A contrastive study on grammatical subject as a clause element in English and in Vietnamese from perspective of systemic-functional grammar

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY- HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST GRADUATE STUDIES NGUYỄN THỊ HỒNG HẠNH A COMPARATIVE STUDY ON GRAMMATICAL SUBJECT A

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY- HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST GRADUATE STUDIES

NGUYỄN THỊ HỒNG HẠNH

A COMPARATIVE STUDY ON GRAMMATICAL SUBJECT

AS A CLAUSE ELEMENT IN ENGLISH AND IN

VIETNAMESE FROM PERSPECTIVE OF SYSTEMIC- FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR

( Nghiên cứu đối chiếu về chủ ngữ ngữ pháp như là một yếu tố

mệnh đề trong tiếng Anh và tiếng Việt dưới góc độ

ngữ pháp chức năng hệ thống)

M.A Minor Programme Thesis

Field: English Linguistics Code: 60.22.15

HANOI-2010

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY- HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST GRADUATE STUDIES

NGUYỄN THỊ HỒNG HẠNH

A COMPARATIVE STUDY ON GRAMMATICAL SUBJECT

AS A CLAUSE ELEMENT IN ENGLISH AND IN

VIETNAMESE FROM PERSPECTIVE OF SYSTEMIC- FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR

( Nghiên cứu đối chiếu về chủ ngữ ngữ pháp như là một yếu tố

mệnh đề trong tiếng Anh và tiếng Việt dưới góc độ

ngữ pháp chức năng hệ thống)

M.A Minor Programme Thesis

Field: English Linguistics Code: 60.22.15

Supervisor: Assoc Prof Dr Ngô Đình Phương

HANOI-2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……….…i

ABSTRACT……….ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS……… iii

PART A: INTRODUCTION 1 Rationale……… 1

2 Aims……….……….2

3 Scope of the study………2

4 Method of the study ……… ……… 2

5 Design of the study……… 3

Chapter 1: Theoretical Orientations 1.1 Introduction ………4

1.2 Theories of systemic- functional grammar as distinguished from other formal Grammar……….4

1.3 Definition of grammatical subject.……….5

1.3.1 From traditional perspective .………5

1.3.2 From systemic functional grammar………6

1.4 Kinds of subject……… 6

1.4.1 Psychological subject……… 7

1.4.2 Grammatical subject ……… 7

1.4.3 Logical subject……… 7

1.5 Three lines of meaning in the clause……… 8

1.6 Conclusion……….…… 9

Chapter 2: Grammatical subject in English on the view of systemic functional grammar 2.1 Introduction.……… 10

2.2 Structure of the mood.……… 10

2.2.1 Subject and finite………10

2.2.2 Meaning of subject and finite………10

2.3 Identifying subjects and finites……….11

2.3.1 Identifying subjects……….11

2.3.2 Identifying finites………12

2.4 Mood in some kinds of English sentences………13

2.4.1 The declaratives……… 13

2.4.2 The interrogatives………14

2.4.2.1 Wh- interrogatives………14

2.4.2.2 Yes/ No interrogatives……… 15

2.4.3 The imperatives……… 15

2.4.3.1 Exclusive imperatives……… 16

a Unmarked imperatives……….16

b Marked imperatives……… 17

2.4.3.2 Inclusive imperatives………18

2.4.3.2.1 Unmarked imperatives……… 19

a Unmarked positives……… 19

b Unmarked negatives……… 19

2.4.3.2.2 Marked imperatives……… 19

a Marked positives……….…… 19

b Marked negatives……… 19

2.4.4 Exclamatives……….20

2.5 Summary……….… 20

Chapter 3.A contrastive analysis on the grammatical subject in English and Vietnamese on the view of Systemic- Functional Grammar 3.1 Introduction.……….……… 21

3.2 Mood structure……….….… 21

3.3 Identification of subject……….….…23

3.4 Position of subject in some kinds of sentences……….……24

3.4.1 Declaratives……….…….24

3.4.2 Interrogatives……… …25

3.4.3 Imperatives……… ….27

3.4.3.1 Unmarked imperatives……….…27

a Unmarked positives……… 28

b Unmarked negatives……… 28

3.4.3.2 Marked positives……… ….28

3.4.3.3 Marked negatives……… 28

3.4.4 Exclamative……….…….28

3.5 Summary ……… ……31

PART C: CONCLUSION 1 Conclusion……….…….32

2 Implications……… … 33

REFERENCES……… 35

APPENDIX

Another approach that also has a great influence on language research and teaching is functional grammar The theory of functional grammar was originally introduced by M.A.K Halliday in the early 1960s Systemic functional linguistics sees language as a system of communication and analyses grammar to discover how it is organized to exchange meanings The primary concern is with the function of structures and with their meanings in context All languages take place in the context Rather than studying the distinction between grammatical and ungrammatical forms, the focus of this approach is on the appropriateness of a form in a particular context Functional grammar has been studied

by many grammarians like Halliday(1985, 1994), Bloor (1994), Eggins (1994), Thomson (1996), Morley(1985), etc In Vietnamese there are some functional studies that should be

counted are Cao Xuân Hạo (1991 Tiếng Việt: sơ thảo ngữ pháp chức năng; Nguyễn Thị Quy (2002) Ngữ pháp chức năng tiếng Việt; Hoàng Văn Vân (2002) Ngữ pháp kinh nghiệm của cú tiếng Việt: Miêu tả theo quan điểm chức năng hệ thống

Personally, the writer finds functional grammar very interesting as it offers a full study

on language and language teaching which focuses on communication This is a very useful way to teach and learn English The intention of this study is to illuminate the characteristics of grammatical subject in English and to compare it with Vietnamese language to have a fully understanding of this term However, due to the limitation of

time, the writer is not able to cover all aspects of grammatical subject in the two languages What the writer would like to do is to study grammatical subject in English in comparison with that in Vietnamese The result of this study contributes to facilitation of the teaching and learning of English

2 Aims

Within the framework of a M.A minor thesis, the study is aimed at:

 Presenting, describing and analyzing the grammatical subject in English and in Vietnamese in the light of systemic- functional grammar

 Identifying the similarities and differences between grammatical subject in English and its equivalent in Vietnamese in term of mood structure

 Making some suggestions for teaching and learning grammatical subject to teachers and learners of English

In order to reach the target, the following research questions are posed:

1 What is the grammatical subject?

2 What are the similarities and differences of the grammatical subject in English and its equivalences in Vietnamese?

The writer also would like to find out the implications of this study in teaching and learning grammatical subject (including the identification of it) to teachers and learners of English

3 Scope of the study

The study does not cover all aspects of functional grammar but limits itself to a minor aspect of functional grammar The main focus is on grammatical subject in English and in Vietnamese viewed from perspective of the systemic- functional grammar

To explicit the grammatical subject it is essential to study it in mood structure in which the subject is located Other aspects such as theme- rheme are not included in this study The research is confined to the description, analysis and comparison of the grammatical subject in term of position in kinds of sentences

4 Method of the study

This study is primarily concerned with comparing grammatical subject between English and Vietnamese The research methods used in the study are description, comparison and analysis The descriptive and analytic is used in description of grammatical subject in

English and Vietnamese The comparative is used in the comparison of grammatical subject in the two languages

A number of examples are taken from many sources in The English and Vietnamese languages They are analyzed to identify the similarities and differences between grammatical subject in English and in Vietnamese

5 Design of the study

The thesis is divided into three parts:

Part A: The Introduction: presents the rationale of the study, the aims, scopes, methods, and the design of the study

Part B: Development: consists of four chapters

Chapter 1: provides the theoretical background of the study, functional grammar, the notion of grammatical subject in two aspects of grammar, kinds of subjects and three lines

of meaning in the clause

Chapter 2: investigates the grammatical subject in English on the view of systemic functional grammar

Chapter 3: presents the systemic functional comparison between grammatical subject in English and in Vietnamese

Part C: Conclusion: summarizes the whole study and offers some implications for

language teaching and learning

Chapter 1 Theoretical Background

1.1 Introduction

As already mentioned in the previous part, this study‟s aim is to investigate the grammatical subject in English and Vietnamese from systemic functional perspective In this chapter, we shall attempt to explore the notions of grammatical subject, definition of grammatical subject from different perspectives, kinds of subject and three lines of meaning in the clause We focus our study on systemic- functional grammar which has an influence on grammatical subject in this study

1.2 Theories of systemic- functional grammar as distinguished from other formal grammar

Over the history, the study of language has been approached from different points of view

Traditional grammar views language as a system of interrelated categories It attempts

to create rules about how people use languages Its aim is to provide rules for correcting what are offered to as grammatical errors This theory are criticized for paying too much attention to details of language and its description of language seems to be inadequate for language teaching

Descriptive grammar arises in the early 1970s with the publication of “A comprehensive grammar of the English language”, (Quirk and Greenbaum, 1972)

This grammar aims to describe the grammatical system of language, that is, what speakers

of the language “unconsciously” know, which enables them to speak and understand language It is believed to provide good ground for deeper studies in other later grammars such as transformational – generative and systemic- functional grammar

The Transformational- Generative grammar, developed by Chomsky (1968) makes a distinction between “surface structure” and “deep structure” of language It is a “logical specification of the syntactic knowledge which the learner needs to produce grammatical sentences”, (Bell, 1981:107)

Traditional, descriptive, transformational- generative grammar emphasizes on formal aspects of language, the primary concern is with the forms of grammatical structures rather than meanings or their uses in context Another approach, called Systemic- Functional

Grammar, rather than insisting on a clear distinction between grammatical and ungrammatical forms, focuses on the appropriateness of a form for a particular communicative purpose This approach was originally developed by M.A.K Halliday in the 1960s and has now become a major approach in linguistics Halliday, in his work “An introduction to Functional Grammar” (fist published in 1985) explains that his grammar is functional rather than formal; a language is “a system of meaning” People use language to express meaning The study of grammar focuses on how meanings are built up through wording The form of grammar relates to the meanings that are coded This grammar pays attention to both form and meaning This theory of grammar approaches language from semantic and functional point of view Halliday develops analysis of language on the semantic functions These functions, termed by Halliday as “metafunctions” of language consist of ideational, interpersonal, and textual function They exist in all languages as they reflect the role of human language in general

Ideational function means that language is used to talk about our experience of the world, to describe entities and help us to understand, organize and express perceptions

1.3 Definition of grammatical subject

1.3.1 From traditional perspective

Providing an adequate definition of the notion of a subject is difficult as it depends on grammatical theories that may vary from language to language However, many grammarians try to define subject and one of the most common definition is that the

subject is what (who) the sentence is about and the predicate tells something about the

subject Quirk et all (1972: 34) defines subject: “the subject of the sentence has a close

general relation to “what is being discussed”, the “theme” of the sentence with the normal implication that something new (the predicate) is being said about a “subject” that has already been introduced in earlier sentence”

1.3.2 From systemic functional grammar

The notion of subject, that is basic to tradition of grammatical analysis, is a familiar term Halliday(1994: 30) defines a subject with three functions in accordance with three definitions

(i) which is concern of the message

(ii) which something is being predicated

(iii) the doer of the action

These three definitions are not synonymous, they are defining different concepts From these definitions, we can arise a question, “is there a subject to cover all three different meanings at one and the same time?” Halliday (1994: 31) gave an example to clarify this

question “The duke gave my aunt this teapot” In this example, “the duke” is the Subject in

all three senses It is the concern of the message The truth of the statement is on him He is the doer of the action “gave”

However, not all clauses have one element covering three definitions of subject For

example: “This teapot my aunt was given by the duke” (Halliday: 1994: 31) We can not identify which is the subject of this sentence on the three definitions “The duck” is still the doer of the action but “this teapot” is now what the message is concerned about The truth

of the statement is in “my aunt”, not “the duke”

1.4 Kinds of subject

With the Halliday‟s definition of subject above, in some clauses we can not identify a subject covering all three, so there appears the terms “psychological subject”,

“grammatical subject” and “logical subject” These terms were used by Halliday (1994:31)

to precisely identify subject in all clauses:

1.4.1 Psychological subject: meant “that which is the concern of the message” It was

called “psychological” because it was what the speaker had in mind to start with

1.4.2 Grammatical subject: meant “that which something is predicated” It was called

“grammatical” because at that time the construction of Subject and Predicate was thought

of as a formal grammatical relationship; it was seen to determine other grammatical features and its concord of person and number with the verb, but it was not thought to express any particular meaning

1.4.3 Logical subject: meant “doer of the action” It was called “logical” in the sense this

term had had from the seventeenth century, that of “having to do with relations between things”, as opposed to “grammatical” relations, which were relations between symbols These three concepts are not separated, but they are merely different aspects of one and belong to the same notion They are interpreted as three distinct functions in a clause

In the example given by Halliday(1994:31) “The duke gave my aunt this teapot”, all these

three functions can be conflated on to one another, as shown in Figure 1 or they may be separated as in Figure 2 below

Psychological subject

Grammatical subject

Logical subject

Figure 1: Same item functioning as psychological, grammatical and logical subject

Psychological subject Grammatical

subject

Logical subject

Figure 2: Psychological, grammatical and logical subject realized by different items

From the figure 1 above, “this teapot” is psychological subject, that is to say, it is the concern of the message The grammatical subject is “my aunt‟, it is the one the statement is

predicated “The duke” must be logical subject as it is the doer of the action These notions can be replaced by three labels which relate to the functions concerned:

Psychological Subject: Theme

Grammatical Subject: Subject

Logical subject: Actor

We can now re-label the example given by Halliday “The duke gave my aunt this teapot” in term of Theme, Subject, Actor as in the following figure

Subject

Actor

Theme

Figure 3: Theme, Subject, Actor are combined in one element

Figure 4: Theme, Subject, Actor are separated

There may be other possible combinations in which the roles of Subject are conflated, as shown in Fig.5 below

Theme Actor

Subject

Figure 5: Different conflations of Subject, Actor and Theme

1.5 Three lines of meaning in the clause

As the writer pointed out earlier that in functional grammar, we essentially equate meaning with function Halliday suggested three ways of looking at the clause The first, involving such functions as Subject, is described in Halliday‟s grammar as the Clause as Exchange The Subject is the warranty of the exchange between speaker and listener It is the element the speaker makes responsible for the validity of what he is saying This relates

to the interpersonal metafunction as I have mentioned earlier The second, involving such role as Actor, is the Clause as Representation and relates to the ideational metafunction A clause has the meaning as a representation The Actor is the active participant in the process of human experience It is the one that does the deed The third, which involves the function Theme, is the Clause as Message and relates to the textual metafunction A clause has meaning as a message and the Theme is the point of departure for the message It is the element the speaker selects for “grounding” what he is going on to say These three headings: Clause as a message, clause as exchange, clause as a representation, refer to three distinct kinds of meaning that are embodied in the structure of a clause Theme, Subject and Actor do not occur as isolates Each occurs in association with other functions from the same strand of meaning

1.6 Conclusion

To sum up, this chapter has mentioned some fundamental and theoretical concepts

relevant to the purpose of the study We have studied the definitions of grammatical subject from traditional grammar and from systemic functional grammar Some kinds of subject based on Halliday‟s view have been represented According to Halliday, there are three functions of subject: psychological subject, grammatical subject and logical subject These functions can also be labeled as Theme, Subject and Actor They are three different functions in the clause that represent three strands of meaning of clause: Theme functions

in the structure of Clause as a message, Subject functions in the structure of clause as an exchange, Actor functions in the structure of the clause as a representation However, only grammatical subject is mentioned and discussed in this study However, not all these three

labels are studied In the next chapter, only Subject in relation with realization of the clause

as exchange is mentioned and discussed

Chapter 2 Grammatical subject in English on the view of systemic functional grammar

2.1 Introduction

In this chapter, an attempt is made to look at grammatical subject in English It focuses on investigating: (i) the structure of the mood, (ii) Identification of subject, and (iii) mood in some kinds of sentences In functional, mood and subject have a close relationship They are not separated because mood always contains subject That is the reason why I investigate subject in term of mood

2.2 Structure of the mood

Halliday interprets clauses in their function as an exchange and he divides the clause

into two parts: The mood and the residue The mood is made of Subject and Finite

2.2.1 Subject and finite

Subject and finite are closely linked together and they are crucial to the structural realization of the mood

2.2.2 Meaning of subject and finite

Mood plays a special role in carrying out the interpersonal functions of the clause In order to understand what this role is, we need to examine the meanings expressed by the Subject and Finite, and then to see how they work together as Mood

Subject and finite have a great significance in the English clause Halliday looks at their meanings in clause The Subject, as defined by Halliday (1994: 76), “supplies the rest

of what it takes to form a proposition: something by reference to which the proposition can

be affirmed or denied”, and the finite “has the function of making the proposition finite It brings the proposition down to earth so that it is something that can be argued about”

In traditional terms, the Subject is the entity of which something is predicated in the rest of the clause This is a powerful insight which has been applied in most approaches to grammatical description In these approaches, the sentence is seen as being “about” the Subject However, in functional approach, the choice of a particular entity as Subject expresses only one of three possible kinds of “aboutness” In what sense can we see

“aboutness‟ as an interpersonal meaning? In the example, “she was punished by the teacher”, “the teacher” is the entity involved in the punishing- that is, “the teacher” is the Actor Therefore, if we think of the event being described, the clause tells us about what the teacher did On the other hand, we can also look at the clause in term of exchange between the speaker and the listener One way of doing this is by examining the kind of response that the listener can make to the information given The response will show us how the listener is interpreting the purpose of the speaker‟s message Therefore, the speaker will put up for negotiation something about “she”, not about “the teacher” The subject here must be “she”, not “the teacher” The Subject expresses the entity that the speaker wants to make responsible for the validity of the proposition being mentioned earlier in the clause The clause is “about” the Subject from the interpersonal perspective The meaning of the Finite emerge from the discussion of Subject: the Finite makes it possible to negotiate about the validity of the proposition The basis function of the Finite

is to orient the listener towards the kind of validity being claimed for the proposition Halliday refers to the Finite as Finite Verbal Operator which he identifies two kinds: (i) Temporal Finite Verbal Operator: Those that make the proposition of time (present, past

or future), and (ii) Finite Modal Operators: those that propose the speaker‟s judgment of the probabilities, or the obligation involved in what he is saying For example, in “My friend has given me a book”, the Subject is “my friend” that specifies the entity, realizes the success or failure of the proposition, the Finite is “has” that specifies the reference to positive and present time

2.3 Identifying subjects and finite

can establish the Subject and Finite A tag question repeats two elements in the Mood at the end of the clause The pronoun or noun in the tag refers back to the Subject of the clause and the Finite is made explicit, even if it is fused with the lexical verb in the clause Let us look at figure 6 below:

A dog

John

My friend

was wouldn‟t (present)

chasing a boy have gone there talks much about her job

wasn‟t wouldn‟t doesn‟t

it?

he?

she?

Figure 6: Tags showing Subject and Finite

Subjects can be identified by other formal characteristics:

(i) Subjects are typically noun groups Less typically, certain kinds of clauses can

also function as subjects These include that- clauses, Wh- clauses, to + V inf clauses, and V-ing clauses This can be illustrated as in Figure 7 below:

Figure 7: Clauses function as subjects

(ii) Five pronouns have special subject forms: I, he, she and they (as opposed to me,

him, her, us and them)

(iii) In declarative mood clauses, the subject is normally the noun group (or nominal

clause) which immediately precedes the Finite

(2.5) They have been explaining the cause of that earthquake

If a verb group contains only one word, that word may function as finite, as “wrote” in the example below

(2.6) He wrote to her 2 months ago

(ii) Only Finite is marked for tense, as “appears‟ in the example

(2.7) Everyday, she appears at the bridge across the river

(iii) Only Finite is marked for number agreement, that is, their form changes according to the number and person of the Subject, for example:

(2.8)The dogs are so lovely

(2.9)The dog is so lovely

2.4 Mood in some kinds of English sentences

2.4.1 The declaratives

In declarative, the structure is Subject + Finite in which the finite is always the first constituent of a verb group and the remaining constituents of the verbal group functions as Predicator, for example:

(2.10) You shouldn’t behave like a child

In sentence (2.10) the Finite is modal verb “should” and negative “not” These two elements belongs to the mood, and the verb “behave” belongs to the Residue, as in Fig.8 below

Figure 8: mood structure in declarative of (2.10)

(2.11) I think she is a good doctor

Sentence (2.11) is a complex sentence consisting of two clauses The mood structure of the sentence (2.11) is illustrated in Figure 9

doctor Subject Finite

(present)

Predicator Subject Finite

(present)

predicator Complement

Figure 9: Mood structure in declarative of sentence (2.11)

2.4.2 The interrogatives

2.4.2.1 Wh- interrogatives

The primary purpose of a Wh- interrogative is to demand that the listener fill in a missing part of the message and the Wh- element signals which part is missing Many Wh- interrogatives have Finite preceding Subject in the mood Let us look at the examples below:

(2.12)What do you expect me to do?

(2.13)Why did you go there?

(2.14) How many are there?

The mood structure of the examples above are illustrated in Fig below

you you there?

go there?

expect me to do?

Mood

Figure 10: Wh interrogative with known subject of (2.12), (2.13), (2.14)

However, there are some Wh- interrogatives that have the Wh- element as subject like who, what, which as shown in the examples below:

(2.15) Who is the man in the black glasses?

(2.16) Who went out with you last night?

(2.17)Which is your favourite subject?

Let us look at the mood structure of those above sentences analyzed in Fig.11

Who

Who

Which

is (past)

Is

the man in the black glasses?

went out with you last night?

(2.18) Have you met her before?

(2.19) Do they have anything in common?

(2.20) Can he paint well enough?

Figure 12 below illustrates the mood structure of the Yes/No interrogatives in sentences (2.18), (2.19), (2.20)

Have

Do

you they

met her before?

have anything in common?

Can he paint well enough?

we take the first person “ you and me” as the base form

2.4.3.1 Exclusive imperatives

Imperatives are normally used to ask the other person to carry out the action In exclusive imperatives, we take the “second person” – “you” as the base form There are marked forms of imperatives in which the Subject may appear and the finite may also be used for emphasis and unmarked forms in which there is no Subject The finite may appear

in unmarked imperatives but it is used only to signal negative polarity

In negative imperatives, the finite may appear in unmarked imperative but it is used only to signal negative polarity, see Figure 14 below:

Don‟t

Don‟t

be listen

afraid of him

to her

Figure 14: Unmarked negative imperatives

In interpersonal terms, an imperative is presented as not open to negotiation (which does not mean that the command will actually obeyed) and thus most of the functions of the finite are irrelevant: a command is absolute (there are no imperative forms of the modal verbs), and there is no need to specify time relevance since there is no choice (an imperative can only refer to future time) The finite is used to signal negative polarity

b Marked imperatives

There are marked forms of imperatives in which the Subject may appear, and the Finite may also be used for emphasis

+ Marked positives: In this type of imperative, the mood element consists of subject only

A grammatical subject appears as the potential performer of the action It can be a second person “you” or third person like somebody/someone, etc In both cases, the subject is the addressee, whether listener or reader

You

You

listen hurry

to me!

up!

Figure 15: Marked positive imperatives with “you”

An imperative with “you” is syntactically identical to a declarative one and can only

be distinguished from the latter by the stress on “you” in spoken language In declarative clause the “you” is not stressed

A third person subject (somebody, someone, nobody, etc.) is used when the speaker wants the action to be carried out by a group of person (everybody) or by a single unspecified number of the group (somebody) The lack of a third person concord with the

verb (Somebody call a doctor!), not (Somebody calls) indicates that the subjects are addressees and not subjects of declarative clauses

Figure 16: Marked positive imperatives with “someone”

Another type of marked imperatives is the marked form for polarity in which the mood element consists of finite only (no subject) This type of imperative is created by the addition of finite “do” before the predicator

Figure 17: Marked positive imperative with “do”

Another one is the marked imperatives with the Finite “do” and the Subject This imperative is used for emphasis

Figure 18: Marked positive imperative with “do” and Subject

+ Marked negative

The first one is the marked form for person in which the mood element consists of finite

“don‟t” and the Subject

Don‟t

Don‟t

you you

take that tone of voice to me!