Theme: Topic or Discourse Framework?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26754/ojs_misc/mj.199611038Abstract
Halliday's notion of (Topical) Theme has been questioned by Huddleston and Downing, inter alia. Their criticism focuses on the idea that the first element in an English clause, Halliday’s (Topical) Theme, does not always identify “what the clause is about.” This debate rests on three different interpretations of thematic/topical “aboutness.” Whereas Halliday understands “aboutness” in a relational sense, Huddleston and Downing support an interactive referential and a contextual referential interpretation, respectively. Section 1 outlines the points involved in three accounts. Section 2 expands Downing's and Huddleston's views, which section 3 tries to reconcile with a relational interpretation of the ‘aboutness’ feature of Halliday’s (Topical) Theme. Section 4 comprises the main conclusion drawn therefrom, namely that Halliday’s (Topical) Theme and Huddleston’s and Downing’s Topic invoke different functions, which may, but need not, be conflated or “mapped” onto one another.
Downloads
References
ALLERTON, David J. 1978. “The Notion of ‘Givenness’ and its Relations to Presupposition and Theme.” Lingua 44: 133-168.
ANDREWS, A. 1985. “The Major Function of the Noun Phrase.” In Language Typology and Syntactic Description 1. Ed. T. Shopen. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. 62-154.
BAZELL, C. E. 1973. Review of New Horizons in linguistics. Ed. J. Lyons. Journal of Linguistics 9: 198-202.
CHAFE, Wallace L. 1976. “Givenness, Contrastiveness, Definiteness, Subjects, Topics and Point of View.” In Subject and Topic. Ed. L. Charles. New York: Academic P. 26-56.
COMRIE, Bernard. 1981. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Blackwell.
CREIDEN, C. 1978. “Anaphora in Kalenjin.” In Anaphora in Discourse: Current Inquiry into Language and Linguistics 22 Ed. J. Hinds. 180-222.
DAHL, Ö. 1976. “What Is New Information?” In Reports on Text Linguistics: Approaches to Word Order. Ed. N. E. Enkvist and V. Kohonen. Åbo: Akademia. 37-51.
DANES, F. 1974. “Functional Sentence Perspective and the Organisation of the Text." In Papers on Functional Sentence Perspective. Ed. F. Danes. The Hague: Mouton. 106-128.
DAVISON, Alice. 1984. “Syntactic Markedness and the Definition of Sentence Topic.” Language 60.4: 797-846.
DAVISON, Alice and R. LUTZ. 1985. “Measuring Syntactic Complexity Relative to Discourse Context." In Natural Language Parsing. Ed. R. O. Dowty, L. Kartunen and A. Mzwickey. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. 26-66.
DOWNING, Angela. 1991. “An Alternative Approach to Theme: A Systemic-Functional Perspective.” Word 40.2: 119-43.
DOWNING, Angela and Philip LOCKE. 1992. A University Course in English Grammar. New York: Prentice-Hall.
EILER, Mary Ann. 1986. “Thematic Distribution as a Heuristic for Written Discourse Function.” In Functional Approaches to Writing Research. Ed. B. Couture. London: Frances Pinter. 49-68.
FIRBAS, Jan. 1974. “Some Aspects of the Czechoslovak Approach to the Problem of Functional Sentence Perspective." In Papers on Functional Sentence Perspective. Ed. F. Danes. The Hague: Mouton. 11-37.
FRIES, Peter H. 1983. “On the Status of Theme in English: Arguments from Discourse.” 1981. In Micro and Macro Connexity of Texts. Ed. J. S. Petöfi and E. Sözer. Hamburg: Buske. 116-52.
FRONEK, J. 1983. “Some Criticisms of Halliday’s ‘Information Systems’.” Lingua 60: 311-329.
GELUYKENS, Ronald. 1992. From Discourse Process to Grammatical Description: On Left-Dislocation in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
GIORA, M. 1983. “Functional Paragraph Perspective." In Micro and Macro Connexity of Texts. Eds. J. S. Petöfi, and E. Sözer. Hamburg: Buske. 153-82.
GIVÓN, Talmy. 1983b. “Topic Continuity in Discourse: An Introduction." In Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross-Linguistic Study. Typological Studies in Language 3. Ed. T. Givón (1983a). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 5-41.
GUNDEL, Janette K. 1988. “Universals of Topic-Comment Structure.” In Studies in Syntactic Typology. Ed. M. Hammond, E. A. Moravcsik and J. R. Wirth. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 209-33.
HALLIDAY, M. A. K. 1967. “Notes on Transitivity and Theme in English: Part 2.” Journal of Linguistics 3.2: 199-244.
- - -. 1974. “The Place of ‘Functional Sentence Perspective’ in the System of Linguistic Description.” In Papers on Functional Sentence Perspective. Ed. F. Daneß. The Hague: Mouton. 43-53.
- - -. 1978. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
- - -. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 1985. London: Edward Arnold.
HUDDLESTON, Rodney. 1988. “Constituency, Multi-functionality and Grammaticalisation in Halliday’s Functional Grammar.” Journal of Linguistics 24:137-174.
- - -. 1991. “Further Remarks on Halliday’s Functional Grammar: A Reply to Matthiessen & Martin.” Occasional Papers in Systemic Linguistics 5: 75-129.
- - -. 1992. “On Halliday’s Functional Grammar: A Reply to Martin and to Martin and Matthiessen.” Occasional Papers in Systemic Linguistics 6: 197-211.
HUDSON, Richard A. 1986. “Systemic Grammar. [Review article]." Linguistics 24: 791-815.
KUNO, Susumu. 1975. “Three Perspectives in the Functional Approach to Syntax." In Papers from the Parasession on Functionalism. Ed. R. E. Grossman et al. Chicago: Linguistic Society. 276-336.
LYONS, John. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
MARTIN, James R. 1992. English Text: System and Structure. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
MARTIN, James R., and Christian MATTHIESSEN, M. I. M. 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: 185-196.
MATTHIESSEN, Christian M. I. M. 1989. “Review of M. A. K. Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar.” Language 65.4: 862-871.
MATTHIESSEN, Christian M. I. M., and James R. MARTIN. 1991. “A Response to Huddleston’s Review of Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar.” Occasional Papers in Systemic Linguistics 5: 5-74.
PRINCE, Ellen. 1981. “Towards a Taxonomy of Given/New Information.” In Radical Pragmatics. Ed. P. Cole. New York: Academic P. 223-55.
REINHART, Tania. 1981. “Pragmatics and Linguistics: An Analysis of Sentence Topics.” Philosophica. 27: 53-94.
SCHACHTER, Paul, and F. E. OTANES. 1972. Tagalog Reference Grammar. Berkeley: U of California P.
SIEWIERSKA, Anna. 1991. Functional Grammar. London: Routledge.
TAGLICHT, Joseph. 1984. Message and Emphasis. London: Longman.
VAN OOSTEN, Jeanne. 1986. The Nature of Subjects, Topics and Agents: A Cognitive Explanation. Bloomington (IN): Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 1996 María A. Gómez González
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
