Abstract

The present study deals with metafunctional diversity of thematic relations i.e. ideational, interpersonal and textual in English and Urdu. The objectives are: (1) to describe the functional significance particular to thematic progression (McCabe, 1999) of thematic structures in the English and the Urdu texts, and (2) to discuss how effectively the English thematic structures have been translated into Urdu. The English text Things Fall Apart by Achebe (1994) and its Urdu translation, Bikharti Duniya by Ullah (1991) have been annotated through the annotation scheme of the UAM Corpus Tool (O`Donnell, 2008). The annotated English and Urdu clauses are analyzed to discuss their thematic structures. The results show that the functional significance and thematic progression patterns are identical, but because of the unmotivated displacement of themes, the translation choices become ambiguous. To resolve ambiguities, possible translation choices have been suggested.

Key Words

Thematic structures, Thematic Progression, Corpus, English, Urdu

Introduction

This research focuses on the metafunctional diversity of English and Urdu thematic structures. The thematic structures are based on three metafunctions in systemic functional linguistics (Halliday, 1985). The three metafunctions: (1) ideational, (2) interpersonal, and (3) textual, reflect various meaning and thematic relations. The first is the sense of experience, the second is a social relationship, and the third is related to the sequence of discourse. To identify these three thematic relations contrastively, two linguistic systems i.e., Urdu and English, have been selected. The thematic relations are specifically the components of textual metafunction, which further corresponds to the ideational and the interpersonal metafunctions. These metafunctions are closely related to one another and have equal status in a single semantic unit (Hasan, 2009). This research mainly comprises the investigation of textual metafunction which focuses on the clauses of the message. In the clauses of the message, marked and unmarked textual theme and rheme identifying given, and new information are elaborated. The clauses of the message have their relationship with the clauses of exchange in interpersonal metafunction, so; the unmarked and marked theme can be entitled as 'interpersonal theme'. The clauses of message are also related to the clauses of representation in ideational metafunction so; the marked and unmarked theme can be entitled as 'ideational theme'. In this research, all types of clauses have been analyzed in terms of their marked and unmarked thematic structures in English and Urdu languages contrastively.

This research aims to define the functional significance and thematic progression of English and Urdu thematic structures. Secondly, this research aims to discuss the effectiveness of Urdu translation of English thematic structures. This study is carried out with two research questions: (1) what is the functional significance and the thematic progression of thematic structures, i.e. ideational, interpersonal, and textual in English and Urdu texts?, and (2) how effectively are these thematic structures in the English text translated in the Urdu text?

The contrastive analysis of Urdu structures through metafunctions of English will help the instructors. They will better explain the structural diversity of L1 and L2 to bilingual learners. In the educational field, Urdu grammar can be taught according to a metafunctional perspective. Through the descriptions of two languages, this study offers some translation choices which are beneficial to solving translation problems from English to Urdu and from Urdu to English.

Literature Review

The metafunctional diversity of English and Urdu thematic relations is the focal point of the present research. The diversity of thematic relations in two languages has possibly been investigated with the help of contrastive analysis of metafunctions. Many remarkable studies (Comrie, 1976; Hopper & Thompson, 1980; Matthiessen, 2004; Teruya et al., 2007; Matthiessen et al., 2008; Wang & Xu, 2013; Teruya & Matthiessen, 2015) have been conducted within the framework of systemic functional linguistics. The most striking studies by Sutjaja (1988), Mock (1969), Boxwell (1995), Ochi & Lam (2010), and Matthiessen et al. (2016) have investigated the syntactic units across languages. The present study specifies a scheme of metafunctional analysis and selects the English novel as a source text and its translated Urdu novel as a target text.

 

Ideational, Interpersonal and Textual Thematic Relations

In English and other languages, a clause traces the theme as the clause-initial element. A theme is located at thematic prominence in the English language. The nature of a theme is indicated by making it the point of departure in a message, and it determines the beginning of a clause in a specific context. A theme is selected when the speaker requires to develop and interpret the message with a point of departure at thematic prominence. The message in a theme corresponds to the news in a rheme, which is called the remainder of the message. In a clause structure, the theme is an initial element, and the rest of the elements are part of the rhyme. In the structure of a message, the theme becomes the given message and the rheme become the new message because the theme helps the listener interpret what is given and what is left. The theme as an ideational, interpersonal and textual element is operated in three metafunctions. In the system of ideational metafunction, a participant, a process, or a circumstance can be placed as ideational themes at thematic prominence. Ideational themes are located in the clauses of experience, which are mostly declarative, including both positive and negative expressions. Ideational themes are both marked and unmarked according to the status of initial constituents. It is observed that the marked ideational theme in English clauses contains adjuncts in the form of adverbial group and prepositional phrases. It also contains complements in the form of nominal group before the subject of the clauses and vocatives before subjects. Object pronouns and nominalization as head are used as the marked ideational theme of the clauses. The unmarked ideational theme in English contains nominal groups in the form of subject nouns, pronouns and nominalization as the head. The nominal groups are both marked and unmarked themes. The difference is observed only when nominal groups in marked themes work as complements before the topical subjects of the clauses, while in unmarked themes, nominal groups themselves are unmarked subjects of the clauses without the insertion of any complement. A similar distribution of themes is applied to Urdu to analyze its thematic relations. The following table presents the summary of marked and unmarked ideational themes in declarative clauses.




 

Table 1. Marked and Unmarked Ideational Themes in Declarative Clauses

Status	Function	Class	Clause example
Unmarked Theme	Subject	Pronoun (Head)	We – will have a cup of tea.
		Noun (Head)	John – has a big elephant.
		Nominalization clause (Head)	What we need- is a pair of red shoes.
Marked Theme	Adjunct	Adverb/Adverbial phrase (Head)	Bravely – I jumped into the river.
		Prepositional phrase (Head)	On Monday - I purchased a house.
	Complement	Object Noun (Head)	A box of toffees - the mother, brought.
		Object Pronoun (Head)	This – I will accept.
		Object Nominalization clause (Head)	What I could not take that morning - the father next day ordered.

 




In the system of interpersonal metafunction, the clauses of exchange are used by the speech interactants who are involved in any particular speech function. As the clauses of exchange, the interactants use statements to provide information, questions to ask for information, offers to give valuable services and commands to pass orders. The interpersonal theme is also an initial element of mood clauses in which major clauses comprise interpersonal themes, but minor clauses do not comprise interpersonal themes. The major clauses are indicative, imperative, declarative and interrogative, including yes-no interrogative or wh-interrogative. All these clauses have different thematic structures, including marked and unmarked interpersonal themes, as mentioned in the following table.




 

Table 2. Marked and Unmarked Interpersonal Themes

Clauses	Function & Status	Class	Clause Examples
Imperative Clause	(Unmarked Theme)	(don’t, let) Predicator	Take - a bunch of keys from the drawer.
	(Marked Theme)	Adverbial/Complement/ Prepositional phrase (Head)	From the drawer – take a bunch of keys.
Wh-Clause	(Unmarked Theme)	Wh-element (Head)	What - will they eat in breakfast except for eggs?
	(Marked Theme)	Adverbial/Complement/ Prepositional phrase (Head)	Except for eggs - what will they eat in breakfast?
Yes/No-Clause	(Unmarked Theme)	Finite (Head)	Are – you in the train?
	(Marked Theme)	Adverbial/Complement/ Prepositional phrase (Head)	In the train – are you?

 




In the system of textual metafunction, the textual themes maintain the clauses of the message. To convey the message, the clause-initial conjunctions, continuatives and conjunctive adjuncts are introduced as textual themes. In a clause, textual themes always precede the topical themes, which can be ideational and interpersonal. The textual themes have been listed in the following table.




 

Table 3. Marked and Unmarked Textual Themes

Clauses	Status & Function	Class	Clause Examples
Textual	Unmarked theme	Continuative (Head)	Well - I will come late.
		Conjunction (Head)	But - you should not come late.
	Marked theme	Conjunctive Adjunct (Head)	Then - we will go to the cinema.
Interpersonal	Unmarked theme	Finite [in yes/no interrogative] (Head)	Is - it in the right place?
	Marked theme	Modal/comment Adjunct (Head)	Surely - I will join you soon.
		Vocative (Head)	John - will you come late?

Research Methodology

The current study applied the theory of systemic functional linguistics (Halliday, 1994) as the theoretical framework. As Urdu grammar has not been identified in terms of SFL so; the Urdu grammar proposed by Schmidt (1999) provides a base and guidelines to support the parameters of thematic relations in Urdu. From SFL, the textual metafunction, including marked and unmarked ideational, interpersonal and textual themes in English and Urdu, was specifically investigated. Along with these components of SFL, thematic progression patterns, i.e. linear theme, constant theme, split theme and split rheme (McCabe, 1999), were also applied. The concept of peripheral themes (McCabe, 1999) was also taken for analysis. For this research, two samples were chosen to design the English and Urdu corpus. The first sample was the English text, Things Fall Apart, by Achebe (1994), and the second sample was its translation, Bikharti Duniya, by Ullah (1991). The whole corpora had a specified size of almost 100,000 words containing the English text of 50,000 characters and the translated Urdu text of 50,000 characters. The English and Urdu corpus was annotated according to the layout of the UAM Corpus Tool (O’Donnell, 2008). The English and Urdu corpora were annotated with a single layer of theme-rheme sequence which covers ideational, interpersonal and textual themes. The following figure depicts the marked and unmarked ideational, interpersonal and textual themes as the labels in the annotation scheme of the UAM Corpus Tool.

Figure 1

The Layout of the UAM Corpus Tool



Results and Discussion

Functional Significance of Themes in English and Urdu

In this section, the functional significance with reference to the thematic progression of thematic structures is discussed. The ideational thematic structure deals with the declarative clauses. And a declarative clause is a typical pattern including a subject at thematic prominence. The subject at thematic prominence is considered a unit of given information. As Halliday and Matthiessen (2004) claim, it as "mapping of theme on to the subject". And the subject at thematic prominence is what we consider an unmarked ideational theme. Similarly, in the interpersonal thematic structure, the initial element functions as a theme. But the only difference is noted when the interpersonal thematic structures accommodate predicator, finite verbal operator and wh-adjunct at thematic prominence. In this case, along with the interpersonal subjects, predicator, finite verbal operator and wh-adjunct are also considered as unmarked interpersonal themes. All the ideational and interpersonal thematic structures correspond with the textual thematic structures because they include continuatives, conjunctions and conjunctive adjuncts, which are mostly placed at thematic prominence. All the thematic structures are functionally significant because they are information units in which the theme is recognized as given information while the rheme is recognized as new information, but the opposite is also acceptable. The mapping of given and new information units involves information flow. The information flow is further maintained with thematic progression patterns. In this research, all the themes are observed with the parallel scaling and projection of given and new information units until the themes are not unmotivated displaced during translation. The subsequent tables show the differences in the frequency of thematic progression patterns.




 

Table 4. Thematic Progression of Ideational, Interpersonal and Textual Themes in English

Thematic Structures		Thematic Progression				Peripheral Theme
		Linear	Constant	Split Theme	Split Rheme
Ideational	Unmarked	91%	203%	25%	19%	315%
	Marked	45%	57%	8%	0%	70%
Interpersonal	Unmarked	77%	103%	0%	0%	120%
	Marked	13%	25%	0%	0%	38%
Textual	Unmarked	536%	2540%	0%	0%	2133%
	Marked	99%	119%	0%	0%	140%
Overall Frequency		861%	3047%	33%	19%	2816%

 




In the English text, the unmarked and marked ideational themes are projected at the periphery with 315% and 70% frequency, respectively. The constant information flow of unmarked and marked ideational themes is maintained with 203% and 57% frequency, less than the peripheral themes but higher than the linear themes. The split themes 25% and 8% and split rhemes 19% also contribute to maintaining the information flow of ideational themes. Similarly, with the highest frequency of 120% and 38%, unmarked interpersonal themes and marked interpersonal themes are located at peripheral positions. The constant information flow of unmarked and marked interpersonal themes having 103% and 25% frequency, respectively, is less than the themes at the periphery but higher than the linear information flow. Opposite to the ideational and interpersonal themes, the unmarked and marked textual themes bear constant information flow with the highest frequency of 2540% and 119%. Here, the textual themes are observed as constant themes more than the peripheral themes because of the clauses combined by coordinating and subordinating conjunctions. The overall frequency of ideational, interpersonal and textual themes shows that the whole structure of English text bears the constant flow of information more than the linear and peripheral. On the other hand, the thematic progression of Urdu themes is dissimilar to the thematic progression of English themes.




Table 5. Thematic Progression of Ideational, Interpersonal and Textual Themes in Urdu

Thematic Structures		Thematic Progression				Peripheral Theme
		Linear	Constant	Split Theme	Split Rheme
Ideational	Unmarked	323%	626%	20%	28%	929%
	Marked	63%	77%	2%	0%	91%
Interpersonal	Unmarked	21%	53%	0%	0%	237%
	Marked	22%	36%	0%	0%	50%
Textual	Unmarked	958%	1806%	0%	0%	1941%
	Marked	53%	197%	0%	0%	238%
Overall Frequency		1440%	2795%	22%	28%	3486%

 




In the Urdu text, the unmarked and marked ideational themes are located at the periphery bearing the highest frequency of 929% and 91%, respectively. The constant thematic progression 626% and 77% of these themes is higher than the linear thematic progression. The split themes 20% and 2% and split rhemes 28% are found with the lowest frequency. A similar case is observed with unmarked and marked interpersonal themes as they are projected as peripheral themes with a higher frequency of 237% and 50% than the constant themes. The information flow of unmarked and marked textual themes is also maintained by placing them at the periphery more frequently than the constant and the linear thematic progression. The overall frequency gives the description that the whole structure of Urdu text includes the highest frequency 3486% of peripheral themes, and it also includes the constant thematic progression 2795% which is more frequent than the linear thematic progression.

With the frequency of English and Urdu thematic progression patterns, the flow of given and new information units has been described with some examples in the following figures.

Figure 2

TP Patterns of Ideational Thematic Structure-1

This figure unveils that the marked themes in the first structure contain new information at a peripheral position while the displaced topical themes bear constant thematic progression. The information flow of displaced topical themes is shared by the preceding themes, which are not mentioned in the figure. The information also flows down to the themes of the following structure carrying constant thematic progression. The rhemes of this structure connect their information flow with the thematic information of the following structure. In this way, it becomes a linear thematic progression sequence. Here, the three patterns of thematic progression create a coherent information flow. The forthcoming clauses also incorporate thematic progression patterns in ideational thematic structures. This sequence has been sketched out in the following figure.

Figure 3

TP Patterns of Ideational Thematic structure-2

The starting textual and unmarked ideational themes carry new information because they seem to be placed as peripheral themes. The unmarked ideational theme, there is an existential element pointing towards the silence. The T2 is also an unmarked ideational theme carrying new information, which is repeated in T3 and becomes a constant thematic progression. The paratactic conjunction contributes to joining new and given information units.

Discrepancies in Translation of English Thematic Structures into Urdu

The ideational, interpersonal and textual thematic structures in Urdu clauses bear a

number of discrepancies due to placing translated themes at different positions which are not observed in English clauses. At the beginning of the analysis, the differences in frequency of ideational, interpersonal and textual themes along with theme markedness have been counted in tables to present a clear picture of variations.




 

Table 6. Frequency of Ideational Themes in English and Urdu

Thematic Structures		English (examples)		Urdu (examples)
Unmarked Themes	Pronominal Themes	hi - s??d ?g?n, di:pli.	390%	?sne - ek ??r ?h bh?ri, gh?ri ??r th?ndi.	1302%
	Nominal Themes	ð? hi?ðn - spi?k n???? b?t f??lsh?d.	105%	j?h k?f?r - s?v?e ?hut ke ??r k??h nei bolt?e.	291%
	Nominalized Themes	umuofia w?t? h?d d??zd ?n ð? nu?n de? he?z, - br??k ?nt? l??f ?nd ækt?v?ti.	114%	Umuofia ?o keh?r z?d?? si d?opeh?r me? ungh r?h? t?h? - z?nd??gi ??r h?m?h?mi se bh?r g?j?.	64%
	Ellipsed Themes	n?l	0%	(es? / ju?) l?gt?? t?h? d??nij? p?g?l ho gei he.	229%
Marked Themes	Adverbial Themes	f??t??n?tli, - ? la?t re?n h?d f??l?n dj??r?? ð? na?t	30%	x??q?sm?t?i se - r?t? ko h?lki b?r?? ho ??ki t?hi.	37%
	Prepositional Themes	fr?m ð? veri b???n??, - r?l?d??n ?nd ?ed??ke??n went hænd ?n hænd.	50%	?bt??d?? hi se - m?zh?b ??r t??lim d?ono h?t?h me? h?t?h d?ije ??l r?he t?he.	47%
	Pronominal Themes	ba? ðen - hi: h?d b?k?m ?re?vli w?rid.	38%	?s v?qt t??k - vo ??d?id? t?or p?r m?t?f?k?r ho ?uk? t?h?.	46%
	Nominal Themes	?n ði end - oduche da?d.	43%	?x?r me? - Oduche m?r g?j?.	55%
	Nominalized Themes	f?r ? j?? m?n hu?z f?:ð? h?d n?? jæmz, - ð? w?z n?? ?ð? we?.	11%	ese no??v?no ke lije ??s ke ?pne j?m n? ho? - ??r koi ??r? n? t?h?.	48%

 




Analyzing the frequency in this table, the unmarked and marked ideational themes in Urdu are more frequent than the unmarked and marked ideational themes in English. The frequency 390% of English unmarked pronominal themes is lower than the frequency 1302% of Urdu themes due to using extra clauses beginning with es? or ju? (it) in Urdu translation. This difference in frequency is also the outcome of inconsistency between non-finite English clauses and finite Urdu clauses. The frequency 105% of English unmarked nominal themes is also lower than the frequency 291% of Urdu themes because the conjunctions have been omitted in Urdu translation. Due to this omission, the Urdu clauses are observed with the higher unmarked nominal themes than English. The same seems true to the Urdu clauses beginning with unmarked pronominal themes.

Moving to the next difference, the frequency 114% of English unmarked nominlized themes is higher than the frequency 64% of Urdu unmarked nominalized themes. The most interesting difference in frequency is observed between English ellipsed themes and Urdu ellipsed themes. The English clauses are counted with zero unmarked ellipsed themes while the Urdu clauses are counted with 229% unmarked ellipsed themes. The Urdu ellipsed themes are the outcome of pro-drop nature of Urdu. The conversion of English adverb themes into translated Urdu subjectless clauses is also a reason behind ellipsed themes in Urdu. As far as the English ellipsed themes are concerned, Halliday and Matthiessen (2004) claim that an implicit theme of imperative clause can be called an ellipsed theme i.e. you. In fact, instead of focusing on these kinds of ellipsed themes in English, the initial predicator in an imperative clause has been accounted for thematic prominence. Additionally, there is found a little difference in the frequency of English and Urdu marked adverbial, prepositional, pronominal and nominal themes. This difference seems an outcome of the translation of English transitive clauses as Urdu intransitive clauses or the conversion of English active voice clauses into Urdu passive voice clauses. Apart from the difference in frequency, it is noted that all the English and the Urdu marked ideational themes are followed by displaced themes which have been previously categorized as part of rheme. Here, it is further to be clarified that the concept of displaced themes is totally different from the concept of unmotivated displacement of themes. The following table displays the frequency of interpersonal themes in English and Urdu.




 

Table 7. Frequency of Interpersonal Themes in English and Urdu

Thematic Structures		English (examples)		Urdu (examples)
Unmarked Themes	Imperative Themes	pr?pe? - j?? f??m.	109%	?pne khet? - t??j?r k?ro.	109%
	Finite Themes	?z - hi: ste??? l?? w?ð ?z?	106%	k?j? - j?h h?m?re p?s z?j?d?? d?er t??k r?he g??	110%
	Wh-Themes	w?t - d?d ð? m?ð?r ?v ð?s t??k du??	85%	?ski m?? - ne k?j? k?h??	92%
Marked Themes	Finite Themes	?n w?t m?:k?t de? w?z ?t b??n?	2%	m?ndi ke konse d??n - vo ped?? hu??	10%
	Modal Adjunct Themes	?ræd???li - ð? re?nz b?ke?m la?t?.	40%	?h?st?? ?h?st?? - b?r??e? h?lki hot?i gei?.	64%
	Vocative Themes	Ekwefi, - ma? a?l?d ?z tw?t???.	34%	Ekwefi, - meri ?nkh k? p?pot? ph???k r?h? he.	34%

 




In this table, a little difference in the frequency of English and Urdu interpersonal themes is found. The interesting case is observed with verb-fronted imperative themes which are found in English clauses but not in Urdu clauses due to SOV structure of Urdu. However, Urdu places unmarked object themes at the initial position of imperative clauses. The frequency 106% of English unmarked finite themes is lower than the frequency 110% of Urdu unmarked finite themes due to the conversion of some declarative clauses into interrogative clauses in Urdu. The same is true for the unmarked wh-themes with 85% frequency in English and 92% frequency in Urdu. The marked finite themes are less frequent in English 2% than in Urdu 10% because Urdu uses phrases at multiple positions due to free-word order. The frequency 40% of English marked modal adjunct themes is less than the frequency 64% of Urdu marked modal adjunct themes because Urdu text contains extra clauses incorporating modal adjunct themes. The clauses beginning with modal adjuncts and vocatives also accommodate topical themes. In fact, the modal adjunct themes and evocative themes are followed by the topical themes in interpersonal clauses. The next table presents the frequency of textual themes in English and Urdu.




 

Table 8. Frequency of Textual Themes in English and Urdu

Thematic Structures		English (examples)		Urdu (examples)
Unmarked Themes	Continuative Themes	jes - ð? dr?mz b???n ?t nu?n.	49%	h??, - dhol t?o d?opeh?r se b??ne ?uru ho ??t?e he?.	49%
	Conjunction Themes	b?t - ðe? ? bi?t?? ð? dr?mz.	5160%	lek?n - dhol t?o b?? r?he he?.	4656%
Marked Themes	Conjunctive Adjunct Themes	ðen - kwa?t s?dnli ? ?æd?? fel ?n ð? w??ld.	358%	ph?r - d??f?t??n z?min pe s?j? ?h? g?j?.	488%

 




In textual thematic structures, the unmarked continuative themes in English and Urdu have equal frequency whereas the unmarked conjunction themes are more frequent in English 5160% than in Urdu 4656% because, during translation, most of the conjunctions have been omitted from Urdu clauses. Due to this omission, the Urdu unmarked ideational themes increase in number. Furthermore, the frequency 358% of English conjunctive adjunct themes is less than the frequency 488% of Urdu conjunctive adjunct themes due to the extra insertion of conjunctive adjuncts in Urdu ideational and interpersonal clauses.

The discrepancies in ideational, interpersonal and textual theme-rheme pairings have been discussed by analyzing a number of ambiguous examples. A translator translates a sentence in a number of ways. Generally, the translation choices adopted for translation are logical and try to convey the entire amount of information. But sometimes, some constituents are not translated from one language to another as the register of a language does not need them or allow them to be translated. And sometimes, the translation choices are inappropriate, causing misleading information. To analyze the clauses of the English source text (EST) and Urdu target text (UTT), the ideational, interpersonal and textual theme-rheme pairings have been targeted. As the following examples indicate an ambiguity due to the placement of circumstantial adjuncts at thematic prominence.




 

Table 9. Ideational, Interpersonal and Textual Theme-Rheme Pairings-1

EST
C.L.	Theme				Rheme
	Textual	Adjunct	Topical
1.1a	b?t	na?	ðe?		sæt w?ð okonkwo ?n h?z ??bi,
1.2a	??		---		w?t?t h?m
1.3a	?z		hi:		tæpt h?z p?:m tri: f? ði i?vn??? wa?n.
1.4a			n????		pli?zd nwoye na? m?? ð?n tu bi sent f? ba? h?z m?ð?r ??r ?n?ð?r ?v h?z f??ð?z wa?vz tu du: w?n ?v ð??z d?f?k?lt ?nd mæskj?l?n t??sks ?n ð? h??m, la?k spl?t?? w?d, ?? pa?nd?? fu?d.
UTT
C.L.	Theme				Rheme
	Adjunct	Textual	Topical	Displaced
1.1b		b?lke	vo		Okonkwo ke s?t?h ?ski ?honp??i me? beth?t?e
1.2b		??b	vo		??m ki ??r?b ke lije j?m ke d??r?xt? me? ??g?f d?et??
1.3b		t?o	---		?se ?or se d?ekhte.
1.4b	?ski m?? j? b?p ki d?usri bivijo? me? se	??b		koi	l?k?ij?? ph??ne j? kh?ne ki ?ize? kutne ?ese gh?r ke m??k?l ??r m?rd??n? k?m k?rne ke lije ?se bul?ti?
1.5b		t?o	?se		be?nt?eh? mus?r?t? hot?i.

 




The analysis starts with the clause-initial textual and unmarked topical themes in the English and Urdu texts. The unmarked topical themes are pronominal subjects carrying given information which continues to be selected in the following themes but in different ways. The English theme in (1.1a) is repeated in (1.2a) combined with coordinating conjunction while the Urdu theme in (1.1b) is repeated in the dependent clause (1.3b). And the Urdu theme in (1.2b) shares its information with the preceding rheme in (1.1b). Actually, the translated Urdu clauses (1.2b) and (1.3b) are kind of conditional clauses but yet their thematic progression conveys similar information as in English clauses. The next English clause (1.4a) places a topical theme at clause-initial position whereas its translated clauses are conditional structures in (1.4b) and (1.5b). In these conditional structures, the clause-initial circumstantial adjunct ?ski m?? j? b?p ki d?usri bivijo? me? se (among his mother or other wives of his father) creates ambiguity because it not only displaces the topical theme but also removes the comparison which is found in the English clause. As the English clause gives the information that there is no other thing which can please Nwoye except that he is sent by his mother or another of his father's wives to do one of those difficult and masculine tasks in the home, like splitting wood or pounding food. But on the contrary, the Urdu clause means that Nwoye was pleased when he is sent by his mother or another of his father's wives to do one of those difficult and masculine tasks in the home, like splitting wood or pounding food. In other words, he can simply be pleased if he is given any other task to do by his mother or another of his father’s wives. Taking into account of this ambiguity, here, the suitable translation choice is offered e.g. koi bhi ?iz Nwoye ke lije ?s se z?j?d?? mus?r?t? k? b??s n?hi t?hi ke ?ski m?? j? b?p ki d?usri bivijo? me? se koi l?k?ij?? ph??ne j? kh?ne ki ?ize? kutne ?ese gh?r ke m??k?l ??r m?rd??n? k?m k?rne ke lije ?se bul?ti?. The next examples reveal the conversion of modal adjunct into an interpersonal clause.




Table 10. Ideational, Interpersonal and Textual Theme-Rheme Pairings-2

EST
C.L.	Theme			Rheme
	Textual	Adjunct	Interpersonal / Topical
2.1a	??ft?		ð? wa?n	h?d bi?n dr??k
2.2a			Okonkwo	le?d h?z d?f?k?lt?z b?f?? Nwakibie.
2.3a			a?	h?v k?m tu ju f? help
2.4a			hi:	sed.
2.5a		p?hæps	ju:	k?n ??lredi ?es
2.6a	w?t		?t	?z.
UTT
C.L.	Theme			Rheme
	Textual	Interpersonal / Topical
2.1b	??b	??r?b		x?t??m ho gei,
2.2b	t?o	Okonkwo ne		?pni m??k?l?t? Nwakibie ke s?mne pe? ki?
2.3b		me?		?pke p?s m?d??d? ke lije ?j? hu?.
2.4b		m??he		?mid? he
2.5b	ke	?p ne		?nd??z? l?g? lij? hog?.

 




In this analysis, the English themes in (2.1a) and (2.2a) are the topical themes carrying new information. This information flows down into the following unmarked interpersonal theme in (2.3a) which is incorporated into the clause of hypotactic locution in (2.4a). The Urdu themes in (2.1b), (2.2b) and (2.3b) involve similar information flow as in English but the hypotactic locution is not observed here. However, no ambiguity is found in conveying meaning and information. But the English adjunct theme in (2.5a) has been translated as an unmarked interpersonal clause m??he ?mid? he (I hope) in (2.4b) which is further joined to a clause of hypotactic idea in (2.5b). This difference between English and translated Urdu themes causes ambiguity. As the English thematic structure means that someone may already be able to guess something while its translated thematic structure conveys the information that a person is hoping for someone else to guess something. In fact, there is a huge difference between the meanings of perhaps and hope and this is what makes the translation choice ambiguous. Here, another translation choice seems appropriate e.g. ??lib?n, ?p p?hle hi ?nd??z? l?g? s?kt?e he?. The next examples specify the insertion of an extra clause in the translated Urdu text causing an ambiguity.




 

Table 11. Ideational, Interpersonal and Textual Theme-Rheme Pairings-3

EST
C.L.	Theme			Rheme
	Textual	Ideational/Topical
3.1a		Amalinze		w?z ? wa?li kr??ftsm?n,
3.2a	b?t	Okonkwo		w?z ?z sl?p?ri ?z ? f?? ?n ?w??t?.
3.3a		evri n?:v ?nd evri m?sl		st?d a?t ?n ðe?r ??mz, ?n ðe? bæks ?nd ðe? ?a?z,
3.4a	?nd	w?n		??lm??st h??d ð?m stret??? tu bre?k?? p??nt.
UTT
C.L.	Theme			Rheme
	Textual	Adjunct	Ideational/Topical
3.1b			Amalinze	k??t?i ke f?n k? b??? ??l?k hun?r m?nd? t?h?
3.2b	lek?n		Okonkwo	bhi p?ni me? m??hli ki t?rh? h?t?ho? se nik?l nik?l ??t??.
3.3b			?nke	b?zuo?, p??t?o? ??r r?no? k? ek ek re?? ?bh?r ?j? t?h?.
3.4b			(es?)=elliptical	l?gt?? t?h?
3.5b	ke	?bhi	p?the ??t?xne ki ?v?z	sun?i degi.

 




The English themes in (3.1a) and (3.2a) are unmarked ideational themes carrying new information. The same is true for the translated Urdu themes in (3.1b) and (3.2b). But the English theme every nerve and every muscle has been translated as the Urdu rheme in (3.3b). Due to this translation, the Urdu theme in (3.3b) links its information with the preceding themes. However, this information flow is not problematic. In the next Urdu clause (3.4b), the theme is empty. Here, the omitted word is understood as a topical theme but this case is different in English as It cannot be omitted. It is the functionality of any language that adjusts its constituents in a number of ways to convey a message properly. Additionally, due to the functional adjustment of a constituent from English to Urdu, the transitive predicator ‘heard’ in the rheme of the English clause has become the intransitive predicator ‘would be heard’ in the rheme of the Urdu clause. Even the past tense of the mental process ‘heard’ has become the combination of past and future tense ‘would be heard’. Coming back to the discussion of the extra clause (3.4b), it is noted that it causes misleading information because it is not found in English. The English thematic structure means that someone almost heard their muscles stretching, whereas its translated Urdu thematic structure means that it seems, the stretching of muscles would be heard soon. In other words, nobody heard their muscles stretching yet. To avoid this ambiguity, the preferable translation choice is as follows: h?r Kisi ne t??qrib?n ?nke p?the ??t?xne ki ?v?z suni t?hi. The following examples highlight the difference in English and Urdu adjunct themes.




 

Table 12. Ideational, Interpersonal and Textual Theme-Rheme Pairings-4

EST
C.L.	Theme				Rheme
	Textual	Ideational/Topical
4.1a		??ld men ?nd t??ldr?n			w?d ðen s?t ra?nd l?g fa??z w?:m?? ðe? b?d?z.
4.2a		Unoka			l?vd ?t ??l,
4.3a	?nd	hi:			l?vd ð? f?:st ka?ts ðæt r?t??nd w?ð ð? dra? si?zn?,
4.4a	?nd	---			ð? t??ldr?n hu? s?? s??z ?v welk?m tu ð?m.
UTT
C.L.	Theme				Rhe me
	Adjunct	Textual	Topical	Displaced
4.1b	t??b		bu?he ??r b??e		l?k?i ke l?the ??l? k?r ?nke g?rd? t??pne ke lije beth ??t?e.
4.2b	mos?m x??k hone ke s?t?h	??b		p?hli ?ile?	lot k?r ?t?i?
4.3b		t?o	b??e		?nke su?g?t? me? git? g?t?e.
4.4b			Unoka ko		j?h s?b k??h d??l se p?s?nd? t?h?.

 




This table illustrates that the English unmarked ideational theme in (4.1a) carries new information and its translated Urdu theme in (4.1b) also carries new information although it begins with a conjunctive adjunct. The next English unmarked ideational thematic structure (4.2a) carrying new information has been translated as an unmarked ideational thematic structure (4.4b). The English thematic information continues to be selected as the thematic information in (4.3a). But this case is not observed in Urdu because the Urdu thematic structure (4.2b) includes a clause-initial circumstantial adjunct followed by a textual theme. Here, the placement of adjunct and displacement of the topical theme create ambiguity. Actually, the English thematic structures (4.3a) and (4.4a) convey the information that someone loves the first kites in the dry season and he also loves the children who welcome those kites. On the contrary, the Urdu thematic structures (4.2b) and (4.3b) do not give the information about someone’s love for kites and children rather there is a condition in these structures that the children used to sing the songs only at the time when the first kites returned in the dry season. This ambiguity is also the outcome of the displaced Urdu clause (4.4b). However, there is another appropriate translation choice e.g. ?sko p?hli ?ile? ?o mos?m x??k hone ke s?t?h lot k?r ?t?i? ??r b??e ?o ?nke su?g?t? me? git? g?t?e d??l se p?s?nd? t?h?.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this study answers the first question by investigating the functional significance. The ideational thematic structures are somewhat different in terms of their functional significance because English and Urdu behave differently against theme markedness. What Urdu uses as unmarked themes are placed as rheme or marked themes in English. So, with the change of theme markedness, the information flow of the English ideational thematic structure is not followed by the Urdu ideational thematic structures. In the interpersonal theme-rheme patterns, the omission of clause-initial subjects and the presence of clause-initial complements and adjuncts also affect theme markedness because the complements and adjuncts are treated as unmarked themes in Urdu. And even thematic progression is affected because English unmarked interpersonal themes (subjects) carrying given information converts into translated Urdu unmarked interpersonal themes (complements and adjuncts) carrying new information. The function and information flow of English and Urdu textual themes remain identical. 

This study answers the second question

 by screening the patterns from English and Urdu corpora to analyze source and target texts in terms of grammatical and functional significance and thematic progression. And it is concluded that the author of the English text incorporates the ideational themes to show human experience, the interpersonal themes to identify the role of relationships and the textual themes to investigate the clause structure. Likewise, the author of the Urdu text incorporates ideational, interpersonal and textual themes for the same purposes. Moreover, the author investigates the translation choices whether they are appropriate or not. Many English thematic structures have not been translated into Urdu as compared to their form, function and information in English.

References

• Achebe, C. (1994). Things fall apart. New York: Random House, Inc.
• Alekseyenko, N. V. (2013). A corpus-based study of theme and thematic progression in English and Russian non-translated texts and in Russian translated texts. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Kent State University.
• Boxwell, M. (1995). Nothing makes sense in Weir: A case of extensive ellipsis in nominals in a Papuan language. In R. Hasan, & P. H. Fries (Eds.), On subject and theme: A discourse functional perspective, Amsterdam: Benjamins, 123–151.
• Comrie, B. (1976). Aspect. Cambridge: CUP.
• Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
• Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
• Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
• Hasan, R. (2009). Wanted: A theory for integrated sociolinguistics. In J. J. Webster (Ed.), The collected works of Ruqaiya Hasan vol 2: Semantic variation – meaning in society and in sociolinguistics, London and Oakville, CT: Equinox, 5-40
• Hopper, P. J., & Thompson, A. S. (1980). Transitivity in the grammar of discourse. Language 56(2), 251–299.
• Jalilifar, A. (2009). Thematic development in English and translated academic texts. Journal of Language & Translation 10(1), 81-111.
• Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). Descriptive motifs and generalisations. In A. Caffarel, J. R. Martin & C. M. I. M. Matthiessen (Eds.), Language typology: A functional perspective, Benjamins: Amsterdam, 537–674
• Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. et al. (2008). Multilingual studies as a multidimensional space of interconnected language studies. In J. J. Webster (Ed.), Meaning in context: Strategies for implementing intelligent applications of language studies, London: Continuum, 146–220
• Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. et al. (2016). The typology of verbal units within the overall systems of languages. A Colloquium in the 43rd International Systemic Functional Linguistics Congress [ISFLC] Bandung. July, 19-27.
• McCabe, A. M. (1999). Theme and thematic patterns in Spanish and English history texts. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Aston University, England.
• Mock, C. C. (1969). The grammatical units of the Nzema language: A systemic analysis. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of London, London.
• Ochi, A., & Lam, M. (2010). A systemic functional study of particles in Japanese and Cantonese: An initial exploration. JASFL Proceedings, 4, 41–59.
• O'Donnell, M. (2008). Demonstration of the UAM CorpusTool for text and image annotation. Proceedings of the ACL-08: HLT Demo Session (Companion Volume), Association for Computational Linguistics, 13-16.
• Rørvik, S. (2003). Thematic progression in translation from English into Norwegian. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 2(2), 245–264.
• Schmidt, R. L. (1999). Urdu: An Essential Grammar. London: Routledge.
• Sutjaja, I. G. M. (1988). The nominal group in Bahasa Indonesia. Sydney: PhD Dissertation, University of Sydney.
• Teruya, K. et al. (2007). Typology of mood: A text-based and system-based functional view. In R. Hasan, C. M. I. M. Matthiessen & J. J. Webster (Eds.), Continuing discourse on language: A functional perspective 2, 859–920, London: Equinox Publishing.
• Teruya, K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2015). Halliday in relation to language comparison and typology. In J. J. Webster (Ed.). The Bloomsbury companion to Halliday, M. A. K. London: Bloomsbury, 427-452.
• Ullah, I. (1991). Bikharti Duniya. Lahore: Nigarshat Publications.
• Wang, Y., & Xu, J. (2013). A systemic typology of existential and possessive constructions. Functions of Language, 205(1), 1–30.