A cheerful smile came on his face” or “ He was putting on a cheerful smile”

i

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP
Except where reference is made in the text of the dissertation, this
dissertation contains no material published elsewhere or extracted in whole or in
part from a dissertation by which I have qualified for or been awarded another
degree or diploma. No other person's work has been used without due
acknowledgements in the dissertation.
This dissertation has not been submitted for the award of any degree or diploma in
any other tertiary institution.
Da Nang, December 2018


ii

ABSTRACT
This study focuses on a functional analysis of

behavioral clauses and

interpreting linguistic features of English and Vietnamese behavioral clauses.
Qualitative and contrastive methods were adopted in this study because they best
suited the requirements to the description of behavioral clauses and the comparisons
of them in English and Vietnamese. Wordsmith 5.0 and Navigation pane were
exploited to select 678 English Vietnamese behavioral clauses and 602 Vietnamese
behavioral clauses from novels and short stories. The main functional framework to
describe collected behavioral clauses is the ideational metafunction within the
system of Transitivity developed by Halliday (1994) and Halliday & Matthiessen
(2000, 2004, 2014). The discussion is devoted to the interpretation of four subtypes
of behavioral domains namely semiotic, social, biological and physical behavior
together with the associated patterns and core elements of English and Vietnamese

behavioral

clauses

at

lexicogrammar

and

ideational

metafunction

level.

Furthermore, an attempt has been made to offer a contrastive analysis of them and
explore the communication effects of English and Vietnamese behavioral clauses
and ideational metaphors in given contexts. The contrastive analysis reveals that
both English and Vietnamese behavioral clauses have some similar features of
domains, lexicogrammar and ideational metafunction. However, major distinctions
between English – a synthetic language and Vietnamese – an analytic language
bring about some differences in realization of these behavioral domains and
behavioral clauses. The in-depth analysis of behavioral clauses shows that phrasal
verbs result in some ambiguous cases to identify and label Range while Vietnamese
behavioral clauses do not include firmly bonded phrasal verbs to make meaning.
Finally, this study also discusses the notions and the three kinds of semantic shifts
of ideational metaphor in English and Vietnamese as well as compares these shifts
in the two languages. Finally, the contributions of the study also reflect the ongoing
discussion on the clause analysis between English and Vietnamese.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP ......................................................................... i
ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................. ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................ iii
ABBREVIATION ................................................................................................. viii
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................. ix
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................ xi
CHAPTER ONE........................................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................1
1.1. RATIONALE .......................................................................................................1
1.2. AIMS, OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY ......................................2
1.2.1. Aims and objectives of the study ...............................................................2
1.2.2. Scope of the study ......................................................................................3
1.3. RESEARCH QUESTIONS ..................................................................................4
1.4. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY .....................................................................4
1.5. ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY ..................................................................4
CHAPTER TWO ......................................................................................................7
LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ..................7
2.1. LITERATURE REVIEW.....................................................................................7
2.2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ...................................................................12
2.2.1. Functional Grammar ................................................................................12
2.2.2. Ideational metafunction ............................................................................15
2.2.3. Types of processes and their associated participants ...............................19
2.2.3.1. Material processes ..........................................................................19
2.2.3.2. Mental processes ............................................................................21
2.2.3.3. Verbal processes.............................................................................22

2.2.3.4. Relational processes .......................................................................23
2.2.3.5. Existential processes ......................................................................24
2.2.3.6. Behavioral processes ......................................................................25


iv

2.2.4. The notions of clauses ..............................................................................32
2.2.5. Clause type in this study ..........................................................................33
2.2.6. Probes of behavioral processes in this study............................................36
2.2.7. Ideational metaphor ..................................................................................37
2.3. SUMMARY AND CONCLUDING REMARKS..............................................41
CHAPTER THREE ................................................................................................43
RESEARCH METHODS .......................................................................................43
3.1. METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................43
3.2. RESEARCH DESIGN .......................................................................................44
3.2.1. Data collection .........................................................................................44
3.2.1.1. Sampling procedure .......................................................................44
3.2.1.2. Sampling techniques ......................................................................47
3.2.2. Data analysis ............................................................................................54
3.3. SUMMARY AND CONCLUDING REMARKS..............................................56
CHAPTER FOUR ...................................................................................................57
BEHAVIORAL PROCESSES AND THEIR CONGFIGURATION
PATTERNS IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE ...............................................57
4.1. BEHAVIORAL PROCESSES AND CONFIGURATION PATTERNS IN
ENGLISH ..................................................................................................................57
4.1.1. Semiotic behavioral processes and their configuration patterns in English
............................................................................................................................57
4.1.2. Social behavioral processes and their configuration patterns in English .60
4.1.3. Biological behavioral processes and their configuration patterns in

English ................................................................................................................62
4.1.4. Physical behavioral processes and their configuration patterns in English
............................................................................................................................64
4.2. BEHAVIORAL DOMAINS AND CONFIGURATION PATTERNS IN
VIETNAMESE .........................................................................................................65


v

4.2.1. Semiotic behavioral processes and their configuration patterns in
Vietnamese .........................................................................................................66
4.2.2. Social behavioral processes and their associated configuration patterns in
Vietnamese .........................................................................................................68
4.2.3. Biological behavioral processes and their configuration patterns in
Vietnamese .........................................................................................................70
4.2.4. Physical behavioral processes and their configuration patterns in
Vietnamese .........................................................................................................72
4.3. SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES IN TERMS OF DOMAINS AND
CONFIGURATION PATTERNS OF ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE
BEHAVIORAL CLAUSES ......................................................................................74
4.3.1. Similarities ...............................................................................................74
4.3.2. Differences ...............................................................................................75
4.4. SUMMARY AND CONCLUDING REMARKS..............................................79
CHAPTER FIVE .....................................................................................................80
FUNCTIONAL REALIZATIONS OF BEHAVIORAL CLAUSES IN
ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE ...........................................................................80
5.1. FUNCTIONAL REALIZATIONS OF BEHAVIORAL CLAUSES IN
ENGLISH ..................................................................................................................80
5.1.1. Participant-Behaver in English ................................................................80
5.1.2. Range in English .....................................................................................83

5.1.2.1. Range – Behavior in English .........................................................83
5.1.2.2. Range – Phenomenon in English ...................................................85
5.1.2.3. Range – Target or Verbiage in English ..........................................87
5.1.3. Circumstance in English ..........................................................................89
5.1.3.1. Lexicogrammar of Circumstance in English .................................89
5.1.3.2. Ideational metafunction of Circumstance in English .....................90
5.2. FUNCTIONAL REALIZATIONS OF BEHAVIORAL CLAUSES IN
VIETNAMESE .........................................................................................................94


vi

5.2.1. Behaver in Vietnamese ............................................................................94
5.2.2. Range in Vietnamese...............................................................................97
5.2.2.1. Range – Behavior in Vietnamese ...................................................97
5.2.2.2. Range – Phenomenon in Vietnamese...........................................100
5.2.2.3. Range – Target or Verbiage in Vietnamese .................................101
5.2.3. Circumstance in Vietnamese ..................................................................103
5.2.3.1. Lexicogrammar of Circumstance in Vietnamese .........................104
5.2.3.2. Ideational metafunction of circumstance in Vietnamese .............105
5.3. SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES IN TERMS OF THE
CHARACTERISTICS OF ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE BEHAVIORAL
CLAUSES ...............................................................................................................109
5.3.1. Behavers in English and Vietnamese behavioral clauses ......................109
5.3.2. Range in English and Vietnamese behavioral clauses ...........................111
5.3.2.1. Behavior in English and Vietnamese behavioral clauses ............111
5.3.2.2. Phenomenon in English and Vietnamese behavioral clauses ......113
5.3.2.3. Verbiage or Target in English and Vietnamese behavioral clauses
...................................................................................................................118
5.3.4. Circumstance in English and Vietnamese behavioral clauses ...............121

5.4. SUMMARY AND CONCLUDING REMARKS............................................125
CHAPTER SIX......................................................................................................127
IDEATIONAL METAPHOR OF BEHAVIORAL CLAUSES IN ENGLISH
AND VIETNAMESE ............................................................................................127
6.1. TYPES OF IDEATIONAL METAPHOR IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE
BEHAVIORAL CLAUSES ....................................................................................127
6.1.1. A shift of behavior process to Thing - Range ........................................127
6.1.2. A shift of behavior process to Thing - Behavior ....................................133
6.1.3. A shift of behavioral process to Circumstance – Manner ......................136


vii

6.2. INTERPRETATION OF SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES IN TERMS
OF TYPES OF IDEATIONAL METAPHOR IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE
BEHAVIORAL CLAUSES. ...................................................................................137
6.3. SUMMARY AND CONCLUDING REMARKS............................................139
CHAPTER SEVEN ...............................................................................................140
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS ..........................................................140
7.1. CONCLUSIONS ..............................................................................................140
7.2. FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE .................................................................144
7.2.1. Teaching and translating behavioral clauses and ideational metaphor ..144
7.2.2. Implications for interpreting Vietnamese clauses ..................................148
7.3. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER
RESEARCH ............................................................................................................150
PUBLICATION LISTS ..........................................................................................152
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................153
APPENDIX A. ENGLISH BEHAVIORAL PROCESSES
APPENDIX B. VIETNAMESE BEHAVIORAL PROCESSES
APPENDIX C. ENGLISH BEHAVIORAL CLAUSES

APPENDIX D. VIETNAMESE BEHAVIORAL CLAUSES


viii

ABBREVIATION

1. Adv

Adverb

2. Cir

Circumstance

3. EN

English

4. FG

Functional grammar

5. Prep

Preposition

6. Pro

Process

7. TG

Transformative - generative

8. VN

Vietnamese


ix

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1. Metafunctions...........................................................................................18
Table 2.2. Six subtypes of participants of material and their characteristics ............20
Table 2.3. Two subtypes of participants of mental and their characteristics ............21
Table 2.4. Three subtypes of Participants of verbal process and their characteristics
......................................................................................................................23
Table 2.5. Four subtypes of participants of relational and their characteristics .......24
Table 2.6. Four subtypes of behavioral processes by Martin et al (1997) ................26
Table 2.7. Four subtypes of behavioral processes by Matthiessen et al (2010)........27
Table 2.8. Examples of verbs serving as processes in behavioral clauses ................28
Table 2.9. Kinds of processes and their associated participants ...............................31
Table 2.10. The significant differences among the four processes ........................37
Table 3.1. A list of fourteen English novels and short stories ..................................45
Table 3.2. A list of twenty three Vietnamese novels and short stories .....................46
Table 3.3. A raw list of English behavioral processes .............................................48
Table 3.4. A raw list of Vietnamese behavioral processes .......................................49
Table 4.1. Examples of English Semiotic behavioral processes ...............................60
Table 4.2. Examples of English Social behavioral processes ...................................62

Table 4.3. Examples of English Biological behavioral processes ............................64
Table 4.4. Examples of English physical behavioral processes ................................65
Table 4.5. Examples of Vietnamese Semiotic behavioral processes ........................68
Table 4.6. Examples of Vietnamese Social behavioral processes ............................70
Table 4.7. Examples of Vietnamese Biological behavioral processes ......................72
Table 4.8. Examples of Vietnamese Physical behavioral processes in Vietnamese .73
Table 4.9. A contrastive analysis of the patterns English and Vietnamese behavioral
clauses ..........................................................................................................74
Table 5.1. A list of some Vietnamese behavioral process nominalizations..............99
Table 5.2. Contrasting examples of accompanying manner – quality of process
“cry” and “smile” in Vietnamese ...............................................................107


x

Table 5.3. English and Vietnamese Behaver ..........................................................111
Table 5.4. English and Vietnamese behavioral clauses with one participant. ........121
Table 5.5. English and Vietnamese behavioral clauses with two participants .......121
Table 5.6. Differences in terms of circumstantial transitivity in English and
Vietnamese .................................................................................................125
Table 5.7. The similarities and differences of English and Vietnamese behavioral
clauses at lexicogrammar and semantic level. ...........................................126
Table 6.1. English Process + Range constructions .................................................127
Table 6.2. Rank of semantic shifts of ideational metaphor of type 1 .....................129
Table 6.3. Vietnamese Process + Range constructions ...........................................132
Table 6.4. Rank of semantic shifts of ideational metaphor of type 2 .....................134
Table 6.5. Rank of semantic shifts of ideational metaphor of type 3 .....................136
Table 6.6. Similarities and differences in terms of the major types and shifts of
ideational metaphor in English and Vietnamese behavioral clauses .........138

xi

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1. Language as tri-stratal system. (Halliday & Matthiessen 2000: 5) ........14
Figure 2.2. Central and peripheral elements in the experiential structure of the
clause. ...........................................................................................................17
Figure 2.3. The three worlds and their processes in grammar of experiment ...........19
Figure 2.4. Subtypes of behavioral clauses ...............................................................30
Figure 2.5. Behavioral clauses with core and peripheral regions (Phan Văn Hòa and
Nguyễn Thị Tú Trinh 2015: 350) .................................................................31
Figure 2.6. The location of the clause in terms of stratification, meta-function and
rank (Halliday and Matthiessen 2014:55) ....................................................32
Figure 2.7. The rank of clause and clause complex (Nguyễn Thị Minh Tâm
2012:28) .......................................................................................................36
Figure 2.8. Congruent mode of realization and metaphorical mode involving
‘downgrading’ (Halliday and Matthiessen 2004: 647) ...................................40
Figure 2.9. Grammatical metaphor interpreted as realization choice
(Ravelli1985:104) ........................................................................................41
Figure 3.1. A list of the concordance of the search-word “smile” ............................51
Figure 3.2. A list of the concordance of the search-word “smiled” ..........................52
Figure 3.3. A list of the concordance of the search-word “smiling” ........................52
Figure 3.4. Matches of “cười” in Chí phèo Word doc ..............................................53
Figure 3.5. Matches of “Khóc” in Tắt đèn Word doc ...............................................54
Figure 5.1. The classification of participants (Nguyễn Thị Tú Trinh et al 2016: 73)
......................................................................................................................81
Figure 5.2. The lexico-grammar and ideational metafunctions of Behaver in English
behavioral clauses. (Nguyễn Thị Tú Trinh et al 2017a: 22) ........................83
Figure 5.3. The lexico-grammar and ideational metafunction of Range in English
behavioral clauses. (Nguyễn Thị Tú Trinh et al 2017a: 29) ........................88

Figure 5.4. The lexico-grammar and ideational metafunction of Circumstance in
English behavioral clauses ...........................................................................93


xii

Figure 5.5. The lexico-grammar and ideational metafunctions of Behaver in
Vietnamese behavioral clauses ....................................................................97
Figure 5.6. The lexico-grammar and ideational metafunctions of Range-Target/
Verbiage in Vietnamese behavioral clauses. (Nguyễn Thị Tú Trinh et al
2017a: 29) ..................................................................................................103
Figure 5.7. The lexico-grammar and ideational metafunctions of Circumstance in
Vietnamese behavioral clauses. .................................................................108
Figure 6.1. Congruent realization of the ideational domains of discourse semantics
(Devrim 2013: 37) ......................................................................................133
Figure 6.2. Metaphorical realization of behavioral clauses with a shift from
behavioral Process to Behavior. .................................................................135
Figure 7.1. Dissertation’s step-by-step process ......................................................140


1

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1. RATIONALE
Clause analysis has been at the center of attention throughout most of the
history of linguistics and tremendous efforts have been made to grasp and analyze
the human languages. To achieve this goal, linguists have to be able to segment
languages into small units to interpret them and clauses are the best choice since
clause is the biggest segment to make meaning in terms of rank. In addition, human

beings construct a large number of clauses creatively based on the patterns of their
language use to communicate in their daily life. Despite a lot of longstanding
interest and efforts to shed light on clause interpretation, there is no consensus
among linguists on clause interpretation because researchers work on clause
analysis in a variety of approaches with different frameworks and outcomes. In
recent years there has been a dramatic revival of interest in Vietnamese clause
analyses based on functional grammar raised by Halliday (1994) and Halliday &
Matthiessen (2000, 2014), particularly in terms of Transitivity system (clause as
representation). Considerable numbers of things and phenomena occur all the time
around us and human beings witness and construe a quantum of change as one
process configuration, realized in one clause; for example: He was smiling
cheerfully. That is, our experience is turned into meaning, and into wording. With
the account of ideational metafunction, “He was smiling cheerfully” consists of
three elements: a Participant (Behaver: he), a Process (Behavioral process: was
smiling) and a Circumstance (Manner: cheerfully).
He

was smiling

cheerfully.

Behaver

Process: Behavioral

Cir: Manner

It may seem that there is not only a single wording for the meaning. English
might give us the options of construing this as “ A cheerful smile came on his face”
or “ He was putting on a cheerful smile”. It can be seen that there is always a

choice in how to construe language as well as the alternative wordings of construing


2

semantic domains of behavior and others. In particular, it is possible and pertinent
to get sense of the choice of wording of behavioral domains in English and
Vietnamese. Last but not least, human behaviors are probably the most common
experience of human life in the real world so it is essential to study how human
behaviors are realized in language. According to Halliday and Matthiessen (2014)
behaviors are manifested by (typically human) physiological and psychological
behavior processes. Very few researchers have attempted to interpret behavioral
processes and to investigate their subtypes in English and Vietnamese from the
perspective of Functional Grammar. The above reasons drove me to conduct a
functional study of behavioral clauses in English and Vietnamese.
1.2. AIMS, OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY
1.2.1. Aims and objectives of the study
The aim of this study is to compare the manifestations of behavioral domains
in English and Vietnamese as well as analyze English and Vietnamese behavioral
clauses based on the account of functional grammar elaborated by Halliday (1994)
and Halliday & Matthiessen (2000, 2014). The theoretical framework which the
study adopts is functional analysis. Therefore, the collected English and Vietnamese
behavioral clauses are interpreted (i) semantically, according to ideational meaning,
(ii) structurally that is, according to rank.
This study is primarily concerned with the analysis of English and
Vietnamese behavioral clauses in terms of ideational metafunction and
lexicogrammar and then makes a contrastive analysis of English and Vietnamese
behavioral clauses. That is to say this study demonstrates what core and peripheral
regions of behavioral domains are and how the rank scales (from clause to group)
could be mapped onto the functional units and the realizations of behavioral

domains.
To achieve the aim, first attempts have been made to explore the prototypical
and peripheral semantic domains of behavioral processes and configuration patterns
to realize each domain in English and Vietnamese. These patterns enable us to talk


3

about linguistic choices in making meanings. In addition, it is worth talking about
social and functional communication in given contexts. Furthermore, the similarities
and differences in the nature of semantic domains of behavioral processes as well as
their associated configuration patterns are discussed. Secondly, English behavioral
clauses are interpreted in terms of ideational metafunction and lexicogrammar. It is
suggestive that this enables us to shed the light on the semantic configuration and
lexico-grammar resources in English. Then attention has been paid to ideational
metafunction and lexicogrammar of Vietnamese behavioral clauses. Furthermore, a
contrastive analysis of the features and status between participants and
circumstances in the configuration of behavioral clauses in English and Vietnamese
is made. Finally, the study examines ideational metaphor with congruent and
incongruent wording of English and Vietnamese behavioral clauses.
1.2.2. Scope of the study
This study works at the clause level. Clauses, therefore, are the central
concept in this study and are in need of exploration and discussion. Unfortunately,
the definition and classification of clauses are fairly debatable and abstract. It is
essential that we identify the notions of clause in which the term “clause” is
employed in this study. As stated above, the study is based on functional analysis so
the notions of clause is seen in the light of functional grammar. According to
Halliday and Matthiessen (2014: 74) “The clause, as we said, is the mainspring of
grammatical energy; it is the unit where meanings of different kinds, experiential,
interpersonal and textual, are integrated into a single syntagm”. Clause, therefore, is

examined at the intersection of three dimensions namely stratification, metafunction and rank. The issues relating to notions of clauses are discussed in section
2.2.4.
Finally, this study is mainly devoted to experiential metafunction of clauses
and the interpersonal and textual metafunction are not explored in this study since
our attention is directed toward the in-depth functional analysis of clauses from the
structure of the clause as representation. A clause has meaning as a representation


4

of some process in ongoing human experience.
1.3. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The research questions for this study were:
1. What are the semantic domains and their configuration patterns of English
and Vietnamese behavioral clauses?
2. What are functional realizations of English and Vietnamese behavioral
clauses?
3. What kinds of ideational metaphor are available in English and Vietnamese
behavioral clauses?
4. What are the similarities and differences in semantic domains, functional
realizations and types of ideational metaphor between English and
Vietnamese?
1.4. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
As mentioned above, there have been few attempts to describe Vietnamese
clauses from functional perspective as well as to make a comparative analysis of
them English and Vietnamese. This study makes an effective use of Halliday’s
functional grammar to analyze linguistic features of behavioral clauses in English
and Vietnamese, focusing on Transitivity. Comparison is also made between
functional grammar and traditional structural approaches while analyzing the data,
which yields some crucial findings. The study demonstrates functional realization

of behavioral clauses and reveals some similarities and differences in terms of these
respects and makes some suggestions for applications of functional grammar to the
interpretation of Vietnamese clauses. In addition, this study is expected to make a
contribution to the Vietnamese grammar and linguistic theories relating to clause
analysis as well as offer practical assistance to those who want to make similar
attempts in applying Functional Grammar to language studies and teaching. This
means the dissertation has both theoretical and practical significance in linguistics.
1.5. ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY
This study concentrates primarily on the experiential interpretation of


5

English and Vietnamese clauses from functional framework elaborated by Halliday
and Matthiessen (2000, 2014) and consists of seven chapters.
CHAPTER ONE. INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents the rationale of the study, defines the aims and scope
and the organization of the study. The research questions are also included in this
chapter as a guide to the following sections of the dissertation.
CHAPTER

TWO.

LITERATURE

REVIEW

AND

THEORETICAL

BACKGROUND
In this chapter, reviews of the previous research related to the concept of
Transitivity system as well as ideational metafunction are made. In addition, the
chapter discusses the theoretical background of ideational metafunction and its
processes. The notions and types of clauses as well as ideational metaphor are
mentioned.
CHAPTER THREE. RESEARCH METHODS
Qualitative approach and contrastive analysis were adopted in this study.
This chapter is involved in the discussion of the methodology, research design, data
collection and data analysis. The specific steps are taken as the following: building
up the criteria to recognize English and Vietnamese behavioral clauses, collecting
and listing the collected data by using software package Wordsmith 5.0 and
Navigation pane in Word documents and PDF Word, reading, identifying and
interpreting the data.
CHAPTER FOUR. BEHAVIORAL PROCESSES AND THEIR
CONGFIGURATION PATTERNS IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE
This chapter discusses prototypical and peripheral behavioral domains and
their associated configuration patterns of behavioral clauses in English and
Vietnamese from functional framework. Then a contrastive analysis of these
domains and patterns of behavioral clauses in English and Vietnamese is presented
to find out some similarities and differences with respect to these.


6

CHAPTER

FIVE.

FUNCTIONAL

REALIZATIONS

OF

BEHAVIORAL

CLAUSES IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE
This chapter deals with various realizations of behavioral domains and
behavioral clauses are examined along the rank scale or lexicogrammar and
ideational in English and Vietnamese. This chapter also looks at the similarities and
differences between the two languages.
CHAPTER SIX. IDEATIONAL METAPHOR OF BEHAVIORAL CLAUSES IN
ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE
Functional analysis and discussion of ideational metaphor are offered. This
chapter primarily describes types of ideational metaphor, rank and semantic shifts in
English and Vietnamese and then presents a contrastive analysis of these types and
shifts between the two languages.
CHAPTER SEVEN. CONCLUSION
Finally, this chapter summarizes what has been studied and draws some
conclusions on the study as well as gives implications for practical solutions and the
limitations of the study.


7

CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
2.1. LITERATURE REVIEW

The late 20th century saw theorists from various approaches focusing on
texts. Within the scope of this study, attention has been paid to functional
perspective of text analysis developed on the foundation of work by Halliday
(1994). Halliday’s FG has been constructed and derived from Hjelmslev’s and
Firth’s accounts. Halliday (1994) followed Hjelmslev (1961) and Firth (1948) in
distinguishing theoretical from descriptive categories in linguistics. The author
argued that “theoretical categories, and their inter-relations, construe an abstract
model of language...they are interlocking and mutually defining”. Halliday (1994)
described language as a semiotic system " not in the sense of a system of signs, but
a systemic resource for meaning". This work is considered as a skeleton for his
functional grammar theory. Halliday (1994) presented a detailed functional
grammar of modern English and showed how simultaneous strands of meanings
(the ideational, interpersonal and textual metafunctions) are realized in clause
structures. Halliday and Matthiessen (2000) gave an in-depth explanation to how
human beings construe their experience of the world. The construction of
experience is usually thought of as knowledge, represented in the form of
conceptual taxonomies, schemata, scripts and others. The focus of the book is both
theoretical and descriptive. The authors considered it important that theory and
description should develop in parallel, with constant interchange between the two.
The major descriptive component is an account of the most general features of the
ideational semantics of English, which is then exemplified in two familiar text types
(recipes and weather forecasts). There is also a brief reference to the semantics of
Chinese and a comparison in terms of sequences, figures and elements between
English and Chinese. Their comparison between these two languages inspired us to
conduct a comparative study of behavioral clauses in English and Vietnamese in the
light of functional grammar. It is evident that his theory should be widely applied to


8

interpret and analyze more languages to thrive in linguistics.
Functional grammar has been applied in such fields as language education
(e.g. Christie 2002; Christie & Martin 1997; Unsworth 2000), text analysis (e.g.
Eggins 1994; Butler 2003; Downing and Locke 2006), language description and
topology (Mwinlaaru & Xuan 2009) and contrastive analysis and comparative
linguistics. So far, studies have contrasted English with languages such as Chinese
(Li 2007), Spanish (Arús 2004), Danish (Anderson 2004), Dutch (Degand 1996),
French (Caffarel 2006), German (Steiner & Elke 2004), Indonesian (Indah 1985),
Japanese (Teruya 2007) and Vietnamese (Thái Minh Đức 1998 and Hoàng Văn Vân
2012).
Halliday & Matthiessen (2004, 2014) later introduced the concept and
numerous features of behavioral processes in the framework of Transitivity system.
Halliday & Matthiessen (2014:2014) argued that behavioral processes are processes
of physiological and psychological behavior with the participant who is “behaving”,
labeled Behaver, is typically a conscious being. In addition,

Halliday &

Matthiessen (2014) pointed out that “the boundaries of behavioral processes are
indeterminate” and suggested a grammatical probe to determine behavioral
processes. That is the usual unmarked present tense for behavioral processes is
present in present. However, Halliday & Matthiessen (2014) covered a wide range
of terms and concepts in functional grammar so it is impossible to cover all matters
of functional grammar in this single work and they left some unsolved and
deemphasized problems of this field such as the borderlines among processes and
some puzzles in interpreting and labeling them especially behavioral clauses as well
as how to apply his theory in teaching and learning English and other languages.
It must be remembered that functional grammar is a linguistic theory and “a
theory is a means of action” (Halliday 1994:xxix). That is, theory must have some
purposes, and serve some practical application. Eggin (1994), Bloor and Bloor

(1995), Martin et al (1997), Matthiessen et al (2010), Fontaine (2012) and
Thompson (2013) adopted Halliday’s functional grammar to analyze English


9

grammar. Eggin (1997) applied Halliday’s transitivity system to interpret and label
English clause constituents for their content roles. Eggin (1997) stated that “in
analyzing transitivity structure in a clause, we are concerned with describing three
aspects of the clause: the selection of processes, the selection of Participants and the
selection of Circumstances." In the remainder of her work, Eggin concentrated on
six different types of processes and their associated configurations of participant
roles. In particular, Eggin (1997) argued that behavioral processes are semantically
a mix of the material and mental, but grammatically they also fall midway between
material and mental processes. Nevertheless, Eggin (1997) failed to show the
borderlines of behavioral processes and classify their subtypes. Martin et al (1997)
illustrated the differences between related pair of behavioral processes and mental
processes of perception. For example: “look at” versus “see”, “listen” versus “hear”
and “sniff” versus “smell’. Matthiessen et al (2010) gave a brief description of
subtypes of behavioral processes but did not pay much attention to an in-depth
analysis of behavioral clauses in context.
Although the study of Vietnamese grammar from functional approach began
much later as compared with structural approach, functional approach has attracted
a lot of intention of scholars and linguists. Nguyễn Thị Tú Trinh et al (2017) point
out that Dik’s functional grammar and Halliday’ systemic functional grammar are
two major contemporary functional linguistic theories to clause description. In
Vietnam, Dik’s functional grammar is advocated by Cao Xuân Hạo. In 1991, Cao
Xuân Hạo published a grammar book entitled Tiếng Việt: Sơ thảo Ngữ pháp Chức
năng (An Outline of Vietnamese Functional Grammar). This book, according to
several Vietnamese grammarians, makes a turning point in the study of Vietnamese

grammar, shifting the analysis of the clause from traditional approach to what is
referred to as functional approach by Dik (1989)’s Functional Grammar and states
that Dik’s grammar is functional because the conceptual framework on which it is
based is a functional one rather than a formal one. From this point of view, grammar
becomes a study of how meanings are built up through the wording in Vietnamese.


10

However, Cao Xuân Hạo just reviews Dik’s account of the functions of language
instead of employing it to analyze and interpret Vietnamese grammar. While Thái
Minh Đức (1998) attempted to analyze the Vietnamese clause in terms of all three
lines of meanings developed by Halliday and Hoàng Văn Vân (2002, 2012) adopted
Halliday’s functional grammar’s framework to describe the experiential grammar of
Vietnamese.
Thái Minh Đức (1998) attempted to analyze the Vietnamese clause in terms
of all three lines of meanings as developed by Halliday (1994). However, due to the
space constraints of his study, the author paid attention to employing functional
framework to interpret Vietnamese clause instead of making a contrastive analysis
of English and Vietnamese with respect to functional analysis. Hoàng Văn Vân
(2012) adopts Halliday’s functional grammar’s framework to describe the
experiential grammar of the Vietnamese clause. He recognized six process types in
Vietnamese: material, behavioral, mental, verbal, relational, and existential. And in
his description of behavioral clauses in Vietnamese, Hoàng Văn Vân (Ibid.) noted
some difficulties (indeterminacy) that need to be resolved. He suggests classifying
ambiguous behavioral clauses in Vietnamese into Para-material (clauses that lie on
the borderline between material and Behavioral processes), Para-verbal (clauses
that lie on the borderline between behavioral and verbal processes), and Paramental (clauses that lie on the borderline between behavioral and mental processes).
Although Hoàng Văn Vân did not go into detail to show how the troubles should be
shot, his description has thrown some light on how to solve the problem of

ambiguity, providing some basis for making a comparison between behavioral
clauses in English and Vietnamese using systemic functional grammar as the
theoretical framework. Phan Văn Hòa and Phan Thị Thủy Tiên (2010) made their
attempts to build a possible model for experiential analysis in written text and
interpret clause structures in English and Vietnamese news collected from
electronic newspapers. In addition, their study covered all six process types and
paid less attention to behavioral process. Therefore, the authors failed to resolve


11

some indeterminate cases when labeling the processes and categorizing the
behavioral clauses. With the hope of improving these weak points, this study is
carried out to explore a deep insight into analyzing behavioral domains and their
functional realization of behavioral clauses as well as some puzzles in analyzing
and labeling them. The selected data are from the 19th to 21st century short stories
and novels and not from newspapers in Phan Văn Hòa and Phan Thị Thủy Tiên
(2010).
As mentioned earlier, Halliday (1994) expounded the theory of metafunction
(ideational metafunction, interpersonal metafunction and textual metafunction).
Recent years have seen very important publications of ideational metafunction
studies. O’Donnell et al (2009) conducted an online survey asking practitioners to
select the process type of 32 clauses, most of the instances offering some difficulty.
They explored three kinds of clines, namely Behavioral-verbal cline, Behavioralmental cline, Behavioral-material cline. There is a gradual shift of coding from
behavioral to the other category. For instance, in relation to the near-mental: I was
thinking all day > I was thinking about the weather > I was thinking that I should
go. In addition, they point out the confusion stemming from the choices of
conceptual or syntactic criteria. The cause of different choices among coders is the
path they follow in analyzing behavioral clauses. Some coders used conceptual
criteria while the others relied on syntactic criteria. Gwilliams and Fontaine (2015)

devoted their effort to find out some indeterminacy in process type classification.
They conducted a survey on experienced FG users for their classification of 20
clauses. They find out that there was inconsistency of analysis and the main area of
disagreement between analysts was the selection of material vs. verbal processes.
Nevertheless, they did not offer a comprehensible framework to identify and
classify these difficult cases. In addition, there are numerous excellent systemic
linguistics websites to be found at

http: www/ wagsoft/ com/ systemics/. The

website provides the latest information about systemic discussion groups, recent
publications and functional linguistics journals.


12

2.2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
This section discusses the concept of FG raised by Halliday (1994), Halliday
& Matthiessen (2000, 2004, 2014) and then successively narrows down the focus;
that is, transitivity system and behavioral processes. After presenting overviews of
FG, the discussion continues with three metafunctions and transitivity system.
Finally, notions and types of clauses, probes of behavioral clauses and ideational
metaphor are mentioned in this section.
2.2.1. Functional Grammar
In the history of grammatical study, there have always existed two opposite
variables in the way grammars are written: Formal (Chomsky 1965) and Functional
(Halliday 1994). The former sees grammar as a set of rules which specify all the
possible grammatical structures of the language while the latter, FG, 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 London School.

Systemic functional grammar is related to the older functional traditions of
European schools of linguistics as British Contextualism and the Prague schools. As
discussed in section 1.2, Halliday’s FG has its roots in the work of Hjelmslev
(1969), the Prague School and Firth (1948), the London School. Based on their
ideas and accounts, Halliday (1994) develops and suggests a model which becomes
known as systemic functional grammar, and later in his work with Matthiessen
(2014) as functional grammar. The main tenet of this theory is through the semantic
base, the progressive semanticization of grammar. Halliday offers an introduction of
new ways of looking at function in language. There is no doubt that meaning is
absolutely central to Halliday’s conception of language and so to FG. Halliday
(1994) states that “A systemic grammar is one of the classes of functional
grammars, which means (among other things) that it is semantically motivated, or
"natural". In contradistinction to formal grammars, which are autonomous, and
therefore semantically arbitrary, in a systemic grammar every category (and
"category" is used here in the general sense of an organizing theoretical concept, not


13

in the narrower sense of 'class' as in formal grammars) is based on meaning: it has a
semantic as well as a formal, lexico-grammatical reactance....there is no clear line
between semantics and grammar, and a functional grammar is one that is pushed in
the directions of semantics”. TG is subdivided into two inter-related studies:
Morphology and Syntax whilst FG deals with system, metafunction, and rank.
FG has its unique features as compared with transformative - generative
grammar elaborated by Chomsky (1965). FG takes “language as communication” as
a central core and its function is to make meanings. In other words, it looks at
language in the culture and society that form the context in which language is used
whilst Transformative-Generative grammar takes “language as structure” as a
central one. Chomsky (1965) insisted that there were two types of structures: deep

structure and surface structure. The former represented to core semantic relations of
a sentence and was mapped on to the latter which followed the phonological form
of the sentence very closely via transformations. Unlike Chomsky (1965),
Halliday’s FG (1994) is involved in the meanings of language in use in the textual
processes of life. Halliday argued “the aim has been to construct a grammar for
purposes of text analysis: one that would make it possible to say sensible and useful
things about any texts, spoken or written, in modern English” (Halliday 1985: xv).
Sharing the same opinions with other functional linguists, Halliday believed
that the form of language is explicable in terms of function. Halliday (1994) states
“a functional grammar is essentially a “natural” grammar in the sense that
everything in it can be explained, ultimately, by reference to how language is used”
(Halliday 1985: xiii). It seems to me that Halliday took a very strong stance on the
functional motivation that everything in grammar can be explained in the terms of
use.