i HANOI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
POST GRADUATE DEPARTMENT
*****
NGUYỄN THỊ HUYÊN

NOMINALIZATION IN LEGAL DISCOURSE:
A SYSTEMIC FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS DANH HÓA TRONG VĂN BẢN LUẬT PHÁP:
PHÂN TÍCH THEO QUAN ĐIỂM CHỨC NĂNG HỆ THỐNG
M.A THESIS

English Linguistics
60 22 15

Major: English Linguistics
Code: 60 22 15
Supervisor: Prof. Dr. HOÀNG VĂN VÂN HA NOI - 2011

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION i
ACKNOWLEGMENT ii
ABSTRACT iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS iv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS vii
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES …viii
PART A: INTRODUCTION 1
1. Rationale 1
2. Significance of the study 1

2.4.2.2. Wh-clauses 19
2.4.2.3. To-clauses 20
2.4.2.4. Ing-clauses 23
2.5. Concluding remarks 24
CHAPTER 3: REALIZATION OF NOMINALIZATION IN ENGLISH legal
discourse: “Convention On The Rights Of The Child” 25
3.1. Introduction 25
3.2. English Legal discourse 25
3.2.1. Classification of English legal discourse 25
3.2.2. Characteristics of English legal language 25
3.2.2.1. Lexical characteristics 26
3.2.2.2. Grammatical characteristics 27
3.2.2.3. Textual characteristics 29
3.3. Realization of nominalization in prescriptive legal text “Convention on the Rights of
the Child” 30
3.3.1. Introduction 30
3.3.2. Frequency of nominalization 30
3.3.3. Typical types and characteristics of nominalization 31
3.3.3.1. Typical types of nominalization 31
3.3.3.2. Some typical characteristics of nominalization 34
3.3.4. Semantic role of nominalization realized in terms of ideational, interpersonal
and textual metafunctions 35
3.3.4.1. In terms of ideational metafunction 35
3.3.4.2. In terms of interpersonal metafunction 38

vi

3.3.4.3. In terms of textual metafunction 38
3.4. Concluding remarks 41
PART C: CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS 42

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ESP: English for special purposes
SFG: Systemic functional grammar
T: Theme
R: Rheme
NP: Noun phrase
CONV: Conversation
FICT: Fiction
ACAD: Academic
DV: Deverbal nominalization
DA: Deadjectival nominalization
TH: That- clause
TO: To- clause
WH: Wh- clause
ING: Ing- clause
viii

the nature and characteristics as well as the roles of nominalization in English legal
discourse will make great contribution to the perception of this discourse genre, which is
very necessary in today‟s world when globalization and integration has become an
inevitable trend. Thus, it is of great necessity to conduct a study on the phenomenon of
nominalization in legal discourses if we want to learn more about this important variety of
English and benefit the reading and writing of English legal discourses as well as help
translators much easier in translating Vietnamese legal discourses into English and vice
versa.
Using the theory of systemic functional grammar which is considered a satisfactory
explanation of the phenomenon of nominalization as developed by Halliday (1994) and
some other systemic linguists, this thesis attempts to explore how nominalization is
realized in English legal discourse with the hope that it will help readers to recognize the
importance of nominalization for the comprehension and manipulation this specific genre.
2. Significance of the study
The result of this study may help improve the ability of understanding English legal
discourses and limit avoidable misunderstandings in interpreting legal discourses. It also
makes contribution to the teaching and learning of ESP for English teachers and students

2

majoring in law. Besides, this thesis hopes to assist the translation of Vietnamese legal
discourses into English and vice versa.
3. Aims of the study
The aim of the study is to make an inquiry into how nominalization is realized in English
legal discourse. To achieve this aim, the study will examine the nature of nominalization,
its functions as well as its types. Besides, the main characteristics of English legal
discourse will be pointed out to set the base for finding out the typical realization of
nominalization in this legal discourse.
Thus, to achieve the aim of the study, the main research question needs to be raised for
exploration is:

Chapter 3 provides the background knowledge of English legal discourse by giving its
definition, classification and main characteristics. Then, an attempt is made to find out how
nominalization is realized in English legal discourse. In this part, the frequency of
occurrence of nominalization, its typical types, characteristics and semantic roles seen
from ideational, interpersonal and textual metafunctions will be investigated.

4

PART B: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1
THEORITICAL BACKGROUND
1.1. Introduction
Grammatical metaphor is one of the most interesting theoretical notions developed by
Halliday (1985/1994) and some other systemic linguists such as Thompson (1996), Martin
(1985), etc. In this chapter, the first focus is to examine the concept of grammatical
metaphor in systemic functional linguistics. We will start by providing the definitions of
grammatical metaphor. Then, different views on the classification of grammatical
metaphor are also presented.

„same‟ meaning which would be more congruent. Consider the following examples:
[1:1] (i). Water evaporates from a puddle.
(ii). Evaporation occurs more quickly in hot weather.
(ii) is grammatical metaphor because in this sentence a process evaporates is rendered in a
nominal type Evaporation.
1.2.2. Classification of grammatical metaphor
Systemic linguists often pay attention to the function of grammatical metaphor when
classifying different types of grammatical metaphor. According to Halliday, language has
three metafunctions involved in one clause: ideational function, interpersonal function, and
textual function. Language is used to organize, understand and express our perception of
the world by the ideational function, which can be divided into experiential function and
logical function. The experiential function is mainly associated with the ideas, while the
logical is concerned with the relationship between ideas. People use language to
communicate with other people, to express their feelings and attitude by interpersonal
function. On the basis of these metafunctions, Halliday (1994: 343) classifies grammatical
metaphor into two main types: metaphors of mood (including modality) and metaphors of
transitivity. In terms of model of semantic functions, these are, respectively, interpersonal
metaphors and ideational metaphor.
When classifying grammatical metaphor, Martin (1992) seems more detailed. He divided it
into ideational (logical and experiential), interpersonal and textual metaphor.

6

Meanwhile, H.V.Van (1999) shows that an instance of grammatical metaphor may be
involved in more than one metafunction. This means that a congruent realization in the
interpersonal metafunction may have its metaphorical realization in the experiential
metafunction. For example,
[1:2] (i) She should go to the meeting.
(ii) Her obligation is to go to the meeting.
In the two above examples, “should” is a congruent realization in the interpersonal

Figure 1b: Analysis of metaphorical form
The fifth day
saw
them
at the summit
Senser
Mental perception
Phenomenon
Place
(Source: Halliday (1994: 346)
From the comparison of the two sentences above, “the fifth day” in sentence (i) is the
expression of time, which meets the reality and is the congruence. But “the fifth day” in the
sentence (ii) becomes the feeler of a thinking process and the material process has become
the process of psychology, so sentence (ii) is called the metaphor.
Ideational metaphor is a powerful resource in the grammar of a language, by which the
expression of ideational meanings such as processes, qualities and entities is extended in
important ways beyond their default encodings as clauses, adjectives and nouns (or noun
phrases) respectively: different forms can be borrowed to express different meanings.
Important work on ideational metaphor in systemic functional framework concerns the
study of which particular forms can be used to express which particular meanings. In this
context, Halliday has proposed a model showing that certain forms (especially noun
phrases) are more likely to be used as metaphorical forms than any other types of
expressions
1.2.2.2. Interpersonal metaphor
As we have seen above, the interpersonal component of grammar especially concerns the
areas of MODALITY and MOOD. In these two areas, Halliday (1994) also distinguishes
between basic, non-metaphorical expressions, and metaphorical ones, i.e. interpersonal
metaphors. Let us look at each area in turn.
1.2.2.2.1 Metaphors of modality
According to Halliday (1994), the first type of interpersonal metaphor is the metaphor of


objective

explicit

implicit

VALUE
median

outer
high
low
POLARITY
positive

negative
direct
transferred

Table 1.1: Modality system
(Source: Halliday, 1994: 360)

9

1.2.2.2.2. Metaphors of mood
The second interpersonal area in grammar, according to systemic functional linguistics, is
that of mood. In order to understand the notion of interpersonal metaphors of mood, it is
necessary to consider, again, what the default types of encoding are. According to Halliday
(1994: 363), mood expresses the speech functions of statement, question, offer and

The metaphorical nature of such metaphors of mood is exploited in verbal play. A case in
point is the well-known dinner-table example, where someone asks: Can you pass me the
salt, please? and the addressee answers, „Yes, I could certainly do that‟, without
undertaking any further action with regard to the salt.
1.3. Concluding remarks
This chapter has been concerned with the examination of grammatical metaphor in the
framework of the systemic-functional model. Its major points may be summarized as
follows:
- Grammatical metaphor is a substitution of one grammatical class, or one grammatical
structure, by another (Halliday and Martin, 1993: 79) or as the expression of a meaning
through a lexical-grammatical form which originally evolved to express a different kind of
meaning (Thompson, 1996: 165).
- Different systemic linguists have different views on grammatical metaphor. It can be
classified into logical, experiential, interpersonal and textual metaphor by Martin or
ideational and interpersonal metaphor by Halliday (1994).
In the following chapter, the nature of nominalization along with its functions and types
will be presented to set the background knowledge for understanding its realization in legal
discourse.
11

CHAPTER 2


the use of a nominal form to express a process meaning”. He adds that “nominalization can
also be used to express an attributive meaning – a relational process together with the
Attribute”. To Mathews (1997), nominalization is “any process by which either a noun or a
syntactic unit functioning as a noun phrase is derived from any other kind of unit”. As one
of the most famous systemic linguists, Halliday (1985) points out that nominalization
refers to any element or group that can function as nouns or noun groups in a clause,
including clauses, nominalized adjectives or verbs, etc. He emphasizes that nominalization
is the single most powerful resource for creating grammatical metaphor. By this device,
processes (congruently worded as verbs) and properties (congruently worded as adjectives)
are reworded metaphorically as nouns; instead of functioning in the clause, as Process or
Attribute, they function as Thing in the nominal group. In Halliday‟s definition, he focuses
on the “function” of the elements in clause and provides a unique standpoint on
nominalization as a meaning-making resource. According to Dik (1997: 159), we
understand that nominalization is an embedded construction which has one or more
properties in common with a primary, nominal term. This means that any elements that
have one or more characteristics in common with nominal term can be considered as
nominalization.
As the main emphasis of each study is different, researchers have different opinions about
nominalization. But each definition has its own value and something in common – that is
the drift toward “thingness. From definitions above, some functions of nominalization can
be pointed out as follows:
2.3. Functions of nominalization
- Nominalization is a powerful resource for making meaning in scientific and technical
register, where it plays a dual role. First, a noun typically refers to a “thing”, i.e. something
which exists. By “nouning” a process, the writer can reflect a fact that he has negotiated
and established the meaning of the clause centred around the process – in other words, that
meaning can now be treated as existing, as a kind of abstract “thing”. Second, it makes it
possible to develop an argument step by step, using complex passages “packaged” in
nominal form as Theme. This important function of nominalization is encapsulation

may not so this kind of highly metaphorical discourse tends to mark off the expert from
those who are uninitiated (Halliday, 1994: 353). Therefore, it makes the text more formal
with a touch of ambiguity.