conspiracies in Tagalog: Family, face and fate-with regard to Benjamin Lee Whorf." Linguistics in a systemic perspective. Eds. J. D. Benson et al. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 243-300. - - - . 1990. "Interpersonal grammaticalization: Mood and modality in Tagalog." Philippine journal of linguistics 21.1.2-51. - - - . 1992a. English text: System and structure. Philadelphia and Amsterdam: John Benjamins. - - - . 1992b. "Theme, method of development and existentiality: The price of a reply." Occasional papers in systemic linguistics 6:147-83. - - - . 1993. "Clitics." Linguistics. Philippine encyclopedia of the social sciences. Ed. A. Gonzalez. Quezon City: Philippine Social Science Council. Pp. 237-40. - - - . 1994. "Macro-genres: The ecology of the page." Network 21:29-52. - - - . 1995a. "More than what the message is about: English theme." Thematic development of English texts. Ed. M. Ghadessy. London: Cassell. Pp. 223-58. - - - . 1995b. "Logical meaning, interdependency and the linking particle {-ng/ -na} in Tagalog." Functions of language 2.2:189-228. - - - . 1995c. "Text and clause: Fractal resonance." Text 15.1.5-42. - - - . 1996a. "Types of structure: Deconstructing notions of constituency ..." Computational and conversational discourse. Eds. E. H. Hovy and D. R. Scott. Heidelberg: Springer. - - - . 1996b. "Metalinguistic diversity: The case from case." Functional descriptions: Theory and Practice. Eds. R. Hasan et al. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 323-72. - - - . 1996c. "Transitivity in Tagalog: A functional interpretation of case." Meaning and form. Eds. M. Berry et al. Norwood, N. J.: Ablex. Pp. 229-96. - - - . 1997. "Analysing genre: Functional parameters." Genre institutions: Social processes in the workplace and school. Eds. F. Christie and J. R. Martin. London: Cassell. Pp. 3-39. Martin, James R. and Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. 1991. "Systemic typology and topology." Lit-

28


eracy in social processes: Papers from the inaugural Australian systemic linguistics conference, held at Deaking University, January 1990. Ed. F. Christie. Darwin: Centre for Studies in Language and Education, Northern Territory University. Pp. 345-83. - - - . 1992. "A brief note on Huddleston's reply to Matthiessen and Martin's response to Huddleston 's review of Halliday's Introduction to functional grammar." Occasional papers in systemic linguistics 6: 185-96. Martin, James R. and P. Peters. 1985. "On the analysis of exposition." Discourse on discourse: Workshop reports from the Macquarie Workshop on discourse analysis. Ed. R. Hasan. Applied Linguistic Association of Australia. Occasional papers 7:61-92. Mathesius, Vilem. 1939. ''Tak Zvanem Aktwilnim leneni Vetnem [On the so-called functional sentence perspective]." Slovo a Slovesnost 5:171-4. Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. 1988. "Representational issues in systemic functional grammar." Linguistics in a systemic perspective. Eds. J. D. Benson et al. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 87-179. - - - . I991. "Language on language: The grammar ofsemiosis." Social semiotics 5.111:1-32. Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. andJames R. Martin. 1991. "A response to Huddleston's review of Halliday's Introduction to functional grammar." Occasional papers in systemic linguistics 5:55-84. McGregor, William. I 990. ''The metafunctional hypothesis and syntagmatic relations." Occasional papers in systemic linguistics 5:4-50. Nesbitt, C. and G. Plum. 1988. "Probabilities in a systemic-functional grammar: The clause complex in English." New developments in systemic linguistics. Vol. 2: Theory and practice. Eds. R. P. Fawcett and D. Young. London: Pinter. Pp. 6-38. Rojo, Guillermo. 1979. "La funci6n sintactica coma forma del significante." Verba 6:107-51. Romero-Trillo, Jesus. 1994. "Ahm, Ehm, You Call It Theme? ... A thematic approach to spoken English." Journal of pragmatics 22:495-509. Siewierska, Anna. 1991. Functional grammar. London: Routledge. Taglicht, Joseph. 1984. Message and emphasis. London and New York: Longman. Taylor, L. J. 1996. Linguistic categorisation. 2nd ed. London: Clarendon Press. van Dijk, Teun A. 1987. "Episodic models in discourse processing." Comprehending oral and written language. Eds. R. Horowitz and S. 1. Samuels. London: Academic Press. Pp. 161-96. Van Valin Jr., Robert D. 1993. "A synopsis of role and reference grammar." Advances in role and reference grammar. Ed. R. D. Van Valin, Jr. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Pp. 1-164. Vasconcellos, Muriel. 1992. "The theme as message onset: Its structure and characteristics." Linguistics 30.1:147-63.