qualifiers in english and vietnamese nominal groups - a systemic functional comparison = định ngữ trong nhóm danh ngữ anh việt

1
VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

BÙI THỊ HUYỀN

QUALIFIERS IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE NOMINAL GROUPS:
A SYSTEMIC FUNCTIONAL COMPARISON

ĐỊNH NGỮ TRONG NHÓM DANH NGỮ ANH VIỆT: SO SÁNH THEO
QUAN ĐIỂM CHỨC NĂNG HỆ THỐNG


M.A. THESIS


Field: English Linguistics
Code: 60 22 15






HÀ NỘI – 2010


2

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

BÙI THỊ HUYỀN

QUALIFIERS IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE NOMINAL GROUPS:
A SYSTEMIC FUNCTIONAL COMPARISON

ĐỊNH NGỮ TRONG NHÓM DANH NGỮ ANH VIỆT: SO SÁNH THEO
QUAN ĐIỂM CHỨC NĂNG HỆ THỐNG


M.A. THESIS


Field: English Linguistics
Code: 60 22 15
Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Hoàng Văn Vân





HÀ NỘI – 2010


6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pages

Acknowledgements i
Abstract ii
Table of contents iii
List of abbreviations v
Part 1: INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale 1
2. Research questions 2
3. Scope of the study 3
4. Significance of the study 3
5. Methods of the study 3
6. Design of the study 4
Part 2: DEVELOPMENT
Chapter 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
1.1. Schools of grammar 5
1.1.1. Traditional grammar 5
1.1.2. Systemic functional grammar 6
1.2. Basis syntactical notions
1.2.1. Words 10
1.2.2. Phrases 12
1.2.2.1. Traditional grammar 12
1.2.2.2. Functional grammar 14
1.2.3. Clauses 14
1.3. Nominal clauses
1.3.1. Traditional grammar 16
1.3.2. Functional grammar 19
1.4. Qualifiers 20



7

Chapter 2: QUALIFIERS IN THE ENGLISH NOMINAL GROUP
2.1. Structure of nominal groups (Functional grammar) 21
2.2. Elements that act as Qualifiers in English nominal groups 23
2.2.1. Words 23
2.2.2. Phrases 23
2.2.2.1. Prepositonal phrases 24
2.2.2.2. Adjectival phrases 26
2.2.2.3. Adverbial phrases 27
2.2.3 Clauses
2.3.3.1. Non-finite clauses as qualifiers 28
2.3.3.2. Finite clauses as qualifiers 29
2.3. Summary 31
Chapter 3: QUALIFIERS IN THE VIETNAMESE NOMINAL GROUP IN
COMPARISON WITH QUALIFIERS IN THE ENGLISH NOMINAL GROUP
3.1. Comparison of words as qualifiers in English and Vietnamese nominal groups 32
3.2. Comparison of phrases as qualifiers in English and Vietnamese nominal groups
3.2.1. Comparison of prepositional phrases 33
3.2.2. Comparison of adjectival phrases 35
3.2.3. Comparison of adverbial phrases 36
3.3. Comparison of clauses as qualifiers in English and Vietnamese nominal groups
3.3.1. Comparison of finite relative clauses 37
3.3.2. Comparison of non-finite relative clauses 39
3.4. Summary 41
Part 3: CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 43
Bibliography 46
Sources of Data 48

8
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

SFC
FG
S
V
O
C
A
Det / d
m
h
q
pro.
F
P
Prep.
RP
Cir.
Mat.
Par.
NG (s)
VG
Systemic functional grammar
Functional grammar
Subject
Verb
Object

Complement
Adverb
Determiner
Modifier
Head
Qualifier
Process
Finite
Predicate
Preposition
Relative pronoun
Circumstance
Material
Participant
Nominal group(s)
Verb group








9
Part 1: INTRODUCTION

1. RATIONALE
Used to distinguish between human beings and other creatures, languages can be the
most wonderful thing in this world. Along with the development of our society, languages

were born so many that actually we do not know how many languages are still being used and
have existed up to now. Each language has its own history and appears in a specific period. It
reflects relatively clearly the society, the economy, the culture of a country. We have achieved
a lot of accomplishments in the field of biology, information technology, astronomy and other
fields, including linguistics. In the late 19
th
and the early years of the 20
th
century, English
colonies spread over many continents. Therefore, it is unavoidable that English has been a
dominant language since then. All most of newspapers, magazines, radios, TV broadcasts use
English as a main language. And we may not know when it was considered as an international
language in meetings, dialogues, conferences, etc.
In Vietnam, English is a compulsory subject in secondary, high schools and in
universities as well. Teachers of English worldwide in general, Vietnamese teachers of
English and learners in particular always think of how to teach and learn English with easier
ways. We teach and learn English to fulfill the language function of communication. It is
argued that when we say a person has learned a new language we mean that he has learned its
sound system (understanding speech and speaking well), learned to use its grammar, and
learned at least a limited vocabulary. Over the two centuries, English grammar has been
viewed by many scholars with different schools, such as: traditional grammar, structural
grammar, transformational generative grammar and systemic functional grammar. Each of
those schools has its own ideas, but in whatever way the term “grammar” is used to indicate
syntax in a narrow sense or morphonology and syntax or, in the broadest sense, to include
phonology, syntax and semantics, syntax is always the core of the grammar of a language.
While traditional, structural and generative grammars pay so much attention to the
formal aspect of language, functional grammar is one whose conceptual framework on which
the grammar is based is a functional rather than a formal one.

10
Nominal group isn‟t seen as a new issue in syntax and in linguistics in general. In the
old and new grammar books, the description of nominal group has been relatively occupied.
In traditional grammar, the structure of nominal group consists of three components:
the head, the premodification and the post-modification. However, according to M.A.K
Halliday and other linguists of the Hallidayan tradition, nominal groups can be seen in the
overall relation of semantics (functional) and structure. Halliday gave not only the structure of
the head, the modifier and the qualifier, but also the ideational (clause as representation), the
interpersonal (clause as exchange) and the textual (clause as message). Some Vietnamese
researchers have considered the matter of nominal group‟s structure in the terms of traditional
grammar and functional grammar. An analysis of nominal groups in English and Vietnamese
in light of systemic-functional grammar made by Cu Thanh Nghi (2004) is an example. In his
research, he gave how semantic relations between constituents of the nominal group are
diversified and particularized in English and Vietnamese, and how these semantic relations
could be explained from the representational points of views. The other one was carried out by
Cao Thi Phuong (1998): clauses of nominal status. In light of traditional grammar, she found
out the features and classifications of English nominal clauses, the differences and similarities
between nominal clauses in English and Vietnamese.
Although the two above researches just view nominal group in general, they do not
represent structures of each part in nominal groups in detail. For this reason, the author of this
paper chooses qualifiers (in the light of systemic-functional grammar) as the main issue.

2. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The above – mentioned rationale shows that nominal groups need to be studied in more
detail not only in structure but in use as well. The aims of the study are:
- To explore the nature of Qualifier and to locate it in the space of the nominal group.
- To describe English and Vietnamese nominal groups based on the framework of
systemic functional grammar.
- To establish the differences and similarities between qualifiers in English and
Vietnamese nominal groups.

11
3. SCOPE OF THE STUDY
The research questions mentioned above have already implied that this study focuses
only on investigating qualifiers of English nominal groups. The investigation of this aspect of
English is conducted in comparison with that in Vietnamese to find out the similarities and
differences between them; and from these findings, the investigation will suggest some
implications for teaching and learning English in the Vietnamese context.

4. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
To have a deeper understanding of functional grammar in general and nominal groups
in particular, and to be aware of the mistakes made by Vietnamese students, the author
chooses qualifiers as the main study. The research could serve as a good consolidation of
systemic-functional grammar‟s positions about qualifiers in nominal groups, and the
representation of English and Vietnamese qualifiers based on functional grammar may be a
useful way for teaching and learning nominal groups. Besides this, the research also includes
some implications for communicative teaching and learning qualifiers in nominal groups.

5. METHODS OF THE STUDY
To achieve the aims above, the study uses descriptive, contrastive and qualitative
methods of language research.
Descriptive methods: Theoretical issues are studied. Then they are re-examined to
form the theoretical framework for the study. Real-life illustrations along with examples
extracted from different kinds of books are also exhibited comprehensively to constitute fully
the understanding of the theories and the realization of them.
Comparative methods: The English and Vietnamese qualifiers in nominal groups will
be made, which is inductive in nature. Its reliability and validity will be ensured by the
descriptive method. Qualifiers in English and Vietnamese nominal groups will be compared in
terms of position and meaning so as to search out the resembling and the distinctive features of

the two languages in this linguistic aspect.



12
6. DESIGN OF THE STUDY

The study consists of three parts: part 1: introduction; part 2: development and part 3:
conclusion.
Part 1: presents the rationale, the aims, the research questions, the scope of the study, the
significance of the study, the methods of the study and the design of the study.
Part 2: consists of 3 chapters
Chapter 1: provides the theoretical background for the study. It includes an overview of
schools of grammar (tradition and systemic function), some basic syntactical notions (words,
phrases and clauses), nominal groups in English and qualifiers.
Chapter 2 is concerned with qualifiers in English nominal groups. This chapter exhibits the
analysis of English words, phrases, and clauses as qualifiers.
Chapter 3 deals with qualifiers in Vietnamese nominal groups. The chapter will also provide
the analysis of Vietnamese words, phrases, and clauses as qualifiers and then is the
comparison of English and Vietnamese qualifiers.
Part 3: summarizes the major findings, provides concluding remarks, gives the implications
of functional grammar in teaching and learning English and makes some suggestions for
further study.

13
Part 2: DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
1.1. Schools of grammar
“Within linguistics, „grammar‟ is normally used in a narrow technical sense to
distinguish it chiefly from phonology and semantics”
Palmer (1984)
“Grammar deals with language forms and meanings and the way they are
interconnected”
Jacobs (1995)
Grammar has been studied by many linguists and grammarians from different schools.
To have a better understanding of different schools of grammar, due to the limit of pace and
time, this chapter will present the two major schools of grammar (traditional and functional
grammars).
1.1.1. Traditional grammar
Traditional grammars is a theory of the structure of language based on ideas Western
societies inherited from ancient Greek and Roman sources. It is not a unified theory that
attempts to explain the structure of all languages with a unique set of concepts (as is the aim of
linguistics). There are different traditions for different languages, each with its own traditional
vocabulary and analysis. In the case of European languages, each of them represents an
adaptation of Latin grammar to a particular language. Developed in the eighteenth century,
traditional grammars bore the following characteristics which were summarized by Aitchison
(1991). First, the traditional grammars are prescriptive, logical rather than descriptive.

Secondly, they prescribe rules of „correctness‟ in the sense of absolute and unchanging
„correctness‟. Thirdly, they regard written language as primary, thus traditional grammarians
have overstressed the importance of the written word. Finally, they force language into a
Latin-based framework, assuming that Latin provided a universal framework into which all
languages fit.


14
The traditional grammars have contributed much to the study of language. Theoretical
concepts (nouns, clause words, interrogatives, inflexions, auxiliary verbs, subjects, objects and
so on) have been introduced and are still widely found in many text books nowadays.
However, traditional grammar is characterized by a general lack of precision and a lack of
explicitness. Produced rules relied heavily on the reader‟s ability to generalize and extrapolate
from a few examples, which is far from explicit in their approach. Besides that, the concepts
as used in the traditional grammars are notional and quite arbitrary as Palmer (1984) remarks
“Grammar books often make no attempt to give a definition of the word though they happily
define other grammatical elements in terms of it”.
In the view of traditional grammar, there are eight parts of speech: noun, pronoun,
adjective, adverb, verb, preposition, conjunction and interjection. However, objections could
be raised why there are only eight word classes while we seem to have more than eight.
They also provide a kind of definitions of sentence and clause: „a sentence is the
expression of a complete thought‟ or the sentence consists of words, but words are grouped
into elements that are smaller than the sentence. The traditional grammars talk of “clauses” as
sentences which are part of larger sentences.
As a whole, the traditional grammars can hardly provide a sound foundation for any
adequate syntactical analyses.
1.1.2. Systemic functional grammar
One of the many remarkable things about language is that we can use it daily without
any real awareness of how it is structured. Likewise we can use it in very different
circumstances without being at all conscious of the important role played by the particular

situation on our choice of language wording. Yet a change, for example, in the social role we
are playing or in whom we are talking to will typically prompt us to alter, sometimes quite
significantly, the actual form of words we use. Indeed, it is by the selection not just of lexical
items but also of grammatical structures that we are able to express different meanings. In this
way we can begin to point out the link between language wording, meaning expressed and
situational context.


15
The primary studies of grammar represented rules of grammar in terms of words in
sentences, with words serving functions as Subject, Predicate, Object and Adverbial, i.e., the
„grammar as rule‟ type of theory. Beside that, the theory takes over too much from the
European languages which started with Greek and Latin. What about non-European languages
such as Chinese, Vietnamese, Japanese, Korean, etc.? Therefore, it allows us to see only a
small fragment of grammar. It is necessary to have a richer theory which can provide us with a
way of interpreting the overall organization of the grammar of a language as a system of
information. And systemic-functional theory was developed in work of Chinese. It takes the
resource perspective rather than the rule perspective; and it is designed to display the overall
system of grammar rather than only fragments.
Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) is a theory of language which is concerned with
describing language in terms of its semantic function in the social and cultural contexts within
which it is put to use by speakers. In this way it differs from the formal, syntactic approach of
traditional grammars. Eggins (1994) suggests that SFL is distinct amongst linguistic theories
as “it seeks to develop both a theory about social process and analytical methodology which
permits the detailed and systematic description of language patterns”.
Studied by many functional grammarians like Halliday (1985, 1994), Bloor (1994),
Eggins (1994), Thompson (1996), Hoang Van Van (2005) and many others, Systemic
Functional Grammar (SFG) or functional grammar (FG) tries to incorporate meaning,
function, context, and grammatical categories. Meanings are typically divided into three broad
areas, called metafunctions: the ideational, grammar for representing the world; the

interpersonal, grammar for enacting social relationships (asking, asserting, and ordering); and
the textual, grammar for binding linguistic elements together into broader texts (via
prononminalizations, grammatical topicalization, schematization, expressing the
newsworthiness of information, etc.). We use language to interact with one another, to
construct and maintain our interpersonal relations and the social order that lies behind them;
and in doing so we interpret and represent the world for one another and for ourselves.
Language is a natural part of the process of living; it is also used to „store‟ the experience built
up in the course of that process, both personal and collective. It is (among other things) a tool


16
for representing knowledge or, to look at this in terms of language itself, for constructing
meaning.
Based on Firth‟s system – structure theory and inherited Hjelmslev‟s principles and the
Prague school‟s ideas, Halliday‟s theory sees language in a social context. In the Foreword to
Halliday‟s Spoken and Written Language, his approach to grammar is said to have a number
of real strengths. Firstly, it is a semantically driven grammar, not a syntactically driven one
though certain principles of syntax do apply. Secondly, Halliday‟s approach is not uniquely
interested in written language, but committed to the study of both the spoken and written
modes. Finally, his systemic functional grammar, though he himself denies this term, permits
useful movement across the text, taking into consideration the context of situation. Why is
Halliday‟s theory different from others? To answer the question, we can look at the way he
labeled a linguistic unit. He labeled a linguistic unit into two ways, including class (noun,
adjective, adverb, prepositional phrase, noun clause, etc.) and function (Subject, Object,
Complement, Modifier, Auxiliary, etc.). For example, in „old man‟, „old‟ is adjective in class
labeling and modifier in function labeling, „man‟ is Noun in the former and head in the latter.
In other words, Halliday's theory sets out to explain how spoken and written texts
construe meanings and how the resources of language are organized in open systems and
functionally bound to meanings. This is a radically different theory of language from Noam
Chomsky‟s. It does not try to address Chomsky's thesis that there is a "finite rule system which

generates all and only the grammatical sentences in a language?” Instead of trying to
determine all closed systems and listing all words of a language, Halliday's theory tries to
determine no closed system nor set of resources. In SFG, every system can be expanded with
new resources and a system is a "small set" of resources that is closer to the grammatical than
the lexical end of the lexicogrammatical continuum. This means that no grammatical system is
not expansible by the use of a new resource and, instead of postulating that a sentence is
grammatical or ungrammatical, SFG documents the relative frequencies of choices and
assumes these relative frequencies reflect the probability that each resource will be chosen.
Thus, SFG does not describe language as a finite rule system, but rather as a system realized


17
by instantiations which is continuously expanded by the very instantiations that realize it and
which is continuously reduced with the birth of newer generations and the death of older ones.
In the functional perspective, we should also see Halliday‟s idea on clause. He states
that “The clause is functional unit with a triple construction of meaning.” He uses the notions
of Theme, Subject and Actor for the three aspects of meaning of the English clause. The three
notions are commonly defined as psychological subject, grammatical subject and logical
subject, respectively, with the term “Subject” understood in the common sense. For example
Halliday (1985)
(a) The duke has given my aunt that teapot.
(b) My aunt has been given that teapot by the duke.
(c) That teapot the duke has given to my aunt.
The subjects in the three above clauses are “the duke”, “my aunt”, and “the duke”,
respectively according to the traditional grammar. In the functional view, we can see:
The duke
has given my aunt that teapot.
3 kinds of Subject (psychological, grammatical and logical)

My aunt
has been given that teapot by
the duke
Theme / Subject (grammatical)

Logical subject (Actor)

That teapot
the duke
has given to my aunt.
Theme
Subject / Actor

With different situations, we can explain more clearly the functions of the term
“subject”.
The three notions (Theme, Subject and Actor) would be best used as the starting point
in investigating the clause in the three angles: clause as a message, clause as an exchange and
clause as representation. Or this can be expressed as follows: language is used to organize,
understand and express our perceptions of the world and of our own consciousness. This
function is known as the ideational function which includes two subfunctions: the experiential
(largely concerned with content and idea), and the logical (concerned with the relationship


18
between ideas). Language is also used to enable us to participate in communicative acts with
other people, to take on roles and to express and understand feelings, attitude and judgments.
This function is responded to the interpersonal function. Moreover, language is used to relate
what is said (or written) to the real world and to other linguistic events. This involves the use
of language to organize the text itself. This is known as the textual function.
While individual scholars naturally have different research emphases or application

contexts, common to all systemic linguists is an interest in language as social semiotic
Halliday (1978) - how people use language with each other in accomplishing everyday social
life. This interest leads systemic linguists to advance four main theoretical claims about
language:
- that language use is functional
- that its function is to make meanings
- that these meanings are influenced by the social and cultural context in which they
are exchanged
- that the process of using language is a semiotic process, a process of making mean-
ings by choosing.
These four points, that language use is functional, semantic, contextual and semiotic,
can be summarized by describing the systemic approach as a functional-semantic approach to
language. The purpose of this thesis is to use functional grammar as a tool to describe, analyse
and compare the Qualifiers in English and Vietnamese nominal groups. But before doing
these, it is necessary to look at the basic syntactic notions.
1.2. Basic syntactical notions
1.2.1. Words
The most tangible elements of a language are its words. Words are participants for the
study of language system rather than functions of language. The matter of words came from
the ancient with the distinguishing between nouns and verbs by Aristotle. A complete theory
of words appeared in the period of Alexandria (3
rd –
1st – centuries, BC).
According to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, a word is the smallest free form (an
item that may be uttered in isolocation with semantic or pragmatic content) in a language, in


19
contrast to a morpheme, which is the smallest unit of meaning. A word may consist of only
one morpheme (e.g. wolf), but a single morpheme may not be able to exist as a free form (e.g.

the English plural morpheme -s). Word – level categories is considered to be the most central
to the study of syntax by O‟Grady and Dobrovsky (1987).
There are several ways to help identify the lexical category of a word according to
Edward Finnegan. One way focuses on closely related forms of a word; it means words with
parallel forms belonging to the same category, words with different pattern, etc. Another way
to identify categories on which words and categories can occur together in phrases (Phrases
will be mentioned in the next section). Relying on meaning is a third way of identifying
lexical categories, though it is not always reliable and is useful principally in forming an initial
hypothesis about a word‟s category. From the perspective of meaning, nouns name (or refer
to) persons, places, or things, e.g. swimmer, Cleveland, and trees are nouns. Adjectives name
qualities or properties of nouns, as with tall in the phrase „tall tree‟. Verbs describe actions, as
with jump, or sing.
Traditionally words are allocated to one of the following range of word classes:
noun, pronoun, article, verb, adjective, adverb, preposition, conjunction and interjection.
Some grammars, e.g. Leech et al. (1982); Halliday (1985a/1994a); Greenbaum and Quirk
(1990); Greenbaum (1996); Quirk et al. (1985), include the determiner among the list of word
classes. However, we will argue that the determiner is not a separate word class but rather an
element of phrase structure which is most typically realized by pronominal subclasses.
Word proposed by Bloomfield (1933), is defined as a minimum free form or the
smallest form that can occur by itself. The allocation of words to word classes is undertaken
on the basis of grammatical behavior. By grammatical behavior is meant, firstly, the wording
environment in which the word appears, its location in the word string and the other words
with which it can co-occur; and, secondly, the range of different forms which the word can
display. Thus, for example, the word orange can occur in a variety of word contexts and hence
belongs to more than one word class. When it denotes a color, it occurs in contexts such as
„The (very) orange bulb has blown‟ and „The bulb which has blown is (very) orange‟. With
the meaning here orange can be assigned to the word class to which white, pink and new


20

belong. On the other hand, the word orange referring to a fruit occurs in contexts such as „This
ripe orange is tasty.
Or just a very simple definition, in the book of Lexical Functional Grammar, Falk
(2006) claimed that words are the “atoms” out of which syntactic structure is built. Syntactic
rules cannot create words or refer to the internal structures of words, and each terminal node
(or “leaf” of the tree) is a word. Falk (2006: 13).
It seems very hard to find a satisfactory definition of the notion “word”, some
criteria have been sought to clarify it and make it more convincing. Palmer‟s is a typical one.
He suggests three main approaches to define what a word is.
“The first is to see the word as a semantic unit, a unit of meaning; the second sees it
as a phonetic or phonological unit, one that is marked, if not by “spaces” or pauses, at least
by some features of the sounds of the language; the third attempts to establish the word by a
variety of linguistic procedures that are associated with the idea that the word is in some ways
an isolable and indivisible unit”.
As we have seen different definitions of word, we matter how argumentative it is,
word actually is the smallest syntactical element. Words can be classified more specifically in
diverse cases.
1.2.2 Phrases
1.2.2.1 Traditional grammar
Before giving more detailed about phrases, we just start this point with the definition
of phrases from the Longman Dictionary of English Language and Culture (1998), which says
a phrase is “a group of words without a finite verb” or from the Longman Dictionary of
language teaching and applied linguistics (1992) gives a definition of a Phrase typically in
English. „Phrase is a group of words which form a grammatical unit. A phrase does not
contain a finite verb and does not have a subject – predicate structure‟. Actually, most
dictionaries give somewhat similar concepts of phrase.
Generally, a phrase involves a grouping of two or more words. They use “phrase” to
refer to a special kind of embedded sentence one without a finite verb. For examples, in the
sentences “I don‟t know where to do”, “where to go” is a noun phrase, not a noun clause.

21
However, this is considered as a “non-finite clause” which would be attached to the embedded
according to Quirk et al (1985). Nowadays, a phrase seems to be considered more clearly. It is
regarded as a grouping of two or more words which focus around a headword element and
together perform the grammatical role which could be expressed by a single word in other
circumstances. Thus a phrase inherently involves the expansion around a head element.
(Certain phrases will be seen also to incorporate a completive element.) Therefore, if a phrase
consists of only a single word, that word is the phrasal headword. And if a phrase consists of
more than one word, the phrasal headword is the one which operates as the pivotal word
within the word grouping. Phrases are formally classified according to the class of word which
functions as the headword. For example, a nominal phrase has a nominal headword; a verbal
phrase has a verbal headword, and so on. (By contrast with elements of clause structure,
therefore, the formal classification of phrases is not undertaken in terms of their syntactic
function.)
Traditionally, five main classes of phrase are recognized: the nominal, verbal,
adjectival, adverbial and prepositional, and together with these we here also include the
English genitive and subordinator.
From all the above points, we can see that a phrase is different from a group in that,
whereas a group is an expansion of word, a phrase is a contraction of clause. To put it in
another way, a phrase is “clause – like” rather than “group – like”. Thus a noun phrase must be
closer to a nominal than a nominal group. However, a nominal group is not different from a
noun phrase in the view of the logical structure. Both of them have the following structural
formula:
Premodifier
Head
Post modifier
Traditionally, it is not very difficult to determine the head of noun phrases in English.
Normally, the head of a noun phrase often consists of a word which is a content word (e.g. that
lady). As said above, the head can be either a noun or a pronoun (personal pronouns: he, she,

…; indefinite pronouns: someone, something, ; possessive pronouns: yours, his, hers…;
demonstrative pronouns: this, that, these, those;



22
1.2.2.2 Functional grammar
Many systemicists prefer the term 'group' to 'phrase'. Halliday (1994: 180) actually
distinguishes between 'group' and 'phrase': 'A phrase is different from a group in that, whereas
a group is an expansion of a word, a phrase is a contraction of a clause.' Against this
background he recognizes just one class of phrase, the prepositional phrase, which he
describes as consisting of 'a preposition plus a nominal group, for example “on the burning
deck” in which the preposition is seen as a minor verb, a minor predicator, having the nominal
group as its complement (Halliday 1994: 212).
In Syntax in functional grammar Morley (2000) gave some kinds of phrases, including
nominal phrase, adjective phrase, verb phrase, adverbial phrase, prepositional phrase,
subordinator phrase and genitive phrase. He preferred the term “nominal phrase” to nominal
group because he claimed that a nominal phrase may be a noun or a pronoun as its headword.
It also marks a commonality of terminology across units of word, phrase and clause rank, and
a commonality with the other core phrase labels, e.g. adjectival, verbal, adverbial, and
prepositional. Nominal phrases with noun headwords may typically be preceded and modified
(pre-headword modification or premodification) or determined by an article, a genitive phrase,
a pronoun, an adjective (adjectival phrase) or another noun (nominal phrase), and they may be
followed and qualified (post-headword modification or postmodification) by a prepositional
phrase or subordinate clause, or in certain cases an adjective or nominal phrase. Morley (2000:
54).
Some grammar books also give the same list of kinds of phrases like Morley‟s. We are
going back to phrase later in this chapter when we specifically deal with noun phrase, which is
directly interrelated to our problem in question “nominal clause”.
1.2.3 Clauses

The clause is a fundamental unit of language, and clausal structure is a major topic of
investigation in all recent linguistic theories.
Normally, a clause is understood as a group of words containing a subject and finite
verb, forming a sentence or part of a sentence, and often doing the work of noun, adjective or


23
adverb. Some schools of grammar have given the concept of clause. Now, I can have a look at
those concepts.
The first concept which I want to mention here is Morley‟s. In the book of Syntax in
Functional grammar, he claimed that a clause consists of one or more phrases with respect to
the formal grammatical composition. For example, „what a mess! Enter! Out‟, the sentence
here has only one phrase each; in „she left‟ we have two phrases. In terms of meaning, what a
clause does is to express a single idea or proposition. This may involve giving or seeking
information Morley (2000:60). In terms of their relationships of grammatical dependency,
clauses are traditionally classed as main or subordinate, i.e. a clause which, whether or not it
can stand on its own without the assistance of a subordinate is not dependent grammatically on
a higher node (a node is a position in a diagram of the syntactic structure) or superordinate
clause. Therefore, a main clause which is grammatically well-formed is typically able to stand
on its own as a simple sentence in its own right. He also gives other kinds of clauses, including
(nominal clause, adjectival clause and adverbial clause).
In the view of traditional grammar, “Clauses are sentences that are part of larger
sentences”. That is to say, clauses are seen as the “minimal sentences” while the term sentence
is used for the larger or “maximal sentence” (Palmer: 54). In other words, clause is the
combination of sentences. The definition is quite general; however, it contributes much to the
research and study of natural language.
Quirk et al. (1973) claim that a clause is a unit that can be analyzed into the elements
S, V, O, C and A (Subject, Verb, Object, Complement and Adverb, respectively). This
explanation is quite simple and formal. Analyzed the English clause in structural terms, they
arrived at three main clauses: finite clause (a clause whose V element is a finite verb phrase),

non-finite clause (a clause whose V element is a non-finite clause), and verbless clause (a
clause containing no V element).
That the conception is defined by Halliday is clause as a functional unit with a triple
construction of meaning. In his explanation, a clause functions simultaneously (a) as the
representation of the phenomena of experience; (b) as the expression of speech function; and
(c) as the bearer of message, which is organized in the form of theme plus exposition In the


24
view of speech function, Halliday‟s “clause” has a two-part structure consisting of modal
element and propositional element.
Like a verb, a clause designates a process – that is, a relation tracked through timeb
Taylor (2002) gives the definition of clause as follows; a clause may be defined as a linguistic
structure that designates this kind of conceptually autonomous process, created through the
elaboration of the participants in a temporal relation. Taylor (2002: 413) he focuses more on
clause structure – its participants, the semantic role of the participants, and their syntactic
expression, in relation to the kinds of situations that clauses designate.
In whichever approach, traditional, functional or cognitive, a clause is combined
components of a sentence, i.e. it consists of five elements: S, V, O, C and A. And it has three
main types: adverbial clauses, adjective clauses and noun clauses. Adverbial clauses are to
modify the verb of the main clause or sometimes to become modifier of the entire sentence.
Adjective clauses are to modify a preceding noun or a pronoun. And noun clauses functions as
Subject, Subjective complement, Object of a verb, Object of a preposition and Appositive. In
this study, we are going to deal with noun clauses but under a more functional label “nominal
clauses”. More about nominal clauses will be mentioned in the next section.
1.3 Nominal clauses
1.3.1. Traditional grammar
The nominal clause or noun clause is a clause that functions as a noun or a noun
phrase. It may occur as a subject, object complement, in apposition or as a prepositional
complement as in the view of traditional grammar. Therefore, noun clauses perform eight

main grammatical functions within sentences in the English language, as followed: subject,
subject complement, direct object, object complement, indirect object, prepositional
complement, adjective phrase complement, and appositive.
Noun clauses are defined as subordinate or dependent clauses formed by a
subordinating conjunction followed by a clause. Noun clauses perform nominal functions, or
functions prototypically performed by noun phrases. We just have a look at those functions.




25
Noun clauses as subjects
The first grammatical function that noun clauses can perform is the subject. Subjects are
defined as words, phrases, and clauses that perform the action of or act upon the predicate. For
example, the following italicized noun clauses function as subjects:
Whoever ate my lunch is in big trouble.
How you will finish all your homework on time is beyond me.
That the museum cancelled the lecture disappoints me.
Noun clauses as subject complements
The second grammatical function that noun clauses can perform is the subject complement.
Subject complements are defined as words, phrases, and clauses that follow a copular verb and
describe the subject. For example, the following italicized noun clauses function as subject
complements:
The truth was that the moving company lost all your furniture.
My question is whether you will sue the company for losses.
Noun Clauses as Direct Object
The third grammatical function that noun clauses can perform is the direct object.
Direct objects are defined as words, phrases, and clauses that follow and receive the action of
a transitive verb. For example, the following italicized noun clauses function as direct objects:
The counselor has been wondering if she chose the right career.

Do you know when the train should arrive?
Our dog eats whatever we put in his bowl.
Noun Clauses as Object Complements
The fourth grammatical function that noun clauses can perform is the object
complement. Object complements are defined as words, phrases, and clauses that directly
follow and describe the direct object. For example, the following italicized noun clauses
function as object complements:
Her grandfather considers his biggest mistake that he did not finish college.
The committee has announced the winner whoever wrote the essay on noun clauses.
I have often declared the problem that most students do not understand grammar.


26
Noun Clauses as Indirect Objects
The fifth grammatical function that noun clauses can perform is the indirect object.
Indirect objects are defined as words, phrases, and clauses that follow a ditransitive verb and
indicate to or for whom or what is action of the verb is performed. For example, the following
italicized noun clauses function as indirect objects:
The judge will give what you said some deliberation during her decision.
The group has given that most Americans do not support their cause little
consideration.
Noun Clauses as Prepositional Complements
The sixth grammatical function that noun clauses can perform is the prepositional
complement. Prepositional complements are defined as words, phrases, and clauses that
directly follow a preposition to complete the meaning of the prepositional phrase. For
example, the following italicized noun clauses function as prepositional complements:
Some people believe in whatever organized religion tells We have been
waiting for whoever will pick us up from the party.
My husband did not think about that I wanted some nice jewelry for my
birthday.

Noun Clauses as Adjective Phrase Complements
The seventh grammatical function that noun clauses can perform is the adjective
phrase complement. Adjective phrase complements are defined as phrases and clauses that
complete the meaning of an adjective phrase. For example, the following italicized noun
clauses function as adjective phrase complements:
I am pleased that you are studying noun clauses.
The toddler was surprised that throwing a tantrum did not get him his way.
My brother is angry that someone dented his new car.
Noun Clauses as Appositives
The eighth grammatical function that noun clauses can perform is the appositive.
Appositives are defined as words, phrases, and clauses that describe or explain another noun
phrase. For example, the following italicized noun clauses function as appositives:


27
That man, whoever is he, tried to steal some library books.
The problem that the storm knocked out power, is affecting the entire town.
Your question, whether you should wear the blue dress or pink one, is frivolous
in the situation.
We have just viewed the functions of nominal clauses in the traditional view. In Quirk
et al.‟s view, there are five majors of nominal clauses besides the functions. They are:
The that – clause.
The dependent interrogative clause.
The nominal relative clause.
The to – infinitive clause.
The –ing clause.
Other two minor types are bare infinitive and verbless clauses. The that – clause usually
expresses “factual”, “putative”, and “hypothetical” meaning. The nominal interrogative clause
is grammatically very similar to questions except for the absence of the subject – operator
inversion and the addition of whether / if in yes – no questions. The to – infinitive nominal

clause and the nominal –ing clause are similar to that – clause in function and semantics,
respectively.
1.3.2 Functional grammar
Nominal clauses (in traditional grammar known as noun clauses) are subordinate
clauses which usually play an integral role in relation to the superordinate clause. They are
called nominal clauses because they specify a concrete or abstract entity and typically could be
interrogated by the word What? (sometimes also Who?) or replaced in the sentence structure
by the pronoun it or that (or he/she). In this way they are seen as performing a 'nominal'
function. As mentioned above (in the part of nominal phrase), the label 'nominal clause' is
chosen in preference to 'noun clause' as a term which is more generalized and which captures
the fact that the nominal function is fulfilled both by a subordinate clause or a phrase, which
may itself be a single word (a noun or pronoun) (Morley, 2000: 63).
In Halliday‟s systemic-functional grammar (1985), we find an analysis of intraclausal
constituents in terms of groups and phrases (1985: 158). Groups are taken to be expansions of


28
words, that is, word complexes which have a certain logical structure (like head and modifier).
A phrase is the contraction of a clause, with no logical structure. Thus, in a prepositional
phrase the preposition is like a minor verb or predicator which has a nominal group as its
complement. To sum up, instead of using the term noun phrase as in traditional grammar), the
term nominal group is used in functional grammar to cover all word groups that can function
as participants in processes, including all what can be called noun phrase, participle phrase or
pronoun, and the term nominal group will be used in the next chapters.
1.4. Qualifiers
What of the element which follows the Thing? Halliday calls this element as Qualifier.
In other words, Qualifiers are those elements which are placed after the headword and are,
therefore, also determined by position. Which follows the Thing is either a phrase or a clause?
In certain, fairly limited circumstances in English this position and role may be filled by an
adjective, e.g. the secretary general, the princess royal, the president elect, the person

responsible, something tasty, nothing new, the fastest time possible. A number of expressions
which include adjectival qualifiers, though, are in practice fixed and non-expandable, e.g. the
secretary general, the princess royal, the president elect. In some phrases, such as the fastest
time possible, the qualifier possible is actually qualifying the modifier fastest rather than the
headword noun. There is also the possibility of a qualifier being filled by an adverb, e.g. the
journey there/here, the way in/out, the time before (hand) /after (wards), the climb up I down.
However, the qualifier is more commonly expressed by a prepositional phrase, e.g. the Hound
of the Baskervilles, the stain on the wallpaper, the man with the yellow socks, or by a relative
subordinate clause, e.g. the car that I drove yesterday, the map which Pat lost, the boy who
delivers the papers. The analysis of qualifiers expressed by these larger units is described
later. The systemic term 'qualifier is thus equivalent to the term 'post-headword modifier', or
postmodifier for short, as found in other grammars.
Like epithets, qualifiers inform a characteristic of the referred in the form of post-
positioned embedded elements, whose main types are relative clauses, appositive clauses or
prepositional phrases. All of these clauses will be explored more detail in next parts.