<P>Teacher Kim (Shinyong) was asking about the "Finite" and the "Predicator" in English:</P>
<P> </P>
<P>a) How do we tell the difference, when they are normally "fused", that is, they appear as the same word? (In "Mowgli likes bananas" the word "likes" contains both the Finite and the Predicator).</P>
<P> </P>
<P>b) Why do we think that the Finite realizes an interpersonal function, and not, say, an ideational or a textual one?</P>
<P> </P>
<P>Actually, I think this is a lot easier to see in Korean. Consider:</P>
<P> </P>
<P>아빠! 힘 내세요! 우리가 있잖아요?</P>
<P> </P>
<P>As a turn, the first expression‎ 아빠 is interpersonal, for the same reason that greetings are interpersonal: it's a vehicle for intonation, and it's a proper noun, setting the relationship and creating a form of address.</P>
<P> </P>
<P>The second expression‎ 힘내세요 also has an interpersonal element. But where? Exactly where you would find it in an English sentence: in the Finite of the verb! It is 시, realized as 세요. Part of the verb, 내, is really Predicator. But this part is Mood. </P>
<P> </P>
<P>The third expression‎, 우리가 있잖아요? has its interpersonal element in exactly the same place. In addition to the polite form 요, there is the interpersonal element ~잖 which suggests that you and I agree on this; we share common knowledge. </P>
<P> </P>
<P>Korean verbs, as you know, consist of a verb "stem" or 기본 and various kinds of insertions which realize 평서형, 의문형, 명령형, 청유형, 감탄형. </P>
<P> </P>
<P>모그리가 바나나를 촣아합니다. (statement)</P>
<P>모그리가 바나나를 촣아합니까? (question)</P>
<P> </P>
<P>As you can see, English and Korean realize the difference between indicative and interrogative in exactly the same way, through the Finite, which is fused to the verb in both languages. </P>
<P> </P>
<P>Traditional STRUCTURAL grammar cannot explain why, but FUNCTIONAL grammar explains it perfectly well. The finite carries the burden of the interpersonal metafunction, and whether I make a statement or ask a question is a matter of how I stand in relation to my hearer.</P>
<P> </P>
<P>dk</P>
<!-- -->
첫댓글Notice that functional grammar ALSO explains why it's hard for MENTAL process verbs like "like" to become COMMANDS, SUGGESTIONS, etc. ("T: Everybody! Like bananas! Right now!"). Functional grammar also explains why even when it is possible to give commands in the THIRD person (e.g. "Let him like bananas!") it is extremely rare. Structural grammar does not limit possibilities in quite this way.
첫댓글 Notice that functional grammar ALSO explains why it's hard for MENTAL process verbs like "like" to become COMMANDS, SUGGESTIONS, etc. ("T: Everybody! Like bananas! Right now!"). Functional grammar also explains why even when it is possible to give commands in the THIRD person (e.g. "Let him like bananas!") it is extremely rare. Structural grammar does not limit possibilities in quite this way.