THE SIMPLE SENTENCE IN TRADITIONAL GRAMMAR AND THE CLAUSE SIMPLEX IN SYSTEMIC FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR a COMPARATIVE STUDY

TABLE OF CONTENTS
General Introduction...................................................................................................................1
1. Rationale.................................................................................................................................1
2. Aims of the study....................................................................................................................2
3. Scopes of the study.................................................................................................................2
4. Methods of the study..............................................................................................................2
5. Design of the study................................................................................................................3
chapter I.......................................................................................................................................4
general conceptualization...........................................................................................................4
1.1. Introduction..........................................................................................................................4
1.2. A brief history of grammatical study...................................................................................4
1.3. Traditional grammar............................................................................................................6
1.4. Systemic Functional grammar.............................................................................................8
1.5. Some differences between SFG and TG.............................................................................9
Chapter II..................................................................................................................................12
The simple sentence in traditional grammar...........................................................................12
2.1. Introduction........................................................................................................................12
2.2. Structural criteria...............................................................................................................13
2.2.1. Principal parts of the sentence: subject and predicate ...................................................14
2.2.2. Sentence elements syntactically defined........................................................................15
2.2.3. Basic clause patterns ......................................................................................................17
2.3. Logico-semantic criteria....................................................................................................18
2.4. Communicative criteria.....................................................................................................20
2.5. Phonological and orthographic criteria.............................................................................21
2.6. Summary............................................................................................................................22
Chapter III.................................................................................................................................23
The clause in systemic functional grammar............................................................................23
3.1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................23
3.2. Clause - the crucial unit in systemic functional grammar.................................................23
3.3. Three ways of interpreting clause......................................................................................24
3.3.1. Clause as representation: experiential metafunction......................................................24

3.3.1.1. Transitivity...................................................................................................................24
(Source: D. Q. Ban, 2004: 37)........................26
3.3.1.2. Types of process..........................................................................................................26
3.3.1.3. Circumstances..........................................................................................................31
3.3.2. Clause as exchange: interpersonal metafunction...........................................................32
3.3.2.1. Characterization of Mood............................................................................................32
3.3.2.2. Overall interpersonal organization of the clause.........................................................33
3.3.2.3. Structure of the Mood element....................................................................................34
3.3.2.4. Residue.........................................................................................................................35
3.3.2.5. Modality.......................................................................................................................36
3.3.2.6. Mood system in English and Vietnamese: a brief comparison...................................37
3.3.3. Clause as message : textual metafunction......................................................................39
3.3.3.1. Thematic structure.......................................................................................................39
3.3.3.2. Boundary of theme .....................................................................................................40


3.3.3.3. Types of theme.............................................................................................................42
Hãy....................................................................................................................................43
vào.....................................................................................................................................43
đây uống nước đã.............................................................................................................43
Interpersonal Theme ........................................................................................................43
Topical Theme..................................................................................................................43
Rheme.....................................................................................................................43
Theme......................................................................................................43
3.3.3.4.Markness.......................................................................................................................44
3.3.3.5. Implications of Theme for level of textual structure...................................................45
3.4. Simultaneous metafunctions in the clause.........................................................................46
3.5. Summary............................................................................................................................48
Chapter IV.................................................................................................................................50
comparison...............................................................................................................................50

4.1. The similarities between the sentence and the clause .....................................................50
4.2. The differences between the sentence and the clause.......................................................51
CONCLUSION.........................................................................................................................57


1

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 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

2. Aims of the study
Within the framework of an MA thesis the study aims to:
- investigate how the sentence is conceptualized and described in traditional grammar.
- investigate how the clause 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.


3

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: TrÇn Träng 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 V©n (2002), DiƯp Quang Ban
(2004). Apart from those publications named above, other studies are also consulted when
necessary.

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.


4

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 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 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
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.


5

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’ 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.
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 structuralism 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 19th 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


6

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
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 18th 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

7

characterized as traditional in their outlook, even though they are considerably more
linguistically sophisticated than earlier descriptions (Trask, 1999).
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. Vân, 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 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


8

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).
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


9

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

+ 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 (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


10

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).
+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 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).

+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


11

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 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:

Definitions of

Traditional
Systemic-functional
mainly concerned with syntax ‘lexicogrammar’ – no distinction between

grammar

(+ some morphology)

lexis and grammar. Both are meaning-


12

Differences

in verb

/

terminology (some object
examples)

predicator
/

predicative

indirect
/

/

creating.
direct Finite + Predicator / complement /

object

/ circumstantial

/

modal

adjunct

/

adverbial conjunctive adjunct / nominal group /

(adjunct / disjunct / conjunct) verbial group
Areas covered

noun / verb phrase
(text>) sentence > clause > the
phrase > word > morpheme

View of the clause / syntactic
sentence

patterns

functions,

whole

communicative

event:

experiential, interpersonal and textual

functions
clause processes and participants, mood type +
modality, thematic structure

Table 1: 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


13

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.
- 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.


14

+ 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.

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

Is a student

His brother

grew happier

Learning English

is difficult

Subject

Predicate
Figure 2-1 (a): Parts of sentence in English

Anh ấy

Học ngoại ngữ

Cái ấm này

bằng nhơm

Gia đình tơi

đã sống ở đây sáu năm rồi

Chủ ngữ

Vị ngữ

(Subject)

(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 analyze 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


16

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 make
S

V

him the chairman every year
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 take 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,

người ta

Đề ngữ

Chủ ngữ

Vị ngữ

(theme)

(subject)

(predicate)

sợ cái uy của quyền thế


17

Em ơi

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, sẽ, đang, không. (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

S

in New York.

Vintens

Aplace

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

kicked

S

the ball.

Vmonotrans

Od

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

gave

her

Vcomplex trans Oi

a diamond ring
Od

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

is
Vintens

a doctor
Cs

+ Pattern five: (SVOA).
Mary

S

took
Vcomplex trans

+ Pattern six: (SVOA).

the children
Od

to the zoo.
Aplace


18

They

elected

S

him

Vcomplex trans

Od

the leader.
Co

+ Pattern seven: (SV)
The child
S

laughed.
Vintrans

2.3. Logico-semantic criteria
From the point of view of logico-semantic, a sentence is defined as expressing ‘a state of
affairs’ (Quirk et al. 1985; Van Valin& Lappolla 1997; T. V. Chình & N. H. Lê 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
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.

19

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. Chình & N. H. Lê (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
Tôi đi xem hát
áo anh dài quá

Tôi is the subject of đi xem hát and áo anh is the subject of dài quá. 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.
Xe này chở than.
Vườn ơng trồng tồn 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.


20

(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 do not get on well with each other.
Thời tiết hôm nay rất đẹp.
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 is not married, is she?


21

An interrogative in Vietnamese can be established with interrogative pronoun (ai, gì, nào,
thế nào, sao, bây giờ, ở đâu, ect), the alternative word “hay”, interrogative word (có…
khơng, chưa, phải khơng, à) or rising intonation.
Sao anh về muộn thế?
Cậu thích đọc trụn ngắn phải khơng?
Cụ Ba có nhà hay khơng?
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!
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 tốn 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! = Khơng 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


22

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, changing intonation helps to form different
types of sentences.
Anh Ba ®i phè.

(statement)

Anh Ba ®i phè?

(question)

Anh Ba ®i phè!

(exclamation)

Anh Ba, ®i phè!

(imperative)

(Lª CËn et al. 1983)
Orthographically, a sentence can be recognized by an initial capital letter and the presence
of the ending punctuation. In Quirk et al. (1973), successive units form a hierarchy as
follows:
-

The dependent units in sentence structure (usually phrases or clauses) separated
by a comma (,)

-

The independent units (usually clauses) separated by a semicolon (;)

-

The sentences separated by a period (.) and a following capital.

Additionally, types of sentence are variously punctuated. A statement often ends with a full
stop (a period) while a question can be punctuated with a question mark (?) and an
explanative can be orthographically recognized by an exclamation mark (!).

2.6. Summary

In summary, this chapter has provided an investigation into how the simple sentence is
conceptualized and described in traditional grammar. Our generalization concentrates mainly
on the commonest issues of the sentence, including the definition of sentence, classification
of sentence, defining sentence components and setting up the basic sentence patterns. The
sentence is defined and recognized according to various criteria, which reflects many aspects
of language, both functional and formal. However, one of the problems with the sentence


23

analyzed under the traditional analytic framework is that the criteria to define and recognize
this unit seem to be isolated from each other, and therefore, ‘they seem to lack of
systematicity’ (H. V. Vân). In the next chapter, we will investigate how the clause – the
counterpart of simple sentence - is described in SFG.

Chapter III
The clause in systemic functional grammar

3.1. Introduction
In this chapter, firstly an attempt is made to explain how clause occupies important status in
describing grammar. Secondly, we will investigate how clause is described in English and
Vietnamese. Our description of the Vietnamese clause in this chapter is mostly based on the
following publications: Hoàng Văn Vân (2001) and Diệp Quang Ban (2004). These are the
valuable referential material sources in which the clause in Vietnamese is described basing
on Halliday’s systemic functional framework.

3.2. Clause - the crucial unit in systemic functional
grammar