The Syntax of Let Construction in English: A Systemic Functional Approach
International Journal of Language and Linguistics
Volume 4, Issue 3, May 2016, Pages: 89-95
Received: Mar. 21, 2016; Accepted: Mar. 30, 2016; Published: Apr. 21, 2016
Views 3821      Downloads 153
Author
Dajun Xiang, School of Foreign Languages, Southwest University, Chongqing, China; Normal College, Jishou University, Hunan, China
Article Tools
Follow on us
Abstract
The syntactic issue of English let construction has long been one of the hot topics in linguistic research. Opinions about its syntax are various among grammarians, especially about the problem of how to deal with let. Systemic functional grammar claims that the relationship between meaning and form is realization, e.g. meaning is realized in form. Meaning is the generative base of systemic functional grammar. Therefore, the principle of functional syntactic analysis is that functional syntactic analysis should be “meaning-centered.” Based on the basic principle of functional syntax and COCA (Corpus of Contemporary American English) data, the paper aims to investigate the syntax of let construction within systemic functional approach. It is concluded that English let construction has two different functional structures: one is canonical imperative let construction; the other is specialized imperative let construction. As for the functional syntax, let within the canonical imperative let construction should be analyzed as the Main Verb, and let within the specialized imperative let construction should be analyzed as the direct element of the clause, that is Let element. Functional syntactic analysis has its own principles, features, and methods. The academic explorations based on systemic functional theory are of great significance both theoretically and practically.
Keywords
Let Construction, Functional Syntax, Main Verb, Let Element, Systemic Functional Grammar
To cite this article
Dajun Xiang, The Syntax of Let Construction in English: A Systemic Functional Approach, International Journal of Language and Linguistics. Vol. 4, No. 3, 2016, pp. 89-95. doi: 10.11648/j.ijll.20160403.11
Copyright
Copyright © 2016 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
References
[1]
Halliday, M. A. K. (2014). Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar (4th ed.). Revised by C. M. I. M. Matthiessen. London and New York: Routledge.
[2]
Fawcett, R. P. (2000). A theory of syntax for systemic functional linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
[3]
Fawcett, R. P. (2008). Invitation to systemic functional linguistics through the Cardiff grammar: An extension and simplification of Halliday’s systemic functional grammar (3rd ed.). London: Equinox.
[4]
Jespersen, O. (1933). Essentials of English grammar. London: Routledge.
[5]
Seppänen, A. (1977). The position of let in the English auxiliary system. English Studies (58): 515-29.
[6]
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
[7]
Davies, E. (1986). The English imperative. London: Croom Helm.
[8]
Clark, B. (1993). Let and let’s: Procedural encoding and explicature. Lingua, 90, 173–200.
[9]
Potsdam, E. (1998). Syntactic Issues in the English Imperative. New York: Garland.
[10]
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finnegan, E. (1999). The Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.
[11]
Huddleston, R. & Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[12]
Alcazar, A., & Saltarelli, M. (2014). The syntax of imperatives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[13]
Ross, J. R. (1970). On declarative sentences. In Jacobs, R. A & Rosenbaum, P. S. (eds.). Readings in English transformational grammar. Waltham, MS: Ginn and Co. 222-272.
[14]
Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
[15]
Xu, T. H. (1998). The syntactic and semantic analysis of let’s structure in English. Foreign Languages and their research (7): 22-23.
[16]
He, Z. Q. (2003). Reanalyzing the mood structure of imperatives in English. Journal of Tianjin Foreign Studies University (1): 14-19.
[17]
Morley, G. D. (2004). Explorations in functional syntax: A new framework for lexicogrammatical analysis. London: Equinox.
[18]
Halliday, M. A. K. (1961). Categories of the theory of grammar. Reprinted in J. Webster (ed.). 2002. Collected works of M. A. K. Halliday (Vol. 1): On grammar (pp. 37–94). London and New York: Continuum.
[19]
Fawcett, R. P. (1980). Cognitive linguistics and social interaction: Towards an integrated model of a systemic functional grammar and the other components of a communicating mind. Heidelberg: Julius Groos.
[20]
Halliday, M. A. K. (2006). Systemic theory. In Brown, K. (eds.). 2006. Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (2nd edn.). Vol 12. Elsevier: 443-447.
[21]
Halliday, M. A. K. (1976). Functions and universals, In Kress, G. (ed.) Halliday: System and function in language. London: Oxford University Press: 26-35.
[22]
Hopper, P. J. & Traugott, E. C. (2001). Grammaticalization. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
ADDRESS
Science Publishing Group
1 Rockefeller Plaza,
10th and 11th Floors,
New York, NY 10020
U.S.A.
Tel: (001)347-983-5186