Cover not available

In:Corpus-based Approaches to Register Variation
Edited by Elena Seoane and Douglas Biber
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 103] 2021
► pp. 85–110

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Chapter 4
Theme as a proxy for register categorization

 | University of Vigo
Published online: 8 December 2021
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.103.04per
Abstract
In Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL), choices in relation to the initial elements of clauses or ‘Themes’ have been claimed as indicators of register, genre or text type (Vande Kopple 1991, Fries 1995, North 2005). This chapter tests this premise using a large-scale corpus-based analysis of Themes in written Present-day American English. The analysis includes samples from fifteen registers, with different target audiences, communicative purposes and stylometric features. Two major segmental approaches to Theme are tested here: Halliday’s ‘first (ideational) element’ definition and Berry’s (1995) ‘preverbal’ hypothesis, according to which the Theme extends up to either the first ideational element or the verb, respectively. Each of the Themes identified in the corpus according to these definitions is typified according to its syntactic function and systemic-functional (textual, interpersonal, experiential) status. The clustering of registers based on the category Theme reveals the ‘first-element’ approach is a plausible dissimilarity metric for registers, thus demonstrating that SFL Theme may be taken as a predictor of register categorization.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical bases
    • 2.1Theoretical framework: Systemic Functional Linguistics
    • 2.2Theme: Concept and categorization
    • 2.3Theme and register in systemic functional linguistics
  • 3.An empirical analysis of register
  • 4.Summary, conclusions and further research
  • Notes
  • References
References (68)
References
Argamon, Shlomo Engelson. 2019. Register in computational language research. Register Studies 1(1): 100–135. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bartlett, Tom. 2014. Analysing Power in Language: A Practical Guide. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berry, Margaret. 1987. The functions of place-names. In Leeds Studies in English, New Series XVIII. Studies in Honour of Kenneth Cameron, Thorlac Turville-Petre & Margaret Gelling (eds), 71–88. Leeds: University of Leeds.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1995. Thematic options and success in writing. In Thematic Development in English Texts, Mohsen Ghadessy (ed.), 55–84. London: Pinter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1996. What is Theme? – A(nother) personal view. In Meaning and Form: Systemic Functional Interpretations. Meaning and Choice in Language: Studies for Michael Halliday, Margaret Berry, Christopher Butler, Robin Fawcett & Guowen Huang (eds), 1–64. Norwood NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. Towards a study of the differences between formal written English and informal spoken English. In Systemic Functional Linguistics: Exploring Choice, Lise Fontaine, Tom Bartlett & Gerard O’Grady (eds), 365–383. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2019. The clause. An overview of the lexicogrammar. In The Cambridge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics, Geoff Thompson, Wendy L. Bowcher, Lise Fontaine & David Schönthal (eds), 93–117. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. Forthcoming. On choosing the subject Theme.
Berry, Margaret, Thompson, Geoff & Hillier, Hilary. 2014. Theme and variations. In Theory and Practice in Functional-Cognitive Space, María de los Ángeles Gómez González, Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez & Francisco Gonzálvez-García (eds), 107–126. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1995. On the role of computational, statistical, and interpretive techniques in multi-dimensional analyses of register variation: A reply to Watson (1994). Text 15: 341–370.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Conrad, Susan. 2009. Register, Genre, and Style. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Egbert, Jesse. 2016. Using multi-dimensional analysis to study register variation on the searchable web. Corpus Linguistics Research 2: 1–23. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bowcher, Wendy L. 2019. Context and register. In The Cambridge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics, Geoff Thompson, Wendy L. Bowcher, Lise Fontaine & David Schönthal (eds), 142–170. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, Gillian & Yule, George. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Beaugrande, Robert & Dressler, Wolfgang. 1981. Introduction to Text Linguistics. London: Longman. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Marneffe, Marie-Catherine, MacCartney, Bill & Manning, Christopher D. 2006. Generating typed dependency parses from phrase structure parses. In LREC 2006, 449–454. Genoa: European Language Resources Association (ELRA).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dorgeloh, Heidrun & Wanner, Anja. 2020. Genre variation. In The Oxford Handbook of English Grammar, Bas Aarts, Jill Bowie & Gergana Popova (eds), 654–672. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Egbert, Jesse & Biber, Douglas. 2018. Do all roads lead to Rome? Modeling register variation with factor analysis and discriminant analysis. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 14(2): 233–273. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Enkvist, Nils Erik. 1973. Theme dynamics and style: An experiment. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 5: 127–135.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Forey, Gail. 2009. Marked interpersonal themes: Projecting clauses in workplace texts. In Text Type and Texture: In Honour of Flo Davies, Gail Forey & Geoff Thompson (eds), 151–174. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Forey, Gail & Sampson, Nicholas. 2017. Textual metafunction and theme. What’s ‘it’ about? In The Routledge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics, Tom Bartlett & Gerard O’Grady (eds), 131–145. Abingdon: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fries, Peter H. 1995. Themes, methods of development, and texts. In On Subject and Theme: A Discourse Functional Perspective, Ruqaiya Hasan & Peter H. Fries (eds), 317–359. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2009. The textual metafunction as a site for a discussion of the goals of linguistics and techniques of linguistic analysis. In Text Type and Texture: In honour of Flo Davies, Gail Forey & Geoff Thompson (eds), 8–44. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ghadessy, Mohsen. 1998. Textual features and contextual factors for register identification. In Text and Context in Functional Linguistics, Mohsen Ghadessy (ed), 125–139. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gosden, Hugh. 1996. A Genre-based Investigation of Theme: Product and Process in Scientific Research Articles Written by NNS Novice Researchers. Nottingham: University of Nottingham, Department of English Studies.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grafmiller, Jason. 2014. Variation in English genitives across modality and genres. English Language and Linguistics 18(3): 471–496. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan T. 2003. Multifactorial Analysis in Corpus Linguistics: A Study of Particle Placement. London: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Guy, Gregory R. 2005. Letters to language. Language 81(3): 561–563. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1970. A Course in Spoken English: Intonation. London: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1977. Text as semantic choice in social contexts. In Grammars and Descriptions, Teun A. van Dijk & János S. Petöfi (eds), 176–225. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 2nd edn. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. & Hasan, Ruqaiya. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. & Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. 2014. Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar, 4th edn. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K., McIntosh, Angus & Strevens, Peter. 1964. The Linguistic Sciences and Language Teaching. London: Longmans.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hasan, Ruqaiya. 1978. Text in the systemic-functional model. In Current Trends in Textlinguistics, Wolfgang U. Dressler (ed.), 228–246. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney D. 1991. Further remarks on Halliday’s functional grammar. A reply to Martin and to Martin & Mathiessen. Occasional Papers in Systemic Linguistics 6: 197–211.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huumo, Tuomas. 1996. Bound spaces and the semantic interpretation of existentials. Linguistics 34: 295–328. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kroll, Barbara. 1977. Combining ideas in written and spoken English: A look at subordination and coordination. In Discourse across Time and Space, Elinor Keenan & Tina Bennett (eds), 69–108. Los Angeles CA: University of Southern California.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lavid, Julia. 2000. Contextual constraints on thematization in written discourse: An empirical study. In Formal Aspects of Context, Pierre Bonzon, Marcos Cavalcanti & Rolf Nossum (eds), 37–47. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
MacDonald, Susan Peck. 1992. A method for analyzing sentence-level differences in disciplinary knowledge making. Written Communication 9(4): 533–569. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1994. Professional Academic Writing in the Humanities and Social Sciences. Carbondale IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maechler, Martin, Rousseeuw, Peter, Struyf, Anja, Hubert, Mia & Maechler, Hornik Kurt. 2019. cluster: Cluster Analysis Basics and Extensions. R package version 2.1.0.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. 1985. Process and text: Two aspects of human semiosis. In Systemic Perspectives on Discourse, Vol. I: Selected Theoretical Papers from the 9th International Systemic Workshop, James D. Benson & William S. Greaves (eds), 248–274. Norwood NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. & Rose, David. 2007. Working with Discourse. Meaning beyond the Clause. London: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. 2019. Register in systemic functional linguistics. Register Studies 1(1): 10–41. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mauranen, Anna. 1993. Cultural Differences in Academic Rhetoric. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McCabe, Anne. 2004. Thematic progression patterns and text types in history textbooks. In Text and Texture: Systemic Functional Viewpoints on the Nature and Structure of Text, David Banks (ed.), 215–237. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nesi, Hilary & Gardner, Sheena. 2012. Genres across the Disciplines. Student Writing in Higher Education. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
North, Sara. 2005. Disciplinary variation in the use of theme in undergraduate essays. Applied Linguistics 26(3): 431–452. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nwogu, Kevin & Bloor, Thomas. 1991. Thematic progression in professional and popular medical texts. In Functional and Systemic Linguistics. Approaches and Uses, Eija Ventola (ed.), 369–384. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
O’Donnell, Roy C. 1974. Syntactic difference between speech and writing. American Speech 49(1–2): 102–110. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pérez-Guerra, Javier & Martínez-Insua, Ana Elina. 2018. Do genres, syntax and semantics go hand in hand? A corpus-based analysis of Themes in Present-Day American English. Delivered at 28 ESFLC, Pavia, 5–7 July.
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2020. R: A language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. <[URL]>
Schulz, Anke & Fontaine, Lise. 2019. The Cardiff model of functional syntax. In The Cambridge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics, Geoff Thompson, Wendy L. Bowcher, Lise Fontaine & David Schönthal (eds), 230–258. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Suzuki, Ryota, Terada, Yoshikazu & Shimodaira, Hidetoshi. 2019. pvclust: Hierarchical Clustering with P-Values via Multiscale Bootstrap Resampling. R package version 2.2-0.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt & Hinrichs, Lars. 2008. Probabilistic determinants of genitive variation in spoken and written English: A multivariate comparison across time, space, and genres. In The Dynamics of Linguistic Variation: Corpus Evidence on English Past and Present, Terttu Nevalainen, Irma Taavitsainen, Päivi Pahta & Minna Korhonen (eds), 291–309. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taylor, Charles V. 1983. Structure and theme in printed school text. Text 3(2): 197–228. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thomas, Sarah & Hawes, Thomas. 1997. Theme in Academic and Media Discourse. Nottingham: University of Nottingham, Department of English Studies.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thompson, Geoff. 2013. Introducing Functional Grammar, 3rd edn. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thompson, Geoff & Thompson, Susan. 2009. Theme, subject and the unfolding of text. In Text Type and Texture: In Honour of Flo Davies, Gail Forey & Geoff Thompson (eds), 45–69. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thompson, Geoff & Zhou, Jianglin. 2000. Evaluation and organization in text: The structuring role of evaluative disjuncts. In Evaluation in Text. Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, Susan Hunston & Geoff Thompson (eds), 121–141. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vande Kopple, William J. 1991. Themes, thematic progressions, and some implications for understanding discourse. Written Communication 8(3): 311–347. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Xu, Jiajin & Liang, Maocheng. 2013. A tale of two C’s: Comparing English varieties with Crown and CLOB (The 2009 Brown family corpora). ICAME Journal 37: 175–183.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Arús-Hita, Jorge
2024. Theme as point of departure in English and Spanish academic writing and casual conversation. Language, Context and Text. The Social Semiotics Forum 6:2 ► pp. 302 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue