|
엄마(의) |
기분이 |
어떠실(sic) |
것 같아요? |
phenomenon |
process | ||
participant |
process |
mental | |
adjunct |
subject |
relational |
modality |
|
|
attribute |
|
We don’t say ‘것이 같다.’ or ‘것은 같다.’ We say ‘~한 것 같다’. ‘것’ looks like a subject of ‘같아요’ but it is not. ‘것 같다’ itself is a phrase that functions like a verb such as “think” or “guess”. In this clause, the phrase “것 같다” projects the clause “엄마(의) 기분이 어떠한”. The subject of this clause should be ‘여러분 생각은’ and it is omitted because the speaker(teacher) knows who she is talking to.
Good. Now, how DOES the clause subordinated to 것 participate in the process? Does this mean that 것 is an OBJECT?
Can we say:
T: 엄마의 기분이 어떠실 것을(?) 같아요?
In Korean, there is a tendency to omit parts of a clause even though they are verb, object or subject as long as they are already known to the listeners.(
Yes. Of course, this happens in English too:
T: How are you all today?
Ss: Fine, thanks. And you?
In fact, it's something we find in ALL discourse, and it happens the more we "enter into" the situation which is created by the conversation. It's for this reason that Vygotsky sees this as an aspect of INNER SPEECH (that is, verbal thinking) quite generally:
"As our observations show, pure predicativity appears in external speech in two basic cases: either in the situation of giving an answer or in the situation where the subject of the judgment stated is in advance known to the interlocutors. In answer to the question, ‘Would you like a glass of tea?’ no one will begin their answer with the expanded phrase: ‘No, I would not like a glass of tea.’ The answer will be by the purely predicative: ‘No.’ It will include only a predicate. It is obvious that such a predicative proposal is possible only because its subject, that is, that which is discussed in the proposal, is understood by the interlocutors. In the same way, the question: ‘Has your brother read this the book?’ will never receive the answer: ‘Yes, my brother has read this book’ but rather the purely predicative answer ‘Yes’ or ‘He has’." (Vygotsky, Thinking and Speech, 7.4, my translation)
Of course, "he has" is not a predicator in English. But it IS the "comment", the rheme. Vygotsky goes on to give another example, where the situation is known from context, and here the predicator is given:
"A completely analogous position is created in the second case as well, in a situation where the subject which the announced judgment concerns is in advance known to the interlocutors. Let us imagine that several people are waiting at a tram stop to take streetcar B in a given direction. None of them will say, in noting the approach of the streetcar, in expanded form, “Tram B, which we expected in order to go in that direction is now arriving.” Instead, the announcement will be reduced to one predicate: ‘Here it is’ or ‘The B’."
“엄마(의) 기분이 어때요?”(How is she feeling?) is a perfect sentence. The answer should be the mom’s feeling. However, by adding ‘것 같아요?’, the teacher is adding a process, providing modality, and showing students that what she wants is just opinions. The answer should be students’ guess about the mom’s feeling which starts with the phrase “I think that…”
얼굴을 |
좀 |
보세요 |
participant |
scope |
process |
Sensed phenomenon |
adjunct |
mental |
얼굴 |
좀 |
봐(look) |
봐(try) |
participant |
Scope |
process |
process |
Sensed phenomenon |
adjunct |
Mental |
Mental |
This is an imperative so the unmarked participant of this clause “you” is omitted.
Good! Notice that Ms. Choe calls the scope an ADJUNCT rather than a participant. This is 2004 Halliday, not 1984 Halliday.
This clause is an imperative, too. It has no participant, either.
Wait! Didn't you say that "얼굴" is a participant?
When the teacher gives the questions, as Professor Kellogg points out, the degrees of freedom didn’t get bigger at all. It is much more reduced. It seems to me that the teacher didn’t get a proper answer by repeating the mental process verbs over and over.
Of course, if we look at the INTERPERSONAL element, what is happening is variation, not repetition. But Ms. Choe is right, from an IDEATIONAL point of view, the teacher is repeating herself.
The teacher asks the students to think not to answer. This explains that why 태근’s answer becomes 혼잣말 and other students didn’t answer.
Good.
It is hard to expect an explicit answer to a mental-process verb question.
Is it really? It's hard to DEMAND an explicit answer. But isn't it a NON-DEMANDING way of asking for an answer?
태근 takes the three mental-process verb questions into one material-process verb question “what is she doing?” and he answers “she is laughing.” In the clause below, the participant(subject) “엄마는” is omitted again.
웃고 |
있다 |
process |
Process |
material |
material |
doing |
Happening (auxiliary) |
In the ideational point of view, if the teacher simply changes the mental process verbs into verbal, she could give her students wider range of degrees of freedom.
"Guess!"
Interpersonal metafunction
여러분은 |
엄마의 |
기분이 |
어떠 |
실(sic) |
거(것) |
같아 |
요? |
Mood |
Mood |
Mood |
Mood
|
Mood |
Mood |
RESIDUE |
Mood |
Subject |
complement |
subject |
residue |
Finite |
을? |
Predicator |
finite |
This sentence is really complex. The clause has the simple clause “엄마의 기분이 어떠한” inside the whole sentence. As ‘것’ cannot be used by itself, it cannot be a subject. ‘것’ makes a clause functions like a noun.
If it is not a subject, are you sure it's mood? Suppose it's the ATTRIBUTE.
‘기분’ is not the object of honorification so ‘실’ is a mistake. The proper clause is that “엄마 기분이 어떤 것 같아요?” The finite ‘요’ shows that the teacher addresses to the whole students using polite language.
Yes. And it seems to me that the HONORIFIC is one way the teacher has of asking for an explicit answer. The NON-HONORIFIC is the invitation to think. But the HONORIFIC is the invitation to answer. This is consistent with the idea that non-honorific speech has an "intra-mental" function in a Korean classroom, which we discussed in class.
얼굴을 |
좀 |
보세 |
요 |
RESIDUE |
RESIDUE |
RESIDUE |
Mood |
complement |
|
Predicator+finite |
finite |
얼굴 |
좀 |
보(look) |
ㅏ |
보 |
ㅏ |
Residue |
RESIDUE |
RESIDUE |
mood |
RESIDUE |
mood |
complement |
|
predicator |
finite |
predicator |
finite |
Although the teacher is still using polite language(“보세요”) the clause is a command. The next clause is a command, too.(“봐 봐”) When the teacher switches the language from the honorific words to the 반말체, the teacher has just start to go inside the students’ mind. 반말 is the language that students use when they think inside themselves and when they do 혼잣말. Therefore, by speaking of 반말체, she starts to represent the students’ thought explicitly and shows her students how to think at the same time.
Exactly!
Textual metafunction
여러분은 |
엄마(의) |
기분이 |
어떠실 거 |
같아요? |
Theme |
Theme |
Theme |
Rheme |
Rheme |
given |
|
new |
topical |
|
여러분(you) |
얼굴을 |
좀 |
보세요 |
Theme |
Rheme |
Rheme |
Theme |
interpersonal |
new |
circumstance |
Is this really a "point of departure for the speaker?" Isn't it the point of interest for the HEARER? (rheme)
Test: Can we mark this part of the sentence with 은/는? |
여러분 |
얼굴 |
좀 |
봐 |
봐 |
Theme |
Rheme |
Rheme |
Theme |
Rheme |
interpersonal |
new |
circumstance |
topical Is this really a "point of departure for the speaker?" Isn't it the point of interest for the HEARER? (rheme)
Test: Can we mark this part of the sentence with 은/는?
|
|
It appears that the teacher is trying to vary the theme and is changing the theme into a specific one. “기분” is more abstract word than “얼굴”.
Right! But doesn't this belong in the "ideational" metafunction, because the difference between the two words is really a matter of representation and not organization?
남영신, 나의 한국어 바로 쓰기 노트, 2002