1
VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY- HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST GRADUATE STUDIES NGUYỄN THỊ HỒNG HẠNH

A COMPARATIVE STUDY ON GRAMMATICAL SUBJECT
AS A CLAUSE ELEMENT IN ENGLISH AND IN
VIETNAMESE FROM PERSPECTIVE OF
SYSTEMIC- FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR ( Nghiên cứu đối chiếu về chủ ngữ ngữ pháp như là một yếu tố
mệnh đề trong tiếng Anh và tiếng Việt dưới góc độ
ngữ pháp chức năng hệ thống)

M.A Minor Programme Thesis

ngữ pháp chức năng hệ thống)
M.A Minor Programme Thesis Field: English Linguistics
Code: 60.22.15
Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ngô Đình Phương HANOI-2010
5 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………….…i
ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………………….ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………………………… iii
PART A: INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale…………………………………………………………………………… 1
2. Aims……………………………………………………….………………………….2
3. Scope of the study……………………………………………………………………2
4. Method of the study ……………………………… ………………………………. 2
5. Design of the study………………………………………………………………… 3
Chapter 1: Theoretical Orientations
1.1. Introduction .………………………………………………………………………4
1.2. Theories of systemic- functional grammar as distinguished from other formal

b. Marked imperatives……………………………………………………………… 17
2.4.3.2. Inclusive imperatives…………………………………………………………18
2.4.3.2.1. Unmarked imperatives…………………………………………………… 19
a. Unmarked positives……………………………………………………………… 19
b. Unmarked negatives……………………………………………………………… 19
2.4.3.2.2. Marked imperatives……………………………………………………… 19
a. Marked positives…………………………………………………………….…… 19
b. Marked negatives………………………………………………………………… 19
2.4.4. Exclamatives…………………………………………………………………….20
2.5. Summary…………………………………………………………………….… 20
Chapter 3.A contrastive analysis on the grammatical subject in English and
Vietnamese on the view of Systemic- Functional Grammar
3.1. Introduction.…………………………………………………………….……… 21
3.2. Mood structure…………………………………………………………….….… 21
3.3. Identification of subject…………………………………………………….….…23
3.4. Position of subject in some kinds of sentences…………………………….……24
3.4.1. Declaratives……………………………………………………………….…….24
3.4.2. Interrogatives……………………………………………………………… …25
3.4.3. Imperatives………………………………………………………………… ….27
3.4.3.1. Unmarked imperatives…………………………………………………….…27
a. Unmarked positives……………………………………………………………… 28
7 b. Unmarked negatives……………………………………………………………… 28
3.4.3.2. Marked positives………………………………………………………… ….28
3.4.3.3. Marked negatives…………………………………………………………… 28
3.4.4. Exclamative……………………………………………………………….…….28
3.5. Summary ………………………………………………………………… ……31
PART C: CONCLUSION

1. Rationale
The history of linguistics has seen many different grammatical approaches, such as
traditional grammar, structural grammar, and transformational- generative grammar, each
of which defines its own objectives. Of the grammatical approaches, traditional grammar
sees grammar as a set of rules which specify all grammatical structures of the language. In
this approach there is a main focus on making a distinction between grammatical and
ungrammatical sentences. Sentences are considered as the largest units in the grammatical
system of a language and they are used to illustrate different grammatical rules. The
primary concern of this approach is on the forms of grammatical structure rather than their
meanings or uses in contexts. Because of its earlier foundation, traditional grammar has
greatly influenced on linguistics and language teaching
Another approach that also has a great influence on language research and teaching is
functional grammar. The theory of functional grammar was originally introduced by
M.A.K. Halliday in the early 1960s. Systemic functional linguistics sees language as a
system of communication and analyses grammar to discover how it is organized to
exchange meanings. The primary concern is with the function of structures and with their
meanings in context. All languages take place in the context. Rather than studying the
distinction between grammatical and ungrammatical forms, the focus of this approach is on
the appropriateness of a form in a particular context. Functional grammar has been studied
by many grammarians like Halliday(1985, 1994), Bloor (1994), Eggins (1994), Thomson
(1996), Morley(1985), etc. In Vietnamese there are some functional studies that should be
counted are Cao Xuân Hạo (1991 Tiếng Việt: sơ thảo ngữ pháp chức năng; Nguyễn Thị
Quy (2002) Ngữ pháp chức năng tiếng Việt; Hoàng Văn Vân (2002) Ngữ pháp kinh
nghiệm của cú tiếng Việt: Miêu tả theo quan điểm chức năng hệ thống
Personally, the writer finds functional grammar very interesting as it offers a full study
on language and language teaching which focuses on communication. This is a very useful
way to teach and learn English. The intention of this study is to illuminate the
characteristics of grammatical subject in English and to compare it with Vietnamese
language to have a fully understanding of this term. However, due to the limitation of
9

This study is primarily concerned with comparing grammatical subject between English
and Vietnamese. The research methods used in the study are description, comparison and
analysis. The descriptive and analytic is used in description of grammatical subject in
10 English and Vietnamese. The comparative is used in the comparison of grammatical
subject in the two languages.
A number of examples are taken from many sources in The English and Vietnamese
languages. They are analyzed to identify the similarities and differences between
grammatical subject in English and in Vietnamese.
5. Design of the study
The thesis is divided into three parts:
Part A: The Introduction: presents the rationale of the study, the aims, scopes, methods,
and the design of the study
Part B: Development: consists of four chapters
Chapter 1: provides the theoretical background of the study, functional grammar, the
notion of grammatical subject in two aspects of grammar, kinds of subjects and three lines
of meaning in the clause
Chapter 2: investigates the grammatical subject in English on the view of systemic
functional grammar
Chapter 3: presents the systemic functional comparison between grammatical subject in
English and in Vietnamese
Part C: Conclusion: summarizes the whole study and offers some implications for
language teaching and learning
This grammar aims to describe the grammatical system of language, that is, what speakers
of the language “unconsciously” know, which enables them to speak and understand
language. It is believed to provide good ground for deeper studies in other later grammars
such as transformational – generative and systemic- functional grammar.
The Transformational- Generative grammar, developed by Chomsky (1968) makes a
distinction between “surface structure” and “deep structure” of language. It is a “logical
specification of the syntactic knowledge which the learner needs to produce grammatical
sentences”, (Bell, 1981:107).
Traditional, descriptive, transformational- generative grammar emphasizes on formal
aspects of language, the primary concern is with the forms of grammatical structures rather
than meanings or their uses in context. Another approach, called Systemic- Functional
12 Grammar, rather than insisting on a clear distinction between grammatical and
ungrammatical forms, focuses on the appropriateness of a form for a particular
communicative purpose. This approach was originally developed by M.A.K. Halliday in
the 1960s and has now become a major approach in linguistics. Halliday, in his work “An
introduction to Functional Grammar” (fist published in 1985) explains that his grammar is
functional rather than formal; a language is “a system of meaning”. People use language to
express meaning. The study of grammar focuses on how meanings are built up through
wording. The form of grammar relates to the meanings that are coded. This grammar pays
attention to both form and meaning. This theory of grammar approaches language from
semantic and functional point of view. Halliday develops analysis of language on the
semantic functions. These functions, termed by Halliday as “metafunctions” of language
consist of ideational, interpersonal, and textual function. They exist in all languages as they
reflect the role of human language in general.
Ideational function means that language is used to talk about our experience of
the world, to describe entities and help us to understand, organize and express perceptions
of the world

helps us healthier
Subject
Predicate

1.3.2. From systemic functional grammar
The notion of subject, that is basic to tradition of grammatical analysis, is a familiar
term. Halliday(1994: 30) defines a subject with three functions in accordance with three
definitions.
(i) which is concern of the message
(ii) which something is being predicated
(iii) the doer of the action
These three definitions are not synonymous, they are defining different concepts. From
these definitions, we can arise a question, “is there a subject to cover all three different
meanings at one and the same time?” Halliday (1994: 31) gave an example to clarify this
question “The duke gave my aunt this teapot”. In this example, “the duke” is the Subject in
all three senses. It is the concern of the message. The truth of the statement is on him. He is
the doer of the action “gave”
However, not all clauses have one element covering three definitions of subject. For
example: “This teapot my aunt was given by the duke” (Halliday: 1994: 31). We can not
identify which is the subject of this sentence on the three definitions. “The duck” is still the
doer of the action but “this teapot” is now what the message is concerned about. The truth
of the statement is in “my aunt”, not “the duke”
1.4. Kinds of subject
14 With the Halliday‟s definition of subject above, in some clauses we can not identify a
subject covering all three, so there appears the terms “psychological subject”,
“grammatical subject” and “logical subject”. These terms were used by Halliday (1994:31)
to precisely identify subject in all clauses:


Logical subject
Figure 2: Psychological, grammatical and logical subject realized by different items
From the figure 1 above, “this teapot” is psychological subject, that is to say, it is the
concern of the message. The grammatical subject is “my aunt‟, it is the one the statement is
15 predicated. “The duke” must be logical subject as it is the doer of the action. These notions
can be replaced by three labels which relate to the functions concerned:
Psychological Subject: Theme
Grammatical Subject: Subject
Logical subject: Actor
We can now re-label the example given by Halliday “The duke gave my aunt this
teapot” in term of Theme, Subject, Actor as in the following figure
The duke
gave my aunt this teapot
Subject
Actor
Theme

Figure 3: Theme, Subject, Actor are combined in one element

This teapot
my aunt
was given by
the duke
Theme
Subject



Theme
Actor
Subject

Figure 5: Different conflations of Subject, Actor and Theme
1.5. Three lines of meaning in the clause
As the writer pointed out earlier that in functional grammar, we essentially equate
meaning with function. Halliday suggested three ways of looking at the clause. The first,
involving such functions as Subject, is described in Halliday‟s grammar as the Clause as
Exchange. The Subject is the warranty of the exchange between speaker and listener. It is
the element the speaker makes responsible for the validity of what he is saying. This relates
to the interpersonal metafunction as I have mentioned earlier. The second, involving such
role as Actor, is the Clause as Representation and relates to the ideational metafunction. A
clause has the meaning as a representation. The Actor is the active participant in the
process of human experience. It is the one that does the deed. The third, which involves the
function Theme, is the Clause as Message and relates to the textual metafunction. A clause
has meaning as a message and the Theme is the point of departure for the message. It is the
element the speaker selects for “grounding” what he is going on to say. These three
headings: Clause as a message, clause as exchange, clause as a representation, refer to
three distinct kinds of meaning that are embodied in the structure of a clause. Theme,
Subject and Actor do not occur as isolates. Each occurs in association with other functions
from the same strand of meaning.
1.6. Conclusion
To sum up, this chapter has mentioned some fundamental and theoretical concepts
relevant to the purpose of the study. We have studied the definitions of grammatical
subject from traditional grammar and from systemic functional grammar. Some kinds of
subject based on Halliday‟s view have been represented. According to Halliday, there are
three functions of subject: psychological subject, grammatical subject and logical subject.
These functions can also be labeled as Theme, Subject and Actor. They are three different

Subject and finite have a great significance in the English clause. Halliday looks at
their meanings in clause. The Subject, as defined by Halliday (1994: 76), “supplies the rest
of what it takes to form a proposition: something by reference to which the proposition can
be affirmed or denied”, and the finite “has the function of making the proposition finite. It
brings the proposition down to earth so that it is something that can be argued about”.
18 In traditional terms, the Subject is the entity of which something is predicated in the
rest of the clause. This is a powerful insight which has been applied in most approaches to
grammatical description. In these approaches, the sentence is seen as being “about” the
Subject. However, in functional approach, the choice of a particular entity as Subject
expresses only one of three possible kinds of “aboutness”. In what sense can we see
“aboutness‟ as an interpersonal meaning? In the example, “she was punished by the
teacher”, “the teacher” is the entity involved in the punishing- that is, “the teacher” is the
Actor. Therefore, if we think of the event being described, the clause tells us about what
the teacher did. On the other hand, we can also look at the clause in term of exchange
between the speaker and the listener. One way of doing this is by examining the kind of
response that the listener can make to the information given. The response will show us
how the listener is interpreting the purpose of the speaker‟s message. Therefore, the
speaker will put up for negotiation something about “she”, not about “the teacher”. The
subject here must be “she”, not “the teacher”. The Subject expresses the entity that the
speaker wants to make responsible for the validity of the proposition being mentioned
earlier in the clause. The clause is “about” the Subject from the interpersonal perspective.
The meaning of the Finite emerge from the discussion of Subject: the Finite makes it
possible to negotiate about the validity of the proposition. The basis function of the Finite
is to orient the listener towards the kind of validity being claimed for the proposition.
Halliday refers to the Finite as Finite Verbal Operator which he identifies two kinds:
(i) Temporal Finite Verbal Operator: Those that make the proposition of time (present, past
or future), and (ii) Finite Modal Operators: those that propose the speaker‟s judgment of

her job
wasn‟t
wouldn‟t
doesn‟t
it?
he?
she?
Subject
Finite

Finite
Subject
Figure 6: Tags showing Subject and Finite

Subjects can be identified by other formal characteristics:
(i) Subjects are typically noun groups. Less typically, certain kinds of clauses can
also function as subjects. These include that- clauses, Wh- clauses, to + V inf.
clauses, and V-ing clauses. This can be illustrated as in Figure 7 below:
How he did it
Really understanding this aspect of grammar
is obvious.
needs a lot of work.
Subject
Finite
Figure 7: Clauses function as subjects
(ii) Five pronouns have special subject forms: I, he, she and they (as opposed to me,
him, her, us and them)
For example:
(2.1) They didn’t really believe her
Subject

2.4. Mood in some kinds of English sentences
2.4.1. The declaratives
In declarative, the structure is Subject + Finite in which the finite is always the first
constituent of a verb group and the remaining constituents of the verbal group functions as
Predicator, for example:
(2.10) You shouldn’t behave like a child
21 In sentence (2.10) the Finite is modal verb “should” and negative “not”. These two
elements belongs to the mood, and the verb “behave” belongs to the Residue, as in Fig.8
below

You
shouldn‟t
behave
like a child
Subject
Finite
Predicator
Complement
Mood
Residue
Figure 8: mood structure in declarative of (2.10) (2.11) I think she is a good doctor
Sentence (2.11) is a complex sentence consisting of two clauses. The mood structure of the
sentence (2.11) is illustrated in Figure 9


22 Why
What
How many
did
do
are
you
you
there?
go there?
expect me to do?

Finite
Subject

Mood
Figure 10: Wh interrogative with known subject of (2.12), (2.13), (2.14)
However, there are some Wh- interrogatives that have the Wh- element as subject like
who, what, which as shown in the examples below:
(2.15) Who is the man in the black glasses?
(2.16) Who went out with you last night?
(2.17)Which is your favourite subject?
Let us look at the mood structure of those above sentences analyzed in Fig.11
Who
Who
Which
is

he
paint well enough?
Finite
Subject

Mood
Figure 12: Mood in Yes/No interrogatives
2.4.3. The imperatives
The imperative clauses are realized by a Predicator in the Verb (base) form of the
verb, with no explicit Subject or Finite. In imperative clauses, the marked form has no
mood. The subject of a command is not specified, since it can only be the addressee
(“you‟). There are two types of imperatives in English that is exclusive imperatives - the
one we take the second person “ you” as the base form and inclusive imperatives – the one
we take the first person “ you and me” as the base form.

2.4.3.1. Exclusive imperatives
Imperatives are normally used to ask the other person to carry out the action. In
exclusive imperatives, we take the “second person” – “you” as the base form. There are
marked forms of imperatives in which the Subject may appear and the finite may also be
used for emphasis and unmarked forms in which there is no Subject. The finite may appear
in unmarked imperatives but it is used only to signal negative polarity.
a. Unmarked imperatives
+ Unmarked positive:
The unmarked positive imperative has no mood element. It is used to give a command, a
request, or an order. The subject is assumed to be the second person forms “you”, referring
to the hearer. “You” is the implicit subject that can be found by the addition of a tag
question ( for example: close the door, will you?)
Let us see Figure 13 below:
Come
Tell

In interpersonal terms, an imperative is presented as not open to negotiation (which
does not mean that the command will actually obeyed) and thus most of the functions of
the finite are irrelevant: a command is absolute (there are no imperative forms of the modal
verbs), and there is no need to specify time relevance since there is no choice (an
imperative can only refer to future time). The finite is used to signal negative polarity.
b. Marked imperatives
There are marked forms of imperatives in which the Subject may appear, and the
Finite may also be used for emphasis
+ Marked positives: In this type of imperative, the mood element consists of subject only.
A grammatical subject appears as the potential performer of the action. It can be a second
person “you” or third person like somebody/someone, etc. In both cases, the subject is the
addressee, whether listener or reader.
You
You
listen
hurry
to me!
up!
Subject
Predicator
Adjunct
Mood
Residue
Figure 15: Marked positive imperatives with “you”
An imperative with “you” is syntactically identical to a declarative one and can only
be distinguished from the latter by the stress on “you” in spoken language. In declarative
clause the “you” is not stressed.
A third person subject (somebody, someone, nobody, etc.) is used when the speaker
wants the action to be carried out by a group of person (everybody) or by a single
unspecified number of the group (somebody). The lack of a third person concord with the

Figure 17: Marked positive imperative with “do”
Another one is the marked imperatives with the Finite “do” and the Subject. This
imperative is used for emphasis.
Do
you
stop laughing !
Finite
Subject
Predicator
Mood
Residue
Figure 18: Marked positive imperative with “do” and Subject
+ Marked negative
The first one is the marked form for person in which the mood element consists of finite
“don‟t” and the Subject
Don‟t
Don‟t
you
you
take that tone of voice to me!
call me an idiot!
Finite
Subject
Predicator
Mood
Residue
Figure 19: Marked negative imperative with “don’t” and Subject
26
Be
Afraid!
Finite
Subject
predicator
complement
Mood
residue
Figure 22: Unmarked negative imperative with “let’s”
2.4.3.2.2. Marked imperatives
a. Marked positives
According to Halliday (1994:87), the marked form of imperatives for person is “LET‟S
look” in which the stress is on the Subject LET‟S. Another form of marked positive
imperatives is marked for polarity “Do let‟s + predicator”.
27 Do
let‟s
go out!
Finite
Subject
predicator
Mood
residue
Figure 23: Marked positive imperative with “let’s”

b. Marked negatives
The negation of “Let” imperatives is formed by adding “not” or another negative word
after the Subject.


2.5. Summary
To sum up, this chapter has explored the grammatical subject in English in accordance
with the structure of mood. Subject and Finite are the key exponents of the Mood choice in
that (i) the sequencing of Subject and Finite is affected by the choice between declarative
and interrogative and (ii) the choice of imperative permits us to leave out the subject. In