Tài liệu Luận văn ngôn ngữ anh syntactic and semantic features of “play” in english and “chơi” in vietnamese.

VIETNAM ACADEMY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES GRADUATE ACADEMY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES Nguyễn Duy Tân SYNTACTIC AND SEMANTIC FEATURES OF “PLAY” IN ENGLISH AND “CHƠI” IN VIETNAMESE MA THESIS IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE HO CHI MINH CITY, 2020 VIETNAM ACADEMY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES GRADUATE ACADEMY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES Nguyễn Duy Tân SYNTACTIC AND SEMANTIC FEATURES OF “PLAY” IN ENGLISH AND “CHƠI” IN VIETNAMESE Field: English Language Code: 8.22.02.01 Supervisor: Đặng Nguyên Giang, Ph.D. HO CHI MINH CITY, 2020 DECLARATION BY AUTHOR Except where reference has been made in the text, this thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person. I, Nguyễn Duy Tân, hereby state that this thesis is the result of my own research and the substance of the thesis has not, wholly or in part, been submitted for any degrees to any other universities or institutions. Author’s Signature Nguyễn Duy Tân Approved by SUPERVISOR Đặng Nguyên Giang, Ph.D. Date:…………………… i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The completion of this thesis is credited to many people’s contributions and support. I would like to take this opportunity to thank them all most sincerely, knowing that my thanks are never adequate. First of all, I would like to express my sincere gratitude and deep appreciation to Đặng Nguyên Giang, Ph. D., my supervisor, for his helpful and warm encouragement as well as his insightful comments on my work from the beginning to the end of the study. In addition, I would like to thank all of the lecturers who gave me interesting lessons, dedication and advice during my study at Graduate Academy of Social Sciences. I also offer my special thanks to my beloved pupils and friends whose support and encouragement help me to have this thesis accomplished. Last but not least, I must express my gratitude to my family. It is their endless love and expectations that have motivated me to complete this thesis. I am immensely thankful for all the assistance they have given me. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page DECLARATION BY AUTHOR…………………………………………. i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………. ii ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………. vi LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………... vii Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION………………………………………….. 1 1.1. Rationale……………………………………………………………... 1 1.2. Aims and objectives of the study…………………………………….. 2 1.3. Research questions…………………………………………………… 2 1.4. Scope of the study……………………………………………………. 3 1.5. Significance of the study……………………………………………... 3 1.6. Methodology…………………………………………………………. 4 1.6.1. Data collection……………………………………………………... 4 1.6.2. Research methods………………………………………………….. 4 1.6.3. Underlying theoretical frameworks………………………………... 5 1.7. Structure of the study………………………………………………… 9 Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW………………………………….. 10 2.1. Words and word classes……………………………………………... 10 2.1.1. Polysemy of words…………………………………………………. 10 2.1.2. Word classes……………………………………………………….. 12 2.2. Review of the previous research works……………………………… 17 2.3. Chapter summary…………………………………………………….. 17 Chapter 3: SYNTACTIC FEATURES OF “PLAY” IN ENGLISH AND “CHƠI” IN VIETNAMESE……………………………………… 19 3.1. Syntactic features of “play” in English………………………………. 19 3.1.1. “Play” as a verb…………………………………………………….. 19 iii 3.1.2. “Play” as a noun……………………………………………………. 27 3.2. Syntactic features of “chơi” in Vietnamese………………………….. 29 3.2.1. “Chơi” as a verb……………………………………………………. 29 3.2.2. “Chơi” as an adverb………………………………………………... 31 3.3. A comparison between “play” in English and “chơi” in Vietnamese in terms of syntactic features……………………………………………... 31 3.3.1. Syntactic features found in both languages………………………... 31 3.3.2. Syntactic features unique to English……………………………….. 32 3.3.3. Syntactic features unique to Vietnamese…………………………... 33 3.4. Chapter summary…………………………………………………….. 34 Chapter 4: SEMANTIC FEATURES OF “PLAY” IN ENGLISH AND “CHƠI” IN VIETNAMESE……………………………………… 36 4.1. Semantic features of “play” in English………………………………. 36 4.1.1. “Play” as a verb…………………………………………………….. 36 4.1.2. “Play” as a noun……………………………………………………. 42 4.2. Semantic features of “chơi” in Vietnamese………………………….. 44 4.2.1. “Chơi” as a verb……………………………………………………. 44 4.2.2. “Chơi” as an adverb………………………………………………... 47 4.3. A comparison between “play” in English and “chơi” in Vietnamese in terms of semantic features …………………………………………….. 47 4.3.1. Semantic features found in both languages………………………... 47 4.3.2. Semantic features unique to English……………………………….. 48 4.3.3. Semantic features unique to Vietnamese…………………………... 51 4.4. Chapter summary…………………………………………………….. 52 Chapter 5: CONCLUSION……………………………………………... 54 5.1. Recapitulation………………………………………………………... 54 5.2. Concluding remarks………………………………………………….. 57 5.3. Implications………………………………………………………….. iv 58 5.3.1. For English teaching and learning………………………………… 58 5.3.2. For translation from English to Vietnamese and vice versa.………. 59 5.4. Limitations and suggestions for further studies……………………… 59 REFERENCES…………………………………………………………... 61 v ABSTRACT An investigation of play in English and chơi in Vietnamese in terms of syntactic and semantic features is carried out in the present study. Description and contrastive analysis are regarded as the main methods used in the present thesis. The findings of the study are concerned with the similarities and differences between play in English and chơi in Vietnamese in terms of syntactic and semantic features. In order to collect the data, a hand search approach of the dictionaries in both languages has been conducted, which helps to establish the number of meanings of each word. In the present study, the theoretical fameworks (theory of contrastive analysis; theory of syntax and semantics) are applied to both English and Vietnamese. Additionally, an overview of some theoretical background dealing with the general concepts of syntax, semantics, words, polysemy of words and word classification is presented for the background of analyzing the syntactic and semantic features of the two words, play in English and chơi in Vietnamese. Our investigation reveals that play in English and chơi in Vietnamese may function as verbs. The biggest difference between play in English and chơi in Vietnamese in terms of syntactic features lies in the verbal forms and the coordinate possibility of each in the clauses. In terms of semantic features, the findings of the study reveals that there are 11 meanings in common conveyed by the two verbs, play in English and chơi in Vietnamese. When working as a verb, play in English has more meanings than chơi in Vietnamese. There are 21 meanings conveyed by play, unique to English whereas chơi has 7 meanings which are unique to Vietnamese. Play in English may be a noun which has five main meanings, and chơi in Vietnamese can function as an adverb and has only one meanings. The thesis also presents the implications for English teaching and learning as well as translation. vi LIST OF TABLES Page Table 3.1. Forms and functions of the verb “play” in English (adapted from Quirk & Greenbaum (1987))……………………………………...… 20 vii Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1. Rationale It is a fact that language is an essential form of communication. It allows people to convey and elaborate their perspective. It means that language is the bridge to connect people all over the world. Therefore, language is a subtle and complex instrument used to communicate an incredible number of different things. Bloomfield (1933) states that “we could not understand the form of a language if we merely reduced all the complex forms to their ultimate constituents”. By this, he means that in order to account for the meaning of a sentence, it is necessary to recognize how individual constituents (such words and morphemes) constitute more complex forms. Wilkins (1972, p.11) emphasizes the importance of vocabulary, and he writes: “without grammar, very little can be conveyed, without vocabulary, nothing can be conveyed”. Furthermore, Pyles and Algeo (1970) suppose that “when we first think about language, we think about words. It is words that we arrange together to make sentences, conversation and discourse of all kinds”. In fact, vocabulary is the decisive element that links the four skills of speaking, reading, listening and writing all together. In order to communicate well in a foreign language, we should acquire a great number of words and know how to use them accurately. Nevertheless, vocabulary of both English and Vietnamese has its own features that could raise difficulties for language teachers and learners and makes both teaching and learning English still far from being satisfaction. In the process of teaching English, it is recognized that even a simple word like play also makes students confused much due to its syntactic and semantic features and its Vietnamese equivalent. In English, the word play can combined with other words to form phrases, clauses and sentences in a language. Therefore, it is necessary that the teachers of English acquire adequate knowledge of the word order and the relationships between words. In term of semantic features, it has both denotaion and connotaion meanings that learners 1 of English have to base on the context. In Vietnamese, the word chơi is not only a verb which indicates a physical activity only but also other kinds of word implying different meanings in real life communication. As a teacher of English, I find that learners may know a lot of English lexical items by learning vocabulary word-lists by heart but they do not know how to use them in appropriate contexts. The difficulties that Vietnamese learners may meet are not only in semantic features but also in syntactic forms as well. For the reasons above, the thesis entitled “Syntactic and Semantic Features of "Play" in English and "Chơi" in Vietnamese” is chosen for my study. The study is carried out in the hope to have a good knowledge of the two words, to deal with specific teaching and learning predicaments, and to help the author successfully accomplish the challenging tasks. Moreover, the author also hopes that this attempt will help Vietnamese learners of English have a better understanding of the word play in English and then use it in daily learning and communication effectively. 1.2. Aims and objectives of the study The aim of the study is clarifying the features of play in English and chơi in Vietnamese to help the learners to learn and use these words corectly and effectively. In order to achieve the aim, the study is expected to reach the following objectives: - To investigate the syntactic features of play in English and chơi in Vietnamese; - To investigate the semantic features of the play in English and chơi in Vietnamese; - To uncover the similarities and differences between play in English and chơi in Vietnamese in terms of syntactic and semantic features. 1.3. Research questions The objectives of the study can be elaborated into the research questions as 2 follows: What are the syntactic features of play in English and chơi in Vietnamese? What are the semantic features of play in English and chơi in Vietnamese? What are the similarites and differences between play in English and chơi in Vietnamese in terms of syntactic and semantic features? 1.4. Scope of the study The present study investigates the syntactic and semantic features of play in English and chơi in Vietnamese. The description and the analysis of the features of the two words are from recently published dictionaries. All the authors of these works affirm that all the forms and meanings of these words are current and used, or undersood by most native speakers. 1.5. Significance of the study Theoretically, the findings of the study, to some extent, prove that the theoretical frameworks (the theory of contrastive analysis and the theory of syntax and sematics) are effective in studying languages in general and words in particular. The two words are quite popular; therefore, the investigation is highly reliable in terms of theoretical frameworks suggested. Practically, for language teaching (both English and Vietnamese), the study facilitates learners’ communication because language is for communication, and words are an indispensable part of expressions. The work will provide assistance to English-speaking learners of Vietnamese and Vietnamese learners of English to distinguish the uses of play in English and chơi in Vietnamese. The work will also enable learners to tell when the two words are similar and different, which is likely to be useful for their study. Language teachers will be aided to help their learners reach this communicative goal. For translation, knowledge of words from this work will help translators find closest equivalents to the expressions in the source language. 3 1.6. Methodology 1.6.1. Data Collection It is a matter of fact that we can make comparison of languages in various ways. We may start from categories of traditional grammar, phrases, a whole vocabulary or a collection of texts (Dirven & Verspoor, 2004, p. 250) with any appropriate database and procedures. The usage-based or empirically based (Bybee, 2009) foundation of cognitive grammar suggests that real linguistic examples taken from genuine usage-data should form the basis for linguistic analysis and theory construction (Langlotz, 2006; Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech, & Svartvik, 1985). Accordingly, the recent development of linguistics has witnessed the rise of corpus-linguistics, which bases linguistic analyses on large computer-aided corpora of both spoken and written language (Kemmer & Barlow, 2000). Crosslinguistic corpus studies require comparable corpora. While there is a wide range of corpora, such as the Bank of English (owned by Collins COBUILD) or the British National Corpus for English (BNC), for the analysis of English, no such corpora are readily available for Vietnamese. We deliberately use standard reference works; granted, this choice limits the scope of this study, the dictionaries are a significant part of public discourse and dictionary entries are, by their nature, extracted from their natural context (Deignan, 2005). They are thus representative of the way in which a speech community constructs its cultural models through language – in this case the way in which the English and Vietnamese cultures conceptualize or encode the emotions in question. The data for the present study comes from standard current dictionaries in both English and Vietnamese, which are valuable tools for the scientific study of languages due to their “objective and readily verifiable reference”. 1.6.2. Research Methods Due to the main aims and objectives of the study, description and contrastive exploitation would be mainly carried out throughout the process. 4 Also, the thesis makes use of the English language as the target and the Vietnamese one as the source language (the base language). Descriptive method is used to describe in details the syntactic and semantic features of play in English and chơi in Vietnamese. Contrastive analysis will be used to identify the similarities and differences between play in English and chơi in Vietnamese in terms of syntactic and semantic features. 1.6.3. Underlying theoretical frameworks We will apply a select range of theories to the investigation of the syntactic and semantic features of play in English and chơi in Vietnamese: the theory of contrastive analysis and the theory of syntax and semantics. i) Theory of contrastive analysis According to Krzeszowski (1990. p. 35), ‘No exact or reliable exploration of facts can be conducted without a theoretical background, providing concepts, hypotheses, and theories which enable the investigator to describe the relevant facts and to account for them in terms of significant generalizations’ (cited in Nguyễn Văn Trào, 2009, p. 12). In the present inquiry, the theories of contrastive linguistics of König and Gast (2008) and Chaturvedi (1973) are applied to the investigation of the syntactic and semantic features of play in English and chơi in Vietnamese. König and Gast (2008) suppose that contrastive linguistics is a branch of comparative linguistics that is concerned with pairs of languages which are ‘socio-culturally linked’. According to these authors, two languages can be said to be socio-culturally linked when (i) they are used by a considerable number of bi- or multilingual speakers, and/or (ii) a substantial amount of ‘linguistic output’ (text, discourse) is translated from one language into the other. English and Vietnamese are socio-cultural linked because they satisfy both criteria given above. Contrastive linguistics invariably requires a socio-cultural link between the languages investigated, but that it is not restricted to pair wise language 5 comparison. Contrastive linguistics thus aims to arrive at results that carry the potential of being used for practical purposes, e.g. in foreign language teaching and translation. As it provides the descriptive basis for such applications, its research programme can also be summarized as ‘comparison with a purpose’. ‘Comparison’ in the present study is understood as the identification of similarities and differences between two or more categories along a specific (set of) dimension(s) (König and Gast 2008). We mean that the categories compared must be of the same type, i.e. there has to be a set of properties that they have in common in both languages. In order to carry out a contrastive study, Chaturvedi (1973) suggests some guiding principles as follows: (i) to analyse the mother tongue and the target language independently and completely; (ii) to compare the two languages item-wise-item at all levels of their structure; (iii) to arrive at the categories of a) similar features, b) partially similar features, c) dissimilar features - for the target language; and (iv) to arrive at principles of text preparation, test framing and target language teaching in general. The contrastive analysis emphasises the influence of the mother tongue in learning a second language and translation. This type of study will provide an objective and scientific base for second language teaching as well as translation. For knowing the significantly similar structural and semantic properties in both languages, the first step to be adopted is that both languages should be analysed independently. After the independent analysis, to sort out the different features of the two languages, comparison of the two languages is necessary. From this analysis it is easy to make out that at different levels of structural and semantic properties of these two languages there are some features quite similar and some quite dissimilar. 6 ii) Theory of syntax and semantics Theory of syntax Syntax is a set of rules in language. It dictates how words from different parts of speech are put together in order to convey a complete thought. According to Dixon (1991), syntax deals with the way in which words are combined together. Syntax is understood to be the 7 theory of the structure of sentences in a language. This view has its direct antecedents in the theory of immediate constituents, in which the function of syntax is to mediate between the observed forms of a sentence and its meaning. Bloomfield (1933), he states “we could not understand the form of a language if we merely reduced all the complex forms to their ultimate constituents”. He argued that in order to account for the meaning of a sentence, it is necessary to recognize how individual constituents such words and morphemes constitute more complex forms. Syntax is now the study of the principles and rules that govern the ways in which words are combined to form phrases, clauses and sentences in a language. Syntax, which is a subfield of grammar, focuses on the word order of a language and the relationships between words. In other words, morphology deals with word formation out of morphemes whereas syntax deals with phrase and sentence formation out of words. Syntax structures are analyzable into sequences of syntactic categories or syntactic classes, these being established on the basic of the syntactic relationships and linguistic items have with other items in a construction. Every language has a limited number of syntactic relations. Subject and object are probably universal of syntactic relations, which apply to every language. However, just as the criteria for the major words class noun and verb differ from language to language, so do the ways in which syntactic relations are marked. Theory of semantics Semantics is a branch of linguistics which relates with meaning. Semanticsis considered as a study of meaning in language. It deals with the expression oflinguistic objects such as word, phrases and sentences. It does not 7 pay attention tothe syntactical arrangement or pronounciation of linguistic object. As states by Katz (1972, p. 1), “Semantics is the study of linguistic meaning. It is concered withwhat sentence and other linguistics object express, not with the arrangement withtheir syntactic parts or with their pronounciation.” Semantics has long been an object of study within the philosophy. It issaid that the term semantics itself was introduced into English at the end of the19th century. There are some term semantics in various defenition by some expert, they are: Palmer (1976, p. 1) states “Semantics is the technical term used to refer to study of meaning.” Hornby (1972, p. 789) has defined “Semantics is branch of linguistics concerned with studying the meaning of words and sentences.” Lyons (1977, p. 1) defines “Semantics is generally defined as the study ofmeaning.” Siregar (1992, p. 2) states “Semantics is the study of the meaning of words, phrases, or sentences in the language or semantics is the study of meaning inlanguage.”Semantics has developed and becaome worthy study. There are two factors that make semantics become important and worthy study. First, meaning is strictlyconnected with communication. A certain meaning can be delivered throughcommuncation plays an important role in human life. Second, the process ofhuman attempts to comprehend the nature of meaning involves the mental ability by the use of reasoning and perception. As stated by Leech (1989, p. ix), “Semantics is central to the study of communication; and as communication becomes more and more crucial factor in social organization, the need tounderstand it becomes more and more pressing. Semantics is also at the centre ofthe study of the himan mind-thought process, cognition and conceptualization.” Ridwan (1997, p. 45) in Saleh (2008) states that there are some terms ofsemantics, such as semasiology, semology, semiotics, sememis, and semics.Beside having some terms, semantics also has some close relations with somedisciplines, such as philosophy, psychology, anthropology and sosiology.Philosophy is closely related to semantics because the nature of the worldand truth which become the contemplation of philosophy is represented 8 trough themeaning of language. Philosophy has a close relation with semantics namely philosophical semantics. Philosophical semantics examines the relation betweenlinguistic expressions and phenomena in the world to which they refer and considers the conditions under which such expressions can be said to be true orfalse and the factors which affect the interpretation of language used. Hornby (1995, p. 935) said that psychology is the science or study the maindand how it function. It is closely related with semantics because such psychologyelement as cognition, thought and reason cannot be separated in the process of planning, organizing and uderstanding the meaning through linguistic codes.The other terms which also have a close relation with semantics aresosiology and anthropology. Hornby (1995, p. 1128) says “Sosiology is thescientific study of the nature and development of the society and social behaviour.” It has something to with semantics to identify a certain expressions orutterances which indicates the identities or characteristics of particular group or person of community. And at the last anthropology is the study of human raceespecially of its origin, development, customs and beliefs. It needs semantics because analysis of meanig in a language can provide the cultural classification ofthe language users. 1.7. Structure of the study In addition to the references, the thesis is composed of five chapters: Chapter 1: Introduction Chapter 2: Literature review; Chapter 3: Syntactic features of “play” in English and “chơi” in Vietnamese; Chapter 4: Semantic features of “play” in English and “chơi” in Vietnamese; Chapter 5: Conclusion 9 Chapter 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1. Words and word classes We think of words as the basic units of language. When a baby begins to speak, the way the excited mother reports what has happened is: ‘Tommy has said his first word!’ We would be surprised at a mother who described little Tommy’s first utterance as a sentence. Sentences come later, we are inclined to feel, when words are strung together meaningfully. That is not to say that a sentence must always consist of more than one word. One-word commands such as ‘Go!’ or ‘Sit!’, although they crop up relatively seldom in everyday conversation or reading, are not in any way odd or un-English. Nevertheless, learning to talk in early childhood seems to be a matter of putting words together, not of taking sentences apart. The following sections will discuss the the polysemy of words and their classes 2.1.1. Polysemy of words Semantics is traditionally described as the study of meaning communicated through language (Saeed, 2009), in simpler terms, it is the branch of linguistics that deals with the meaning of words and sentences. It is true that meaning can be studied through different linguistic views, but it is undeniable that semantics is an indispensable linguistic branch which deals with this matter. “To understand a sentence we must know much more than the analysis of this sentence on each linguistic level. We must also know the reference and meaning of the morphemes and words of which it is composed, naturally, grammar cannot be expected to be of much help here. These notions form the subject matter for semantics” (Chomsky, 2002). According to Cruse (2000), within the study of meaning there are many areas of interest, the main ones are the following: (1) Grammatical semantics: studies aspects of meaning closely related to syntax; 10 (2) Logical semantics: studies the “relations between natural language and formal logical systems such as the propositional and predicate calculi”; (3) Linguistic pragmatics: which (for present purposes) can be simply defined as the branch of linguistics that studies the way that context influences meaning; (4) Lexical semantics: studies the meaning of ‘content’ words. The idea of a word containing multiple meanings dates back to the stoics, who observed that “a single concept can be expressed by several different words (synonymy) and that conversely, one word can carry different meanings (polysemy)” (Ravin and Leacock, 2000). But the first time the term “polysemy” appeared was in Michel Bréal’s Essai de Sémantique (1897), later on translated into English under the name of Semantics: Studies in the Science of Meaning (1900), from which the following excerpt, containing the newly coined term, is taken: “The new meaning of a word, whatever it may be, does not make an end of the old. They exist alongside of one another. The same term can be employed alternately in the strict or in the metaphorical sense, in the restricted or in the expanded sense, in the abstract or in the concrete sense. In proportion as a new signification is given to a word, it appears to multiply and produce fresh examples, similar in form, but differing in value. We shall call this phenomenon of multiplication Polysemia1” This definition could nowadays be thought of as obsolete, but it was of a vital importance in order to set the principles that govern the study of polysemy in present days. From 1900 onwards, many studies have been carried out concerning lexical ambiguity, but it seems that decades of psycholinguistic research have focused on homonymy comprehension rather than polysemy comprehension (Klepousniotou et al., 2008). This fact is curious as polysemy is much more frequent in language than homonymy, in fact, according to Lee (1990), 93 of the 100 most frequent words in English text are polysemous. This little attention towards polysemy, in terms of research, could have been due to 11