So sánh câu đơn trong ngữ pháp truyền thống với cú đơn trong ngữ pháp chức năng hệ thống

TABLE OF CONTENTS
General Introduction 1
1. Rationale 1
2. Aims of the study 1
3. Scopes of the study 2
4. Methods of the study 2
5. Design of the study 4
chapter I 4
general conceptualization 4
1.1.Introduction 4
1.2.A brief history of grammatical study 5
1.3. Traditional grammar 6
1.4.Systemic Functional grammar 9
1.5. Some differences between SFG and TG 10
Chapter II 13
The simple sentence in traditional grammar 13
2.1. Introduction 13
2.2. Structural criteria 14
2.2.1. Principal parts of the sentence – subject and predicate 15
2.2.2. Sentence elements syntactically defined 16
2.2.3. Basic clause patterns 18
2.3. Logico-semantic criteria 19
2.4. Communicative criteria 21
2.5. Phonological and orthographic criteria 23
2.6. Summary 24
Chapter III 25
The clause in systemic functional grammar 25
3.1. Introduction 25
3.2. Clause- the crucial unit in systemic functional grammar 25
3.3. Three ways of interpreting clause 26
3.3.1. Clause as representation: experiential metafunction 26

3.3.1.1. Transitivity 26
(Source: D. Q. Ban, 2004: 37) 27
3.3.1.2. Types of process 28
3.3.1.3. Circumstances 32
3.3.2. Clause as exchange: interpersonal metafunction 33
3.3.2.1. Characterization of Mood 33
3.3.2.2. Overall interpersonal organization of the clause 34
3.3.2.3. Structure of the Mood element 35
3.3.2.4. Residue 36
3.3.2.5. Modality 37
3.3.2.6. Mood system in English and Vietnamese: a brief comparison 38
3.3.3. Clause as message : textual metafunction 40
3.3.3.1. Thematic structure 40
3.3.3.2. Boundary of theme 41
3.3.3.3. Types of theme 42
Hãy 44
vào 44

1
đây uống nước đã 44
Interpersonal Theme 44
Topical Theme 44
Rheme 44
Theme 44
3.3.3.4. Markness 45
3.3.3.5. Implications of Theme for level of textual structure 46
3.4. Simultaneous metafunctions in the clause 47
3.5. Summary 48
Chapter IV: comparison 49
4.1. The similarities between the sentence in TG and the clause in SFG 49

4.2. The differences between the sentence in TG and the clause in SFG 50
CONCLUSION 56

2
General Introduction
1. Rationale
The history of linguistics has seen the endless development of different approaches,
each of which defines its own tasks, scopes and objectives. Of the grammatical
approaches, traditional grammar (TG) considers sentence as the largest unit in the
grammatical system of a language, and the study of grammar is primarily concentrated
around the study of sentence. Because of its earlier foundation, traditional grammar has
largely influenced on linguistics in general and on language teaching in particular in
several parts of the world, including Vietnam. For a long time, sentence has been the
main content of grammar teaching at schools. As a result, the concept of sentence has
become very familiar to many people. Until recently, there has witnessed the flourish
of systemic functional grammar (SFG) during the late 20
th
century and its great
influence on language research and teaching. Among the units recognized for study in
functional grammar, clause represents as a crucial one.
Clause description has been found not only in English but also in Vietnamese although
the studies on Vietnamese clause are found in a small number. Since functional
grammar is still new in Vietnam, the term clause has often been confused and
misunderstood, even some linguists argue that the term sentence should be used
instead of the clause. Therefore, the questions to ask would be “What does the clause
really mean?”, “Is it completely the same as the sentence in traditional grammar?”
The thesis aims at exploring the notion of sentence in traditional grammar and clause
in functional grammar, at the same time making comparison between them to see in
what ways they are similar and different.
2. Aims of the study

1
Within the framework of an MA thesis the study aims to:
- investigate how the sentence in English and Vietnamese is conceptualized and
described in traditional grammar.
- investigate how the clause in English and Vietnamese is conceptualized and
described in functional grammar.
- compare and comment on similarities and differences between the two approaches in
conceptual and descriptive terms.
3. Scopes of the study
This study deals with comparison between the sentence in TG and the clause in SFG,
with concentration on the investigation of the simple sentence in TG and its counterpart
in SFG - the clause simplex.
4. Methods of the study
To fulfill the aims of the study, the main methods used for study are generalized,
descriptive and comparative. Firstly, a generalization will be made to provide an
overlook on TG and SFG. The descriptive and comparative are primarily concerned
with the description and the comparison of the sentence and the clause. The description
will be illustrated with the two languages: English and Vietnamese. Examples are
selected from different sources, but primarily from short stories in English and
Vietnamese. Examples from grammar books written by famous grammarians are also
taken as the source for illustration.
Although both English and Vietnamese are taken as source languages, English is
adopted to be the main reference source. The reason for this adoption is that English is
the language which has been most extensively and comprehensively described in many
parts of the world under the framework of both traditional and systemic functional
approaches.

2
The description of the sentence in the second chapter is based on the categories and

definitions in various traditional studies, but mainly in Quirk et al. (1985), Leech &
Svartvik (1975), Cobuild (1991), Delahunty & Garvey (1994). The description of
clause is mostly based on the model given in Halliday (1994). Works by some other
systemic functional linguists are also consulted, including Downing and Locke (1992),
Morley (2000), Bloor (1994), Eggins (1994), etc. The invaluable reference sources in
Vietnamese include the following publications: Trần Trọng Kim (1941), Trơng Văn
Chình & Nguyễn Hiến Lê (1963), Nguyễn Kim Thản (1964), Hoàng Trọng Phiến
(1980), Lê Cận et al. (1983), Diệp Quang Ban (1986), Cao Xuân Hạo (1991), Hoàng
Văn Vân (2002), Diệp Quang Ban (2004). Apart from those publications named above,
other studies are also consulted when necessary.

3
5. Design of the study
The study is organized around three parts: introduction, main content and conclusion.
Introduction – presents the rationale of the study, the aims of the study,
scopes of the study and methods of the study.
Chapter One – General Conceptualization – is concerned with the
theoretical preliminaries: the framework of TG and SFG for describing the
sentence and the clause.
Chapter Two - The Simple Sentence in Traditional Grammar – investigates
how the sentence is conceptualized and described in TG.
Chapter Three – The Clause Simplex in Systemic Functional Grammar –
investigates how the clause is conceptualized and described in SFG.
Chapter Four - Comparison – draws out the similarities and differences
between the sentence and the clause.
Conclusion - summarizes the main points discussed in the thesis and offers
implications of the study and some suggestions for further research.
chapter I
general conceptualization
1.1. Introduction

This chapter is concerned with the theoretical preliminaries for the study. The first
attempt is made to sketch out a brief history of grammatical study. After that, we shall
generalize the most fundamental issues concerned with traditional grammar and

4
systemic functional grammar. The last part of the chapter is devoted to the comparison
to explore the distinguishing features of these two grammar schools.
1.2. A brief history of grammatical study
The study of grammar was initiated by the ancient Greeks, who engaged in
philosophical speculation about languages and described language structure. This
grammatical tradition was passed on to the Romans, who adopted the terminology and
categories in Greek grammar to describe Latin. This type of grammar was then
received and continued in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance by the European
society, and lasted until the rise of modern linguistics in the twentieth century. This
study of grammar is known as traditional grammar.
In addition, by the Middle Ages, European scholars generally knew, in addition to their
own languages and Latin, the languages of their nearest neighbours. This access to
several languages sets scholars to discovering that languages can be compared with
one another. This discovery was the origin of later comparative philosophy. In the 18
th
century, the scholars developed systemic analyses to compare Sanskrit with German,
Greek, Latin, etc. This writing of grammar is known as Indo-European grammar – a
method of comparing and relating the forms of speech in numerous languages.
Not until the early 20th did grammarians begin to describe languages on their own
terms. Noteworthy in this regard were Boas’ and Jesperson’s works. Jesperson’s A
Modern English Grammar (1909) was the precursor of such current approaches to
linguistic theory as transformational generative grammar. Boas’s Handbook of
American languages formed the basis of various types of American descriptive
grammar. Given impetus by the fresh perspective of Boas, which saw grammar as
description of how human speech in a language is organized, the approach to grammar

known as descriptive linguistics became dominant in the U.S during the first half of the
20th century.

5
At the same time, there was another approach to grammar in which descriptive
linguistics developed precise and rigorous methods to describe the formal structural
units in the spoken aspect of any language. The grammar that developed with this view
is known as structural grammar. A structuralist grammar describes what relationships
underlie all instances of speech in a particular language (what Saussure referred to as
langue and parole).
By the mid-20th century, Noam Chomsky developed the generative grammar. A
generative grammar is a formal grammar that can in some sense “generate” the well-
formed expressions of a natural language. His universal theories are related to the ideas
of those 18
th
and early 19
th
century grammarians who urged that grammar be
considered a part of logic – a key to analyzing thought.
In the history of grammatical study, there have always existed two opposite variables in
the way grammars are written: functional and formal. Although there are many cross-
currents with insights borrowed from one to the other, they are ideologically fairly
different. Functional grammar is the name given to any of a range of functionally–
based approaches to the scientific study of language such as the grammar model of the
Prague school, The Copenhagen school, or the grammar model developed by Simon
Dik.
A modern approach to combining accurate descriptions of the grammatical patterns of
language with their function in context is that of systemic functional grammar, an
approach originally developed by Michael A.K. Halliday in the 1960s and now pursued
in all continents. Systemic functional grammar is related to the older functional

traditions of European schools of linguistics as British Contextualism and the Prague
schools.
1.3. Traditional grammar

6
By traditional, grammar is usually used to refer to the grammar written by classical
Greek scholars, the Roman grammars largely derived from the Greek tradition, the
speculative work of the medieval and the prescriptive approach in the 18
th
century. The
label is also applied to the grammars largely presented in school textbooks for both
native and foreign language teaching that take the terminology from this tradition.
Because of its pedagogical implication, traditional grammar is also labeled as “school
grammar” or “pedagogical grammar”.
Traditional grammar is criticized by a great many of modern linguists, especially the
linguists of structural approach for certain reasons. The term is often used with clear
unsupportive connotations reflecting the overtly prescriptive orientation of the school
textbooks. The grammar is also criticized for its lack of a scientific approach for
language study; i.e. it based largely on intuition about grammatical meaning rather
than an overall theory or model of grammar. Also, the grammar is criticized for being
atomistic and limited in scope.
Although there has been much of criticism on traditional grammar, it should not be
forgotten that traditional grammar represents the fruits of more than two thousand
years of serious grammatical investigation, resulting in a great deal of grammatical
terminology, many concepts and categories which are still widely used in the current
theories of grammar, in textbooks and other resources on language. Dinneen (1967)
pointed out that one of the possible virtues of traditional grammar is the fact that it is
the most wide-spread, influential, and the best understood method of discussing Indo-
European languages in the Western world. Indeed, a great many of traditional
grammarians have provided invaluable source material and descriptive insights into the

grammar of English. Noteworthy in the regard are Curme (1931-1935), Sweet (1891-
98), Zandvolt (1972), and so on. Even certain contemporary approaches, such as that
presented in Quirk et al. (1985), can also be characterized as traditional in their
outlook, even though they are considerably more linguistically sophisticated than
earlier descriptions (Trask, 1999).

7
With regard to the background of Vietnamese grammatical study, it is not exaggerated
to say that, in the early period (1850- 1935), most of Vietnamese grammarians
profoundly adopted the model of grammar given by their conquered French scholars.
(H. V. V©n, 2002). Since 1930 on, the study of grammar has extensively influenced by
English grammar, French grammar and Russian grammar. Until recently, a great many
of grammarians have still taken traditional grammar as the basic model for their study.
Through out of the country, a mass of grammatical textbooks written under traditional
perspective is used in schools for all levels, from primary to university education
.
The sentence is taken as a crucial grammatical unit. Study of syntax, which means
study of sentence, is primarily concerned with definition of sentence, classification of
sentence types and identification of sentence elements. In the twentieth century,
language teaching continues to be formed on the word as the minimal unit and the
sentence as the maximal. A typical work on grammar is traditionally divided into two
parts, the first of which deals with parts of speech and the rest is often devoted to
describing the sentence.

Apart from the concepts related to parts of speech, traditional grammar developed a
great deal of grammatical terminologies, including the terminology that refers to
grammatical units (words, phrases, clauses, sentences), the terminology that refers to
clause elements (subject, predicate, object, direct object, indirect object, complement,
adverbial, transitivity, intransitivity, intensive, etc.), and the one that refers to
categories such as gender, number, person, tense, mood, case, inflection, aspect, voice,

relative, subordinate, dependent, independent and so on. These sets of terminology are
familiar in current linguistic theories.
In summary, traditional grammar is a label applied loosely to the range of attitudes and
methods found in the period of grammatical study before the advent of linguistic
science. The term “traditional grammar” is generally pejoratively used by modern

8
linguists, identifying an unscientific approach to grammatical study in which
languages were analyzed in terms of Latin, with insufficient regard for empirical facts.
In current background, despite the fact that modern linguists reject it, traditional
grammar is still the backbone of the grammar instruction given to the general
population.
1.4. Systemic Functional grammar
Systemic functional grammar was originally articulated by M.A.K Halliday in the
1960s and has now come to be recognized as a major force in linguistics.
Halliday, in Introduction to Functional Grammar, explains that his grammar is
functional because the conceptual framework on which it is based is a functional one
rather than a formal one. For Halliday, a language is “a system of meaning” because
when people use language, their language acts are the expressions of meaning. From
this point of view, the grammar becomes a study of how meanings are built up through
the wording. The basic principle in Halliday’s functional grammar is that it approaches
the language from a semantic point of view; more precisely, it examines the semantic
functions of the language forms. The basic functions (metafunctions, such as
ideational, interpersonal and textual function) around which Halliday’s theory is built,
exist in all languages since these reflect the fundamental role of the human language in
general. When we communicate and use a language as a means of communication, we
rely on both our experience of reality and the world as well as on the experience of
previous generations throughout history. The other important objective of using the
language is that we want to say something to someone, to another person, and we can
do this if we continuously refer our message to the context in which the participants of

the particular discourse are involved. Although different languages can realize these
functions in different ways, there are universal features of all languages. From this
view, language is a resource for making meaning; so, ‘grammar is a resource for
creating meaning in the form of wording’ (Halliday & Matthiessen, forth coming).

9
In the history of thinking about language, there are two somewhat different theoretical
perspectives. Some linguists have approached the study of language with account for
formal aspects of the grammar largely divorced from meanings. They started by
looking at words and sentences (language forms) and then asking how the forms of the
language represent meaning. For Halliday, the only approach to the construction of
grammars that is likely to be successful will be one that recognizes meaning and use as
central features of language. It follows from this use that Halliday’s grammar is
semantic (concerned with meaning), and functional (concerned with how the language
is used).
The systemic functional approach is increasingly being recognized as providing a very
useful descriptive and interpretive framework for viewing language as strategic, meaning-
making resources.
(Eggins, 1991:1)
Systemic functional grammar is concerned primarily with the choices that are made
available to speakers of a language by their grammatical systems. These choices are
assumed to be meaningful and related speaker’s intentions to the concrete forms of a
language. The name “system grammar” is derived from the fact that a language is seen
as being a huge, integrated series of system networks of meaning potential. This
potential gives us a framework within which it makes sense to compare different
choices. According to Halliday, every choice in a system is realized by a syntagmatic
structure. A structure is a linear configuration of slots filled by some functional
elements; i.e. syntagmatic relations give structures. While the systemic approach gives
theoretical priority to paradigmatic relations, “its formalism through the system
network, captures both paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations”. (Eggins, 1994: 213)

1.5. Some differences between SFG and TG
1.5.1, Theory of language and linguistics
The first typical difference between the two grammars can be found from the privilege
to the choices of dichotomy between langue and parole (Saussure), competence and
communication (Labov), potential and actual (Halliday) or system and instance

10
(Halliday). While formal linguists treat the concepts in each pair as the oppositions of
each other, and they take the former ones (language, competence, system. etc) as the
objective which linguistics should aim at. Functional systemic linguists consider the
two concepts as equally important roles in defining what language is and what
linguistics is. Language, in SFG is not something that is independent of the instance of
use; language is really and only unfolds its meanings through the context in which it is
used. Halliday claims that his grammar is at once both a grammar of the system and a
grammar of the text (instance) of language use.
We follow Saussure in his understanding of the relationship between the system of language
and its instantiation in acts of speaking; although not in his implied conclusion, that once the
text has been used as evidence for the system, it can be dispensed with - it has served its
purpose.
(Halliday, 1994: xxii)
To support to the view regarding the text as the objective of linguistics along with the
system, Halliday claims that both the system and text have to be in focus of attention:
It is of little use having an elegant theory of the system if it cannot account for how the system
engenders text; equally, it adds little to expatiate on a text if one cannot relate it to the system
that lies behind it.
(Halliday, 1994: xxii)
Because systemic linguists put attention to both the systems of language and language
in use (instance of use), their grammar simultaneously accounts for not only wordings
(as the formal grammar schools) but also meanings (as the other functional grammar
schools).

1.5.2. Syntagmatic grammar and paradigmatic grammar
In TG, language is a set of rules , rules for specifying structures; so grammar is a set of
rules for specifying structures, which are made up smaller elements, such as the
construction of a transitive sentence with “verb + object”. The grammar is itself
syntagmatic oriented. In contrast to formal grammar, SFG is paradigmatic in
orientation. It interprets a language as a network of relations (systems of choices from

11
the paradigms) with structures coming in as the realization of these relationships. It
takes semantics as the foundation; hence “the grammar is natural, and so to be
organized around the text, or discourse” (Halliday, 1994).
1.5.3. Descriptive vs. prescriptive grammar
Although traditional grammar and prescriptive grammar are not entirely the same
thing, there is a large overlap between them. TG is thought as the set of descriptive
concepts used by nearly all prescriptive works on grammar. For the readers with
background in TG, grammar equates with the study of how people should talk or write
correctly. The grammar is viewed in terms of “rights” or “wrongs”. It is prescriptive or
normative by the ways that its aim is to provide rules for correcting what are often
referred to as grammatical errors.
On the contrary, SFG is not a prescriptive grammar but a kind of descriptive grammar.
It accounts for how people actually use language. In SFG, degree of appropriacy is
assessed not on terms of grammatical rules but relevant choices in certain contexts. It
is a grammar which can relate the system of all possible choices (the total grammatical
potential of a language) to the grammatical choices made when language is used
within a particular context (how the potential is actualized) in specific contexts of
use). SFG linguists are not interested in making judgments about whether people
should or should not use this or that structure. They simply describe the grammar that
enables language users to do what they do. Therefore, SFG is evaluated to be much
richer semantically than either formal or traditional grammar. In his preface to
Introduction to Functional Grammar (1994), Halliday claims:

This book is not a textbook of English; it is an interpretation of English code. No attempt is
made to “teach” the categories. But an attempt is made to interpret some of them, especially
the difficult and important ones.
(Halliday, 1994:16)
To summarize the concluding remarks we have on TG and SFG, we can say that SFG
are typically characterized by certain orientation: it is oriented towards function rather

12
than form, rhetoric rather than logic, text rather than sentence, resources rather than
rules, meaningfulness rather than grammaticality.
The differences between the two grammars can be summarized in the table below:
Traditional Systemic-functional
Definitions of
grammar
mainly concerned with
syntax (+ some morphology)
‘lexicogrammar’ – no distinction
between lexis and grammar. Both are
meaning-creating.
Differences in
terminology
(some examples)
verb / predicator / direct
object / indirect object /
predicative / adverbial
(adjunct / disjunct /
conjunct) noun / verb phrase
Finite + Predicator / complement /
circumstantial / modal adjunct /
conjunctive adjunct / nominal group /

verbial group
Areas covered (text>) sentence > clause >
phrase > word > morpheme
the whole communicative event:
experiential, interpersonal and textual
functions
View of the
clause / sentence
syntactic functions, clause
patterns
processes and participants, mood type
+ modality, thematic structure
Table 2:Some differences between systemic-functional grammar and traditional
grammar
Chapter II
The simple sentence in traditional grammar
2.1. Introduction
This chapter deals with the sentence – a very crucial unit in TG. Although the term
sentence seems to be so familiar to everyone, from a language learning beginner to a
linguist, its definitions are hardly unanimously shared by different linguists. Up to
now, it is not surprising that the definitions of sentence have reached the number of
hundreds.
Because it is difficult to give a precise and satisfactory definition of sentence, some
linguists, instead of giving a definition of sentence, cautiously summarize sentence’s
features as follows:
- The sentence is the largest unit of grammatical organization.

13
- The sentence is a minimal unit of communication.
- The sentence is constructed by means or certain grammatical rules.

- The sentence expresses a relatively complete thought and the speaker’s
attitude, evaluation, and feelings.
- The sentence begins with a capital letter and ends with a full stop.
From this summary, we can see that the sentence can be regarded from different
aspects of language: communication, structure, semantic and orthography. In the next
step, we will investigate how the sentence is traditionally defined and recognized
according to these criteria.

There is a massive amount of books on grammar in general and on sentence in
particular written under the traditional framework both in English and in Vietnamese,
which provide comprehensive description of the sentence. There have been works that
are purely traditional but there have been also some works based on traditional
framework but combined with modern perspectives. To provide a full description of the
sentence in traditional grammar seems to be far from reach. Therefore, in this chapter,
we will try to generalize the most typical dimensions of the sentence described by
traditional grammarians.
2.2. Structural criteria
From the point of view of structure, sentences are classified into simple sentence,
compound sentence and complex sentence:
+ A simple sentence consists of a single independent clause with no dependent
clause.
+ A compound sentence consists of a multiple independent clauses. These
clauses are joined together using conjunctions or punctuation.
+ A complex sentence consists of one dependent clause with at least one
independent clause.
Sentences are also classified into major sentence and minor sentence:

14
+A major sentence is a regular type of sentence; it has a subject and a
predicate.

We are going to leave here.
+A minor sentence is an irregular type of sentence. It does not follow the
grammatical rules (Hello!; How do you do?)
Sentences can also be classified into complete sentence and elliptical sentence, which
are distinguished by the presence or absence of certain elements in the sentence. In
elliptical sentence, some part is ellipsed but can be restored from the context.
Are you free this morning? (complete sentence)
Free this morning? (elliptical sentence)
This way of classification bases on the structural relations between the elements of the
simple sentence. A simple sentence is the most basic type from which all other types of
sentences are built up. It is the largest unit to which the rules of grammar apply.
Delahunty and Garvey (1994) define the simple sentence as “a grammatically unified
structure that contains a subject and a predicate”. In much similar way, Vietnamese
linguist D. Q. Ban (1996) defines simple sentence as one consisting of only one cluster
of a subject and predicate and this cluster simultaneously plays such a role as the
‘core’ of sentence.
2.2.1. Principal parts of the sentence – subject and predicate
Drawing out from the above definitions, traditionally, a complete sentence includes two
principal parts: subject and predicate. However, providing an adequate definition of
the notion of a subject is difficult, and depends on a range of grammatical properties
that may vary from language to language. For this reason, many current grammatical
theories avoid using the term, except for purely descriptive purposes, or define it in
terms of occupying a particular position in the clause. However, many traditional
grammarians try to make definition of subject, and the most common definition is that
the subject is what (whom) the sentence is about, while the predicate tells something
about the subject.

15
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.
Quirk et al (1985:34)
Examples of subject and predicate are given in the figures below:
He
His brother
Learning English
is a student
grew happier
is difficult
Subject Predicate

Figure 2-1 (a): Parts of sentence in English
Anh ấy
Cái ấm này
Gia đình tôi
học ngoại ngữ
bằng nhôm
đã sống ở đây sáu năm rồi
Chủ ngữ
(Subject)
Vị ngữ
(Predicate)
Figure 2-1 (b): Parts of sentence in Vietnamese
The division of the sentence into two parts is the primary way to define the sentence.
Subject and predicate are the first set of components accepted by grammarians as the
criterion to define and analyse the sentence. However, the analysis of the sentence does
not stop at these two basic components but goes further to more delicate elements

2.2.2. Sentence elements syntactically defined
According to Quirk et al. (1972), the division of subject and predicate states the

general rules about the construction of sentences; it is the elementary construction. At
a more delicate level, a sentence may alternatively be seen as comprising five units

16
called element of clause structure: subject, verb, complement, object and adverbial,
abbreviated as S, V, C, O, A.
They make him the chairman every year
S V O C A
+ Subject: A subject (i) is a noun phrase or a clause with nominal function (ii) occurs
before the verb phrase in declarative clauses and immediately after operator in
question (iii) has the number and person concord, where applicable with the verb
phrase.
+ Object (direct or indirect): An object (i) like a subject, is a noun phrase or clause
with nominal function (ii) normally follows the subject and the verb phrase (iii) by the
passive transformation, assumes the status of subject.
+ Complement: (subject or object) A complement (i) is a noun phrase, an adjective
phrase, or a clause with nominal function (ii) follows the subject, verb phrase and (if
one is present) object (iii) does not become subject through the passive transformation
+ Adverbial: An adverbial (i) is an adverb, adverb phrase, adverbial clause, noun
phrase, or prepositional phrase (ii) is generally mobile, i.e. is capable of occurring in
more than one position in the clause (iii) is generally optional, i.e. may be added or
removed from a sentence without affecting its acceptability.
(Quirk et al., 1985: 348-349)
Unlike English sentence, which always requires verbs as obligatory element, not all
sentences in Vietnamese include verb element (Cô ấy đẹp.; Nhà tôi xa trung tâm.).
While most English and Vietnamese traditional grammarians share the agreement on
the division of subject and predicate as well as taking it as criterion to distinguish
between simple sentence, compound sentence and complex sentence, they differ from
one another in defining subelements of sentence structures. For example, D. Q. Ban
(1987:32) distinguishes principle components (subject and predicate) and subordinate

elements ((complement (bổ ngữ), theme (đề ngữ), adjunct (phụ ngữ), conjunctive (liên
ngữ) and explanative (giải ngữ))
Quan, ng ườ i ta sợ cái uy của quyền thế

17
Đề ngữ Chủ ngữ Vị ngữ
(theme) (subject) (predicate)
Em ơ i Ba Lan mùa tuyết tan
Phụ ngữ Chủ ngữ Vị ngữ
(adjunct) (subject) (predicate)
(D. Q. Ban, 1987:198)
Unlike D. Q. Ban, N. M. Thuyết & N. V. Hiệp (1998) distinguish between principle
parts of the sentence (subject and predicate) and secondary elements, topic (khởi ngữ),
modality (tình thái) adjunct (phụ ngữ) and adverbial (trạng ngữ). Additionally, they
define that predicate is a part of the nucleus of sentence in front of which we can
complete the functional words such as đã, s , ang, khôngẽ đ . (For more details, see N.
M. Thuyet & N. V . Hiep, 1998).
2.2.3. Basic clause patterns
Traditionally, there are seven basic clause patterns in English. The patterns differ on
the basis of what type of complement structure they have within the predicate.
+ Pattern one: no verb complement (SVA).
My father is in New York.
S V
intens
A
place
+ Pattern two: direct object verb complement (SVO).
Peter kicked the ball.
S V
monotrans

O
d
+ Pattern three: indirect and direct object verb complement (SVOO).
Mary s husband’ gave her a diamond ring
S V
complex trans

O
i


O
d
+ Pattern four: predicate verb complement (SVC).
Mary is a doctor
S V
intens
C
s

18
+ Pattern five: (SVOA).
Mary took the children to the zoo.
S V
complex trans
O
d
A
place

+ Pattern six: (SVOA).
They elected him the leader.
S V
complex trans
O
d
C
o
+ Pattern seven: (SV)
The child laughed.
S V
intrans
2.3. Logico-semantic criteria
From the point of view of logico-semantics, a sentence is defined as expressing ‘a state
of affairs’ (Quirk et al. 1985; Van Valin& Lappolla 1997; T. V. Ch×nh & N. H. Le
1963), ‘a proposition’ (Delahunty & Garvey 1994; Jacobs 1995; T. T. Kim 1941) or ‘a
relatively complete thought’ (Bytrov et al. 1975; D. Q. Ban 1987)
In Delahunty & Garvey (1994), a sentence may ‘express one or more propositions’. A
proposition is a claim which is specific enough to be evaluated as true or false.
According to Quirk et al. (1985), in terms of meaning, every clause describes an event
or state in which a number of participants (normally one, two, or three) are involved.
Take an example of The boy kicked the ball. The sentence contains a verb phrase
describing the nature of the action itself, a subject denoting an Agentive participant (or
“doer”), and a direct object denoting an affected participant (or “victim”).
The semantic elements in a sentence include: agentive, affected, recipient, attribute,
disjunct, adjunct, and conjunct.
The Agentive is the most typical role of a subject; that is, the animate being
instigating or causing the happening denoted by the verb.
She opened the door

19
The affected is the most typical function of the direct object; it is a participant
(animate or inanimate) which does not cause the happening denoted by the verb,
but is directly involved in some other ways.
Kate has just broken a plate.
The recipient is the most typical function of the indirect object; it is the
animate being passively implicated by the happening or state.
Her husband gave her a diamond ring.
The attribute is the function of object complement or subject complement.
Her brother grew happier.
I prefer my coffee black.
Based on semantic criterion, the subject and object are classified into many types:
agentive and instrumental subject, recipient subject, locative and temporal subject,
affected object, effected object, locative object, etc. For more details, see Quirk et al.
(1976); Van Valin & Lappolla (1997).
Similarly, T. V. Chinh & N. H. Le (1963) also define sentence as a linguistic form
expressing one or more than one state of affairs. A state of affairs is an event, action or
a state in which a participant (person/thing) functions as the subject. For example, in
the two states of affairs
T«i ®i xem h¸t
¸o anh dµi qu¸
‘T«i’ is the subject of ‘®i xem h¸t’ and ‘¸o anh’ is the subject of ‘dµi qu¸’. A sentence
which expresses a state of affairs is a simple sentence; a sentence expressing more than
one state of affairs is a complex sentence.
According to D. Q. Ban (1987), the subject, in semantic relation to the predicate, can
function as agentive subject (chủ ngữ tác động), instrumental subject (chủ ngữ phương
tiện), locative subject (chủ ngữ chỉ vị trí), etc.
Anh Long suy nghĩ miên man

20

Xe này chở than
Vườn ông trồng toàn những cỏ
(D. Q. Ban, 1987:125-126)
Similarly, the predicate is classified into: relational predicate (vị ngữ chỉ quan hệ),
resultive predicate (vị ngữ chỉ hệ quả), active predicate (vị ngữ chỉ hoạt động), etc.
Người này là thợ mộc
Quả bóng xẹp xuống.
Con vịt đứng trên bờ ao
(D. Q .Ban, 1987:141-155)
Apart from the functions of subject and predicate, the subordinate elements of the
sentences are also subdivided into smaller types such as temporal adjunct, conditional
adjunct, locative adjunct, etc.
Bây giờ thì tuổi già đã đến.
Từ trong bụi rậm vụt chạy ra hai con thỏ.
Tuy nghèo nhưng anh ấy rất tốt bụng.
(D. Q. Ban, 1987:174)
2.4. Communicative criteria
According to the purpose of the utterance, sentences can be categorized into four
kinds.
+ The declarative sentence: A declarative sentence states a fact in the affirmative or
negative form. In a declarative sentence, the subject precedes the predicate. It is
generally pronounced with a falling intonation
I am going home
They don t get on well with each other.’
Thời tiết hôm nay rất đẹp.

21
Đêm qua tôi không ngủ được.
In English, the most common negation of a simple sentence is accomplished by
inserting not between the operator and the predication. Similarly, negation in

Vietnamese sentence often established by adding không before the predication
+ An interrogative sentence is commonly used to request information. English
interrogative sentences can be subclassified into four types: yes/no question, wh-
question, alternative questions and tag questions. Examples for each type are given
below, respectively.
Do you like art?
Who is the man over there?
Do you live in town or in the countryside?
She isn t married, is she?’
An interrogative in Vietnamese can be established with interrogative pronoun (ai, gì,
nào, thế nào, sao, bây giờ, ở đâu, …), the alternative word “hay”, interrogative word
(có…không, chưa, phải không, à) or rising intonation.
Sao anh về muộn thế?
Cậu thích đọc truyên ngắn phải không?
Cụ Ba có nhà hay không?
Anh sống ở đây?
(Lª CËn et al. 1983)

+ An exclamatory sentence expresses some kind of emotion or feeling. It is generally
a more emphatic form of statement. English exclamatory often begins with the words
What and How.
How beautiful she is!
What an awful day!

22
Vietnamese exclamatory is formed by various particle words (ô, ôi, ơi là, nhỉ, ư, thật,
thay, quá, ghê, thế, dường nào, biết, xiết, biết bao, etc).
Bài toán này khó thật!
Sao mà chán thế!
+ An imperative sentence is ordinarily used to make a demand, a request, an

invitation, etc. It serves to induce a person to do something.
Do your homework!
Don t come closer!’
Hãy đứng dậy! = Đứng dậy! = Đứng dậy đi!
Đừng có gây ồn! = Không đự¬c gây ồn!
2.5. Phonological and orthographic criteria
From the point of view of phonology/prosody, a clause can be recognized by intonation
or a terminal pause. Some linguists define a sentence as a linear sequence of words
spoken with ending intonation and written with ending punctuation. (Thompson 1985;
H. T. Phien 1980; D. Q. Ban 1987). Intonation is a criterion to recognize sentence
elements, boundary between phrases, boundary between clauses and sentences; it can
also help to distinguish different types of sentence. For example, English statements
are commonly recognized by falling intonation at the end of the sentence. Questions
(by no mean wh-questions) are often recognized by rising intonation. (Quirk et al.
1973; Roach 1983; Huddleston 1984).
She seemed unhappy↓
Are you happy↑?
In some languages, Vietnamese for instance, intonation changing helps to form
different types of sentences.
Anh Ba ®i phè. (statement)
Anh Ba ®i phè? (question)

23