THE INTERPERSONAL MEANING AT THE CLAUSE LEVEL: A COMPARISON BETWEEN MODALITY THEORY AND SYSTEMIC FUNCTIONAL LINGUISTICS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18173/2354-1067.2026-0020Keywords:
interpersonal meaning, interpersonal metafunctions, interaction, descriptive linguisticsAbstract
The article compares two analytic frameworks for interpersonal meaning at the clause level: Palmer’s (1986) Modality theory and Halliday’s (1994) Systemic Functional Grammar (SFG). We employ qualitative research methods, including synthesis, analysis, and comparison. The results reveal both similarities and differences between these two theoretical traditions in analyzing clause. Similarities include: (1) both theories focus on the verbal mood components of the clause, and (2) both view interpersonal meaning as being tied to human interaction in communication. Differences include: (1) Modality theory originates from traditional grammar, treating modality as a category of the verb grammar, whereas SFG originates from functional linguistics and argues that interpersonal meaning comprises a complex system of multiple factors; (2) Modality theory regards interpersonal meaning as unidirectional, while SFG views interpersonal meaning as bi-directional.
References
- Cao, X. H. (1991). Tiếng Việt: sơ thảo ngữ pháp chức năng (tập 1). NXB Khoa học Xã hội, Hà Nội.
- Cloran, C. (1994). Rhetorical units and decontextualisation: An enquiry into some relations of context, meaning, and grammar. Monographs in Systemic Linguistics, 6. Nottingham: School of English Studies, Nottingham University.
- Ford, C, E., Fox, B. A., & Thompson, S. A. (2003). Social interaction and grammar. In: M Tomasello (ed.), The new psychology of language, p. 119-144. Psychology Press.
- Palmer, F. R. (1986). Mood and modality. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165693
- Palmer, F. R. (2019). Mood and modality (translated and annotated by Nguyễn Văn Hiệp, Phan Trang & Nguyễn Khánh Hà). Vietnam National University Press, Hanoi. (in Vietnamese)
- Halliday, M.A.K. (1980). Text semantics and clause grammar: Some patterns of realization. Department of Linguistics, University of Sydney.
- Halliday, M.A.K. (1994). Dẫn luận ngữ pháp chức năng (2nd ed.). Edward Arnold.
- Halliday, M.A.K. (2001). Dẫn luận ngữ pháp chức năng (translated by Hoàng Văn Vân). NXB Đại học Quốc gia, Hà Nội.
- Halliday, M.A.K. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
- Halliday, M.A.K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2014). Halliday's introduction to functional grammar (4th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203431269
- Hoàng, T. P. (2008). Ngữ pháp tiếng Việt - Câu. NXB Đại học Quốc gia, Hà Nội.
- Nguyễn, V. H. (2008). Cơ sở ngữ nghĩa phân tích cú pháp. NXB Giáo dục, Hà Nội.
- Phạm, H. V. (2003). Trợ từ trong tiếng Việt hiện đại. NXB Khoa học Xã hội, Hà Nội.
- Traugott, E. C., (2011). Modality from a historical perspective. Language and Linguistics Compass, 5(6), 381–397. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2011.00280.x
- Wells, G. (1981). Language as interaction. Learning through interaction: The study of language development, 22-72.
