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 Field: English Linguistics Code: 60.22.15 HANOI-2010 2 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 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 Grammar……………………………………………………………………………….4 1.3. Definition of grammatical subject.……………………………………………….5 1.3.1. From traditional perspective. .…………………………………………………5 1.3.2. From systemic functional grammar……………………………………………6 1.4. Kinds of subject…………………………………………………………………....6 1.4.1. Psychological subject…………………………………………………................7 1.4.2. Grammatical subject. …………………………………………………………...7 1.4.3. Logical subject…………………………………………………………………...7 1.5. Three lines of meaning in the clause……………………………………………...8 1.6. Conclusion………………………………………………………………….……....9 Chapter 2: Grammatical subject in English on the view of systemic functional grammar 2.1. Introduction.……………………………………………………………………..10 2.2. Structure of the mood.…………………………………………………………..10 2.2.1. Subject and finite………………………………………………………………10 2.2.2. Meaning of subject and finite…………………………………………………10 2.3. Identifying subjects and finites………………………………………………….11 6 2.3.1. Identifying subjects…………………………………………………………….11 2.3.2. Identifying finites………………………………………………………………12 2.4. Mood in some kinds of English sentences………………………………………13 2.4.1. The declaratives………………………………………………………………...13 2.4.2. The interrogatives………………………………………………………………14 2.4.2.1. Wh- interrogatives……………………………………………………………14 2.4.2.2. Yes/ No interrogatives………………………………………………………..15 2.4.3. The imperatives………………………………………………………………...15 2.4.3.1. Exclusive imperatives………………………………………………………..16 a. Unmarked imperatives…………………………………………………………….16 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. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………….…….32 2. Implications……………………………………………………………………..…..33 REFERENCES………………………………………………………………………..35 APPENDIX 8 PART A: INTRODUCTION 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 time, the writer is not able to cover all aspects of grammatical subject in the two languages. What the writer would like to do is to study grammatical subject in English in comparison with that in Vietnamese. The result of this study contributes to facilitation of the teaching and learning of English. 2. Aims Within the framework of a M.A minor thesis, the study is aimed at:  Presenting, describing and analyzing the grammatical subject in English and in Vietnamese in the light of systemic- functional grammar  Identifying the similarities and differences between grammatical subject in English and its equivalent in Vietnamese in term of mood structure  Making some suggestions for teaching and learning grammatical subject to teachers and learners of English In order to reach the target, the following research questions are posed: 1. What is the grammatical subject? 2. What are the similarities and differences of the grammatical subject in English and its equivalences in Vietnamese? The writer also would like to find out the implications of this study in teaching and learning grammatical subject (including the identification of it) to teachers and learners of English. 3. Scope of the study The study does not cover all aspects of functional grammar but limits itself to a minor aspect of functional grammar. The main focus is on grammatical subject in English and in Vietnamese viewed from perspective of the systemic- functional grammar. To explicit the grammatical subject it is essential to study it in mood structure in which the subject is located. Other aspects such as theme- rheme are not included in this study The research is confined to the description, analysis and comparison of the grammatical subject in term of position in kinds of sentences. 4. Method of the study 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 11 Chapter 1. Theoretical Background 1.1. Introduction As already mentioned in the previous part, this study‟s aim is to investigate the grammatical subject in English and Vietnamese from systemic functional perspective. In this chapter, we shall attempt to explore the notions of grammatical subject, definition of grammatical subject from different perspectives, kinds of subject and three lines of meaning in the clause. We focus our study on systemic- functional grammar which has an influence on grammatical subject in this study. 1.2. Theories of systemic- functional grammar as distinguished from other formal grammar Over the history, the study of language has been approached from different points of view Traditional grammar views language as a system of interrelated categories. It attempts to create rules about how people use languages. Its aim is to provide rules for correcting what are offered to as grammatical errors. This theory are criticized for paying too much attention to details of language and its description of language seems to be inadequate for language teaching. Descriptive grammar arises in the early 1970s with the publication of “A comprehensive grammar of the English language”, (Quirk and Greenbaum, 1972). 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 Interpersonal function means that language helps us to communicate with other people, to take on roles and to express and understand feelings, attitudes Textual function means that language is used to relate what is said to the real world and surroundings so as to make the message fluent, coherent. In the history of language, there are many approaches to grammar. However, each approach has its own weaknesses because it fails to study language in relation between form and meaning, the importance of social context. On the other hand, systemic functional grammar, initiated by M. A. K. Halliday recognizes meaning and use as central features of language. That is what makes functional grammar distinctive with other grammarians. 1.3. Definition of grammatical subject 1.3.1. From traditional perspective Providing an adequate definition of the notion of a subject is difficult as it depends on grammatical theories that may vary from language to language. However, many grammarians try to define subject and one of the most common definition is that the 13 subject is what (who) the sentence is about and the predicate tells something about the subject. Quirk et all (1972: 34) defines subject: “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” Example: (1.1) John Is my friend My father works hard Playing sports 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: 1.4.1. Psychological subject: meant “that which is the concern of the message”. It was called “psychological” because it was what the speaker had in mind to start with 1.4.2. Grammatical subject: meant “that which something is predicated”. It was called “grammatical” because at that time the construction of Subject and Predicate was thought of as a formal grammatical relationship; it was seen to determine other grammatical features and its concord of person and number with the verb, but it was not thought to express any particular meaning 1.4.3. Logical subject: meant “doer of the action”. It was called “logical” in the sense this term had had from the seventeenth century, that of “having to do with relations between things”, as opposed to “grammatical” relations, which were relations between symbols These three concepts are not separated, but they are merely different aspects of one and belong to the same notion. They are interpreted as three distinct functions in a clause. In the example given by Halliday(1994:31) “The duke gave my aunt this teapot”, all these three functions can be conflated on to one another, as shown in Figure 1 or they may be separated as in Figure 2 below The duke gave my aunt this teapot Psychological subject Grammatical subject Logical subject Figure 1: Same item functioning as psychological, grammatical and logical subject This teapot my aunt was given by the duke Psychological subject Grammatical Logical subject 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 Actor Figure 4: Theme, Subject, Actor are separated There may be other possible combinations in which the roles of Subject are conflated, as shown in Fig.5 below (a) My aunt was given this teapot by the duke Theme Actor Subject (b) This teapot the duke gave to my aunt Theme Subject Actor (c) By The duke My aunt Was given the teapot 16 Theme Subject Actor 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 functions in the clause that represent three strands of meaning of clause: Theme functions in the structure of Clause as a message, Subject functions in the structure of clause as an exchange, Actor functions in the structure of the clause as a representation. However, only grammatical subject is mentioned and discussed in this study. However, not all these three 17 labels are studied. In the next chapter, only Subject in relation with realization of the clause as exchange is mentioned and discussed. Chapter 2. Grammatical subject in English on the view of systemic functional grammar 2.1. Introduction In this chapter, an attempt is made to look at grammatical subject in English. It focuses on investigating: (i) the structure of the mood, (ii) Identification of subject, and (iii) mood in some kinds of sentences. In functional, mood and subject have a close relationship. They are not separated because mood always contains subject. That is the reason why I investigate subject in term of mood. 2.2. Structure of the mood Halliday interprets clauses in their function as an exchange and he divides the clause into two parts: The mood and the residue. The mood is made of Subject and Finite. 2.2.1. Subject and finite Subject and finite are closely linked together and they are crucial to the structural realization of the mood. 2.2.2. Meaning of subject and finite Mood plays a special role in carrying out the interpersonal functions of the clause. In order to understand what this role is, we need to examine the meanings expressed by the Subject and Finite, and then to see how they work together as Mood. 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 the probabilities, or the obligation involved in what he is saying. For example, in “My friend has given me a book”, the Subject is “my friend” that specifies the entity, realizes the success or failure of the proposition, the Finite is “has” that specifies the reference to positive and present time. 2.3. Identifying subjects and finite 2.3.1. Identifying subjects It is usually not too difficult to identify the Subject, but in case of doubt we can determine exactly what the Subject and Finite of any clause. Halliday states that by adding a “tag” to the clause (if one is not already present) and see which element is taken up we 19 can establish the Subject and Finite. A tag question repeats two elements in the Mood at the end of the clause. The pronoun or noun in the tag refers back to the Subject of the clause and the Finite is made explicit, even if it is fused with the lexical verb in the clause. Let us look at figure 6 below: A dog was chasing a boy wasn‟t it? John wouldn‟t have gone there wouldn‟t he? My friend (present) talks much about doesn‟t she? her job 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 is obvious. Really understanding this aspect of grammar 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 (2.2) She didn’t really believe them Subject 20 (iii) In declarative mood clauses, the subject is normally the noun group (or nominal clause) which immediately precedes the Finite. 2.3.2. Identifying Finites Finites can similarly be identified by the addition of a tag, which pick up not only the subjects but also the Finite of the preceding clause. (2.3) The country had not undergone any war since 1975, hadn’t it? Subject Finite (2.4) She was shopping in town, wasn’t she? Subject Finite As in the examples above, we can add a tag and define the Finite in (2.3) is “had” and in (2.4) is “was”. Graham. L. (1996: 13) pointed out other characteristics of Finite that are discussed below: (i) If a verb contains a finite, the Finite will always be the first constituent of the verb group, for example, “have” in the following example (2.5) They have been explaining the cause of that earthquake. If a verb group contains only one word, that word may function as finite, as “wrote” in the example below (2.6) He wrote to her 2 months ago. (ii) Only Finite is marked for tense, as “appears‟ in the example (2.7) Everyday, she appears at the bridge across the river. (iii) Only Finite is marked for number agreement, that is, their form changes according to the number and person of the Subject, for example: (2.8)The dogs are so lovely (2.9)The dog is so lovely 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 a good I think she is doctor Subject Finite Predicator Subject Finite predicator Complement (present) (present) Mood Residue mood residue Figure 9: Mood structure in declarative of sentence (2.11) 2.4.2. The interrogatives 2.4.2.1. Wh- interrogatives The primary purpose of a Wh- interrogative is to demand that the listener fill in a missing part of the message and the Wh- element signals which part is missing. Many Wh- interrogatives have Finite preceding Subject in the mood. Let us look at the examples below: (2.12)What do you expect me to do? (2.13)Why did you go there? (2.14) How many are there? The mood structure of the examples above are illustrated in Fig. below 22 Why did you go there? What do you expect me to do? How many are there? 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 is the man in the black glasses? Who (past) went out with you last night? Which Is favourite subject? Subject Finite Complement Mood Figure 11: Wh- interrogative with Wh- element as Subject 2.4.2.2. Yes/ No interrogatives In Yes/No interrogatives, the speaker wants the listener to specify the polarity of the message. The speaker begins with the finite which is part of the mood where the polarity is signaled. The structure of the Yes/No interrogatives is that the Finite always precedes the Subject, as in the examples below: (2.18) Have you met her before? (2.19) Do they have anything in common? (2.20) Can he paint well enough? Figure 12 below illustrates the mood structure of the Yes/No interrogatives in sentences (2.18), (2.19), (2.20) Have you met her before? Do they have anything in common?