Chapter 1Preliminaries
1.1 Overview of systemic functional syntax
The idea of linguistic study has two ways: one is the revolutionary way; the otheris the evolutionaiy way (Huang and Xin 2012:1-26). In the 1990s, at the beginningof modem linguistics, there existed various linguistic theories and schools which canbe divided into two mainstreams: formalism and functionalism (Hu et al. 2005: 2).The Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL hereafter) is a branch of the school offunctionalism. SFL studies aim at the interrelationship between the linguistics andsociety. SFL as a comprehensive theory and appliable linguistics studies the humanlanguage functioning in society and it is used to "solve 汪 range of problems feced bypotential 'consumers of linguistics" (Coffin 2001:94).Just like other linguistic theories, the range of SFL includes semantics,lexicogrammar, vocabulary and phonology. These parts in the framework of SFL arecaJled semantics, lexicogrammar, and phonology and graphology. (Halliday 1994/2000: F40; Halliday and Matthiessen 1999/2008). The study of functional syntaxmainly includes lexicogrammar which consists of group, phrase, clause and clausecomplex. The functional syntax plays an important role in the the framework of SFL.In the framework of SFL, syntax is regarded as realization of semantics and function(meaning).
…………
1.2 A note on terminology
This section will define the technical terms which are used in this dissertation.The terms which are used by many other researchers to describe the samegrammatical problems are listed. The reason for using the terms is that the presentresearch adopts the theory of SFL and the terms used indicate the identity of theschool of linguistics.In this dissertation, terms used in this study are: (1) clause complex, (2)interdependency relation, (3) logico-semantic relation, (4) embedding clause, (5)Subject，(6) Main Verb, (7) Complement and (8) Participant Role. These terms willbe discussed in Chapter 3，in which the author tries to analyze the structuralcharacteristics of the English object clause by new insights. These terms express thedifferent levels of descriptions.There are two terms also clarified in this dissertation~Object and Complement.These two terms often mislead readers. According to Morley (2010; 100)，the termObject is defined as, “Objects are those syntactically nominal functioning elementswhich，basically and again in an active sentence，answer the question ‘Who or whatdid the Subject verb'". Morley (2010: 103) also gives Complement a definition,“complements denote entities, attributes or circumstances, which refer back to theSubject or Object". There are differences between Object and Complement.
…………
Chapter 2Literature Review
2.1 Introduction
This chapter will review the research of the object clause. The approaches ofthe object clause are reviewed in this dissertation that they should encompass everyaspects of the object clause. In order to find out the differences and similaritiesbetween different approaches and the systemic fiinctional approach，the author in thischapter will go through different approaches to describe the object clause, particularlythe traditional approach，the traasformational approach and the corpus-based approach.SFL as a theoretical framework will be discussed in next chapter. At the end of tiiischapter, the author will show the implications of the presented approaches.
…………
2.2 Traditional approach
Traditional approach on object clause is based on the works of English grammaredited by Quirk et al (1985) and Huddleston and Pullum (2005/2008).The object clause is made up of subordinate clause and superordinate clause.The subordinate clause is 汪 constituent and the superordinate clause is therefore alsothe main clause. Quirk et al (1985:987) give the definition of the complex sentenceas "it consists of only one main clause, but unlike a simple sentence it has one or moresubordinate clauses functioning as an element of the sentence". The interdiagram ofthe object clause includes three parts，which are subordinate clauses, subordinatorsand superordinate clauses. Subordinate clauses play an important role in thecomplex sentence, and they are analyzed in two aspects: syntactic functions ofsubordinate clauses and fiinctional classes of subordinate clauses.Subordinators are the device of subordination, which resemble the characters ofhaving a relating function. Quirk et al (1985: 998) define "subordinators formingtiie core of the class consist of a single word". Subordinators connect subordinateclauses to superordinate clauses.A subordinate clause may ftinction as a clause element of a superordinate clause. Quirk et al (1985: 1047) define the functions of subordinate clauses “as subject，object，complement, or adverbial in a superordinate clause，，. If subordinate clausesfiinction as object，they belong to the categories of subordinate clauses: nominalgroup. Nominal group refers to "functions that approximate to those of noun phrases:subject, object，complement, appositive, and prepositional complement, eveiynominal clause may function in some or all of these functions" (ibid: 1047).
……………
Chapter 3 Theoretical Framework ........... 16
3.1 Introduction........... 16
3.2 An overview clause complex within SFL........... 16
3.3 The clause complex in the Sydney Grammar........... 17
3.4 The clause complex in the Cardiff Grammar........... 22
3.5 Summary........... 28
Chapter 4 Functional Syntax Analysis of the English object clause...........29
4.1 Introduction........... 29
4.2 The notion oftiie English object clause........... 29
4.3 The Sydney Grammar analysis........... 31
4.4 The Cardiff Grammar analysis........... 38
4.5 Summary........... 44
Chapter 5 Discussion ........... 46
5.1 Introduction........... 46
5.2 The position of functional syntax in the model of SFL........... 46
5.3 The discussion of clause complex from the perspective of SFL........... 49
5.4 Simplification and extension of the Halliday's fiinctional Grammar........... 50
5.5 The English object clause in summary........... 53
5.6 Summary ...........54
Chapter FiveDiscussion
5.1 Introduction
In chapter four, data are analyzed in the framework of SFL. The analysis of theEnglish object clause from the perspectives of the Sydney Grammar and the CardiffGrammar provides some linguistic phenomena. This chapter，discussion，will givethe explanation and interpretation of the English object clause. No matter what kind of grammars are — both the Sydney Grammar and theCardiff Grammar, they regard fiinctional syntax as their main topic. The functionalsyntax is an essential and core element in the framework of SFL. Different versionsof SFL give different viewpoints to the functional syntax and offer readers some ideasto deal with and analyze the clause. During the development of the Sydney Grammar (Halliday1961 /2007, 1979，1985，1994/2008)，functional syntax is the main work in its framework. Halliday(1979; 58) points out that the system of linguistics, semiotic has three layers;semantics, lexicogrammar and phonology and there are three components of the layerof semantics: ideational function, interpersonal function and textual function. Everycomponent of semantics generates the ou中ut which is an organization of differentdiagrams 一the form of realization，that is，the diagram of syntax of the layer oflexicogrammar. In the model of this grammar, three components of semantics areconstructed by the different system network, and each system is realized by thedifferent clauses. These clause diagrams are finally conflated together.
………….
Conclusion
This dissertation focuses on a functional syntax analysis of the English objectclause, and the analysis is carried out within the theory of SFL. There are twomodels within the framework of SFL~ the Sydney Grammar and the CardiffGrammar. These two models both treat the research of clause as their interests.This dissertation analyzes the data of the English object clause and puts forward to thetheories of functional syntax to describe the English object clause. Finally, toanswer the research questions proposed in chapter one, the author analyzes anddiscusses the English object clause. There are four questions raised in chapter oneare as follows: (1) to explore the English object clause in the framework of theSydney Grammar; (2) to explore tiie English object clause in the framework of theCardiff Grammar; (3) to discuss the interdependency and logico-semantic relationship;(4) to analyze the meaning and form of the English object clause.The answer to the first question is in section 4.3 in chapter four. The answer tothe second question is also in chapter four. As for the question three four，theanswers to them are in chapter four in detail.
…………
Reference (omitted)