Abstract

The study investigates the predicated thematic structures in the English text and its Urdu translation. The first objective is to define the variations in the Urdu translation of English predicated thematic structures. The second objective is to define how the variations in Urdu translation affect the thematic progression. The data has been collected from the English novel Things Fall Apart by Achebe (1958) and its Urdu translation Bikharti Duniya by Ullah (1991). The UAM Corpus Tool has been used to annotate the data and to find predicated thematic structures and their thematic progression. The findings show that the Urdu translation of English predicated themes is ambiguous and misleading. The English predicated themes have been translated as Urdu unmarked and marked ideational themes. Such unmotivated displacement of themes affects thematic progression. There occur some variations in the thematic progression of translated Urdu themes.

Key Words

Thematic Predication, Thematic Progression, Corpus, English, Urdu

Introduction

Systemic Functional Linguistics considers a language functional. The structure of a language is important only to serve the function. In SFL, lexicogrammar deals with grammatical descriptions and different meanings of a language (Eggins, 2004). SFL emphasizes a dimension called metafunctions which consist of ideational, interpersonal, and textual components. The first metafunction refers to the ability of a language to construe human experience into experiential and logical categories. The second metafunction embodies the ability of a language to negotiate social roles and attitudes. The third metafunction discusses the ability of a language to maintain a thematic structure in discourse. A thematic structure is the element of a clause that conveys a message. In each clause, one element is given prominence i. e. ‘Theme.’There is one further resource that contributes to the organization of a clause as a message. This is the system of predicated themes that involves a particular combination of thematic and informational choices.

This study finds the answers to two questions: (1) what are the variations in the Urdu translation of English predicated thematic structures, and (2) how the variations affect the thematic progression of predicated thematic structures. The answers to these questions have been investigated in Achebe’s novel. He has used predicated themes of emphasis and contrast in his novel. Through these structures, he has expressed the feelings, emotions, and actions of his countrymen to explain that they are a civilized nation.

The present research is a theoretical addition to the studies of SFL. Some previous studies have discussed the material clause themes (e.g., Yaqub et al., 2017), the syntactic variations (e.g. Tahir, 2019), the contrastive analysis of thematic structures (e.g. Riaz, 2018), and the hypotactic and paratactic thematic relations (e.g. Yaqub & Shakir, 2019) in English and Urdu. But to the best of the researcher’s knowledge, the existing literature lacks a contrastive analysis of the English and the Urdu predicated thematic structures.

This study is structured as follows—the Section 2 reviews relevant literature. The Section 3 discusses the elements of predicated themes and the patterns of thematic progression in detail. The methodology of this research is given in Section 4. The findings and results are given in Section 5. Section 6 concludes by presenting the variations in the predicated thematic structures and thematic progression. 

Literature Review

The current study reviews the literature on the contrastive analysis of predicated themes and thematic progression in English and some other languages. But there exists no relevant literature on the contrastive analysis of predicated themes and thematic progression in English and Urdu. In a contrastive study of English and French, Péry-Woodley (1989) analyzed English and French essays of students and found thematic predication in c’est-clefts structures of French parallel to it-clefts of English. With the extensive studies on it-clefts in English, the complementary contrastive studies of French clefts are rare (Katz, 2000). Another contrastive study of it-clefts and wh-clefts in English and Swedish texts were reported by Johansson (2002) in which he commented on the functional differences. A major grammatical difference was identified by Van Huffel (2007) in predicated themes from English and its translated Dutch fiction text. He commented that a few cases of theme predication is similar in English and Dutch texts, but English predicated structure takes singular verb with empty subject and plural complement, but Dutch predicated structure receives plural verb with empty subject and plural complement. Another research has been conducted for the analysis of thematic structures in Barack Obama’s press conference (Kuswoyo, 2016). In this particular research, the appearance of predicated themes, including it-clefts has been reported with other types of themes. Along with the studies on thematic predication, some other studies were reported to identify the general thematic progression. Sade (2007) examined the thematic progression in Christian tracts written in Nigeria and found simple linear and constant thematic progression patterns. Moreover, Sari (2009) explored psychological, grammatical, and logical subjects and their conflation and combination with one another in a declarative clause. Sujatna (2013) observed the thematic progression of Sundanese female writers and found them using simple and multiple thematic progression in terms of linear theme and constant theme and rheme. This is a unique study due to investigating the element of theme and their functions. Thematic structures have been treated in a contrastive manner by Munday (1998, 2000), Taboada (1995), McCabe (1999) McCabe, and Alonso Belmonte (2001). To assign thematic status to the process element has investigated by Arús Lavid and Moratón (2012), Lavid (2010) and Lavid Arús and Moratón (2010a). 

Theoretical Foundation

Predicated Thematic Structures

The predicated thematic structures are specified as it-cleft sentences (Halliday, 1994), which direct the receiver's attention to an emphasized news in a particular information unit. It-cleft is used as an empty subject which allows a certain element to become a theme (Baker, 1992). It-cleft sentences involve a contrastive emphasis, and they are thematizing structures (Thompson, 1996). They contribute to an emphasis on feelings and actions. They are used to contrast what is already said with what is important to be emphasized.

The system of predicated thematic structure is associated with the organization of the clause as a message (Halliday, 1967). It includes a grammatical structure in the form of a cleft construction (Halliday, 1994) which conveys significant meanings. This grammatical structure begins with ‘it-cleft’ (Prince, 1978), ‘it-theme (Young, 1980), ‘cleft construction’ (Huddleston, 1984), or ‘focusing it-sentence’ (Erdmann, 1990). According to the semantic and functional value, cleft sentences are used for emphatic meanings. The cleft sentence is divided into two parts i. e. the matrix clause starting with a meaningless pronoun, a copula verb, a highlighted element, and an embedded relative clause. Here, it is important to note that the pronoun it is a dummy subject and is known as a cleft pronoun. The predicated thematic structures can propose a double thematic analysis (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004). The subsequent figure displays the double analysis of predicated thematic structure. In (a), the cleft pronoun is an unmarked theme, and in (b), the whole matrix clause is considered a predicated theme, and the whole embedded clause is a rheme. Collins (1991: 170) refers to version (b) as "metaphorical analysis in which the superordinate clause is all thematic". Consider the following example.




 

Table 1. Predicated Thematic Structure in English

English Predicated Thematic Structure
	It	was	her father	who	persuaded her to continue.
a.	Theme	Rheme		Theme	Rheme
b.	Predicated theme			Rheme

 




Version (b) has been used to analyze the predicated thematic structures in English and Urdu. Urdu is a pro-drop (Hasan, 1984) and SOV (head-final) (Butt & King, 2005) language that has free word order, unlike English. The predicated thematic structures in Urdu do not begin with it-cleft because Urdu lacks clefts. Urdu introduces the subordinating that-clause as an extra posed clause starting with an expletive. The morpheme y?h ‘it’ is used as an expletive in Urdu (Raza & Ahmed, 2011) because the equivalent of expletive there does not exist in Urdu (Butt & King, 2007). In English, the predicated thematic structure involves a predicative formula i.e. it + be + highlighted element + relative clause. In Urdu, the demonstrative pronouns j?h ‘this’, vo ‘that’ are used as so-called equivalents of it-cleft. These demonstrative pronouns are just referring expressions (Schmidt, 1999) which emphasize their following noun phrases. These demonstrative pronouns precede a copula and an NP. They function as dummy cleft pronouns in the Urdu predicated thematic structure. These pronouns fail to agree with their copula, and they move an NP from its unmarked position to the marked position. Furthermore, due to lack of agreement with the copula, cleft pronouns are no longer considered true pronominal expressions. In this case, cleft pronouns become dummy and empty subjects.

The predicated thematic structure in Urdu also incorporates an exclusive emphatic particle hi ‘very’ to emphasize its preceding NP. Such particle is used to exclude something else which may not be expressed (Schmidt, 1999). Along with emphasizing its preceding NP, this article can also precede its NP due to flexibility of word order. This particle is also an optional element, but it doubles the emphasis when it is used with cleft pronouns. The most interesting point is that a clause initial NP can also become a predicated theme when this NP corresponds to its copula verb.

The Urdu copula verbs are he ‘is’, he? ‘are’, hu? ‘am’, t?h? ‘was’, t?he ‘were’, t?hi ‘was’. Young (2014a) claims that copula is a traditional grammatical term for verbs as 'helpers .'In Urdu, a construction with optional and dummy cleft pronouns j?h ‘this’, vo 'that', and a plural complement cannot have a singular verb. Similarly, a masculine complement can have only masculine copula t?h? 'was', and a feminine complement can have a feminine copula t?hi 'was'. It happens because Urdu verbs are marked with tense, number, gender, and case (Schmidt, 1999). They determine the gender and number of pronominal subjects, which are merely distal and proximal elements (Schmidt, 1999). The Urdu copulas appear after the predicated theme (NP), which is modified by a relative clause. Furthermore, Urdu creates a predicative formula i. e. cleft pronoun (optional) + highlighted element + exclusive emphatic particle (optional) + copular verb + relative clause. The following examples given by Schmidt, 1999: 212) indicate the predicated thematic structure in Urdu.




 

Table 2. Predicated Thematic Structures in Urdu

Urdu Predicated thematic Structures
Ahmed hi It… Ahmed	he is	??s ne Who	h?me? roke r?kh?. delayed us.
Ahmed hi It… Ahmed	he is	?o Who	qil? d?ekhn? ??ht?? t?h?. wanted to see the fort.
jeh Ahmed hi It… Ahmed	he is	??s ne who	h?m ko roke r?kh?. delayed us.
jehi Ahmed It… Ahmed	he is	??s ne who	h?m ko roke r?kh?. delayed us.
Predicated theme		Rheme

 




Additionally, despite being a pro-drop language, Urdu uses the third person pronouns j?h ‘this’ and vo ‘that’ as necessary predicated themes. Actually, these pronouns are marked predicated themes which convey new and contrastive information. And according to a fact, the Urdu pronominal subject conveying new or contrastive information is never ellipsed or dropped (Hasan, 1984). On the contrary, the dropness affects so-called cleft pronouns, which are dropped due to contextual requirements. Urdu accommodates the function of it-cleft according to its contextual referring expressions. Such accommodation makes the writers translate English predicated themes into Urdu easily.




Thematic Progression

The predicated thematic structures may be convertible to an information unit composed of two components: the first part is the theme and the second part is rheme (Halliday, 1985). In fact, the organization of predicated theme and rheme contributes to the thematic progression. The thematic progression develops the parameters for given and new information in the text and the context. It represents the text development (Grabe & Kaplan, 1996) and organizes the texts into a coherent form (Butt et al., 2000). Generally, there is a subject known as point of departure in any clause containing another element as rheme. Theme contains given information while new information falls within the rheme. But the opposite is also common because new information is signaled by the prosodic prominence (Downing, 2001). The same is not true to the predicated theme because it is always a marked theme carrying new information (Halliday, 1985), and it consists of fixed prosodic prominence.

Thematic progression specifies the information flow in theme-rheme structures. Initially, three patterns of thematic progression: (1) simple linear, (2) constant, and (3) derived hyperthematic, were presented by Danes (1974). Additionally, the new patterns: split theme and split rheme were added in the theory of thematic progression by McCabe (1999). In linear thematic progression, the rheme of the preceding clause shifts into the theme of the subsequent clause. The rheme conveys new information while the theme conveys given information. In constant thematic progression, the same constituents in first theme are continuously selected as the theme of following clauses. The continuous selection of the same theme implies the repetition of the given information in many clauses. In splitting progression, the theme of the first clause splits into two items. Each item is considered a thematic element in the subsequent clause. Likewise, the information of the first theme splits and flows down into the following themes in chunks. These patterns are identified with reference to the semantic relations, including identical wording (like personal pronouns), synonymous expressions, paraphrases, and semantic inferences.

Research Methodology

Research Method

The existing study has used a descriptive research method. The theme-rheme model of systemic functional linguistics has been used as a theoretical framework. It is said, "Theme involves three major systems: choice of type of theme, choice of marked or unmarked theme, and choice of predicated and not predicated theme” (Eggins, 2004:299). The choice of predicated theme is investigated through both qualitative and quantitative research methods. This study has also applied the framework of thematic progression i.e., simple linear theme, constant theme, split theme, and split rheme (McCabe, 1999). The peripheral themes which do not fit in any of the thematic progression patterns (McCabe, 1999) have also been investigated in this research.







Samples & Corpus Size

In this research, the unmotivated displacement of predicated themes and its effects on the thematic progression has been analyzed from the English text, Things Fall Apart (Achebe, 1958), containing approximately 50000 words and its Urdu text, Bikharti Duniya (Ullah, 1991) containing 55000 words.




Annotation Instrument

The selected texts were annotated according to the scheme of UAM Corpus Tool (O’Donnell, 2008). Being semi-automatic, the UAM Corpus Tool exports an annotation scheme for the framework of SFL, which served the objectives of the current study. The following scheme shows multiple-level annotation tags.

Figure 1

The Scheme of Predicated Themes



Data Analysis Procedure

This study compiled the data from both English and Urdu texts and developed it into a corpus. The corpus was annotated by assigning only relevant annotations tags to the data in multiple layers. The English data was annotated semi-automatically, while the Urdu data were annotated manually. After annotation, the difference in frequency of the predicated thematic structures was shown in a table. From the annotated corpus, some clauses were taken for further evaluation and discussion. The thematic progression patterns of the predicated thematic structures were also investigated, and their difference in frequency was given in a table. The patterns of thematic progression were shown on the figures to analyze their information flow.

Findings and Discussion

This study finds significant variations in the Urdu translation of English predicated thematic structures. The variations occur due to unmotivated displacements of the predicated themes. Such displacements not only omit the emphasis and contrast but also convey misleading information. Due to misleading information, the reader of the target text misinterprets the author of the source text. This section discusses nine cases of variations in the English and the Urdu predicated thematic structures.

 

Variations in the Urdu Translation of English Predicated Themes

The frequency of the English and the Urdu predicated themes is investigated as follows.




 

Table 3. Frequency of Predicated Thematic Structures

Thematic Structures	English		Urdu
Predicated Themes	It is/was---who	6%	j?h he/t?h?---?o / ??s ne	15%
	It is/was---which	4%	j?h he/t?h?---?o / ??s ke	6%
	It is/was---that	20%	j?h he/t?h?---?o	4%
	It is/was---where	2%	j?h he/t?h?---??h??	2%
	It is/was---when	3%	j?h he/t?h?---??b (??s me?)	3%
	It is/was---whom	0%	j?h he/t?h?---??s se	2%
	Total Frequency	35%	Total Frequency	32%

 




Analyzing the frequency enlisted in the table (4), it is observed that some English predicated thematic structures have been translated into Urdu marked or unmarked ideational themes. So, the English predicated themes are more frequent than the Urdu predicated themes. But there is not much difference between the percentage 35% of English predicated themes and the percentage 32% of Urdu predicated themes. The following examples selected from the source and the target texts show the unmotivated displacements of predicated themes in the target text.




 

Table 4. English Predicated Theme as Urdu Predicated Theme

English Text
CL	Theme			Rheme
	Textual	Ideational	Predicated
1.1a		Mr. Kiaga		stood firm
1.2a	and		it was his firmness	that saved the young church.
Urdu Text
CL	Theme			Rheme
	Textual	Ideational	Predicated
1.1b		Mr. Kiaga		s?b?t? k?d??m r?h?
1.2b	??r		j?hi ?st??hk?m t?h?	??s ne n?? ?mr g?r?e ko ?s v?qt? s?nmbh?l l?j?.

 




The English predicated theme in (1.2a) starts from it-cleft followed by a copular verb and highlighted element firmness. The Urdu predicated theme in (1.2b) starts from an NP as highlighted element ?st??hk?m ‘firmness’ followed by a copular verb t?h? ‘was’. The former highlighted element is modified by possessive adjective his while the latter is not modified. Such difference creates ambiguity in defining contrast. The contrast of English predicated theme specifies a man’s quality e.g. it was his firmness while the contrast of Urdu predicated theme specifies only a quality e.g. j?hi ?st??hk?m ‘this firmness’. The writer emphasizes the firmness of a person in the English predicated theme (1.2a) while the translator emphasizes only a specific kind of firmness in the Urdu predicated theme (1.2b). This analysis does not show an unmotivated displacement of the whole predicated theme. But only possessive adjective his has been displaced and omitted in the Urdu translation. For this English predicated theme, the possible Urdu translation choices are: j?h ?ska ?st??hk?m hi t?h? 'it was his firmness,' or ?ska ?st??hk?m hi t?h? 'his firmness was .'The variation between the predicated themes (1.2a) and (1.2b) affects thematic progression (cf. Figure 2). The following variation highlights that the English predicated theme has been translated as a marked ideational theme (see Table 5).




 

Table 5. English Predicated Theme as Urdu Marked (Complement) Ideational Theme

English Text
CL	Theme			Rheme
	Textual	Ideational	Predicated
2.1a		He		was called the Cat
2.2a	because	his back		would never touch the earth
2.3a	and		it was this man	that Okonkwo threw in a fight.
Urdu Text
CL	Theme			Rheme
	Textual	Ideational	Predicated
2.1b		?se		b?l? ?s l?je k?h? ??t?? he
2.2b	ke	?sk? pith		k?bhi z?min p?r n?hi l?gi t?hi
2.3b		?s x?s ko		Okonkwo ne k??t?i me? ??t? k?j?.

 




This analysis exhibits that the English predicated theme in (2.3a) has been translated as Urdu marked ideational theme in (2.3b). The Urdu thematic structure in (2.3b) includes a complement ?s x?s ko ‘this man’ at clause initial position. This marked ideational theme displaces the topical theme Okonkwo which does not receive the progression of preceding themes. The translator has placed complement at thematic prominence in order to highlight it an important element. But this translation choice is misleading for readers because they cannot identify the sense of exclusiveness. They may assume that there are also other men whom Okonkwo has thrown in a fight. The English predicated theme (2.3a) can have another translation choice e.g. j?hi vo x?s he ??se Okonkwo ne k??t?i me? ??t? k?j?. The translated theme in (2.3b) affects the mapping of information focus. The English theme in (2.3a) involves thematic predication in which highlighted element is an information focus. But it is not found in the Urdu translation. Here both themes deal with constant thematic progression despite having different information focus (cf. Figure 3). The absence of predicated theme in the translated Urdu clause is also observed (see Table 6).




 

Table 6. English Predicated Theme as Urdu Unmarked Ideational Theme                                                               

English Text
CL	Adjunct	Theme			Rheme
	Modal	Textual	Ideational	Predicated
3.1a			Ezinma		was an only child
3.2a		and	(she) =elliptical		(was) the centre of her mother's world
3.3a	very often			it was Ezinma	who decided what food her mother should prepare
Urdu Text
CL	Adjunct	Theme			Rheme
	Modal	Textual	Ideational	Predicated
3.1b			Ez?nm?		?klot?i b??i t?hi
3.2b		??r	(vo) =elliptical		?pni m?? ki d??nj? k? m?rk?z (t?hi).
3.3b	?ks?r		Ez?nm?		fesl? k?rt?i ke ?s ki m?? kons? kh?n? t??j?r k?re

 




This analysis specifies that the translated Urdu theme in (3.3b) is a simple unmarked ideational theme Ez?nm? without any emphasis. This theme is not contrastive and gives the information that Ezinma and any other persons can decide for what food to be prepared. On the contrary, the English predicated theme in (3.3a) signifies that it is only Ezinma who decides about the food. This difference justifies that English predicated theme is an information focus but Urdu theme is not an information focus. To maintain Urdu predicated thematic focus, the English predicated theme can have an appropriate translation choice e.g. j?h Ezinma hi t?hi ‘It was Ezinma’. However, despite of different information focus, both the English predicated theme and the Urdu unmarked ideational theme correspond to their preceding themes and implicate constant thematic progression (cf. Figure 4). The next analysis shows how the Urdu translation fails to maintain the information focus, contrast and information flow (see Table 7).




Table 7. English Predicated Theme as Urdu Unmarked Ideational Theme

English Text
CL	Theme			Rheme
	Textual	Ideational	Predicated
4.1a	but	there		was a young lad who had been captivated
4.2a		his name		was Nwoye, Okonkwo's first son
4.3a			it was not the mad logic of the Trinity	that captivated him.
Urdu Text
CL	Theme			Rheme
	Textual	Ideational	Predicated
4.1b	lek?n	v?h??		ek n????v?n l??k? es? t?h? ?o ?ske se??r me? ? ??k? t?h?
4.2b		vo		Nwoye, Okonkwo k? p?hlothi k? bet? t?h?
4.3b		t??slis ki m??nun?ni m?nt?q ne		?se m?t??s?r n?hi k?j? t?h?.

 




The English predicated theme in (4.3a) converts into the Urdu unmarked ideational theme in (4.3b). Both the English and the Urdu clauses are negative but they discuss negation in different ways. The English predicated theme in (4.3a) includes highlighted element that is negated by the word not right after copular verb. It means that a person has not been captivated by the mad logic of the Trinity but by something else. On the contrary, the translated Urdu theme conveys merely an information without any emphasis. The rheme of Urdu clause discusses negation in the sense that the person has been captivated neither by the mad logic of the Trinity nor by anything else. The translation choice e.g. j?h t??slis ki m??nun?ni m?nt?q nehi t?hi ??s ne ?se m?t??s?r k?j? can be selected for the English predicated thematic structure in (4.3a). Moreover, the English predicated theme and the Urdu unmarked ideational theme incorporate different peripheral themes (cf. Figure 5). The succeeding analysis how the English predicated theme has been translated as the Urdu displaced topical theme (see Table 8).




 

Table 8. English Predicated Theme as Urdu Displaced Topical Theme

English Text
CL	Theme					Rheme
	Textual	Ideational		Predicated
5.1a	but	there				were many others who saw the situation differently
5.2a	and			it was their counsel		that prevailed in the end.
Urdu Text
CL	Theme					Rheme
	Textual	Adjunct	Ideational		Displaced
5.1b	l?k?n		v?h?? p?r			boh?t? se ese bhi t?he ?o sur?t? e h?l ko m?kht??l?f ?nd??z se ??n??t?e t?he
5.2b	??r	?kh?r k?r			?nhi ki r?e	s?b p?r ??vi r?hi.

                            




The English predicated theme in (5.2a) has been translated as the Urdu displaced topical theme in (5.2b). The emphatic particle emphasizes displaced theme to show contrast e.g. ?nhi ki r?e ‘only their opinion not of someone else’ but it not a predicated theme. The English predicated theme indicates an information focus while the Urdu displaced theme does not indicate any information focus. To some extent, both themes deal with linear thematic progression. As the rheme in (5.1a) shares information with the following English predicated theme. Similarly, the rheme in (5.1b) shares information with its following Urdu displaced topical theme. But due to the displaced theme, the adjunct at Urdu clause initial position also denotes peripheral theme (cf. Figure 6). Moreover, the Urdu displaced theme has failed to maintain information focus and contrast. The translation choice e.g. j?h ?nhi ki r?e t?hi ?o s?b p?r ??vi r?hi ‘it was their counsel that prevailed’ can be appropriate for the English predicated thematic structure in (5.2a). The absence of information focus, contrast and information flow in the translated Urdu theme is also observed in the next examples (see Table 9).




 

Table 9. English Predicated Theme as Urdu Rheme

English Text
CL	Adjunct	Theme			Rheme
	Modal	Ideational	Predicated	Displaced
6.1a				he	began to speak, quietly and deliberately, picking his words with great care
6.2a			it is Okonkwo		that I primarily wish to speak to
6.3a		he			began
Urdu Text
CL	Adjunct	Theme			Rheme
	Modal	Ideational	Predicated	Displaced
6.1b				vo	?h?st??gi se so? so? k?r ??r b??i e?t??j?t se ?lf?z k? ?nt?eh?b k?rt?e hue bolne l?g?
6.2b		?sne			b?t? ??ru ki,
6.3b	p?hle p?hle t?o			me?	“Okonkwo se b?t? k?rn? ??ht?? hu?”

 




This description reveals that the English predicated theme in (6.2a) has been translated as the Urdu rheme in (6.3b). The translated Urdu theme does not include emphasis. The information focus in English predicated theme is Okonkwo which becomes the part of the Urdu rheme in (6.3b). The English predicated theme shows peripheral theme which is not found in the Urdu translation (cf. Figure 7). The modal adjunct primarily is placed in the English rheme but the translator has created ambiguity by placing this modal adjunct at the start of Urdu clause. The whole Urdu clause conveys misleading information. The suitable translation choice e.g. Okonkwo hi he ??s se me? p?hle b?t? k?rn? ??ht?? hu? can be used to avoid ambiguity. This analysis shows how the translator has translated and shifted the English predicated theme into the Urdu rheme. He has also shifted the adjunct in English rheme at Urdu clause initial position. Moreover, the pronoun I in the English rheme has been translated as the Urdu displaced theme. The information focus and contrast of the translated Urdu theme are also different (see Table 10).




Table 10. English Predicated Theme as Urdu Marked (Adjunct) Ideational Theme

English Text
CL	Theme			Rheme
	Textual	Ideational	Predicated
7.1a	when	the men		were left alone
7.2a		they		found no words to speak to one another
7.3a			it was only on the third day	when they could no longer bear the hunger and the insults,
7.4a	that	they		began to talk about giving in
Urdu Text
CL	Theme			Rheme
	Textual	Ideational	Predicated
7.1b	??b	vo log		t??nh? hot?e
7.2b	t??b bhi	?nko		?p?s me? g?ft??gu ke l?je ?lf?z n? m?lt?e
7.3b		t??sre d?n ?? k?r		??b ?n me? bhuk ??r be?z?ti b?rd???t? k?rne k? m?zid? j?r? n? r?h?
7.4b	t?o	?nho? ne		h?r m?n?ne ke b?re me? b?t?e? ??ru ki?

 




The English predicated theme in (7.3a) is the composition of it-cleft, copular verb and adverbial phrase. The translated Urdu theme in (7.3b) is marked ideational theme without emphasis. The Urdu theme t??sre d?n ?? k?r ‘on the third day’ means that they tried to talk on first and second days as well and now on the third day they began to talk. On the contrary, the English predicated theme carrying emphasis means that not on any other day but only on third day, they began to talk. The absence of emphasis has affected the meanings and information flow of the translated Urdu theme. The English predicated theme and the Urdu marked ideational theme are placed as peripheral themes (cf. Figure 8). The translation choice e.g. j?h s?rf t??sr? hi d?n t?h? ??b ?n me? bhuk ??r be?z?ti b?rd???t? k?rne k? m?zid? j?r? n? r?h? can have an appropriate information focus and contrast.

The following section analyzes the effects of

unmotivated displacements of translated themes on thematic progression.

 

Thematic Progression in English and Urdu

The information structure of marked predicated themes is defined by the thematic progression patterns (McCabe, 1999). This study identifies the thematic progression patterns of predicated themes in the English text and its Urdu translation. In this section, the figures highlight seven English predicated themes and their Urdu translation. There is observed unmotivated displacements of the translated Urdu themes. In some cases, the unmotivated displacements of themes have affected thematic progression. But in other cases, such displacements have not affected thematic progression and maintain information flow. The frequency of the thematic patterns has been observed in the following table.

Table 11. Thematic Progression of the Predicated Themes

Thematic Structures		Thematic Progression				Peripheral Theme
		Linear Theme	Constant Theme	Split Theme	Split Rheme
English	Predicated Themes	12%	8%	0%	0%	13%
Urdu	Predicated Themes	10%	7%	0%	0%	13%

 




The thematic progression of both English and Urdu predicated themes is equal to a greater extent. In both source and target texts, the predicated themes are mostly observed at periphery position. The linear themes are more than the constant themes. Consider the following figures showing thematic progression.

Figure 2

Predicated Theme with Linear and Constant Thematic Progression



This figure indicates a combination of linear and constant thematic progression in the English predicated theme. Such combination of two main patterns of thematic progression is unique. The translated predicated theme contains only linear thematic progression. In English predicated theme, the possessive adjective his connects to the preceding theme Mr. Kiaga and maintains a constant information flow. The nominal firmness connects to its preceding rheme firm and maintains linear information flow. In the Urdu predicated theme, the possessive adjective is omitted and only the nominal ?st??hk?m ‘firmness’ connects to the preceding rheme s?b?t? k?d??m ‘firm’ and maintains linear thematic progression. This variation in Urdu translation of predicated theme affects information focus, contrast and information flow. But the variation in Urdu translation has no effect on information flow in the following analysis.

Figure 3

Constant Progression in English Predicated and Urdu Marked Ideational Themes



This figure shows that the English and the Urdu predicated themes contains constant thematic progression. The English predicated theme this man and the translated Urdu theme ?s x?s ‘this man’ receive information from the preceding themes i.e. pronominal and possessive adjective. The translated Urdu theme maintains the identical thematic progression but being a complement ideational theme, it loses information focus and contrast. The constant thematic progression is also observed in the following analysis.

Figure 4

Constant Thematic Progression in English Predicated and Urdu Unmarked Ideational Themes



This figure highlights that the English predicated theme and the translated Urdu theme receive information from the preceding theme T1 and maintain constant thematic progression. The translated Urdu theme is an unmarked ideational theme so, it fails to maintain the information focus and contrast. The next Urdu translation fails to maintain not only information focus and contrast but also information flow.

Figure 5

English Predicated and Urdu Unmarked Ideational Themes as Peripheral Themes



This figure shows no thematic progression in the English predicated theme and the translated Urdu theme. Both themes are located at periphery position. The translated Urdu theme is an unmarked ideational theme which loses information focus and contrast of English predicated theme. The next English predicated theme consists of two types of thematic progression.

Figure 6

Linear Thematic Progression in English Predicated and Urdu Displaced Topical Themes



This figure shows that the English predicated theme and the translated Urdu theme have linear thematic progression. Besides, the English predicated theme and the translated Urdu theme are also located at periphery position. There is also accommodated an extra adjunct at periphery position. Moreover, the Urdu translated theme is a displaced theme so, it does not maintain information focus and contrast. The following analysis shows that the English and the Urdu themes have different patterns of thematic progression.

Figure 7

Peripheral Theme in English and Constant Thematic Progression in Urdu



This figure indicates that the English predicated theme has been translated as Urdu rheme Okonkwo. This unmotivated displacement of the translated Urdu theme affects thematic progression and causes misleading information. In this figure, the Urdu theme T1 continues to be selected as the Urdu theme T2 showing constant thematic progression. But the English predicated theme T2 is placed at periphery position and does not connects its information to the preceding theme. Due to these variations, the Urdu translation fails to maintain information focus, contrast and information flow. In the next analysis, the English predicated theme and the translated Urdu theme T2 are located at periphery position.

Figure 8

English Predicated and Urdu Marked Ideational Themes as Peripheral Themes



This figure shows that the English predicated theme translated as the Urdu marked ideational theme can have identical information flow but cannot have identical information focus and contrast. The English predicated theme and the translated Urdu theme T2 are placed as peripheral themes. But the information of R2 flows down in the theme T3showing linear thematic progression. In this analysis, the unmotivated displacement of the translated Urdu theme does not affect information flow.

Conclusion

This study has addressed the research questions by analyzing the Urdu translation of English predicated thematic structures and their thematic progression. Through the contrastive analysis of both texts, it is concluded that the author of English text incorporates the predicated theme to emphasize the most important and certain aspects of information. The translator of Urdu text also applies emphasis on the most required information but mostly he has used ambiguous and misleading translation choices. Most of the English predicated themes are not translated as the Urdu predicated themes. It is also concluded that the Urdu translation shows some unmotivated displacements of themes. Due to the unmotivated displacements, the translated Urdu themes are unable to preserve the information focus and contrast. The unmotivated displacements of the translated Urdu themes have also affected thematic progression. The predicated theme is always a marked theme carrying new information (Halliday 1985). But this study finds that besides the new information, the marked predicated theme also carries constant and linear thematic progression.

This study has found the following variations in the Urdu translation of the English predicated themes. Firstly, some English predicated themes have been translated as Urdu predicated themes with different information focus, contrast and thematic progression. Secondly, some English predicated themes have been translated as Urdu marked (complement or adjunct) ideational themes with different information focus and contrast but with similar thematic progression. Thirdly, some English predicated themes have been translated as Urdu unmarked ideational themes with different information focus and contrast but with similar thematic progression. Lastly, some English predicated themes have been translated as the rhemes of Urdu clauses with different information focus, contrast and information flow. Analyzing these variations, the researcher has suggested the appropriate translations choices according to the Urdu predicative formula. This study suggests that the translators of the target texts should be careful in translating the thematic structures of the source texts.

References

• Achebe, C. (1958). Things fall apart. London: Heinemann.
• Baker, M. (1992). In other words: A coursebook on translation. London: Routledge.
• Butt, D. et al. (2000). Using functional grammar: An explorer's guide. Sydney: Macquarie University
• Butt, M., & King, T. H. (2005). The status of case. In Veneeta Dayal & Anoop Mahajan (eds.), Clause structure in South Asian languages, 153-198. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
• Butt, M., & King, T. H. (2007). Urdu in a parallel grammar development environment. Language Resources and Evaluation 41(2). 191-207.
• Collins, P. (1991). Cleft and pseudo-cleft constructions in English. London: Routledge.
• Danes, F. (1974). Functional sentence perspective and the organization of the text. In Frantisek Danes (ed.), Papers on functional sentence perspective. 106-128. Prague: Academia /The Hague: Mouton.
• Downing, A. (2001). The theme-topic interface: Evidence from English. Amsterdam:Lohnnswert.
• Eggins, S. (2004). An introduction to systemic functional linguistics. New York: Continuum
• Erdmann, P. (1990). Discourse and grammar: Focussing and defocussing in English. Tiibingen: Newmeyer.
• Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory of practice of writing: An appliedlinguistic perspective. Harlow: Pearson Education.
• Halliday, M. (1967). Notes on transitivity and theme in English. Journal of Linguistics 3.199-244.
• Halliday, M. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold
• Halliday, M. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold
• Halliday, M., & Matthiessen, C. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar. London:Hodder Arnold.
• Hasan, R. (1984). Ways of saying, ways of meaning. In Robin P. Fawcett, Michael Halliday, Sydney Lamb & Adam Makkai (eds.), The semiotics of language andculture volume1: Language as social semiotic. London: Francis Pinter
• Huddleston, R. (1984). Introduction to the grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Johansson, M. (2002). Clefts in contrast: A contrastive study of it clefts and wh clefts in English and Swedish texts and translations. Linguistics 39(3), 547-582.
• Katz, S. (2000). A functional approach to the teaching of the French c'est-cleft. French Review 74, 248-262.
• Kuswoyo, H. (2016). Thematic structure in Barack Obama's press conference: A systemic functional grammar study. Advances in Language and Literary Studies 7(2). Australian International Academic Centre, Australia.
• Lavid, J. (2010). Contrasting choices in clause- initial position in English and Spanish: Acorpus-based analysis. In Elizabeth Swain (ed.), Thresholds and potentialities ofsystemic functional linguistics: Multilingual, multimodal and other specializeddis courses. 49-68. Trieste: EUT
• Lavid, J., Arús, J., & Moratón, L. (2010a). Annotating thematic features in English and Spanish. In Maite Taboada, Susana Doval Suárez & Elsa González Álvarez (eds.),Contrastive discourse analysis. London, England: Equinox. 22, 94, 134.