TIỂU LUẬN lý THUYẾT NGỮ PHÁP ENGLISH GRAMMAR

1
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1


2

PART I – INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale:
The world grammar means different things to different people. To the ordinary
citizens, it connotes the correctness or incorrectness of the language that she or he speaks.
To a school students, it means an analytical terminological study of sentences.
Knowledge of grammar helps the students in the correction of mistakes and improvement
of written work. A person can’t learn a foreign language accurately only through a
process of unconscious assimilation. Grammar is a sure ground of reference when
linguistic habits fail us. So grammar is indispensable for the students. The researches of
grammar in different approaches of the development have led to many types of grammar:
traditional, systemic functional, cognitive grammar and so on.
Of the grammatical approaches, traditional grammar (TG) considers sentence as
the highest ranking 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
20th 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:
The aims of the study are:
- To point out how the sentence is conceptualized and described in traditional grammar.
- To point out how the clause is conceptualized and described in functional grammar.
- To compare and comment on the similarities and differences between the two
approaches in conceptual and descriptive terms.
2


3

3. Scopes of the study
This study focuses on a comparison between the sentence in TG and the clause in
SFG.
4. Methods of the study
To fulfill the aims of the study, the main methods used for study are generalized,
descriptive and comparative. The generalization will be used 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 in two approaches.
6. Organization of the Study: the study is divided into five main parts as follows:
Part I- Introduction
Part II- Literature review
Part III- The study

Part IV- Findings and discussion
Part V- Conclusion
References
PART II – LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. An overview of traditional grammar:
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.
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”.
In addition, after that European scholars generally knew, in addition to their own
languages and Latin, the languages of their nearest neighbors. 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 18th century, the
3


4

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 (in terms of TG).
2.2. An overview of systemic functional grammar:
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.
Functional grammar considers language a communicative tool and grammar is
analyzed to discover how it is organized to allow speakers and writers to make and
exchange meanings. Functional grammar focuses on the appropriate form for a particular
communicative purpose in a particular context.
Therefore, it is necessary to have a research in terms of a comparison of sentence
in TG and a clause in SFG.
PART III- THE STUDY
3.1. Sentence in traditional grammar
In traditional grammar, sentence can be defined in various ways, 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.
In addition, sentence is the highest ranking unit of grammar. “A sentence is

a group of words, usually containing a verb (finite or non-finite) , that expresses a
thought in the form of a statement, question, instruction, or exclamation and starts with
a capital letter when written.”-(Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary &
Thesaurus © Cambridge University Press.)
4


5

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 short, 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 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. In terms of
traditional grammar, sentence appears to be a very significant unit to study.
3.2. Sentence in systemic functional grammar
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
5


6

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).
Functional grammar considers language a communicative tool and grammar is
analyzed to discover how it is organized to allow speakers and writers to make and
exchange meanings. Functional grammar focuses on the appropriate form for a particular
communicative purpose in a particular context.
Despite of its important status, in traditional grammar, clause is taken as part of the
complex or compound sentence, or it is “subsumed under the notion of simple sentence”.
In systemic functional grammar, clause is considered the fundamental unit of
grammatical organization because it is at the rank of the clause that we can begin to talk
about how things exist, how things happen and how people feel in the world around us. It
is also at the rank of the clause that we usually use language to interact with others.

Another reason to give clause the important status in systemic functional grammar is that
it can be approached from different angles: strata, rank, and metafunction. In other
words, it can be recognized and defined “from above” (semantic dimension), “from
around” (lexcio grammatical dimension) and “from below” (morphological and
phonological dimension). For more details, see Halliday and Matthiessen (forthcoming).

PART IV- FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
4.1. In terms of the structures:
4.1.1. In traditional grammar:
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.
- 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.
6


7

From this summary, we can see that the sentence can be regarded from different aspects
of language: communication, structure, semantic and orthography.
Traditionally, the structure of a simple 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.
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 analyze the sentence. However, the analysis of the sentence
does not stop at these two basic components but goes further to more delicate elements
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 called
element of clause structure: subject, verb, complement, object and adverbial, abbreviated
as S, V, C, O, A.
They
S

make
V

him
O

the chairman

every year

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
7


8

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)

4.1.2. In systemic functional grammar:
According to Halliday (1994), the fundamental types of speech role, which lie
behind all the more specific types that we may eventually be able to recognize, are just
two: giving and demanding. The speaker either gives something to the listener or
demands something from him (a piece of information, for example). An act of speaking,
therefore, is something that might be more appropriately be called an “interact” – an

exchange of giving and demanding.
Language is used to exchange either the commodity of information or the
commodity of goods-and-services. Giving and demanding information is concerned with
verbal exchange in which the speaker’s purpose is primarily carried out through
language. The speaker either makes a statement to give information (I got up early this
morning) or asks a question to demand it (What is your job?); i.e. what is given or
demanded is information; language is the end as well as the means, and what is expected
from the listener is the verbal answer. On the other hand, giving and demanding goodsand-services can conclude material object or actions that are given or demanded
exchange in addition to verbal responses. Therefore, a positive in response to goods-andservices exchange may be expected non-verbal (Kiss me! Look up the word in the
dictionary!; Close the window !).
The two variables of speech role (giving and demanding), and the variables of
commodity (information and goods and services), when taken together, define the four
basic speech functions: giving information, demanding information, giving goods-andservices and demanding goods-and-services. The usual labels for these functions are:
8


9

statement, question, offer, and command. Table below shows these options, with
examples illustrated.
(i) giving

(a) information
Statement
declarative

(b) goods-&- services
Offer various

I like fish

+ I’ll give you a hand
+ Would you like this

(ii) demanding

Question

book?
Command

interrogative

+ Give me a hand

+Wh- Where’s Bob?

+ Bring me a cup of coffee

imperative

+Yes/No – Are you happy?
These basic models are closely associated with particular grammatical structures:
statements are most naturally expressed by declarative clauses, questions by
interrogative clauses, command by imperative clauses, which are the three main choices
in the Mood system of the clause. The semantic function of a clause in the exchange of
information is a proposition and the semantic function of a clause in the exchange of
goods-&-services is a proposal. These semantic categories are realized by grammatical
MOOD options.
Grammatically, when the clause is regarded as a representation of experience, the

Transitivity of the clause can be analyzed as configuration of three components:
participants, process and circumstance. Similarly, when the clause is regarded as an
exchange, the general interpersonal organization is made up of two major components:
Mood and Residue.
She has
Mood

given birth to twins
Residue

4.2. In terms of the classifications:
4.2.1. In traditional grammar:
From the point of view of structure, sentences are classified into simple sentence,
compound sentence and complex sentence:
9


10

+ 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:
+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.
Traditionally, there are seven simple sentence 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
S

is
Vintens

in New York.
Aplace

+ Pattern two: direct object verb complement (SVO).
10


11

Peter

kicked

S

the ball.

Vmonotrans

Od

+ Pattern three: indirect and direct object verb complement (SVOO).
Mary’s husband

gave

S

her

Vcomplex trans

a diamond ring

Oi

Od

+ Pattern four: predicate verb complement (SVC).
Mary

is

S

a doctor

Vintens

Cs

+ Pattern five: (SVOA).
Mary

took

S

the children

Vcomplex trans

to the zoo.

Od

Aplace

+ Pattern six: (SVOA).
They

elected

him

S

Vcomplex trans

the leader.

Od

Co

+ Pattern seven: (SV)
The child
S

laughed.
Vintrans

4.2.2. In systemic functional grammar:
Functionally, clause can be classified into these types:
Clause as Message: clause as message is a clause which has meaning as a message, a
quantum of information, in the clause as a message, there are theme and rheme.
Clause as an exchange clause as exchange is a clause which has meaning as an
exchange, a transaction between speaker and listener. In clause as exchange, there are

mood and residu.
Clause as Representation clause as a representation is a clause which has meaning as a
representation, the actor is the active participant in that process.
- A process unfolding through time
- The participants involved in the process
- Circumstances associated with the process.
They are aslso analyzed from three dimensions: Transitivity, Mood and Theme.
4.3. In terms of the functions:
11


12

Another difference between the clause and the sentence is the multifunctionality
in the clause.We mentioned three metafunctions and we also emphasized that they are
simultaneous in the clause. Because the clause is studied in the context, there is
metafunctional resonance between three strata of the language: lexicogrammar (where
the clause is located), semantics and context. The clause is related to the whole language
system, with the components strata above it. Therefore, we have the tripartite relation:
Transitivity – Experiential Metafunction – Field; Mood – Interpersonal Metafunction –
Tenor; Theme – Textual Metafunction – Mode. There always exist three “fibres of
meaning” running through the clause. The criteria of semantics and lexicogrammar for
identification of the clause are strictly related. In TG, on the other hand, ‘there seems to
be no relation between grammar and semantics’. When sentence is analyzed, there is
often only one structure recognized by the syntactically related elements (subject, verb,
adverbial, ect.). These differences lead to a conclusion that the clause in SFG is more
broadly and more coherently described.
4.4. In terms of the meanings:
We have discussed the three lines of meaning and three types of structure in the
clause. We have also mentioned that they are not separated from each other but

simultaneous. The view from different perspectives helps to illuminate different but
equally important aspect of the meaning construction, and, when combined, each
perspective throws light on the others. Take an example of subject, which is one of the
basic concepts to traditional grammar. It is difficult to find a definitive account of what
the role of subject means. Traditionally, the definition of subject is ‘what the sentence is
about’ or ‘the topic of the sentence’. Delahunty & Garvey (1994) point out two problems
with the traditional definition: (1) it does not hold true in all circumstances and (2) it
distracts us from grammar into discourse. The traditional definition does not hold true
because in many sentences, the subject cannot qualify as the topic. For example, it, no
one, there, I in the sentences below are obviously not ‘what the sentence is about’.
It is nice to talk to you.
No one understands me
There will be more rain tomorrow.
12


13

For Elma, I don’t know who’s dating him these days.
Subject, in Halliday’s grammar, is a part of Mood. Halliday divides the clause into
two parts: the Mood and the Residue. In a clause, there is one part which carries the
syntactic burden of the exchange - the Mood element. The rest of the clause remains
unchanged, and therefore be called the Residue. In SFG, the criterion to define the
subject is obviously consistent. The mood structures are characterized by the presence or
absence of a subject element and by the relative positions of the Subject and the Finite.
Halliday (1994) distinguishes three kinds of Subject: psychological subject, grammatical
subject and logical subject, and he labels them as Theme, Subject, and Actor respectively.
They are related in a systemic way. In the clause, an element often carries more than one
function. In addition, an important principle of analysis is the “exhaustive” principle; i.e.
there is not “spare floating” element without function in the clause. This principle

recovers the limitation of the traditional analysis, the case of “there”, for example. In
SFG, “there” functions as subject, and together with Finite, forms the Mood of the clause.
Another example aspect which can be taken into comparison is Mood. Mood, in TG, is
understood with narrow meaning. The classification of the sentence into statement,
question, and imperative is often based on institutive and subjective criteria. In Halliday’s
grammar, English Mood, which includes the elements of Subject and Finite, is the
component to define Mood of the clause. Halliday has often argued forcefully against
looking at language only in terms of “constituents” – that is, breaking clauses into groups
and then groups into words, and assigning each “bit” an identifiable meaning. As a rule,
interpersonal meanings are not inherently tied to specific constituents but spread over the
whole clause; and they may be reinforced by being expressed at the several points in the
clause.
PART IV- CONCLUSION
It can’t be deniend from the study that the superiority of the clause described in
SFG and the partiality of the sentence described in TG have been proved through the
comparison between them. We want to reiterate that although there have been different
models of description of language, the systemic functional model is considered to be one
of the most comprehensive and satisfactory, since it is able to bring out the functional
13


14

uses of language and can be used to describe any languages in the world. However, our
purpose is not to deny or criticize the simple sentence in TG. In fact, the analysis of
sentence based on subject-predicate structure has commonly applied in language learning
and teaching. Traditional sentence, regarded from educational perspective, may bring
many advantages, but in research it reveals certain limitations. Clause – a multidimensionally regarded unit, helps to compensate the gaps of traditional grammar, and
therefore enhancing more comprehensive and meaningful grammar study.
The study has not only contributed to enlightening a perspective on a scientific

issue but also helped in educational implication. FG can help to decide what language to
teach: it can provide the basic for educational decisions about what the university student
needs to know about successful communication in their field. This applies equally to
students as of the mother tongue and of a foreign language. The overall view of language
from the SFG perspective has fuelled the communicative language teaching movement,
and, in many cases, insights on specific areas such as cohesion, modality and Theme
choice, have in fact been adapted for practical use in the classroom in many Englishspeaking countries, especially in Australia. With regard to the situation in Vietnam, where
the sentence is still a dominant content of grammar teaching, inclusion of clause in
grammar curriculum is likely to bring much improvement in language teaching and
learning, in both mother tongue and foreign languages.
This study has been concerned with the comparison between the simple sentence
in TG and the clause simplex in SFG. Our comparison of the two units has just been at
the most generating extent. Because of the limitation of space and time, there still have
some problems that need to be more thoroughly reseached. Besides, the issues below,
beyond and above the clause and sentence have not been discussed. We hope there will
be study of comparison between sentence and clause in other aspects, especially in
Vietnamese so that the picture of sentence and clause will become clearer. We also hope
Falculty of English of Ha Noi Open university will create more opportunities for students
to study more about sentence and clause and put them into practice.

14


15

REFERENCES
1. Austin, J. H. (1962), How to Do Things with Words, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2. Bhatia, V. (1993), Analyzing genre: Language use in professional settings, London:
Longman.
3. Biber, D., Connor, U. and Upton, T. (2007), Discourse on the Move: Using Corpus

Analysis to Describe Discourse Structure, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
4. Brett, P. (1994), “A genre analysis of the results section of sociology articles”,
English for Specific Purposes, 13(1), 47–59.
5. Brown, G. and Yule, G. (1983), Discourse Analysis, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
6. Brown, R. (2004), “Self-composed: rhetoric in psychology personal statements”,
Written Communication, 21(3), 242–260.
7. Cook, G. (1989), Discourse, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
8. Crystal, D. (1992), Introducing Linguistics, London: Penguin
9. Ding, H. (2007), “Genre analysis of personal statements: Analysis of moves in
application essays to medical and dental schools”, English for Specific Purposes,
26 (3), 368-392.
10. Duszak, A. (1994), “Academic discourse and intellectual style”, Journal of
Pragmatics, 21(3), 291-313.
11. Halliday, M. A. K. and R. Hasan. (1976), Cohesion in English, London: Longman.
12. Harris, Zellig S. (1952), “Discourse Analysis”, Language, 28 (1),1-30.
13. Holmes, R. (1997), “Genre analysis and social sciences: an investigation of the
structure of research article discussion sections in three disciplines”, English for
Specific Purposes, 16(4), 321-337.

15


16

14. Hyland, K. (2003), “Graduates’ gratitude: the generic structure of dissertation
acknowledgements”, English for Specific Purposes, 22(3), 303–324.
15. Hatim, Basil & Ian Mason. (1990), Discourse and the Translator, London: Longman.
16. Nunan, D. (1993), Introducing Discourse Analysis, London: Penguin
17. Nwogu, K. N. (1991), “Discourse variation in medical texts: Schema, theme and

cohesion in professional and journalistic accounts”, Monographs in Systemic
Linguistics, Vol. 2. Nottingham: Department of English Studies, University of
Nottingham.
18. Ross, R.N. (1975), “Ellipsis and the structure of expectation”, San Jose State
Occasional Papers in Linguistics1, 183-191.
19. Santos, M. F. A. (2006), “Economy, Business & Finance”, The Philippine Daily
Inquirer, June 5th , B2-1.
20. Schiffrin, D., Tannen, D. and Hamilton, H. (eds). (2001), The Handbook of Discourse
Analysis, Oxford: Blackwell.
21. Swales, J. (1981), Aspects of Article Introductions, Birmingham: University of Aston.
22. Swales, J. (1990), Genre Analysis: English for Academic and Research Settings,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23. Widdowson, H. G. (1979), Pragmatics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
24. Widdowson, H. G. (1984), Exploration in Applied Linguistics, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

16


17

17