Syntactic and pragmatic features of english question with reference to vietnamese (based on the bilingual novel “godfather”)

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING HANOI OPEN UNIVERSITY NGUYEN DINH DUC MUOI SYNTACTIC AND PRAGMATIC FEATURES OF ENGLISH QUESTIONS WITH REFERENCE TO VIETNAMESE BASED ON THE BILINGUAL

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

HANOI OPEN UNIVERSITY

NGUYEN DINH DUC MUOI

SYNTACTIC AND PRAGMATIC FEATURES OF ENGLISH QUESTIONS WITH REFERENCE TO VIETNAMESE (BASED

ON THE BILINGUAL NOVEL “GODFATHER”)

ĐẶC ĐIỂM CÚ PHÁP VÀ NGỮ DỤNG HỌC CỦA CÂU HỎI TIẾNG ANH CÓ LIÊN HỆ VỚI TIẾNG VIỆT DỰA TRÊN TIỂU

THUYẾT SONG NGỮ ―BỐ GIÀ‖

M.A THESIS Field: English Language Code: 8220201

Hanoi, 2018

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

HANOI OPEN UNIVERSITY

M.A THESIS Field: English Language Code: 8220201

SYNTACTIC AND PRAGMATIC FEATURES OF ENGLISH QUESTIONS WITH REFERENCE TO VIETNAMESE (BASED

ON THE BILINGUAL NOVEL “GODFATHER”)

ĐẶC ĐIỂM CÚ PHÁP VÀ NGỮ DỤNG HỌC CỦA CÂU HỎI TIẾNG ANH CÓ LIÊN HỆ VỚI TIẾNG VIỆT DỰA TRÊN TIỂU

THUYẾT SONG NGỮ ―BỐ GIÀ‖

NGUYEN DINH DUC MUOI Supervisor: Assoc.Prof Vo Dai Quang, Ph.D

Hanoi, 2018

I

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP

I, the undersigned, hereby certify my authority of the study project report entitled

“Syntactic and pragmatic features of English questions with reference to Vietnamese based on the bilingual novel “godfather” submitted in partial

fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master in English Language Except where the reference is indicated, no other person‘s work has been used

without due acknowledgement in the text of the thesis

II

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This thesis could not have been completed without the help and support from a

number of people I would like, hereby, to spread my profound gratitude to my

supervisor Assoc Prof Vo Dai Quang, Ph D who has patiently and constantly supported me through the stages of the study, and whose stimulating ideas, expertise, and suggestions have inspired me greatly through my growth as an academic researcher

Also, I am very grateful to all the teachers at the Faculty of Postgraduate Studies

of Hanoi Open University for their interesting and useful lectures which have built in me a firm foundation with immense ideas for the fulfillment of this paper

In particular, my special thanks go to my parents who have, as it always goes, encouraged and supported me so much in all respects

Last but not least, I would like to express my heartfelt thanks to my dear friends for their encouragement during my studies and my research work as well

III

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study is to examine the syntactic and pragmatic features of English questions with reference to Vietnamese This study used mainly qualitative approach In addition, such other methods and techniques as descriptive method and contrastive method were used The scope of this thesis based on the work ―Godfather‖ by Mario Puzo and its Vietnamese version translated by Ngoc Thu Lang The findings of this research will show the syntactic features of question such as structure, word orders What‘s more, from a theoretical perspective of language action and conversation, we have outlined the

40 language actions of questions on the basis of pragmatics Besides, we have drawn some types of mistake made by Vietnamese related to expressions and cognition and provied some solution to improve the learning quality These finding will be useful to all those who want to learn English questions

IV

TABLE OF CONTENTS

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP i

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii

ABSTRACT iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS iv

LIST OF TABLES vii

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Rationale 1

1.2 Aims and objectives of the study 1

1.3 Research questions 2

1.4 Scopes of the study 2

1.5 Significance of the study 2

1.6 Design of the study 2

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW 4

2.1 Review of previous studies 4

2.2 Review of theoretical background 5

2.2.1 Theory of syntax 5

2.2.2 Theory of pragmatics 6

2.3 Review of theoretical framework 8

2.3.1 Syntactic features of English questions 8

2.3.1.1 WH-question 9

2.3.1.2 Yes – No question 10

2.3.1.3 Tag question 11

2.3.1.4 Alternative question 12

2.3.2 Syntatic features of Vietnamese questions 13

V

2.3.2.1 WH-question 14

2.3.2.2 Yes – No question 15

2.3.2.3 Alternative question 16

2.3.3 Pragmatic features of English and Vietnamese question 17

2.4 Summary 19

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY 20

3.1 Subjects 20

3.2 Instruments 20

3.3 Procedures 21

3.4 Data Analysis 21

3.5 Summary 21

CHAPTER IV: SYNTACTIC AND PRAGMATIC FEATURES OF ENGLISH YES/ NO QUESTIONS WITH REFERENCE TO VIETNAMESE IN THE NOVEL “GODFATHER” 22

4.1 Syntactic features of English –Vietnamese questions in the novel Godfather 23

4.1.1 Syntactic features of English questions 23

4.1.2 Syntactic features of Vietnamese questions 24

4.2 Pragmatics features of English- Vietnamese questions in the novel Godfather 25 4.3 Implications for learning English questions 50

4.3.1 Problems related to making mistakes 50

4.3.2 Recommendations for learning English questions 51

4.4 Summary 51

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION 53

5.1 Summary of Findings 53

5.2 Concluding remarks 53

5.3 Recommendations for Further Study 54

REFERENCES 55

VI

APPENDIX 57

VII

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Distribution of Yes/no question types in English language sources 24 Table 2 Distribution of Yes/no question types in Vietnamese language sources 24 Table 3 Language behaviors of English and Vietnamese questions 26

of many mistakes in language behaviors To overcoming these obstacles is probably a big challenge for students This is also the reason why students lack confidence in using English to communicate

The main reason for this limitation may be that of Vietnamese students ordinary learn English in certain courses and for a while Moreover, students do not have many opportunities to deliver frequently with native English speakers, so sometimes there still exist cases where the student has not yet determined the required degree of language behavior in English To find solutions to these questions to provide a solution to the situation above, in the process of learning and teaching skills and other language skills in the classroom such as listening, speaking, reading and writing, the teacher should point out how to use questions

in different contexts Comparing the question in both English and Vietnamese from a rich source of material about the means of expressing the question in a polite way in social interaction is a necessity, especially it helps Vietnamese students learn English and foreign students learn Vietnamese have a guideline in communication skills, so that there is a good cooperation, dynamic and polite cooperation

The thesis provides the general look into definition and characteristics of English and Vietnamese questions as well as the usage of English and Vietnamese questions Based on the analysis, factors causing common mistakes of Vietnamese learners in learning questions and some recommendation for better studying English are also going to be shown

1.2 Aims and objectives of the study

The research aims at finding out the use of English and Vietnamese questions Furthermore, questions in the bilingual novel will be selected to find out mistakes

in learning and suggest proper solutions The research results will help Vietnamese learners learning English questions from English in an effective way

To achieve the aims mentioned above, following objectives are put forward:

1 Describing the syntactic and pragmatic features of English questions and Vietnamese equivalents

3 What are some recommendations for learning English question?

1.4 Scopes of the study

The scope of this study is an investigation into English questions and Vietnamese equivalents especially in the syntactic and pragmatic features Therefore, the study is cover in all type of questions The scope of data investigation is extracted texts in the work: ―Godfather‖ by Mario Puzo and its Vietnamese version ―Bố già‖ translated by Ngoc Thu Lang The analysis will demonstrate how English questions and Vietnamese questions are being used and also find out form and meaning of questions between the two books

1.5 Significance of the study

Research for the activity of English questions and Vietnamese questions is to determine the basic specific type of the syntax and pragmatic The results of the research were able to be referenced and used for learning English language effectively Accordingly, the thesis shows the ability to combine words from the questions of both languages on level of the relationship between transactions in forms and in meaning, therefore, it also helps seeking some appropriate solutions for the problem of learning English question

1.6 Design of the study

The thesis is divided into 5 chapters

Chapter 1, Introduction:

Presenting rationale, aims, objectives, scope of the study and significance of the study

Chapter 2, Literature Review:

Provideing some previous studied by scholars in the linguistic fields The thesis also delivers some theoretical backgrounds about the theory of syntax and pragmatic Finally, it will be supported with theoretical framework for the

Chapter 4 Findings and discussion

Providing the results obtained via applications of the concerned research into the data under investigation of the bilingual novel ―Godfather‖

Chapter 5 Conclusion

Provideing summary of the thesis, concluding remarks on research objectives and finally suggesting some possible topic for further studies

4

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Review of previous studies

Nguyen Dang Suu (2002) carried out a study of English questions in the contrast with Vietnamese ones In detail, the author figured out the features of questions in both English and Vietnamese to have a clear understanding about ways to form a question and their equivalent meaning in the two languages Then, the author studied and compared the pragmatic – semantic structure to find out the similarities and differences between questions in English and Vietnamese language He also conducted surveys to investigate the understanding of Vietnamese students of questions in the two languages, then came to some conclusions about the students‘ mistakes and suggested solutions in language teaching Questions in some books are used as illustrated examples and as the source to display the mistakes in question translation in English – Vietnamese

Le Dong (1996) carried out a study on the view of semantics and pragmatics When comparing questions in Vietnamese and English, the author points out the similarities and differences of the typical academic nature of the selection of questions from literary works when quoting sources and illustration

Nguyen Thi Thin (1994) studied on "Questioning in Vietnamese: ―Some question types are not usually used to ask‖ However, the author only describes the high frequency of interrogative sentences and its applications in terms of semantics communication

Vo Dai Quang (2000) conducted a study to compare and contrast ―true questions‖

on the fields of semantics and pragmatics in English and Vietnamese In the study, the author used both English and Vietnamese as source and target language in order

to find out the similarities and differences of semantic and pragmatic features of English and Vietnamese questions He also dealt with the contrast of different types

of true questions as well aspragmatic means which is often seen in those questions kinds

Cao Xuan Hao (1991) in the study of questions in ―Tiếng Việt - Sơ thảo ngữ pháp chức năng‖, divided questions into two categories: legal questions and unqualified questions In his opinion, the meaning of a genuine question can be determined by the meaning of the correspondence between the question and the answer Meanwhile, the unqualified question is also mentioned when discussing the other verbal values of the question in Vietnamese

Nguyen Duc Dan (1998) has summarized the research work of foreign authors related to the study of "universal" pragmatics He further explains the three types of linguistic behaviors and the categorization of speech behaviors of J Searle (1982)

He also mentioned works related to the principle of courtesy and the same

5

viewpoints with R Lakoff (1973, 1989), G Leech (1983), W Edmondson (1981),

A Kasher (1986), when discussing politeness as a motto of conversation

2.2 Review of theoretical background

2.2.1 Theory of syntax

According to Encyclopaedia Britannica, syntax is the arrangement of words in sentences, clauses, and phrases, and the study of the formation of sentences and the relationship of their component parts In a language such as English, the main

device for showing the relationship among words is word order; e.g., in ―The girl

loves the boy,‖ the subject is in initial position, and the object follows the verb Transposing them changes the meaning In many other languages, case markers

indicate the grammatical relationships Sentences are constructed from phrases or

groups of words that have a closer relationship to each other than to the words outside the phrase

In the sentence ―My dog is playing in the yard‖ there is a closer relationship between the words ―is playing,‖ which together form the verb, than between the words ―playing in the,‖ which form only part of the verb and part of the phrase indicating the location of the playing

The study of syntax also includes the investigation of the relations among sentences that are similar, such as ―John saw Mary‖ and ―Mary was seen by John.‖ Syntax received much attention after 1957, when the American linguist Noam Chomsky proposed a radically new theory of language, transformational

grammar (q.v.)

In Syntactic Structures, Chomsky (1957) tries to construct a "formalized theory of linguistic structure" He places emphasis on "rigorous formulations" and "precisely constructed models‖ It introduced the idea of transformational generative grammar This approach to syntax (the study of sentence structures) was fully formal based on symbols and rules At its base, this method uses phrase structure rules These rules break down sentences into smaller parts Chomsky then combines these with a new kind of rules called "transformations" This procedure gives rise to different sentence structures.[6] Using this limited set of rules, Chomsky aimed to generate all and only the grammatical sentences of a given language, which are unlimited in number

In Aspects of the Theory of Syntax Chomsky (1965) summarized his proposed structure of a grammar in the following way: "A grammar contains a syntactic component, a semantic component and a phonological component The syntactic component consists of a base and a transformational component In this grammar model, syntax is given a prominent, generative role, whereas phonology and

6

semantics are assigned secondary, interpretive roles This theory of grammar would later come to be known as the "Standard Theory" (ST)

Other scholar such as Leonard Bloomfield (1939) considered Syntax was the study

of free forms that were composed entirely of free forms Central to his theory of syntax were the notions of form classes and constituent structure (These notions were also relevant, though less central, in the theory of morphology.) Bloomfield defined form classes, rather imprecisely, in terms of some common ―recognizable phonetic or grammatical feature‖ shared by all the members He gave as examples the form class consisting of personal substantive expressions in English defined as

―the forms that, when spoken with exclamatory final pitch, are calls for a person‘s presence or attention; e.g., ―John,‖ ―Boy,‖ ―Mr Smith‖; the form class consisting of

―infinitive expressions‖ (defined as ―forms which, when spoken with exclamatory final pitch, have the meaning of a command‖—e.g., ―run,‖ ―jump,‖ ―come here‖); the form class of ―nominative substantive expressions‖ e.g., ―John,‖ ―the boys‖; and

so on It should be clear from these examples that form classes are similar to, though not identical with, the traditional parts of speech and that one and the same form can belong to more than one form class

What Bloomfield had in mind as the criterion for form class membership (and therefore of syntactic equivalence) may best be expressed in terms of substitutability Form classes are sets of forms (whether simple or complex, free or bound), any one of which may be substituted for any other in a given construction

or set of constructions throughout the sentences of the language

2.2.2 Theory of pragmatics

Pragmatics deals with utterances, by which we will mean specific events, the

intentional acts of speakers at times and places, typically involving language Logic and semantics traditionally deal with properties of types of expressions, and not with properties that differ from token to token, or use to use, or, as we shall say, from utterance to utterance, and vary with the particular properties that differentiate

them Pragmatics is sometimes characterized as dealing with the effects of context

This is equivalent to saying it deals with utterances, if one collectively refers to all the facts that can vary from utterance to utterance as ‗context.‘ One must be careful, however, for the term is often used with more limited meanings

Different theorists have focused on different properties of utterances To discuss them it will be helpful to make a distinction between ‗near-side pragmatics‘ and

‗far-side pragmatics.‘ The picture is this The utterances philosophers usually take

as paradigmatic are assertive uses of declarative sentences, where the

speaker says something The most popular theories can be mentioned as speech act

theory and locutionary, illoationary and perlocutionary acts

Words" and further developed by American philosopher J.R Searle Speech-act

theory has influenced in conspicuous and varied ways the practice of literary

criticism When applied to the analysis of direct discourse by a character within a literary work, it provides a systematic but sometimes cumbersome framework for identifying the unspoken presuppositions, implications, and effects of speech acts which competent readers and critics have always taken into account, subtly though unsystematically

It considers three levels or components of utterances: locutionary acts (the making

of a meaningful statement, saying something that a hearer understands), illocutionary acts (saying something with a purpose, such as to inform), and perlocutionary acts (saying something that causes someone to act) Illocutionary speech acts can also be broken down into different families, grouped together by their intent of usage

To determine which way a speech act is to be interpreted, one must first determine the type of act being performed Locutionary acts are, according to Susana Nuccetelli and Gary Seay's "Philosophy of Language (2007) The Central Topics,"

"the mere act of producing some linguistic sounds or marks with a certain meaning and reference." So, this is merely an umbrella term, as illocutionary and perlocutionary acts can occur simultaneously when locution of a statement happens Illocutionary acts, then, carry a directive for the audience It might be a promise, an order, an apology, or an expression of thanks—or merely an answer to a question, to inform the other person in the conversation These express a certain attitude and carry with their statements a certain illocutionary force, which can be broken into families

Perlocutionary acts, on the other hand, bring about a consequence to the audience They have an effect on the hearer, in feelings, thoughts, or actions, for example, changing someone's mind Unlike illocutionary acts, perlocutionary acts can project

a sense of fear into the audience Take for instance the perlocutionary act of saying,

"I will not be your friend." Here, the impending loss of friendship is an illocutionary act, while the effect of frightening the friend into compliance is a perlocutionary act

8

As mentioned, illocutionary acts can be categorized into common families of speech acts These define the supposed intent of the speaker Austin again uses "How to Do Things With Words" to argue his case for the five most common classes:

 Verdictives, which present a finding

 Exercitives, which exemplify power or influence

 Commissives, which consist of promising or committing to doing something

 Behabitives, which have to do with social behaviors and attitudes like

apologizing and congratulating

 Expositives, which explain how our language interacts with itself

David Crystal (1980), too, argues for these categories in "Dictionary of Linguistics."

He lists several proposed categories, including "directives (speakers try to get their

listeners to do something, e.g begging, commanding,

requesting), commissives (speakers commit themselves to a future course of action, e.g promising, guaranteeing), expressives (speakers express their feelings, e.g apologizing, welcoming, sympathizing), declarations (the speaker's utterance brings

about a new external situation, e.g christening, marrying, resigning)

Kirsten Malmkjaer (2005) points out in "Speech-Act Theory," "There are many marginal cases, and many instances of overlap, and a very large body of research exists as a result of people's efforts to arrive at more precise classifications." It is important to note that these are not the only categories of speech acts, and they are not perfect nor exclusive Still, these five commonly accepted categories do a good job of describing the breadth of human expression, at least when it comes to illocutionary acts in speech theory

2.3 Review of theoretical framework

2.3.1 Syntactic features of English questions

According to Angela Downing and Philip Locke (1992) in ―A University Course in English Grammar, questions has questionable structures can be divied in to 3 catagories: polar questions, non- polar questions and alternative questions In polar questions, there are 2 possible answers ―Yes‖ or ―No‖

Can you swim?

Non-polar questions can be called as questions have asked words at the beginning of sentences and intonation at the end of sentences

What happened?

Who is this?

9

Alternative questions consist of two questions that contain the opposite meanings that are connected by the word "or"

Do you like kitten or puppy?

According to John Sinclair (1990) in English Grammar, Helping learners with Real English has differentiated reported speech and questions The most common use is

to provide information and find information When speaking or writing a sentence,

it is important to show the purpose of providers For example

I have breakfast at 8:00 (Reported Speech) What are you doing? (Question)

Also, authors gave interrogative mood and supposed it is always used in question forms

According to John Eastwood (2000) English questions can be categorized in 4 kinds: Yes/no questions, WH-question, questions with or, Tag question

In ―A Comprehensive Grammar of the English language, a group of authors Quirk, Greenbaun, Leech & Svartvik (1985) divied English question in 3 main forms: Yes/

no question, WH-question and alternative questions

In this study, based on the form and type of answer to the question we assume that

in English there are four types of questions

2.3.1.1 WH-question

According to Betty Kirkpatrick (1956:184), the type of WH-question is very universal in English begins with one of the words to ask, Who, Whom, Whose, Which, What, Where, When, Why and How This is also the type of search question, and these words often stand in the head of the question This type of sentence is also called open, because the answer from the listener is not "Yes" or

"No‖ but respondents were able to choose a wide range of free responses or unlimited by choice

Ex:

What can I do?

When was the house built?

Who did this to me?

Feautres of this type of question can be named as:

Interrogative mood at the beginning of sentences

10

Asked words at the beginning of interrogative mood of sentences

On the other hand, interrogative elements keep different functions in the sentences Such as

Subject: Who took my car?

Object: Which holiday did you attend?

Complement: Whose puppy is this?

Complement for Object: How far do you travel?

Morepver, all of the above examples are used with downward intonation which is common for this kind of question

2.3.1.2 Yes – No question

English do not use question words, but question operators (be, can, may…) and intonation in this kind of Yes/No question When answering Yes/No question we do not normally repeat the complete the question Instead, we use an appropriate auxiliary verb This auxiliary is usually present in the question (Le, 2004), This question usually uses rising intonation at the end of the sentences

Ex:

„Does Mike live with you?‟ „Yes, he does.‟

„Did Maya tell you she wasn‟t coming?‟ „No, she didn‟t.‟

„Have you ever visited Argentina?‟ „Yes, I have.‟

„Will you help me?‟ „No, I won‟t.‟

It can be formed with realization as:

Auxiliary + S + V(erb) + Object

However, not all Yes/no question have to change the order of auxiliary In this form,

it has the same format as a reported speech but with question mark and rising intonation at the end of sentence This purpose of question, the speaker wishes to assent, assert or negate his or her audience

Ex:

Tom: Wow, you ate that whole thing?

Garry: Sure! It wasn‟t that much

11

(Parks and Recreation, 2009) Ex:

You have never eaten Barbecue?

You have been to South Korea?

This is the kind of question that can be answered with ―yes‖ or ―no‖ depending on the context or circumstance of communication Sometimes, the answers have already lied in the question

Furthermore, we can meet negative questions in the Yes/no question forms For instance:

Can‟t you go out?

Isn‟t that true?

However, the direction of the dialogue in this form is quite complex because of reasons This negative form is affected by many factors such as emotion, context and linguistic Sometimes, it combines both negative and affirmative meaning which confused listerners Therefore, when a spokesman harmonizes this form with intonation in a particular context, it can direct the dialogue to give the information corresponding to his or her intention

Ex:

He is a doctor, isn‟t he?

You haven‟t met him, have you?

12

In this category, there is a special type of question when the first clause is

imperative, the second clause is in the future tense

Ex:

Let‟s go to the mall, shall we?

Don‟t tell anyone, wil you?

The ―tag‖ has similar form to yes/no question in which they mostly change the order of words However, it is only a part of question and plays a role of form department not whole sentences‘ information

In terms of formality, the tag question has four forms

Affirmative – Negative: It‟s a wonderful night, isn‟t it

Negative – Affirmative: It isn‟t a wonderful night, is it

Affirmative – Affirmative: It‟s a wonderful night, is it

Negative – Negative: It isn‟t a wonderful night isn‟t it

2.3.1.4 Alternative question

Alternative questions with the question mark attached are or for the choice equivalents to or The answer to this question cannot be answered with a Yes / No answer but in form of choices

Shall we go by bus or train?

Shall we go by bus o train?

Furthermore, alternative question can be formed with Wh-question In this case, the alternative parts have been reduced to avoid repeating words For example

13

Which car branches do you like? Toyota, Huyndai or Mazda

Meanwhile, in full sentence it should be

Which car branches do you like?

Would you like Toyota, Huyndai or Mazda?

2.3.2 Syntatic features of Vietnamese questions

By extending the scope of the classification to the questionn used for different purposes, some authors have based their use on the classification of questions Nguyen Kim Than (1964) Divided the question into four categories

 Intorregative question of truh: raise the speaker's disbelief and ask for an answer

 Self- examination question: use to confide

 accumulate question: include twist questions and order questions

 Verification question: verify or accept the truth or neglect the reality

According to Nguyen Tai Can, Bystrov abd Stankevich (1975) assumed that Vietnamese questions have only 2 forms

 Whole question is the question that the purpose is related to the whole sentence It usually ends with ―có phải không‖ or ―phải không‖

 Part question is the question related to some part of sentence It usually has particles such as ―có/phải…không‖, ―đã…chưa‖ or alternative between A and B

According to Diep Quang Ban (1996), he catergorized question into 4 forms which can be named as:

 Interrogative question with pronouns: ―ai, gì, cái gì, nào, thế nào, sao, bao nhiêu, bao giờ, bao lâu…‖

 Alternative Interrogative question with parciles ―hay‖

 Interrogative question with particles ―à, ừ, nhỉ, nhé, hả hở…‖

 Interrogative question with intonation

14

According to Hoang Trong Phien (1980) based on the characteristic of question and answer, Vietnames questions are sorted to 2 main kinds: Alternative questions and Non- alternative questions

According to Nguyen Phu Phong, (1990), Vietnamese questions are divided in to 3 main types: unidentified question, Alternative question and oriented question Cao Xuan Hao (1998) focused on when the Differences in content are signaled by differences in form He provided that Vietnamese question can be formed with 2 main kinds

 Genuine question requires an answer about the object or an announcement In this question, it includes Yes/no question, WH-question and alternative question

 Question with discourse values besides asking for information The value of question can be demand, affirmative, negative, guess, rhetorical question

In the work of authors, though there are different points of view, question is the universal nature of the division of sentences according to purpose of speech There fore, we can divide Vietnamese question into 2 main kinds qualified question and unqualified question This classification is appropriate for the direct and indirect purpose of the question The question for the respondent to answer or to provide missing or unclear information to the questioner is the qualified question Meanwhile question is not related to the answer, question is used to express and question implements different views of speaker are unqualified question For these two main types, the authors usually fall into 3 categories: Yes/no questions, alternative questions and Wh-questions

2.3.2.1 WH-question

In this type of question, the words to ask in the questionnaire have different positions in sentences Usually it is placed at the middle and the end of sentences Sometimes, in different case it occurs the beginning of sentence It depends heavily

on the mentioned subjects about people, objects, causes, locations, time, qualities…etc

When asking about people ―Ai‖ can stand at the beginning or the end of sentence Howerver, sometimes "ai" can appear in the middle of the sentence

Ex:

Ai đang nói chuyện với Dũng vậy?

Anh bạn là ai?

Bà ấy là ai mà lại đến vào lúc này?

When asking about objects in Vietnamese, we use ―Cái gì/ Việc gì/ Chuyện gì

Ex:

Chuyện gì xảy ra vậy?

15

Và kết qủa là gì?

Lúc ấy, cái gì đã vụt qua vậy?

When asking about choices, we use ―nào‖ to select and sort different circumstances Ex:

Cậu muốn mua đồ chơi nào?

Cậu lựa chọn cái nào trong ba cái này?

In Vietnamese, Làm sao/ Tại sao/ Sao use to emphasize on the cause of problems Ex:

Làm sao con khóc?

Tại sao cậu lại làm vậy?

Vì sao ông muốn gặp tôi?

When asking about time Khi nào/ bao giờ/ lúc nào can be used in diversed position Ex:

Cậu thấy bao giờ thì cần?

Lúc nào chúng ta hẹn hò nhé?

Hàng ngày, cậu thức dậy lúc nào?

When asking about the method, method of action, nature or characteristic of things,

in Vietnamese, we comprehend with Làm thế nào/ Như thế nào/ Làm sao

Ex:

Chúng ta kết thúc như thế nào?

Làm thế nào mà cậu ta có thể khỏe đến vậy?

Phrases such as đâu/ ở đâu/ chỗ nào usually describe places and provide direction Ex:

Cậu đang ở chỗ nào?

Tôi có thể cậu đâu nhỉ?

16

is the same in Vietnamese structure with có thể? được phép? to show the ability and permission However, the model in Vietnamese tend to come after the subject Ex:

Can I come in?

Tôi có thể vào được không?

Vietnamese Có/Không question does not change the position of the elements in the sentence and there are question particles such as: ―à, ư, nhỉ, nhé chưa, hả…‖ or ―có phải không, phải không, đã chưa…‖

Ex:

Bạn có biết anh ta không?

Anh có phải là sinh viên không Hôm qua anh không đi làm (có) phải không?

Bạn đã làm việc ở đây lâu chưa?

In addition, there are some combinations placed at the beginning of question in Vietnamese as: ―Chẳng lẽ…/Hay là…/Phải chăng…/ Nên chăng…?‖

2.3.2.3 Alternative question

Similar to English, Vietnamese alternative question is the question that requires the answer to be given in a context with certain words, usually with a good word, or for the listener to pick a true answer of the two or more answers the speaker gives The

words often used are hay, hay là, hoặc

Ex:

Anh uống trà hay uống café?

Cho anh café nhé!

Any Vietnamese Có/không questions can be turned into alternative questions if they are inter-linked with hay/hoặc In Vietnamese, in speech communication words such

as hay/hoặc/hay là can be reduced or replaced by intermittent pauses or mark ―,‖ in writing to make the sentence shorter and more concise

Ex:

Tôi không biết nói gì, làm gì?

Liệu cậu ta có nhận được công việc ấy không?

17

2.3.3 Pragmatic features of English and Vietnamese question

In specific communication situations, we find that the question is not always about finding information In fact, question can be done in the same way as the real sentence There is no distinction between form and structure, they differ only on direct or indirect use It means that whenever we speak, we always do speech acts According to Austin there are 3 different types of Speech acts: locutionary act, illocutionary act and perlocutionary act

Do Huu Chau (1985) assumes that illocutionary act is expressed by performative verbs Because of its diverse, verbal verbs also have a large number However, verbs can be catergorized into 2 mains Constative verbs aim at describe things or events that are right or wrong compared to reality Nonetheless, when the speaker simultaneously performs the action at the word it is performative verbs On the other hand, Do Huu Chau also mentioned about performative utterance which carry effective illocutionary act at certain words Usually, it is marked with structural style of a question According to Austin, he classified utterance into two main part: primary performative utterance without utterance verbs and explicit performative utterance Basically, two types of utterance can be converted to each other but they are not opposites in action and illocutionary meaning

Ex:

Con đã học bài chưa?

Bố hỏi con đã học bài chưa?

As mentioned, illocutionary acts can be categorized into common families of speech acts These define the supposed intent of the speaker Austin again uses "How to Do Things With Words" to argue his case for the five most common classes:

Identification of illocutionary act is considered by many researchers as actions occur and progress in conversation Question can have answer with words or only by action For example: ―Will you close the door?‖ At this point, the hearer can stand and close the door without saying a word Besides, he or she can respond with an answer ―yes, I will/ no, I will not‖ to show approval or disapproval Considering the relationship of communication, illocutionary act is measured in the relationship between the dialogue characters When participating in the action, the speaker is responsible for his or her own voice, so they have the right to require the respondent

to respond with a corresponding action such as question/answer, request/approval Furthermore, apart from explicit and aphorisms meaning, speeches also have implications It means that unambiguous meaning is not the main meaning but rather the excuse to inform more than one hidden meaning There are many reasons for this allegation such as humility, saving face, irony, sarcasm or avoiding responsibilities Conversational theory has helped to illuminate some of the characteristics of the non-authentic question in both English and Vietnamese Question in dialogue participates in exchange, response and interaction

When conducting a conversation, participants must respect certain conversation principles These principles are not as strict as the purely linguistic principles and can be summarized as follows Firstly, Grince (1975) pointed out that in cooperative principle, it should provide the right amount of information, ensure the authenticity, each relationship must be appropriate and the expression must be clearly, shortly Secondly, we should avoid mentioning the weaknesses of the dialogue If you have

to say, then choose to say wisely and properly Finally, be humble because talking too much about yourself annoying the respondant Therefore, use ―we‖ instead of

―I‖

In addition to the above principles, the principle of respect for face also plays an important role in speech Politeness is a very important factor in both English and Vietnamese It affects speech in the process of communication and influences both the process and the result of communication For example, in Vietnamese culture is hospitality and polite to the elderly The linguists Stephen Levinson and Penelope

19

Brown (1987) were the first to sub-divide an individual's public self-image into positive and negative face concepts This distinction is based on Erving Goffman's definition of face Levinson and Brown distinguish two levels of face based on an individual's basic needs as a social being (negative face) and an individual's personal desires (positive face) Negative face describes the basic personal rights of

an individual, including his/ her personal freedom as well as freedom of action One's negative face is a neglection of all factors which represent a threat towards individual rights One popular example is the freedom of speech, which includes one's need not to be interrupted by others while speaking The positive face is defined as the individual desire of a person that his/ her personality is appreciated by others Furthermore, this includes the way a person wants to be perceived by his/ her social group One example for positive face is the appreciation of individual achievements According to this definition, a painter would, for instance, desire other people's appreciation of his/ her paintings In order to protect one's own and the adressee's face, one has to take care of both levels

2.4 Summary

Chapter 2 deals with theoretical issues related to English and Vietnamese questionand through the work of linguists at home and abroad and other authors who are interested in in-depth study Chapter 2 provides some background about theory of syntax and pragmatic from famous author It also presents the concept framework of questions and problems involves questions such as form, word order and linguistic behaviors in question in two different languages English and Vietnamese in order to find the criterion of questionable classification through practical use in a specific communication context

On the level of pragmatic study, we focus on the reference function and vocabulary only and through which it can see the subjective factors of language users in specific situations, expressing the attitude, the sense of the speaker as well as whether or not suitable for the circumstances of the uses of seeking information in both languages Generally, English and Vietnamese questions have in common is the same format but differentiated values in the context of other communication and many question types with different structures but express the same value

20

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY

This chapter outlined the procedures followed in the study It is also stating how the data for the study is collected and instruments are used for collecting the data as well

as format for the analysis of the collected data

3.1 Subjects

Research design adopted for this study is descriptive and contrastive The subjects of the study are famous novels ―Godfather‖ by Mario Puzo and the Vietnamese translation version by author Ngoc Thu Lang The research is conducted with references from diverse reliable sources such as dictionaries, encyclopedia, reference

books at library and on some websites in which the English Yes/no questions and their

Vietnamese equivalents are used

The researcher compares the English as source languages and Vietnamese as target language to identify all instances of questions The contextual factors that are examined for each take include the grammatical structures, the speaker, the addressee, the relationship between them, and the topic of conversation, the response of the addressee as well as the place and time of the utterance

3.2 Instruments

This study is conducted by approaches of qualitative research In the first place, data was collected from a wide range of sources from printed publications, books, and journal Data collection for the English data I selected samples of questions form mentioned in chapter 2 from sources as follows: English teaching textbooks, a lot of grammar English books, the novel ―Godfather‖ by Mario Puzo and translated into Vietnamese by Ngoc Thu Lang For the Vietnamese data, I selected samples of questions from sources such as Vietnamese stories, course book

Descriptive method is used to describe characteristics of a population or phenomenon being studied In this study, it is used to demonstrate the characteristic of English questions and Vietnamese equivalents in terms of structural background and pragmatic functions

Contrastive method is the systematic study of a pair of languages with a view to identifying their structural differences and similarities Historically it has been used to establish language genealogies During this study, the method is aim at finding out the use of questions in terms of syntactic features and pragmatic by comparing and contrasting frequency and utterance meaning The Data to contrast will be applied in the Novel ―Godfather‖ and its Vietnamese translation ―Bố già‖

21

3.3 Procedures

In order to elicit well-founded data from the subjects to make some reliable conclusions, a survey and test was formulated with the help of the 549 questions in the work ―Godfather‖ The questions were collected in the two novels with total 377 pages in source language and 374 pages in target language The process of analysis structures and discourse functions takes a week because there are many functions and the contexts are complex so the researcher surveys functions of 549 questions

After the collecting stage was finished, examples then were qualitatively described, analyzed and illustrated in terms of syntactic and pragmatic features At the same time, they were also compared with their Vietnamese equivalents under a process of statistical analysis to fully answer to the first and second objective individually For the third question, pedagogical implications were withdrawn after the two questions about form and meaning characteristics were brought out entirely

With the aim of achieving the set goal of the study, the main methods used are descriptive and contrastive First of all, the descriptive method is used in order to give complete and evident descriptions of both syntactic and pragmatic features of the English Yes/no questions and its Vietnamese equivalents Secondly, the comparative and contrastive methods are applied to identify similarities and differences among two languages Some other methods such as analytical and synthetic methods have also been used as supporting methods

3.4 Data Analysis

Data analysis in these study samples of questions in English and those in Vietnamese selected for the analysis are in the form of written texts in the sources provided They are analyzed in terms of syntactic and pragmatic features and then compared and contrasted The study suggests some solutions to the mistakes in learning questions from English into Vietnamese

3.5 Summary

In general, the purpose of this chapter was to describe the research methodology of this study, explain the sample selection, describe the procedure used in collecting data and provide an explanation of the statistical procedures used to analyze the data Besides, major methods, supporting methods and techniques used in this study have been presented

22

CHAPTER IV: SYNTACTIC AND PRAGMATIC FEATURES

OF ENGLISH YES/ NO QUESTIONS WITH REFERENCE TO VIETNAMESE IN THE NOVEL “GODFATHER”

In this chapter, the thesis examines yes/no questions from the best-selling novel Godfather (GF) by the American writer, Mario Puzo (1969) The question in English

in this book is compared to the question in Vietnamese from the Vietnamese translation ―Bố già‖ (BG) of the translator Ngoc Thu Lang (1973) This is a literary work received enthusiastically for many years The work has been widely introduced

on the Internet and has been adapted to film in 1972 The thesis selects this work to analyze the language for the following reasons: first, because the work is appropriate for age to comprehend; Secondly, it is because the linguistic behaviors represented from the work can be documented for reference Last but not least, this is a contemporary work of the long story has been translated into many languages and is popular and well-known in many countries

Because questions are excerpted from the work in many dialogues with multiple roles communicating with different situations, the dialogues are associated with a variety of vocabularies This also creates many advantages for the author of the thesis during the study and analysis of the question from the work on the level of pragmatics

From the choice of materials, questions in the work selected survey must satisfy three conditions: first, question in question English must have a question mark at the end of the sentence Question in Vietnamese must be the sentences are translated from English and also the form of the question is ended by the question mark at the end of the sentence In the case of the suspicion of admonition in English, sentences end with

a tick and is translated into questionable form in Vietnamese with a question mark is also included Moreover, the number of questions is randomly chosen according to the above conditions for comparison Thus, in the data set contains 32 chapters of the work, when translating from English to Vietnamese, the yes/no questions cannot be avoided the fact is that the translation's style is also translated according to the characteristics of the translator in the Vietnamese version and in reality Other translators may also have a common point of view or may be somewhat different from the translator's style of translation Commonly, the translation work has been quite successful and has received many readers in recent years Firstly, it is because the translation also translated the ideas in Vietnamese faithfully to the ideas of the original English; secondly, because the translation also expresses the equivalence in Vietnamese thinking as it should be in Vietnamese culture; thirdly, because the translation also reflects the style of the original and which also includes the style of the translator

23

The equivalent of translation is linguistic equivalence, cultural equivalence, and can convey the communicative equivalence in the translation In the survey, it can be seen that the content of the translation is unchanged the textual equivalence, and the meaning of the text, in which the meaning of the speaker / writer in the original, has been compiled in an understandable and interesting way by Vietnamese translator and

is quite close to Vietnamese readers in his translation

The question in the source of the material extracted from this work in both languages

is analyzed on the level of pragmatics, considering factors such as text, culture and communication The question in Vietnamese is also influenced by the translator's own style of translation to create an aesthetic effect, and the expression of the author's attitude toward the object is mentioned in the text The thesis will take questions in English as a milestone, starting from the point of view of syntactic to pragmatic

There are 549 questions in the book ―Godfather‖ by Mario Puzo and contrasted to their equivalent translated questions in ―Bố già‖ Ngoc Thu Lang in order to check form-meaning similarities and differences of yes – no questions between English and Vietnamese

4.1 Syntactic features of English –Vietnamese questions in the novel Godfather

4.1.1 Syntactic features of English questions

Statistics on general questions and specialized questions in English are provided presented in Tables 1

The specialized question asks the person who receives it to respond according to the focus of the word being asked, no choice in the answer, and cannot say whether or not

it is in the total question Thus, in the survey, the results will use the term selective question" for the specific question type, "selective questions" for the general question type and select question type One of the options from the question, considering the impact of the question to the respondent and the direction of the answer

24

D Other types of question 138 25.13%

Table 1 Distribution of Yes/no question types in English language sources

The statistical results from Table 1 show that of all the 549 questions surveyed, there were 245 cases where the question was in the form of adjective and verbal verbs at the beginning of the sentence, stand before the subject in the question and questionable indicators that make Yes/no in English This category accounts for 44.62% with the highest number of tables Meanwhile, specialized question types are formulated in full form of: WH-Question + Auxiliary verbs/ Modal verbs + Subject + Verbs includes

156 cases (28.41%) which ranked second in the table Alternative questions appear least in the table with 10 cases (3.82%) Other forms of questions (tag question, reduced question, declarative question…) are only 138 cases (25.13%)

In the statistic of table above it is obvious that in both the general questions and specific questions in English, the type of reduced questions consisted of only one word

or phrase, which was not high enough for the completed question In a pragmatic sense, this usually requires a response from the listener through an action or an answer However, in some cases of communication, this type of questions is also considered a kind of regulatory question by which the speaker wants to clarify what he/she has just given to connect or to maintain communication between participants in the conversation This is an important comment related to spoken language when speaking in the practice of communication and in translation

4.1.2 Syntactic features of Vietnamese questions

25

For the general question, there are seven types of categories that are classified into A,

B, C, D among the 549 questions Yes/no questions Questions like {Subject + Predicate + Questions to ask} This format consists of three sub-types, which are detailed in Table 2 and appear in 201 cases, accounting for 36.61% Alternative questions include words or ask respondents to choose one of the options in the question This format is accounting for 9.65% WH-questions is accounted for 189 cases with 34.42% Other form of questions (rhetorical question, reduced question…) has 106 cases with 19.30%

In terms of the syntax of the words used to ask, specific questions in the Vietnamese language sources are categorized into basic forms such as Question to ask the subject,

Questions to ask complementary or localization question: Who? Where? Why?

4.2 Pragmatics features of English- Vietnamese questions in the novel Godfather

The Speech act classification and conversation theory are presented in Chapter 2 Below I will describe in detail the use of English questions included in the survey material with translation into the language suitable for comparison Sometimes in order to for analysis necessary, we may be able to introduce a translation of the English sentence alongside the existing sentence

As stated in the theoretical framework, Searle's categorization of speech acts is more widely accepted He made three criteria and based on it to classify five major groups which he called the five functions of language action Furthermore, we also incorporate Wierzbicka's categorization of verbal verbs that indicate language actions

in English as a basis for comparison with collected material We also examine and investigate illocutionary acts in both English and Vietnamese where possible to identify in a specific and clear way

Based on the criteria presented, we identified the types of Speech act used in the questionnaire in English and Vietnamese Table 4 presents the mean values of questions extracted from the surveyed work ―Godfather‖

Numbers Types of language behavior Frequency

Table 3 Language behaviors of English and Vietnamese questions

The above statistics show that even though based on a modest dataset of 549 questions, it also provides the reader with a fairly varied picture of the questionable mean values of both languages are considered We will discuss and give more example to clarify above type of language behaviors to have a better understanding about pragmatic meaning of English and Vietnamese question

27

Equivalent to the question “Why, How, Why not, What for, Why the hell, What the

hell ,”in Vietnamese there is “Sao, tại sao, làm/ thế nào, Sao lại… nhỉ, Gì… đấy”

used to express the worry, anxiety of the speaker in certain situations

1 Why is it so necessary to be cleverer than that?

(GF.249) Miễn có tiền là ngon chớ không đần đồn, ù lỳ có hơn gì đâu?

(BG.234)

2 What am I going to do now, what am I going to do?” She was wailing

(GF 370) Trời ơi, tao biết làm gì bây giờ?

Frequently asked questions of visit or care in English are usually special types of words as ―How‖, sometimes with ―What‖ In Vietnamese, there are sentences with similar words such as ―thế nào, ra sao, không sao chứ‖

4 “How‟s the old man?” How bad is he hurt?

(GF 64) Ông già bịnh tình sao? Nặng lắm không?

The purpose of type of behavior is to show careness or intimate feelings from speaker

to hearer or to someone else they both do not know

28

6 she said “Do you think your father will approve of me?”

(GF 63) Anh anh liệu ông già có chịu em không?

(BG 62)

7 He patted Mr Roberto on the shoulder “Do me this service, eh? I won‟t forget

it

(GF.178) Thấy ông chủ chưa chịu, Vito cố nhét tiền tận tay Còn vỗ vai rất thân mật cho hay thêm: “Ông chủ chưa biết tôi đấy thôi! Tôi là người ơn nghĩa phân minh, nhờ ông làm việc này không bao giờ quên”

(BG 169)

Speechs above of example (6) and (7) shows that speakers offer a delicate and polite way for the listeners to understand and do things that are beneficial to the speaker or beneficial to both parties

In English, phrases like ―I suppose, believe, think, reckon, suggest, do you know…‖ use to show curiousity to talk and start a conversation It equivalents to ―Chắc, có lẽ, chẳng lẽ, hay sao, hay là, có thể được không…‖ in Vietnamese

8 Michael stood up and yelled “You lousy bastard, he‟s my father I‟m not supposed to help him?”

(GF 76)

Ô hay, bố bị bắn gần chết mà con không giúp một tay được hả? Tôi cũng con ổng vậy, tôi cũng có bổn phận chớ?

(BG 75) 9.“Do you know what I am going to ask of you?” Sollozzo asked

(GF.91) Ông biết tôi sắp thưa chuyện gì không?

to confront unclear things Example (10) shows that before asking about his voice, Johnny‘s displayd had become much richer and darker as he had noticed before but