Fawcett's Argument Against Layered Representations Of Theme

 Fawcett (2010: 218, 218n):

A similar argument applies to the IFG analysis of Theme, as in Halliday (1994:55). Here the analyses frequently show three layers of structure within one strand of meaning for the 'theme' meanings in a clause.²¹ So, while Halliday may claim that the concept of "secondary structure" does not add another layer of structure, in constituency terms, it does add one or more additional lines of analysis to virtually every representation of a clause.

²¹ The IFG example is Well but then Ann surely wouldn't the best idea be to join the group? It is hard to see why any analysis other than the third and most delicate is required in such cases of multiple Theme. It is unhelpful to imply that all of the thematised elements constitute "the theme" in any semantically unified sense. Similarly, there is little point in giving a line of analysis to showing where two or more happen to share a metafunction. The fact is that several different elements of the clause all happen to have been "thematised" at the same time, each for its own reason. (However, I should add that I do not consider all of the 'early' elements in the above example to be thematised, in that the items well, but, then and wouldn't are not early in the clause because of a systemic choice. But since there are also several genuinely 'thematised' elements, my point remains relevant to that example.)

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, Fawcett's "argument" was that the inclusion of Mood and Residue in structural analyses makes them harder for him to read; see previous post.

[2] This is not misleading, because it is true — apart, perhaps, from the inclusion of the word 'frequently'. Halliday (1994: 55-6) provides five examples of multiple Themes.

[3] This is misleading, because 'secondary structure' is a feature of Halliday's superseded theory, Scale & Category Grammar (1961), not Systemic Functional Grammar (e.g. Halliday 1994). In Scale & Category Grammar, secondary structures were modelled in terms of delicacy, not constituency (rank). Halliday (2002 [1961]: 48):

Subsequent more delicate differentiations are then stated as secondary structures. These are still structures of the same unit, not of the unit next below; they take account of finer distinctions recognisable at the same rank. Rank and delicacy are different scales of abstraction: primary group structures differ in rank from primary clause structures, but are at the same degree of delicacy; while primary and secondary clause structures differ in delicacy but not in rank.

[4] This is true, but it is unproblematic from a theoretical standpoint. Fawcett's "argument" is merely that it makes the analysis harder for him to read.

[5] Halliday (1994: 55):

[6] Fawcett's wording here, 'It's hard to see why', is an example of the logical fallacy known as the argument from incredulity. To be clear, the reason why the "most delicate" analysis — the first, not third — is insufficient is precisely because it would fail to represent the fact — not implication — that 'all the thematised elements constitute the Theme in a semantically unified sense'.

[7] To be clear, the point was more pedagogical than theoretical. In subsequent editions, Halliday & Matthiessen (2004: 79-80; 2014: 107), the metafunctional classifications of the multiple Themes are provided separately from the clause analysis:

[8] To be clear, this is an example of a logical non-sequitur, since it is entirely irrelevant to the claim made in the preceding sentence; see [7].

[9] To be clear, in English, being put first is what realises Theme selection. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 387):

The textual meaning of the clause is expressed by what is put first (the Theme); … and by conjunctions and relatives which if present must occur in initial position.

Continuatives and conjunctions are inherently thematic because their textual functions are specific sub-types of the function of Theme. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 109):

Why do these items favour thematic position in the clause – or, to put the question more meaningfully, why are they associated with thematic function, either characteristically or, in some cases, inherently? In the most general sense, they are all natural Themes: if the speaker, or writer, is making explicit the way the clause relates to the surrounding discourse (textual), … it is natural to set up such expressions as the point of departure. The message begins with ‘let me tell you how this fits in’ … 

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

It might be added that, in Fawcett's model, as shown in Figure 10, Subject is always conflated with Theme, meaning that its thematisation is not a matter of systemic choice.