SIR WAQAR NOTES

THEME AND RHEME:

The idea of theme and rheme comes from the functional linguistics and these elements contribute
to the texture in a text. Most clauses have two parts: a theme and a rheme.

THEME:
Theme (in some sources, also “topic,” “background,” or “presupposition”) is the semantic point
of departure of a clause (or more broadly, discourse) about which some information is provided:
or theme is the starting point of a clause and gives us an idea about what the clause is about.it is
the shared information between writer and reader.

EXAMPLES:
1) Tom likes traveling.
2) Our friends have invited us.
In these examples, the theme (Tom/our friends) is in the initial position. This is the most
common position for the theme in English. Due to the SVO (subject-verb-object) structure of a
typical English sentence, the theme is often the subject of the sentence; however, passive voice
violates this rule. It is worth mentioning that in some other languages (e.g. Japanese), the
commonplace for a theme is the end of a sentence. In languages with free word order (e.g.
Ukrainian), the theme can be found in the middle of a sentence.

RHEME:
Rheme (in some sources, also “comment,” “focus,” or “pre dictation”) is the destination where
the presentation moves after the departure point: Or rheme is the remaining part of a clause. The
rheme of a clause is what is actually said about the theme of the clause.

EXAMPLES:
3) Tom likes traveling.
4) Smoking is harmful to our health. In examples 3 and 4, rheme is represented by “like
traveling” and “is harmful to our health”. Structurally, rheme usually follows a theme in
English. Theme – rheme relationship produce cohesion (Bussmann, 1998) making parts of
a sentence a communicative whole.

The boundary between Theme and Rheme is simple but not always obvious enough resulting in
numerous cases of terminological confusion which are further enhanced by the various
definitional criteria. Thus for ‘theme’, we find the terms ‘topic,’ ‘background,’ ‘presupposition,’
and for ‘rheme,’ ‘comment,’ ‘focus,’ ‘predication’ (in various combinations). The theme is the
first element occurring in a clause; the remainder clause is Rheme, e.g

THEMES RHEMES
The unicorn did not want to bow down to the lion
The lion decided to beat him to death
Would the unicorn give in to the lion?
When the lion got to the battlefield the unicorn was ready for the battle

From the above division of Themes and Rhemes in the sentences, we can see that Theme is not
equated with the subject of a sentence; nor is Rheme equated with the predicate. However, in the
example given above, two sentences e.g. in the first and fourth sentence, it happens that the
Theme ‘The lion’ overlaps with the grammatical subjects of the sentences. This kind of Theme is
called unmarked Theme. Unmarked sentences typically have Themes that overlap with subjects.
On the other hand, marked sentences often contain a Theme that is separate from the subject
containing proposed adverbial groups or prepositional phrases, for example, ‘All around the
town’ is the Theme in sentence 2 above.
From the above sample, we could conclude that the Theme may be realized by a nominal group,
verbal group, adverbial group, prepositional phrase, or a dependent clause. The characteristic of
these elements is that they appear first in a clause and represent ‘given’ information. All the rest
of a clause is Rheme representing ‘new’ information. Knowing where to place the Theme-Rheme
boundary in a more complex sentence requires a careful reading of the sentence in context to
understand the meaning a writer is communicating. In a study of spoken data conducted by
Lovejoy and Lance in1991, they found that there was a noticeable pitch drop at the end of
Theme, and near the beginning of Rheme, often on the first word, an abrupt peak in pitch level.

TYPES OF THEME:
 TOPICAL THEME:
Topical theme identifies the participants and circumstance of a clause.

 TEXTUAL THEME:
Textual theme is realized by conjunction such as and, but, however etc.

 INTERPERSONAL THEME:
It refers to an item that comes before the rheme which indicates the relationship between
participants in a text or the position or point of view that is being taken in the clause. It can
express probability, usuality, desirability, prediction and so on (when we talk socially with each
other, contains wh questions)

EXAMPLE:
 “Apparently this is hideous to do so”
 “Perhaps that why the car would not start”
 “Obviously we are not going to get justice”.
“Apparently”, “perhaps”, “obviously” here is the interpersonal theme. The interpersonal part of
the theme is usually realized by one or more lexical items indicating the role of the speaker takes
in the speech situation and shows his judgement on what he says. The interpersonal theme in a
clause is mostly realized by one or more lexical items which indicates the speaker’s comment on
ideational content of the clause. Some items express speaker’s comment on the probability of
what is being said.

THEMETAIC PROGRESSION:
The flow of information in a sentence from Theme to Rheme is crucial in achieving
communicative effectiveness in a message. The exchange of information between successive
Theme and Rheme pairings in a text is called Thematic Progression (Eggins, 1994). Thematic
progression contributes to the cohesive development of a text, that is to say, in a cohesive text the
distribution of given and new information needs to follow certain patterns. There are several
main types of thematic progression, which depends on different text types. For example, in a
narrative-type text we often repeat the Theme of one clause into the Theme of subsequent
clauses, e.g.:

THEMES RHEMES
A good teacher need show great passion to the teaching

He or she should be intellectually and morally honest

He or she should have a genuine capacity to understand students

1. CONSTANT THEMATIC PROGRESSION:

In this pattern of thematic progression, the first theme of a text is taken up and repeated in the
coming clauses. This pattern is displayed in the following example:

EXAMPLES;
I (theme) am Hasan khan (rheme 1)

I (theme) live in Islamabad (rheme 2)

I (theme) am the student of English linguistic (rheme 3).

2. SIMPLE LINEAR THEME PROGRESSION:

This pattern is also called zig - zag pattern. In it, the rheme of each clause becomes the theme of
the following clause. It is displayed in the following example:

EXAMPLE:

I (theme 1) live in Islamabad (rheme 1)

It (theme 2) is the capital of Pakistan (rheme 2)

3. MULTIPLE SPLIT THEME:

In this pattern, a rheme may include a number of different pieces of information each of which
can become a theme in a number of subsequent clauses. Let’s consider the following example for
the illustration of this pattern:

EXAMPLE:

I (theme) am doing masters in English literature from Qurtuba University (rheme)

In the above clause, the rheme contains three pieces of information, i.e. English literature,
masters and Qurtuba University and each of these three pieces can be taken as themes in a
number of following clauses.

CONCLUSON:
We can conclude that a writer while writing, makes the uses of different types of themes and
patterns of thematic progression. The use of these types of pattern and themes and rhemes of
thematic progression adds so much to the inner connectedness of a text and makes a text
cohesive.

CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS:

DISCOURSE:
In linguistics, discourse refers to a unit of language longer than a single sentence. The word
discourse is derived from the Latin prefix dis- meaning "away" and the root word currere
meaning "to run". Discourse, therefore, translates to "run away" and refers to the way that
conversations flow. To study discourse is to analyze the use of spoken or written language in a
social context. Discourse studies look at the form and function of language in conversation
beyond its small grammatical pieces such as phonemes and morphemes. This field of study,
which Dutch linguist Teun van Dijk is largely responsible for developing, is interested in how
larger units of language—including lexemes, syntax, and context—contribute meaning to
conversations.
Various scholars and prominent figures active in the field have thus far put forward different but
overlapping definitions for the concept of discourse. According to Fairclough (1989) discourse is
building block constructing the social identities, knowledge systems and beliefs of the
individuals. Wodak` draw (2002) is a line between '' discourse” and'' text''. He views discourse as
a system of knowledge and memory, as compared to text which merely represents tangible oral
utterances or written documents. Within the same realm, Van Dijk (1988) believes that discourse
is not basically an isolated textual or dialogical structure. But it is a complex communicative
event that also represents a social situation, containing participants and their belongings.
Fairclough (1992) highlighting the strong connection between discourse and society, maintains
that, On one hand, discourse is formed and constrained by social structure in the widest sense
and at all levels: by class and other social relations at a societal level by the relations specific to
particular institutions such as law or education, by systems of taxonomy, by various standards
and conventions of both a discursive and a non-discursive nature, and so forth. He finally
concludes that discourse is a practice not just of representing the world, but of signifying the
world, constituting and constructing the world through the social practice of verbal contact.
DEFINITION AND EXAMPLE:
"Discourse in context may consist of only one or two words as in stop or no smoking.
Alternatively, a piece of discourse can be hundreds of thousands of words in length, as some
novels are. A typical piece of discourse is somewhere between these two extremes," (Hinkel and
Fotos 2001).
"Discourse is the way in which language is used socially to convey broad historical meanings. It
is language identified by the social conditions of its use, by who is using it and under what
conditions. Language can never be 'neutral' because it bridges our personal and social worlds,"
(Henry and Tator 2002).

CONTEXTS AND TOPICS OF DISCOURSE:

The study of discourse is entirely context-dependent because conversation involves situational

knowledge beyond just the words spoken. Often times, meaning cannot be extrapolated from an
exchange merely from its verbal utterances because there are many semantic factors involved in
authentic communication.
"The study of discourse...can involve matters like context, background information or knowledge
shared between a speaker and hearer," (Bloor and Bloor 2013

CDA:
Critical discourse analysis (CDA) is a type of discourse analytical research that primarily studies
the way social power abuse, dominance, and inequality are enacted, reproduced, and resisted by
text and talk in the social and political context.

OR
CDA is a qualitative analytical approach for critically describing, interpreting and explaining the
ways in which discourse construct, maintain and legitimize social inequalities.
It explores the connection between the use of language and the social and political contexts in
which it occurs. Studies the social system of dominance, power, abuse etc. meaning to highlight
the hidden problem of society through discourse. It explores issue such as gender, ethnicity,
cultural differences, ideology and identity and how these are both constructed and reflected in
the text. CDA aims to help reveal some of the hidden and out of sight values, positions and
perspectives.
CDA is not so much a direction, school, or specialization next to the many other "approaches" in
discourse studies. Rather, it aims to offer a different "mode" or "perspective" of theorizing,
analysis, and application throughout the whole field. We may find a more or less critical
perspective in such diverse areas as pragmatics, conversation analysis, narrative analysis,
rhetoric, stylistics, sociolinguistics, ethnography, or media analysis, among others.
Crucial for critical discourse analysts is the explicit awareness of their role in society. Continuing
a tradition that rejects the possibility of a "value-free" science, they argue that science, and
especially scholarly discourse, are inherently part of and influenced by social structure, and
produced in social interaction. Instead of denying or ignoring such a relation between scholarship
and society, they plead that such relations be studied and accounted for in their own right, and
that scholarly practice. This attempt to uncover the discursive means of mental control and social
influence implies a critical and oppositional stance against the powerful and the elites, and
especially those who abuse of their power;

MAIN TENENTS OF CDA:

Fairclough and Wodak (1997: 271-80) summarize the main tenets of CDA as follows:
1. CDA addresses social problems
2. Power relations are discursive
3. Discourse constitutes society and culture
 4. Discourse does ideological work
5. Discourse is historical
6. The link between text and society is mediated

7. Discourse analysis is interpretative and explanatory

8. Discourse is a form of social action.

Language and Access:

According to Van Djik (2002), “language users or communicators have more or less freedom in
the use of special discourse genres or styles, or in the participation in specific communicative
events and contexts.” (p.256) the participant of any kind of discourse may have more or less
active or passive access to communicative events, such as the writing to or speaking to the
professors, boss and etc. Likewise, participants might have more or less control over their
participation in the discourse activity, such as the planning, setting, organization, register, genre,
topic, or structure of their oral or written discourse. (Van Dijk, 2002) In the realm of media
discourse, “the access of minorities to the mass media is a critical condition for their
participation in the public definition of their situation.” (Van Djik, 1993, p.92) As a result of the
social and economic conditions, many of them do not have the ability to get access to the mass
media particularly computer and Television.

Language and Power:

“Power is about relations of difference and particularly about the effects of differences in social
structures” (Wodak, 2001, p.11). When power is associated to language, “language is entwined
in social power in a number of ways: language indexes power, expresses power, is involved
where there is contention over and a challenge to power” (Wodak, 2001, p.11). In social
relations, language and power are closely connected to each other. “Power does not derive from
language, but language can be used to challenge power, to subvert it, to alter distributions of
power in the short and long term. Language provides articulated means for differences in power
in social hierarchical structures”. (Wodak, 2001, p.11) Thus Analysis of language is a valuable
instrument to inspect the power relation such as dominance and inequality in media discourses.

LANGUAE AND IDEOLOGIES:

1. Ideology is a set of beliefs of a group
2. A single ideology embeds so many beliefs
3. System of ideology of a culture is very complex
4. The role of discourse in ideology:
 Colonization
  Anti – discourse starts, the powerful becomes weak
 It’s a discourse that controls cultures, ideologies and beliefs
 But the discourse of power can’t always be powerful.
5. Strength of discourse:
 Ideology is the backbone and hidden agendas of a discourse so strength of discourse lies
in the power of the ideologies
 Set of beliefs are not controversial, stronger ideology – stronger discourse.

MICRO VS MACRO:
Language use, discourse, verbal interaction, and communication belong to the micro- level of the
social order. Power, dominance, and inequality between social groups are typically terms that
belong to a macro level of analysis. This means that CDA has to theoretically bridge the well-
known "gap" between micro and macro approaches, which is of course a distinction that is a
sociological construct in its own right. In everyday interaction and experience the macro- and
micro level (and intermediary "mesolevels") form one unified whole. For instance, a racist
speech in parliament is a discourse at the micro level of social interaction in the specific situation
of a debate, but at the same time may enact or be a constituent part of legislation or the
reproduction of racism at the macro level.

PRINCIPLES:

Simpson & Mayr 2010: 52-53 in a seminal paper, Fairclough and Wodak (1997) outline eight
key theoretical and methodological principles of CDA. Summary of these principles is given
blow:

1. CDA ADDRESSES SOCIAL PROBLEMS:

CDA is cast here not as a dispassionate and objective social science, but as engaged and
committed; it is also seen as a form of intervention in social practice and social relationships
(Fairclough and Wodak 1997: 258). Fairclough and Wodak go further, arguing that many
analysts are politically active against racism, or as feminists, or within the peace movement and
that what is distinctive about CDA is that it intervenes on the side of dominated and oppressed
groups and against dominating groups, and that it openly declares the emancipatory interests that
motivate it.

2. POWER RELATIONS ARE DISCURSIVE:

This means that the primary focus is on how power relations are exercised and negotiated in
discourse (Fairclough and Wodak 1997: 258

3. DISCOURSE CONSTITUTES SOCIETY AND CULTURE:

This is the commonly adopted position that language both reflects and (re) produces social
relations in a two-way relationship: ‘every instance of language use makes its own contribution
to reproducing and/or transforming society and culture, including power relations’
 4. DISCOURSE DOES IDEOLOGICAL WORK:
This principle is expanded to mean that ideologies are particular ways of representing and
constructing society, which reproduce ‘unequal relations of power, relations of domination and
exploitation’ (Fairclough and Wodak 1997: 273). When critical discourse analysts (particularly
Fairclough) argue that texts are ideologically shaped by power relations they use the term
ideology in the sense of hegemony, which, refers to control through the active consent of people
rather than through domination.

5. DISCOURSE IS INTERTECTUAL/HISTORICAL:
This is the claim that discourse must always be analyzed in context in order to be understood.
Context incudes socio-cultural knowledge as well as intertextuality. The concept of
intertextuality refers to the way discourses are ‘always connected to other discourses which were
produced earlier as well as those which are produced synchronically or subsequently’
(Fairclough and Wodak 1997:276). Examples of intertextuality would be direct and indirect
quotes in, for example, newspaper articles or political speeches that may relate to other speeches
or may be turned into a news story. Intertextuality also applies to texts which contain allusions to
previous texts, such as the use of proverbs, biblical or literary references. Idioms and so on, and
where the understanding of which depends on certain intertextual knowledge on the part of the
listener or reader.

6. DISCOURSE ANAYLSIS IS INTERPRETATIVE AND

EXPLANATORY:
CDA typically distinguishes three stages of critical analysis: description, interpretation and
explanation.
• Description. Text analysis (including verbal, visual or verbal and visual texts)
• Interpretation. Processing analysis - The processes by means of which the object is
produced and received.
• Explanation. Social analysis (The socio-historical conditions which govern these
processes

THE COOPERATIVE PRINCIPAL:

COOPERATION:
When people talk with each other they try to be converse smoothly and successfully.
Cooperation is the basis of successful conversations.
In conversation, listener and speaker must interact cooperatively and mutually accept each other
in order to understand and to be understood by each other. Grice (1975) argues that there are
some principles which enable us to interpret what someone tells us. Grice says that when we
communicate we assume, without realizing it, that we, and the people we are talking to, will be
conversationally cooperative - we will cooperate to achieve mutual conversational ends.
Grice proposed that many aspects of “speaker’s meaning” result from the assumption that the
participants in a conversation are cooperating in an attempt to reach mutual goals – or at least are
pretending to do so!

GRACIAN MAXIMS:
Paul Grice proposed four maxims or principles. They are actually the principles that facilitate
effective communication. Those maxims are:

 THE QUANTITY MAXIM:

Make your contribution in communication as informative as it is required which is neither less
nor more than the required

 THE QUALITY MAXIM:

Do not say what you believe to be false or correct for which you do not have any evidence.
Meaning only to state facts and no false opinions.

 THE RELATION MAXIM:

Be relevant and to the point without any explanation so the other person does not get bored while
communicating.

 THE MANNER MAXIM:

To be brief, clear and orderly while communicating with each other.
EXAMPLES:
Husband: where are the car keys?
Wife: They are on the table in the hall.

IMPLICATURES:
When we intentionally violate the meaning indirectly. Grice is on the view that we rarely fail to
observe these maxims but we do fail to observe them intentionally for many reasons. Such as to
say something indirectly and make our hearer to infer the implied meaning.

FOR INSTANCE:
A: I am out of petrol
B: There is a garage around the corner.
In the above example, from B statement it only says that there is a garage around the corner and
the rest of the meaning is implicated and A comes to know that the garage is open and sells
petrol.
A: Is there another glass of juice?
B: I am going to the supermarket in five minutes.
A: What sort of music do you like?
B: Name me a few famous singers.
A: Do you like Apples or peaches?
B: Peaches are tastier.
All of the above examples are first person statements conveyed indirectly and we come to know
what the second person is saying.

VIOLATION OF MAXIMS (INTENTIONALLY):

Violation according to Grice takes place when speaker intentionally refrain to apply certain
maxims in their conversations to cause misunderstanding or deceiving of their participants or to
achieve some sort of purpose. This is worth noting that the cooperative principles goes both
ways. Speaker generally observe principles and the listeners assume that the speakers are
observing them. This allows the possibility of Implicature.

MAXIM OF QUALITY:
• Mother: Did you study all day long?
• Son who has been playing all day long: Yes, I‘ve been studying till know!

In this exchange, the boy is not truthful and violates the maxim of quality. He is lying to avoid
unpleasant consequences such as: punishment or to be forced to study for the rest of the day.

MAXIM OF QUANITIY:
• John: Where have you been? I searched everywhere for you during the past three months!
• Mike: I wasn’t around. So, what’s the big deal?
John poses a question, which he needs to be answered by Mike. What Mike says in return does
not lack the truth, however is still insufficient. John does not say as much as it is necessary to
make his contribution cooperative. Hence, he leaves his listener unsatisfied

MAXIM OF RELEVANCE:
• Teacher: Why didn’t you do your homework?
• Student: May I go and get some water? I’m so thirsty. In the above exchange, the student’s
answer is by no means relevant to the teacher’s question. One reason for this answer can be
the fact that the student is trying to evade the interrogation posed by the teacher.
MAXIM OF MANNER:
• Sarah: Did you enjoy the party last night?
• Anna: There was plenty of oriental food on the table, lots of flowers all over the place, people
hanging around chatting with each other…
Sara asked a very simple question, however what she receives from Anna is a protracted
description of what was going on in the party. Two interpretations can be made from Anna’s
description:
1. Anna had such a good time in the party that she is obviously too excited and has no idea where
to begin.
2. Anna had such a terrible time and she does not know how to complain about it.

FLOUTING OF MAXIMS (UNINTENTIONALLY):

MAXIM OF QUALITY:
Teacher to a student who arrives late more than ten minutes to the class meeting:
• Wow! You’re such a punctual fellow! Welcome to the class.
• Student: Sorry sir! It won’t happen again.

It is obvious from what the teacher says that he is teasing the student and his purpose is, by no
means, praising him. He exploits the maxim of quality (being truthful) to be sarcastic.

MAXIM OF QUANTITY:
Majid and Ali are talking on the phone:
• Ali: Where are you, Majid?
• Majid: I’m in my clothes.
Majid tells the truth because it is expected that people are always in some clothes, yet he flouts
the maxim of quantity because the information is insufficient for Ali.

MAXIM OF RELEVANCE:
• Bob: What were you and Anna talking about? You were looking at me all the time!
• Marry: Oh, well… why don’t we go get something to drink?
Marry answers Bob question with a suggestion in an obvious attempt to evade it perhaps to avoid
hurting Bob’s feelings. Hence, she flouts the maxim of relevance.
MAXIM OF MANNER:
• Wife: Darling….. What’s the story with that new watch on your wrist?
• Husband: Oh, this watch you’re talking about! I knew it… I told my boss that my wife would
be curious when she sees it. Oh, honey you have no idea how much they‘re satisfied with my
performance, lately!
The husband would be better off if he told his wife from the beginning of the conversation that
his boss awarded him a prize. However, he flouts the maxim of manner to assure his wife that the
watch was a gift from a person that she also knew and there is no need for jealousy.