Yes no questions in english major linguistic features and pedagogical implication

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING HANOI OPEN UNIVERSITY DO NGOC THUY YES - NO QUESTIONS IN ENGLISH: MAJOR LINGUISTIC FEATURES AND PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS Câu hỏi Có-Không tiếng Anh: Những đặc điểm ngôn ngữ trội số gợi ý s- ph¹m M.A THISIS Hanoi - 2013 MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING HANOI OPEN UNIVERSITY DO NGOC THUY YES - NO QUESTIONS IN ENGLISH: MAJOR LINGUISTIC FEATURES AND PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS Câu hỏi Có-Không tiếng Anh: Những đặc điểm ngôn ngữ trội số gợi ý s- ph¹m M.A THISIS Field : English Language Code : 60220201 Supervisor : Associate Professor Vo Dai Quang, PhD Hanoi - 2013 DECLARATION I hereby declare that no part of the enclosed Master Thesis has been copied or reproduced by me from any other's work without acknowledgement and that the thesis is originally written by me under strict guidance of my supervisor Hanoi, 21st November 2013 Candidate Do Ngoc Thuy Approved by Associate Professor Vo Dai Quang, PhD ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS During the process of writing this thesis, I have been fortunate to receive supports and assistance from a variety of people First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Assoc Prof Dr Vo Dai Quang , for his encouragement and guidance throughout the research Without her well-designed plan and meticulous review of the drafts, this thesis would not have been completed I would also like to thank the head master of my colleagues in the Hon Gai high school, for offering me this opportunity to teach and apply this study for one semester on a class of English major students at the high school Additional thanks go to the students who actively participated in this study and willingly shared their experiences with me Last but not least, my gratitude is extended to my family: to my parents, to my husband and to my son and for their love and support to a daughter, a wife and a mother whose mind was not always free to give the attention they needed I would like to thank all people who took part in achieving this work Hanoi, 2013 Do Ngoc Thuy TABLE OF CONTENTS Declaration i Acknowledgement ii List of abbreviations iii Table of contents iv Part 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Rationale of the study 1.2 Aims of the study 1.3 Research questions 10 1.4 Scope of the study .10 1.5 Methods of the study 10 1.6 Design of the study 11 1.7 Significance of the study .11 PART II: DEVELOPMENT 12 Chapter : LITERATURE REIEW 12 1.1 Review of previous works related to the theme of the thesis 12 1.2 Review of theoretical preliminaries employable as tools for the current research 12 1.2.1 Sentence types communicatively classified .12 1.2.2 Types of questions structurally classified 14 1.2.3 Types of YES - NO questions 17 1.3 Sentence vs utterance 17 1.4 Proposition vs madality .19 1.5 Syntactics ( syntax) vs semantics vs Pragmatics 20 1.6 Theme-rheme structure in questions .21 1.7 Given-New information structure in questions 21 1.8 Presupposition + sought-for information as pivotal concept in the study of YES - NO questions 22 1.9 YES - NO questions proper vs rhetorical YES - NO questions .22 1.10 Presupposition vs Implicature 23 1.11 Assumption vs expectation as semantic component in YES - NO questions 24 1.12 Errors vs mistakes 26 1.13 Chapter summary 26 Chapter : METHODOLOGY 27 2.1 Research - governing principles 27 2.1.1 Research approach : inductive; qualitative 27 2.1.2 Date-related issues .27 2.1.2.1 Date sources 27 2.1.2.2 Date collection instruments .27 2.1.2.3 Date analysis techniques 31 2.1.3 Population sampling 31 2.2 Major and supporting methods 32 2.2.1 Major methods .32 2.2.2 Supporting methods .34 2.3 Chapter summary 34 Chapter : FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS .35 3.1 Structural features of YES - NO questions .35 3.1.1 YES - NO questions of the form AUXILIARY + S + Predication 35 3.1.2 Declarative questions : Statement said with a RISE 35 3.1.3 Tag questions .36 3.2 Semantic features of YES - NO questions 37 3.2.1 YES - NO questions of the form AUXILIARY + S + Predication 37 3.2.2 Declarative questions 39 3.2.3 Tag questions .39 3.3 Pragmatic features of YES - NO questions 42 3.3.1 YES - NO questions employed as information-seeking questions 42 3.3.1.1 YES - NO questions of the form " AUXILIARY + S + Predication" 42 3.3.1.2 Declarative questions 43 3.3.1.3 Tag questions 44 3.3.2 YES - NO questions employed as rhetorical questions .45 3.3.2.1 YES - NO questions of the form AUXILIARY + S + Predication 46 3.3.2.2 Declarative questions 47 3.3.2.3 Tag questions 48 3.4 Types of errors and mistakes commonly committed by students at Hon Gai high school using YES - NO questions and possible solutions 50 3.4.1 Grammatical errors & mistakes 51 3.4.2 Lexical errors & mistakes 54 3.4.3 Prosody-related errors & mistakes 57 3.5 Chapter summary 59 Part : CONCLUSION 60 Brief summary of the thesis 60 Specific conclusions on the thesis objectives 61 2.1 Conclusions on objective (i) 61 2.2 Conclusions on objective (ii) 61 2.3 Conclusions on objective (iii) .61 2.4 Conclusions on objective (iv) .61 Suggestions for further study 62 REFERENCES 64 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS - L2 : Second language ESL : English as second language EFL : English as foreign language MCQ : Multiple choice questions Part I: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Rationale of the study To a conversation succeed we need to understand throughly accurate implicit meaning behind each speaker Normally, every type he used to say usually exhibit a certain means Such as profiles narrative used to describe, spacious an incident yet due The imparative are used to express a command, requests The interrogative are used to ask However, meaning true of language is not composed of surface text must be placed in certain specific context In principle, the basic function of a question general and yes - no question in particular is to ask an unknown information However, beside the purpose, question " Yes - No" captures the many other functions depending on context as invitations, suggestions, requests During the time working as a teacher of English, I have had a hard time correcting students' errors and mistakes in using YES - NO questions in English Most of these common errors and mistakes centrer round linguistic features of this question type This is the reason why I have make up my mind to choose this topic as the theme for my MA thesis in English language 1.2 Aims of the study This thesis is an attempt to: (i) To arm myself with some certain knowledge of the linguistic features of YES - NO questions In my opinions, this amount of knowledge would facilitate me a lot in the teaching of English to Vietnamese learners of English; (ii) To provide an insightful look into effective uses of YES - NO questions of learners of English in general and students at the school where I am now working in particular 1.3 Research questions With a view to fulfilling the above-mentioned aims, the following are set out as research objectives with these research questions as particular elaborations: (i) What are the possible types of English YES-NO questions structurally considered? (ii) What are the major linguistic features of each of the identified YES-NO questions? (iii) What are the causes of the main types of errors and mistakes commonly committed by learners of English in general and by students at Hon Gai high school in particular? (iv) What are the possible solutions to the established types of errors and mistakes? 1.4 Scope of the study The research is to be confined to the intended areas below: (i) Types and sub-types of English YES - NO questions (ii) The reality of English language teaching & learning at Hon Gai high school 1.5 Methods of the study It is common knowledge that the employment of research methods is mostly determined by specific research aims and objectives The strengths of any method can be exploited to the full if appropriately applied for the right aims and/or objectives Bearing this in mind, in this thesis, one or more method(s) is/are intended to be employed for each of the objectives set forth (i) Descriptive method and entrospective method are intended for objectives 1& (ii) Survey research and error analysis are to be used for objective 10 Errors Word form 1.25 4.02 2.75 3.22 informal usage 2.01 1.51 0.58 2.14 idiom error 3.25 1.65 2.17 2.53 Pronoun error 3.23 4.54 3.57 3.34 Total lexical error 24.2 24.0 17.5 24.3 The prominent error categories were noun related morphological errors In noun errors, article errors outnumbered the rest, accounting for as much as 10% of the total The problem with articles stems from the fact that the Vietnamese language has no concept of articles and the countable and uncountable distinction It is natural that Vietnamese students have difficulty in using them correctly In addition, articles are introduced near the end in many of grammar textbooks, which in a sense is parallel to the language acquisition order described by Littlewood (2002) of a study of children acquiring morphemes in their native language Plurals and articles have always been, and will continue to be difficult to teach to Vietnamese students, which is why some teachers wait until the end of school year to introduce them in class While keeping these considerations in mind, the statistics provide interesting information The total number of errors was 1518 (596 in 46 first year using YES-NO questions, 491 in 58 second year using YES-NO questions, and 431 in 44 third year using YES-NO questions) The average number of errors per student was 13.5 for the first year students, 11.2 for the second year students, and 9.8 for the third year students Considering the short length of using YES-NO questions, these were not small numbers, although the average number of errors decreased according to the students’ year in 55 school As a total, followed by lexical errors (21%), morphological errors in nouns and mechanical errors (18%), and morphological errors (14%) According to the school year, the most common errors observed in first year were lexical errors, which comprised 24% of the total Among the first years’ lexical errors, “word choice” was the most common mistake (93 in total) As for second year and third year samples, as many as 158 and 121 errors were made respectively in “sentence structure.” These findings indicate that first year students did not have sufficient vocabulary while the second and third year students did not use it adequately Table (4) Type of error Number of Examples errors Lexical item wrongly 130 Their are very nice streets use in place of others Hanoi is a place were you enjoy your time Wrong collections 56 We made there high joy time wrongly used in the tests We made him felt good Exotic meanings used in 62 They promotion everyone to visit it lexical items They know to an English woman Total number of errors 248 Table (4) shows that there are three types of lexical errors In fact, there are "248" errors, "130" errors are lexical items wrongly used in place, "56" errors are wrong collections wrongly used in the essays and "62" errors are exotic meanings used in lexical items 56 Examples of the first type could be : a- Their are many beautiful streets b- Hanoi is a place were you enjoy your time Examples of the second type could be : a- We made their high joy time b- We make him felt good Example of the third type could be: a- They promotion everyone to visit it b- They knew to an English woman 3.4.3 Prosody-related errors & mistakes Errors and mistakes commonly committed by learners of English in general and by students at Hon Gai high school in particular are pronunciation The most common ones are chosen dues to the number of times they appear during the observation sessions and the number of subjects that made the errors In current study, there noted 450 pronunciation errors connected with ending sounds, including 236 errors from recordings and 189 from observation Error of processing final consonant observe in these students can be divided into main categories: Errors with codas and errors with linking sound Final consonants errors First looking at the former type, errors can classified into groups: -> Reduction ( omitting the final consonant) -> Insertion ( inserting a consonant to the ending of word) -> Substitution ( replacing the target consonant(cluster) by a phonetically similar or Vietnamese sound) 57 There were totally 336 errors that subjects made with codas From analysing the data collected from both observation and recordings, the result is relatively similar Among the three error types, omitting the final consonant or one/some element of a cluster outstood because of the time it appeared Linking sound errors This part discussed the pronunciation of linking sound between two words in English especially when the second word begins with a vowel sound Total 89 errors noted with linking sounds It is the subjects' deletion and mispronunciation of final sounds that possibly lead to the lack or wrong linking sounds Some examples are: - Tell you linking sound deleted : /l/ - Each E other linking sound deleted : /t/ - About A it linking sound deleted : /d/ Possible solutions Strategies, in general, have been defined by Brown (2000) as “specific methods of approaching a problem or task, modes of operation for achieving a particular end, planned designs for controlling and manipulating certain information” (p.113) Strategies play a crucial role in the process of learning English; therefore, teachers should encourage students to use strategies As Lai (2009) has clearly stated, “language instructors can assist the language learning process by helping learners develop appropriate strategies” (p.255) Going one step forward into specificity, Oxford (1990) describes learning strategies as “specific actions taken by the learner to make learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed, more effective, and more transferable to new situations” (p.8) Research has proven that “successful learners effectively use 58 a greater number, and a higher frequency, of learning strategies” (Bruen, 2001; Chamot et al., 1988; Green & Oxford, 1995; Griffiths, 2003, as cited in Lai (2009) In this study, the elements described in the definition given by Brown (2005) are clearly present: the error correction strategies used by the students are the methods; the correction task constitutes the problem that the students have to approach, and the development of the students’ writing skills is the particular end that the students are expected to reach In addition, if using error correction strategies makes the learners experience pleasure and fun, they will acquire the grammatical structures faster and will be able to transfer this knowledge to new situations Certainly, learners are more likely to internalize what they enjoy than what they dislike 3.5 Summary Research into meanings and uses of English YES-NO questions reflects the complexity of their structural features, pragmatic features, and semantic features Especially, some linguists, such as Palmer (1990, 2001) are concerned with linguistic analyses of English YES-NO questions, as well as other major linguistic features and pedagogical implications The above analyses of YES-NO questions in English are only suggested methods It is hoped that Vietnamese students might find in this work some kind of help that may facilitate their study of English YES-NO questions Many types of questions in English contain a variety of meanings which are almost the same, thus it is hard to tell them apart in some cases For examples, yes-no questions that can be used for seeking information, expressing the speaker’s concern or hesitation share one thing in common, that is the speaker’s search for or assertion of something they are uncertain about As a result, the speaking contexts play a vital role in interpreting and 59 translating these questions from English to Vietnamese and vice versa Moreover, we also have to pay attention to the speaking purposes as well as conversational functions of the questions being used, so that an accurate and relevant translation can be produced Teachers should provide for the students the appropriate strategies to explore all kinds of questions in English In particular, to provide students an insight into different interpretations of yes-no questions, Wh- questions, alternative questions, etc 60 Part 3: CONCLUSION Brief summary of the thesis It is said to be very hard to learn a foreign language well, because this involves a considerable commitment of time and efforts Teachers and learners of languages in general, of English and Vietnamese in particular should make eclectic studies of the YES-NO questions in the language being learned In summary, what the second study shows is that among the methods tried in this study, Correction resulted in the largest increase in accuracy both for revisions and for subsequent writing Naturally, it was the easiest for students to understand and make corrections, and therefore they tended to like it best It was also presumably the fastest way overall for the teacher to respond when multiple drafts were involved Underlining is a viable alternative, at least for students who are advanced enough to self-correction (we saw from the first study that the students who made the fewest errors at the beginning benefited the most from having their errors underlined and correcting them) and for the kinds of errors they can self-correct In the second study, it was nearly as effective as Correction for improving accuracy on subsequent writing It could be argued that Underlining was effective only because some students in the second study had previously received more explicit treatments, but the experimental group in the first study was exposed only to Underlining throughout the semester, and they also showed a significant increase in accuracy Underlining takes less teacher time on the first draft, and, more importantly, students feel they are learning more when they are involved in self-correction 61 Therefore, the decision of which of these two methods to use should be made in the context of the other goals of the course (e.g., whether writing or language is the primary focus) and the amount of time one wants the students to devote to grammatical and lexical error correction Or, of course, one can use a combination of Underlining for errors the students can self-correct and Correction for those they cannot Specific conclusions on the thesis objectives In this paper, I found that there are three types of English YES-NO questions structural considered, such as WH-questions, YES-NO questions, and Alternative questions It’s advisable for teachers to show the students the approach to analyze the semantic meanings of the sentence basing on its situations, presuppositions, and implicature In terms of translation, translators often have a tendency to convert yes-no questions despite the speaking context This can lead to some cross-cultural misunderstanding since, as mentioned earlier, yes-no questions in English There are three major linguistic features of each of the identified YES-NO questions, like structural features, semantic features, and pragmatic features The causes of the main types of errors and mistakes commonly committed by learners of English in general and by students at Hon Gai high school in particular are interference, false, overgeneralization, analogy, interlingual, and mother tongue learning strategy In the light of the findings and discussion of the study, group of pedagogical implications can be presented: first,in the view of the predominance of lack between subject and main verb errors, prepositions errors It is suggested that language teacher pay attention to this problem remedial measures could include increasing exercise that focus on these subjects second, teachers should adopt approaches to test, questionnaires and 62 specific activities that can make test, questionnaires easier and more enjoyable for both learners and teachers third, wherever teaching certain grammatical rules, teachers should provide their students with these limitations or restrictions of these rules and teach them how to use in a variety of meaningful contexts fourth, it is important for teachers to realize that errors are a natural and important part of the learning process itself, and not all of them come from mother tongue interference Suggestions for further study The simplest and most effective way of practicing positive yes/no questions is through guessing games Two of the most popular and widely used are described below The games can be played as a class or in small group 63 REFERENCES English materials Brown (2000) Searching for Exoplanets ASP Seminor Series, boulder, Colorado Bruen (2001) Learner Contributions to Language Learning: New Directions in Research Applied linguistics and language study London Conner, J.D.O' (1991) Better English Pronunciation Cambridge University Press, Great Britain Culler, Jonathan (1986) Ferdinand de Saussure Cornell University Press, New York Chamot et al (1988) Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition Cambridge University Press Goddard, Cliff (1998) Semantic Analysis - A Practical Introduction Oxford University Press, USA Grant (2002) Perceptualistics: the Art of Jael England Greenbaum, Sydney (1996) The Oxford English Grammar Oxford University Press, printed in Dehli (India) Green and Oxfoxd (1995) A closer look at learning strategies L2 proficiency, and gender TESOL quarterly 64 10 Griffiths (2003) Disembodied figures in the landscape: a reappraisal of L2 research on field dependence/ independence Applied Linguistics, 13/2, 133148 11 Houk, N (1991) Tag questions: A necessary pragmatic context In L Bouton & Y Kachru (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning: Monograph series vol (pp 29-40), Division of English as an International Language, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: Urbana, Illinois 12 John Bitchener, Statuart Young, Denise Cameron Journal of Second Language Writing 14 (2005) 191205, Auckland University of Technology Private Bag, Auckland 92006, New Zealand 13 Lai (2009) A negotiated and developmental Approach to School selfevaluation UK: Emerald Publishing 14 Littlewood (2002) Joan's book: the Autobiography of Joan Littlewood London: Methuen ISBNO- 413-77318-3 15 Mayra Solís Hernández Escuela de Lenguas Modernas : Revista de Lenguas Modernas, N° 14, 2011 / 263-281 / ISSN: 1659-1933, Universidad de Costa Rica 16 Mukattash, L (1980) Yes/no questions and the contrastive analysis hypothesis English Language Teaching Journal, 34 (2), 133-145 16 Nunan, D (1992) Research methods in language learning New Yor: CUP 17 Palmer (1990) Emergence ( signature Special Edition ed) Bantam spectra P 297 ISBN 0-553-255193 65 18 Palmer (2001) Modality and The English modal Longman 19 Quirk, Randolph & Greenbaum, Sydney (1978) A University Grammar of English Oxford University Press, Oxford 20 Sandy Maynard B.S., Keuka College 1972: Personal and Professional Coaching: A Literature Review, Walden University, May 2006 21 Sadock, J.M (1971) "Queclaratives", papers from the Seventh Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society" 22 Sadock, J.M (1974) Towards a Linguistic Theory of Speech Acts, Academic Press, New York, San Francisso, London 23 Selige, H W., Shohamy, E (1989) Second language research methods Oxford : OUP 24 Jenkins, J (2004) Research in teaching pronunciation and intonation In M McGroarty (Ed.), Annual review of applied linguistics 24 (pp 109125) Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press 25 John Bitchener, Statuart Young, Denise Cameron Journal of Second Language Writing 14 (2005) 191205, Auckland University of Technology Private Bag, Auckland 92006, New Zealand 26.Vo Dai Quang (2005) Semantics Information & Culture Publishing House, Hanoi 27.Yule, George (1996) Pragmatics Oxford University Press, printed in Hong Kong Vietnamese materials 66 28.Nguyen Dang Suu (2001) Câu hỏi tiếng Anh đối chiếu với tiếng Việt Unpublished PhD dissertation Hanoi 29 Vo Dai Quang (2001) Nghiên cứu đối sánh kiểu câu hỏi danh tiếng Anh tiếng Việt bình diện ngữ nghĩa - ngữ dụng Minỉstry-level Vietnam National University research project Hanoi 30.Vo Dai Quang (2003) Nghiên cứu đối chiếu phương tiện ngữ dụng bổ trợ câu hỏi danh tiếng Anh tiếng Việt Ministry-level Vietnam National University research project Hanoi 31.Vo Dai Quang (2009) Một số phương tiện biểu đạt nghĩa tình thái tiếng Anh tiếng Việt Vietnam National University Publishing House, Hanoi 32.Vo Dai Quang (2008) Tình thái 'câu-phát ngơn': Một số vấn đề lý luận 'LANGUAGE & LIFE' magazine - Vietnam Linguistics Association, Hanoi; No3 (149) -2008, pp 1-8 33.Vo Dai Quang (2009) Một số vấn đề lý luận nghiên cứu đối chiếu hành vi ngôn ngữ HỎI (Trên liệu tiếng Anh tiếng Việt) SCIENCE magazine - Vietnam National University, Hanoi; Volume 25, No32009 pp.133-139 34 Vo Dai Quang (2006) Nghiên cứu số phương tiện biểu đạt nghĩa liên nhân câu hỏi danh, câu tường thuật tiếng Anh tiếng Việt Minỉstry-level Vietnam National University research project, Hanoi Code: CB 03.33 67 35 Vo Dai Quang (2007) Nghiên cứu số phương tiện biểu đạt nghĩa tình thái câu-phát ngơn tiếng Anh tiếng Việt Minỉstry-level Vietnam National University research project, Hanoi Code: QN 07 05 36 Vo Dai Quang 920100 Nghiên cứu số phương tiện biểu đạt nghĩa tình thái phủ định câu - phát ngôn tiếng Anh tiếng Việt Minỉstry-level Vietnam National University research project, Hanoi Code: QN 08.02 37 Vo Dai Quang (2005) 'Ngữ nghĩa-ngữ dụng' hay 'Ngữ nghĩa, Ngữ dụng” SCIENCE magazine - Vietnam National University, Hanoi; Volume T.XXI, No5-2005, pp.15-25 38 Vo Dai Quang (2001) Vấn đề tiền giả định câu hỏi tiếng Anh, xét bình diện ngữ nghĩa-ngữ dụng SCIENCE magazine - Vietnam National University, Hanoi; Volume t.XVII, No1-2001, pp.13-19 39 Vo Dai Quang (2006) Phát ngôn ngữ vi, biểu thức ngữ vi dấu hiệu ngữ vi SCIENCE magazine - Vietnam National University, Hanoi; No 2-2006 40 Vo Dai Quang (2000) Một số đặc điểm ngữ nghĩa - ngữ dụng kiểu loại câu hỏi tiếng Anh (liên hệ với tiếng Việt) - Phần câu hỏi lựa chọn LANGUAGE magazine - National Academy for Social Sciences and Humanities, Hanoi; No3-2000, pp59-66 41 Vo Dai Quang (2000) Một số đặc điểm ngữ nghĩa - ngữ dụng kiểu loại câu hỏi tiếng Anh (liên hệ với tiếng Việt) - Câu hỏi không lựa chọn LANGUAGE magazine - National Academy for Social Sciences and Humanities, Hanoi; No4-2000, pp.34-42 68 42 Vo Dai Quang (2001) Ngữ điệu: Một loại hình dấu hiệu ngữ vi trội tiếng Anh LANGUAGE magazine - National Academy of Social Sciences & Humanities; No 6-2001, pp32-36 43 Vo Dai Quang (2002) Assimilation (Đồng hố âm) - Một thuộc tính diễn ngơn tiếng Anh LANGUAGE magazine - National Academy of Social Sciences & Humanities; No 5-2002, pp 70-76 44 Vo Dai Quang (2009) Một số vấn đề lý luận nghiên cứu đối chiếu hành vi ngôn ngữ 'hỏi' (Trên liệu tiếng Anh tiếng Việt) SCIENCE magazine - Vietnam National University, Hanoi; Volume 25 No 3-2009, pp 133-139 Sources from the Internet: 45 Els blocs de VilaWeb MESVilaWeb 46 Lingua 112 (2002) 201-229 , www.elsevier.com/ locate/lingua 47 Kato, A (2006) Error analysis of high school student essays Accents Asia [Online], (2), 1-13 Available: http://www.accentsasia.org/1-2/kato.pdf 48 Http:// www.canadavisa.com 49.Tag question Dec, 24, 2009, from http:// englishclub.com/grammar/verbs-questions-tag.htm 50 Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 69