See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/277889008

Some reflections on Systemic Functional Grammar: With a focus on Theme

Article  in  Word · May 2015

DOI: 10.1080/00437956.2001.11432506

CITATIONS READS

0 246

1 author:

María de los Ángeles Gómez González

University of Santiago de Compostela
35 PUBLICATIONS   131 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The Dynamics of Language Use Functional and contrastive perspectives. Ed. by Christopher S. Butler, M.L.A: Gómez González & Susana M Doval SUárez View project

Developing Functional Discourse Grammar View project

All content following this page was uploaded by María de los Ángeles Gómez González on 31 December 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 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 Func-
tional Grammar (SFG), in particular the analysis of Theme and other re-
lated notions, as presented by M. A. K. Halliday in his 1994 book Intro-
duction 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 pro-
grammatic 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 phonolo-
gy, 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 con-
cerns the expression of experience in terms of processes, entities, quali-
ties and so on; while the logical one comprises the logical relations of
languages such as co-ordination, subordination, apposition, modifica-
tion 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/texture-
creating 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 relation-
ship between grammatical layers), with lexico-grammar acting as a nat-
2 WORD. VOLUME 52, NUMBER I (APRIL, 2001)

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 struc-
tural 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. Reference.
2. Ellipsis and substitution.
3. Conjunction.
4. 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, baggage-
car, rails, etc.).
Alternatively, structural textual resources include the functions of
Theme-Rheme, Given-New and those derived from the mapping of struc-
tural 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, infor-

mation structure involves the mapping of intonational given and new in-
formation (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; Hal-
liday 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 paint-
ed 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 de-
parture, 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 speak-
er'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 nor-
mally 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 (top-
ical) 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) dis-
placed, (5) metaphorical and (6) special.
While simple Topical Themes are realized by a single syntactic con-
stituent (e.g. The Queen ofHearts she made some tarts, IFG:39), com-
plex ones entail a complex of single elements that are linked by a rela-
tionship 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 in-
terrogatives 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 inter-
personal 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, never-
theless.
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 Con-

junctive, 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 usual-
ity) or modulation (i.e. inclination and obligation) (Downing 1991; Vas-
concellos 1992; Martin 1995a, 255 fn. 5). The unmarked display of Mul-
tiple 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 as-
cribed 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 need-

ing 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 ele-
ment 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 be-
tween the presence/absence of certain syntactic structures used to high-
light 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 es-
sentials 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-
 GONZALEZ: SYSTEMIC FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR AND THEME 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 distin-
guished (Fawcett 1973a, b; 1980:34-8). Secondly, the relationship be-
tween the metafunctions and the system networks remains to be clearly
established because: (a) the criteria for the construction of system net-
works are, in Halliday's words (IFG:xx), "still far from being clearly de-
fined"; (b) as noted by Berry (1982:77) or Butler (1985:84; 1990), for
example, system networks are not explicit enough for the analyst to at-
test their components and realizational expressions in stretches of lan-
guage; and (c) the major justification of the functional components hy-
pothesis, 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 Further-
more, it seems that Halliday's claim is, by definition, virtually untestable
since the "comparatively" qualification makes the claimed indepen-
dence 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 de-
scription 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), part-
part (dependency), whole-whole (prosodic) and a-structural (wave-like)
types of syntagmatic relations, on the other (see Butler 1985:86-7; Hal-
liday 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 WORD, VOLUME 52, NUMBER 1 (APRIL, 2001)

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 concern-
ing: (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; But-
ler 1985:90-3; Huddleston 1978, 1988, 1991, 1992; Hudson 1984;
1986).
Moreover, in Halliday 1994:xxxv) one can read that "our under-
standing 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 deal-
ing with resources, rather than with rules (Halliday 1978;191-2).
Nonetheless, it would appear that SFG is ultimately a rule-based gram-
mar too, for it is implemented by means of system networks, which are
themselves sets of rules involving choices from taxonomic classifica-
tions (Butler 1988:15-6). Thus, having to predict explicitly which fea-
tures 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 em-
phasis 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-
 GONZALEZ: SYSTEMIC FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR AND THEME 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 con-

troversy 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 nei-
ther 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' the-
matic choices by the system of the language, which, in its turn, is affect-
ed 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 con-
cerned 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 struc-
tures 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 sys-
tem 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 re-
spect 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 experientiaVinterperson-
al item cannot be taken as a constructional argument for three reasons.
One is that, as advanced, textual patterns are described as non-construc-
tional. Secondly, if different metafunctions are said to have different pat-
terns of realization, then it follows that the different classes of Theme
(viz. experientiaVtransitivity, interpersonal and logical) should also im-
pose different patterns and/or vary with respect to their scope of influ-
ence. Furthermore, if the mappings of the three metafunctions are si-
multaneous, 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-construc-
tional patterns in discourse. Possibly, all these issues deserve further dis-
cussion and clarification.
Bearing the above in mind, G6mez-Gonzalez ( 1998, 2000) propos-
es 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)):
 GONZALEZ: SYSTEMIC FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR AND THEME 11

(2) (a) I i'this of course was 'not because the 'government 'jailed
0

in its su pposed 'duty as provvider I ibut !largely I be

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 vpas-
sionate 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 el-

ements 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 suprasegmen-
tally, 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
0
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):

(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 sug-
gest that in the ETZ, not only textual and interpersonal items, as pro-
12 WORD, VOLUME 52, NUMBER 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 re-
cursively 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 ex-
cerpts 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
0 0

0
thought there was -little !hope I for a PN_C at \all0

I (IBMLSECAPT02:036) (ETZ with a Complex Marked Top-

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 Logi-

co-Conjunctive Theme on the assumption that: (a) the latter is a more ap-
propriate term to designate an initial item fulfilling a logico-conjunctive
and/or a conjunctive function (although logico-conjunctive and con-
junctive 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 un-
marked 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 rela-
tions 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 de-
scribed 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 schol-

ars, both within and outside the systemic literature, have debated this
 GONZALEZ: SYSTEMIC FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR AND THEME 13

2 1 H 1 2

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

experiential meaning narrowest scope

interpersonal meaning l
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 . .. , Down-
ing 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 WORD, VOLUME 52, NUMBER I (APRIL, 2001)

Table 1 Trends in the interpretation of aboutness

message centred context-centred interpretations

interpretation

clause level of analysis discourse level of analysis

relational interpretation referential interpretation interactive interpretation

contextual activated

Interpretation 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 iden-
tified 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 refer-
ent and the overall discourse (discourse Topics), or to interactive about-
ness, representing speakers' discourse perspectives on what is at issue at
a given point of discourse (speaker's Topics), rather than analysts' per-
ceptions 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 de-
rived 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
 GONZALEZ: SYSTEMIC FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR AND THEME 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-in-
troduced) their personal experience within the general Topic
framework of the conversation, i.e. the effect of restoring old
buildings):

L: I quite like the way they've done the Mile though+ I think it's quite nice
M: yes[Ah]Ayes
L: the bottom of it anyway
M: 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+
L: 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 +
M: yes I know because there are some beautiful buildings
L: oh it was really nice (Brown and Yule 1983:88)

(9) Referential aboutness (Topicsffhemes =Subject/Object referen-

tial 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 be-
cause 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 sud-
denly 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 WORD, VOLUME 52, NUMBER 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 experi-
ential/transitivity position, i.e. a participant, an attribute, a circumstance
or a process, which serves an anchoring or orientating role for the sub-
sequent message. Thus, from this relational perspective it would be con-
sistent to treat the matter metaphor (aboutness) and the spatial metaphor
('point of departure') as two different aspects of Theme, i.e. the rela-
tional semantic and the psycholinguistic and syntactic, respectively. Ac-
cordingly, such examples as those in ( 10) could be said to be 'about' and
have as 'point of departure' nothing, impersonal you or there, for exam-
ple, because these items express the speaker's experiential/interpersonal
onset of the message to be constructed, whether or not they have refer-
ential nominal status. The functional relevance of these points of depar-
ture 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 partic-
ipant is not Subject) leads to Finite preceding Subject (e.g. Nowhere
would you get a better offer, Matthiessen and Martin 1991:44). Like-
wise, 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 dis-

course. 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 in-
formation 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 at-
tached to this category (Hudson 1986:798; Taglicht 1984:14; Huddle-
ston 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 it-
self, 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, ac-
counts 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 WORD, VOLUME 52, NUMBER 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 con-
cerned" (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 partic-
ular functional configuration which, taken as a whole, orga-
nizes 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 ini-
tial tone group, which, as shall be shown, seem inaccurate and not nec-
essarily 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 rela-
tionships. 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. Further-
more, 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 Phone-
mic Clause, i.e. "a phonologically marked macrosegment which con-
tains one and only one primary stress and ends in a terminal juncture"
 GONZALEZ: SYSTEMIC FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR AND THEME 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 in-
consistent with the treatment of initial position as an identification crite-
rion of thematic status (Downing 1991). For one thing, the idea of a 'dis-
placed', 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 character-
ization 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 in-
tended. 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 fami-
ly 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, <<though trying hard to hide it,>> 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 ana-
lyzed as displacing the Topical Theme. This could be a consistent analy-
sis 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 circum-
stances are presented as a central type of marked Topical Theme.
20 WORD, VOLUME 52, NUMBER I (APRIL, 2001)

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 confu-
sion 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 posi-
tion should be used as a language-specific (English) identificational cri-
terion of what a message is about, or rather it should be interpreted rela-
tionally as an orientational zone, here called ETZ, which has (cross-)
linguistic validity as a result of the universal principle of linear organi-
zation 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 tauto-
logical 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 Hall-
iday'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 morpho-
logical cues that allegedly mark the thematic status of items. This as-
sumption has two further problems. The first is that, as noted in G6mez-
Gonzalez ( 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 rel-
evance 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 posi-
tion. 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 lan-
guages, although the relevance of this position varies depending on the
 GONZALEZ: SYSTEMIC FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR AND THEME 21

morpho-syntactic structure of specific languages. From this relational

perspective, then, initial position is not simply used as a language-spe-
cific (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 pat-
terns 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 ad-
duced that the phenomenon of thematization operates at all levels of lin-
guistic description whereas Theme represents a structural category at the
level of the clause (complex). Be that as it may, as remarked in G6mez-
Gonzalez ( 1994, 1996a, b, 1997, 2000), IFG discusses the discourse mo-
tivations 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 dif-

ferent 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/propo-
sition, or Theme, and a non-initial clausal (complex) predication, or
Rheme. In contrast, it has been argued that most scholars use the labels
22 WORD, VOLUME 52, NUMBER 1 (APRIL, 2001)

"Topic" or "Theme" to allude to different versions of either interactive

aboutness (i.e. "what each speaker thinks is at issue in discourse") or ref-
erential aboutness (i.e. a relationship of aboutness established by a ref-
erential entity with respect to the context). Nevertheless, we have shown
that systemic descriptions are sometimes vague as regards e.g. the defi-
nition 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 ele-
ments. 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 iden-
tificational 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 gram-
matical model, SFG could benefit from the insights of other functional-
cognitive descriptions in issues such as e.g.:

(a) the differentiation of focal scopes, contrasting e.g. potential

Focus Domain, actual Focus Domain, predicate Focus, Argu-
ment 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 the-
ory, 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
iadimly@usc.es
 GONZALEZ: SYSTEMIC FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR AND THEME 23

END NOTES

1
The first draft of this paper was written in 1995, and its central ideas are included in G6mez-
Gonzalez (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 help-
ful 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 re-
garded 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 grammat-
ical 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 pri-
mary one (a), regardless of their sequential order); (b) parataxis (in which processes have equal sta-
tus, 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 lo-
cution(") 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 newel-
ement, and exception or an alternative to it); or (3) enhancing it (x) (i.e. qualifying it with some cir-
cumstantial feature).
5
Mood structure refers to the presence/absence of five functional elements: (I) Subject; (2) Fi-
nite (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) Comple-
ment (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 imper-
ative 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, al-
though 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 cri-
terion 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 Down-
ing (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 8:148-
58.
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, Uni-
versity of Nottingham.
- - - . 1985. Systemic linguistics: Theory and applications. London: Batsford Academic and Ed-
ucational.
- - - . 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 func-
tional sentence perspective. Ed. F. DaneS. The Hague: Mouton. Pp. 106-28.
Davies, Martin. 1998. "Wording without meaning and meaning without wording. Theme, informa-
tion, and non-prosodic cohesion." Paper presented at the 25 1h International Systemic Func-
tional Congress, at University of Cardiff, 13th-l81h July.
Davison, Alice and Richard Lutz 1985. "Measuring syntactic complexity relative to discourse con-
text." Natural language parsing. Eds. R. 0., Dowty, L. Kartunen and A. M. Zwicky. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 26-66.
De Beaugrande, R. and Wolfgang U. Dressier. 1981./ntroduction to text linguistics. London: Long-
man.
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 Aplica-
da. Anejo I.
 GONZALEZ: SYSTEMIC FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR AND THEME 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. Mimeo-
graphed. 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 sys-
temic 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. Ham-
burg: 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 anal-
ternative 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 Sys-
temic Functional Grammar (SFG)." RESI.A 10.
- - - . 1998 "A corpus-based analysis of extended multiple themes in PresE." International jour-
nal 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. 11-
24.
- - - . 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 WORD, VOLUME 52, NUMBER I (APRIL, 2001)

- - - . 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 descrip-
tion." 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. Gram-
mars 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 Uni-
versity 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. Lon-
don: 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 per-
spective. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hengeveld, Kees. 1988. "IIIocution, mood and modality in a functional grammar of Spanish." Jour-
nal of semantics 6:227-69.
- - - . 1989. "Layers and operators in functional grammar." Journal of linguistics 25:127-
57.
- - - . 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." Occa-
sional 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
 GONZALEZ: SYSTEMIC FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR AND THEME 27

parasession on functionalism. Eds. R. E. Grossman et al. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Soci-

ety. 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 fac-
tors 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 ap-
proaches 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 Uni-
versity Press.
Mackenzie, J. Lachlan. 1998. "Incremental functional grammar: An application to spoken utter-
ances in English." Paper delivered to the 8th International Conference on Functional Gram-
mar. 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 lin-
guistics 3.1. 45-74.
- - - . 1984. "Functional components in a grammar: A review of deployable recognition crite-
ria." Nottingham linguistic circular 13:35-70.
- - - . 1988. "Grammatical conspiracies in Tagalog: Family, face and fate-with regard to Ben-
jamin 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." Occa-
sional 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 Taga-
log." 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 WORD, VOLUME 52, NUMBER I (APRIL, 2001)

eracy in social processes: Papers from the inaugural Australian systemic linguistics confer-
ence, 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 Hud-
dleston 's review of Halliday's Introduction to functional grammar." Occasional papers in sys-
temic 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 sen-
tence 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." Occasion-
al papers in systemic linguistics 5:4-50.
Nesbitt, C. and G. Plum. 1988. "Probabilities in a systemic-functional grammar: The clause com-
plex 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 writ-
ten 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." Lin-
guistics 30.1:147-63.

View publication stats