Nghiên cứu các liên từ tương liên như các phương tiện liên kết văn bản

VIETNAM NATIONAL -HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES & INTERNATIONAL STUDIES DEPARTMENT OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES BY: VŨ HỒNG QUANG A Study of Correlative Conjunctions as Cohesive Devices (with reference to the Upper-secondary English textbooks) Nghiên cứu liên từ t-ơng liên nh- ph-ơng tiện liên kết văn (liên hệ với sách giáo khoa Tiếng Anh Trung học phổ thông) MA MINOR THESIS FIELD: ENGLISH LINGUISTICS CODE: 60 22 15 HANOI-20009 VIETNAM NATIONAL -HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES & INTERNATIONAL STUDIES DEPARTMENT OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES BY: VŨ HỒNG QUANG A Study of Correlative Conjunctions as Cohesive Devices (with reference to the Upper-secondary English textbooks) Nghiên cứu liên từ t-ơng liên nh- ph-ơng tiện liên kết văn (liên hệ với sách giáo khoa Tiếng Anh Trung học phổ thông) MA MINOR THESIS FIELD: ENGLISH LINGUISTICS CODE: 60 22 15 SUPERVISOR: Assoc Prof TRẦN HỮU MẠNH HANOI-2009 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Declaration i Acknowledgements ii Abstract iii Table of content iv CHAPTER INTRODUCTION 1.1 Rationale 1.2 Aims and objectives 1.3 Scopes of the study 1.4 Methodology CHAPTER THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 2.1 Discourse and Text 2.2 Textuality, cohesion and coherence 2.2.1 Textuality 2.2.2 Cohesion 10 2.2.2.1 Substitution and ellipsis 10 2.2.2.2 Conjunction 11 2.2.2.3 Reference 12 2.2.2.4 Lexical cohesion 13 2.2.3 Cohesion and Coherence 14 2.3 Segmenting Texts into Units 16 2.3.1 Using the sentence as the unit of segmentation 16 2.3.2 Using the T-unit as the unit of segmentation 17 2.3.3 Using the proposition as the unit of segmentation 18 2.3.4 Using the F-unit as the unit of segmentation 18 2.4 Semantic relations 20 CHAPTER SYNTACTIC AND SEMANTIC RELATIONS OF 24 CORRELATIVE CONJUNCTIONS 3.1 Introduction 24 3.2 The syntax of correlative conjunctions 25 v 2.1 Correlatives and their conjunctions 25 3.2.2 Correlative with phrasal coordination 25 3.2.3 Correlative with sentential coordination 27 3.2.4 Correlative with conjunction phrases of different syntax 28 2.5 Correlatives are focus particles 29 3.2.5 Correlative conjunctions of “not only … (but)” are used to link two 31 sentences 3.3 Semantic relations of Correlative conjunctions 32 CHAPTER CONCLUSION 37 4.1 Summary 37 4.2 Some implications for teaching and learning correlative conjunctions 37 4.3 Some implications for materials 38 4.4 Some Implications for Translation 41 4.5 Conclusion 42 REFERENCE 43 CHAPTER INTRODUCTION 1.1 Rationale ‖In the world of human beings, you won't find a language by itself - the Dutch language strolling the canals, or the English language having a nice cup of tea, or the German language racing madly along the autobahn You only find discourse.‖ Robert de Beaugrande (1997: 36) It is unimaginable of a world without language We get through our days exchanging various oral and written language (or, talk and text) We live by language or discourse, not in discrete audio or visual units but in connected sound waves and orthographic forms to which we assign meaning on the basis of our past experience with them and on the basis of the situations in which these waves and forms are used Discourse analysis is concerned with the contexts in and the processes through which we use oral and written language to specific audiences, for specific purposes, in specific settings We might one cannot understand language fully without looking at language use My research focuses on correlative conjunctions in English I attempt to make my description both semantic and syntactic There are at least three reasons why I believe it is important to focus on correlative conjunctions Firstly, the correlative conjunctions will enrich our potential for interpreting the linguistic phenomena in English Secondly, although there has been some research in exploring conjunctions in general, little attention has been given to the study of correlative conjunctions Thirdly, our students have some difficulties in understanding and using correlative conjunctions 1.2 Aims: The study is descriptive in nature and aims at finding correlative conjunction use is to connect discourse segmental units with reference to the Upper-secondary English textbook 1.3 Scope of the study: The study concerns the contrastive analysis of correlative conjunctions which are taught in the Upper-secondary English textbook such as both … and, either … or, neither… nor, not only … but also in English The data for the study are from novels in English, textbooks, and other sources 1.4 Methods of data collection and analysis This study will be text-based It will focus on the data of written English A large archive of texts of different types, including written speech, news reports, literature, legal texts, academic texts, will be collected Then correlative conjunctions will be extracted from these texts and a corpus will be established The data were collected by choosing from novels by famous English writers in the 20 th centuries, mostly won the Nobel Prize, from textbooks, and other sources The data collected will be analysed to find the bounding of correlative conjunctions in terms of syntax and semantics CHAPTER THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 2.1 Discourse and Text The text/ discourse dichotomy originated in the early 1970s with the explosion of Textlinguistics on the European Continent (esp in Germany) and Discourse Analysis in Britain A trivial definition that might be proposed for each of these two disciplines is that Textlinguistics is concerned with the analysis of text, and Discourse Analysis with that of discourse However, what appear to be straightforward definitions hide an intrinsic problem, namely, the confusion between the notion of text and the notion of discourse + the notion of discourse has usually been defined in relation to that of text, whose first definition already date back to the mid 1960s The confusion between the two notions has been due to the different meanings and the relationship that linguists have attached to the two terms Thus, some linguists have mostly used and defined only one of the terms For example, the term ―text‖ only is preferably used by Hartmann (1964), Schmidt (1973), Halliday & Hasan (1976), whereas the term ―discourse‖ only is preferred by Longacre (1983), Brown and Yule (1983) At times they may have mentioned the other terms but leaving it undefined Some other linguists have used both terms in either of the following three ways: (1) interchangeably; (2) by considering discourse as a type of text; (3) or in opposition In the later case, the discourse/ text dichotomy has mostly been identified with a spoken/ written, process/ product and/ or language use/ abstraction of such use opposition As consequence, firstly, discourse has been identified with spoken language and text with written language Secondly, text has been considered the product of the process of writing, whereas the more dynamic notion of discourse has been identified with the process of text production and comprehension And thirdly, text has been viewed as the theoretical nation underlying the structure of the verbal communication The notions of text and discourse not have stable, uniform identity, their nature varying not only according to the scholar but especially according to the theoretical framework from within which the scholar approaches the definition of the terms Thus, it is possible to systematise the definitions of text according to four frameworks: linguistic, communicative-pragmatic, cognitive and semiotic and the notion of discourse has been mostly defined from a communicative-pragmatic, tagmemic, cognitive and generative framework * Starting with the notion of text, there are four major frameworks within which the definition of the notion has been attempted 1- Within a linguistic framework text has been viewed as a mere succession of sentences, i.e, of signs between certain punctuation markers Still within the same framework, text has also been defined as a semantic composition For this definition the sentence continues to be the key component to such an extent that many linguists have defined text or discourse in opposition to sentence (cf Beaugrande, 1979; Wirrer, 1979; Albadaleijo Mayordomo, 1981) The idea of wholeness underlying the conception of text as a semantic composition has been understood mainly in two ways *Wirrer (1979) and Albadalejo Mayordomo (1981): conceive the property of wholeness as the result of applying the coherence component to a set of sentences *Hartman (1964), Koch (1965) wholeness is the outcome of certain intersentential or cohesive relationships In line with Koch‘s condition of wholeness, Grames (1966) stresses that a text consists of a series of intersentential relationships which the lexical choice is just one of them It appears to be an anticipation of Harweg‘s (1968) conception of text and of the notions of textual cohesion and coherence as used by Halliday &Hasan (1967) A special notion of text, which function as a bridge between the conception of text as a semantic composition maintained within a linguistic framework and that of a purely communicative unit held within a communicative framework, is the one represented by Halliday (1973) and Halliday & Hasan (1976), who view text as a functional-semantic concept belonging to the textual function of language Their systemic-functional (SF) approach to the study of language ―means, first of all, investigating how language is used; trying to find out what are the purpose that language serves for us‖ (Halliday, 1973:7) Apart from the ideational and interpersonal functions of language, Halliday also recognises a textual function which is ―concerned with the creation of text‖ (Halliday, 1973:107) Even though in a relatively vague manner, Haliday (ibid.) only defines text, which appears to be a structural unit related to the situation Its structural property, which is a common principle to definitions produced within a linguistic framework, refers to a cohesive tie between sentences and to ―its meaning as a message‖, which is synonymous to an FSP analysis of the sentence into a theme-rheme organisation The introduction into the notion of text of an element of contextual or situational relation constitutes the bridge between a linguistic and a communicative conception of the term As far as the notion of discourse is concerned, it appears to be an instance of language use in a particular situation, of which the text is its structural unit Within the systemic-functional model it is not until Hasan (1977) that the notion of text becomes a communicative unit defined as ―a verbal social event‖ (Hasan, 1977:233) and characterised, firstly, by its property of texture (i.e., ―linguistics cohesion within the passage‖ (Hasan, 1977:228)), which constitutes a means of differentiating it from a random chain of sentences; secondly, by its structure, which serves to ―distinguish between complete and incomplete texts on the one hand, and between different generic form on the other‖ (id.:229); and last but not least, by its contextual relation Following Halliday‘s social perspective on language analysis, Hasan emphasises the role that context plays in the structure organisation (structure formula) of each ―genre of text- i.e type of discourse‖ (ibid.).(Note: Hasan (1977) uses ―text‖ and ―discourse‖ interchangeably) The notion of context of situation in Hasan (1977) is explained through that of text genre or register Register is related to systematic variation in language, this variation depending on the selection of different linguistic as well as contextual varianles Field, tenor and mode of discourse are the variables that constitute the contextual construct (CC) The definition of text as a verbal social event is directly related to the three types of roles which the interactants adopt in a communicative situation and which are integrated in the variable tenor These roles are: (1) textual, which classifies the interactants into speaker and hearer (2) Social, which establishes a hierarchical or non-hierarchical relationship between the interactants according to their social status; and (3) Participatory, which identifies the initiator and the respondent of the communication Hasan‘s (1977) conception of text as a social event would undergo an evolution from a primarily linguistic-centred approach which defined text as a semantic unit occurring in a situational context and whose sentences are tied by a relationship of cohesion, towards a more communicative-centred position located within a social-semiotic approach to language study Though text continues to be essentially a semantic unit, it is no longer viewed as a mere product but also a process - Hasan‘s (1977) and Halliday &Hasan‘s (1985) conception of text has directly led into the second framework of approach to the notion, namely, the communicative-pragmatic framework For linguists within a communicative-pragmatic framework text is no longer a succession of sentences but of ―propositions‖ or semantic units referring to events, actions or states which contribute to a communicative situation or interaction A proposition may consist of a single word (e.g greeting, farewell, addressing form), of an elliptical sentence (e.g verbless sentence) (note: the term ―elliptical‖ is used in Halliday (1985)), or it may coincide with a sentence boundary Indeed, as happens within the linguistic framework, the sentence continues to be the most complex unit that structures information contained in a communicative activity But, in contrast to the previous framework, a sentence is not only a component of a text but it may also be a complete text on its own One of the most outstanding textlinguists to urge for a pragmatic approach to the notion of text is van Dijk (1977), who equates the text/ discourse opposition with a theoretical notion vs observation dichotomy A grammar, in his view, should not only describe an expression in terms of its internal structure and the meaning assigned to it, but also in terms of the condition that render the expression acceptable in a particular communicative context This principle should apply not only to sentences but also to discourse Similarly, Beugrande &Dressler (1981) also consider the pragmatic condition of acceptability to be, along with some others, a key feature of any text Beaugrande &Dressler‘s (1981) communicative approach to text analysis provides an innovation to Textlinguistics, namely, a comprehensive description of the pragmatic components that transform a text into a verbal interaction located in a specific situational context, with interlocutors observing certain conversational principles necessary to fulfilment of the intended goal of the encounter In this framework, text is equated with an interactional process - A third framework which also uses the unit of text as object of study is the cognitive Cognitive text models work with the concept of text or discourse as a natural unit of 31 clear that he means the position in which the following phrase is phonologically stressed and carries focus John will talk to even ALCESTE John invited even ALCESTE (Bayer, 1996: 51–52) John will even talk to ALCESTE John will even invite ALCESTE (Bayer, 1996: 53) Again, there is a parallel with correlatives They have the same marked—(a)–(b)—and unmarked—(c)–(d)—positions: (a) John will talk to either ALCESTE or ARIENNE (b) John invited either ALCESTE or ARIENNE (c) John will either talk to ALCESTE or ARIENNE (d) John will either invite ALCESTE or ARIENNE In addition, there is a (poorly understood) prohibition against sentence-initial focus particles in English By ‗sentence-initial‘ I not intend the situation in which a focus particle focuses on a word or phrase next to it, which happens to be sentence-initial, such as: (i) Even JOHN gave his daughter a bicycle (ii) Both JOHN and HANS have sons Rather, I intend the focus particles that are displaced with respect to the phrase they focus *Even John gave his daughter a new BICYCLE (Bayer, 1996: 13) * Both John has a daughter and Hans has a son We can conclude that the strong similarities between correlatives and focus particles indicate that correlatives actually are focus particles In previous section, I showed that syntactically correlatives function as a kind of adverbial This seems to be consistent with the conclusion that correlatives are focus particles, which are a subgroup of adverbs To sum up, the correlative can occur in many positions But if it occurs in any position other than the Correlative phrase (CorP), it has to move covertly or overtly to either the CorP, or—if it is generated below the ConjP—to a position adjoined to ConjP If ConjP is a proper quantificational domain (verbal or sentential), this site can be a landing site; if not, 32 it has to move even further to the left From this, we can deduce that correlatives have at least two kinds of features: a quantificational kind, to be checked off in CorP or in a quantificational domain, and selectional features that require the right kind of conjunction phrase 3.2.6 Correlative conjunctions of “not only … (but)” are used to link two sentences When we conducted the research for this study, we find an interesting samples in which “not only… but” is used to link two sentences Let us look at the following sentences: (a) Not only that Mr Guilfogle slapped him on the back and said: "You're doing good work, old man It's fine I just don't want you to be too reckless." Sinclair Lewis- Our Mr Wrenn (b) It was not only the unsparing unapologetic ugliness and the rigid straightness which overwhelmed her It was the planlessness, the flimsy temporariness of the buildings, their faded unpleasant colors Sinclair Lewis- Main Street (c) …this cataloguing is not only satisfactory to other people for practical purposes, it is sufficient to themselves for their 'life of the spirit.' T.S Eliot- Eeldrop and Appleplex (d) He believed in doing all that he wanted to simply and naturally, and more and more as he went along people not only respected, I think they adored him, especially the simple homely souls among whom he chose to move and have his being Theodore Dreiser- Twelve Men In the sentences (a), (b) above, “not only… but” is separated by a full stop, and in the second sentences, “but” is omitted Similarly, in sentences (c) and (d), “but” is omitted too, and the conjuncts are two full clauses, and there is a comma between the two clauses It is obvious that the two clauses in the sentences above relate to each other in terms of meaning, and we can change the full stop in (a) and (b) by a comma like in (c) and (d) These examples prove that correlative conjunctions can be used to link two segments of a text, and they actually function as a cohesive device 33 3.3 Semantic relations of Correlative conjunctions According to Quirk (2000), the use of correlative conjunctions is unacceptable when there are more than two conjoins We are both willing, able, and ready to carry out the survey (Quirk (2000:939) And they also explain that both, either, neither are all historically associated with dual constructions, and these words have dual meaning when they occur as determiners in noun phrases e.g.: Both her mother and her father are alive Both her parents are alive This is true when we apply this rule to ―both … and‖ and ― not only … but also‖ However, in our research, we found that in some cases, these correlative conjunctions can be used to link more than two conjoins For example: … that I must conceive an abstract general idea of extension, which is neither line, surface, nor solid, neither great nor small, black, white, nor red, nor of any other determinate colour (Bertrand Russell- The Analysis of Mind) Likewise the idea of a man that I frame to myself must be either of a white, or a black, or a tawny, a straight, or a crooked, a tall, or a low, or a middle-sized man (Bertrand Russell- The Analysis of Mind) Correlative conjunctions should introduce constituents of equivalent function and status In written English, (1a) is preferred to (1b) Evelyn is either stupid, or pretends that she is (1a) Evelyn is either stupid, or she pretends that she is (1b) The first correlative words of both, either, neither etc can occur at the beginning of a phrase, that is they are placed before the modifier and the head Hence, in the following examples, the (1a) sentence is acceptable while the (1b) sentence is not The building is both very old and decrepit (1a) 34 The building is very both old and decrepit (1b) To this problem, Quirk et al (2000) considered correlatives in this case as a kind of determiner, and they are placed before other determiners Note that correlatives functions as a determiner only when they precede a noun phrase Either….or + either … or expresses the exclusive meaning of or e.g.: I mean that what holds the artist together is the work which he does; separate him from his work and he either disintegrates or solidifies (Eeldrop and Appleplex- T.S Eliot) + And in some situation, it emphasizes the inclusive meaning of or e.g.: This man was either devil or prince, or both (The Titan-Theodore Dreiser) The elements which may be linked through this conjunction are complete clauses or smaller constituents The variety of linked units, which are called ―conjoins‖ by Quirk (2000), is shown in the following set of examples: The conjoin can be a complete clause, or a full clause: Either the table is too large or the kitchen is too small The conjoin can be a phrase: She may either stay here or go away or a word Either Tom or John will come to the party The conjoins in each sentence are required of the same sort + Another implication of ―either or‖ is that it can express condition Certain sentences coordinated with and and or are interpreted as conditionals (1) a Everyone drink another can of beer and we‘ll set a record ≈ if everyone drinks another can of beer, we‘ll set a record b John drinks one more can of beer and he‘ll be too drunk to drive home ≈ if John drinks one more can of beer, he‘ll be too drunk to drive home In conditional conjunction, i.e., CC sentences coordinated with and, first conjuncts may be declarative simple present sentences (2-a), bare verb phrases (2-b), or non-finite clauses (2- 35 c) In each sentence that will be examined in the majority of this paper, the second conjunct is a future tense declarative For this reason, each CC sentence type will be identified by the form of its first conjunct (2) a Chalmers finds out about Ross and we‘ll get fired (simple present) b Move a muscle and Frank will shoot you (bare VP) c Everyone shut up and I‘ll tell you who Renick is (non-finite) For the sake of completeness, corresponding conditional disjunction, i.e., CC with or, sentences are listed in (3) These may have verb phrases (3-b) or non-finite clauses (3-c) as the first disjunct (3) a *Someone closes the window or it will get too chilly in here (simple present) b Keep your eyes on Ross or he‘ll get away (bare VP) c Everyone contribute or this crime will go unsolved (non-finite) In much of the previous literature (Bolinger, 1967; Davies, 1979; van der Auwera, 1986; Han, 2000), it is assumed that CC sentences may be built from a bare VP and a declarative (D) in such a way that they have the following sort of dual semantics (4) a The imperative (I) associated with the VP is issued, and b a conditional is asserted: (i) a conjunctive (coordinated with and) sentence asserts, ―If you comply with I, then D,‖ and (ii) a disjunctive (coordinated with or ) sentence asserts, ―If you don‘t comply with I, then D.‖ So the puzzle persists: why disjunctive bare VP CC sentences always have imperative force, whereas their conjunctive counterparts apparently lack such force? The key to the answer lies in a closer examination of a wider range of CC sentences with imperatives, which, upon scrutiny, reveal the same property as disjunctive bare VP CC sentences: CC sentences with imperatives always carry the force of the imperatives they contain Previous researchers have failed to come to this conclusion, I argue, because they have ignored two classes of sentences: CC sentences with non-bare VP imperative first conjuncts and CC sentences with declarative first conjuncts E.g.: Either someone closes the window or it will get too chilly in here Either you fail this class or you‘ll be allowed to enrol again next semester 36 Both….and emphasizes the additive meaning of and as in: (7.a) Tom and Jane went abroad last year (7.b) Both Tom and Jane went abroad last year Sentence (7.a) and ((7.b) can be used interchangeably (Actually the two sentences differ in meanings We will discuss later) However, in the following sentences, (7.c) is felicitous only if there was some doubt over one of the conjuncts, and (7.d) is impossible with correlative conjunction (7.c): Both Guatemala and Belize are in Central America (7.d) (?Both) Spanish and Portuguese are similar The semantic different is that in correlative conjunction, it is emphasized that each conjunct belongs to the conjunction phrase, and each of them is considered separately Thus, (7.d) is unacceptable because two things cannot be separately similar Neither….nor is the negative counterpart of both….and It emphasizes the negation over both units linked through it If either or is in the scope of negation, it becomes the equivalent of neither…nor, as in the following examples: (8) He didn’t meet either his sister or his brother He met neither his sister nor his brother Neither and nor may be used without being a correlative pair But they presuppose that the previous clause is negative Both not and neither are the equivalents of and not Not (only)….but (also) is typical in sentences like this one: (9) The thief not only broke into the house, but also stole everything The correlative conjunction is used to express addition meaning However, when we used this type, we imply the surprise, like this example: Not only my sister but also my parents are here Besides, ―not only … but also‖ is used to express something which is increasing e.g (10) Not only did he love her but he also wanted to marry her When the units are complete clauses, the correlative effect is emphasized by putting not only at the beginning of a sentence followed by subject-operator inversion 37 In this part, I have presented both the syntax and semantics of correlative conjunctions Although each correlative conjunction has its own features, however, we can conclude some important characteristics: Correlative conjunctions are used to link two (or more) equivalent formal or functional units The position of the correlative can be displaced from its conjunct The correlative conjunctions in this study fall into two categories: addition and alternation 38 CHAPTER CONCLUSION 4.1 Summary I have looked at the status of correlative conjunctions both in semantics and syntax They are characterised by certain facts which have to be taken into account in any analysis: (i) Each correlative is associated with only one conjunction (ii) With phrasal coordination, the correlative can be displaced from the conjunction phrase (iii) With sentential coordination, the correlative can be part of the first conjunct (iv) The extent to which correlatives trigger scope ambiguity in the interpretation of the conjoin varies with their syntactic position Correlative conjunctions can be used to link two ―balance‖ units, both in grammar and in function, and sometimes, they can be used to link two non-equivalents Besides, correlative conjunctions can be used to link more than two units Another feature of correlative conjunctions is that they can be used as a cohesive device They can be used to link segments of text: propositions, functional units (F-unit) or grammatical units (T-unit) However, unlike coordinating conjunctions, correlative conjunctions are used within sentences, except for the case of ―not only … but‖, which can be used to relate two sentences, with the deduction of ―but‖ in the second sentence 4.2 Some implications for teaching and learning correlative conjunctions Correlative conjunctions differ from other coordinating conjunctions both in their form and function As the result, they should be taught both syntactically and semantically If out students understand what they are learning, they will motivate taking part in the lessons If we only concentrate them on structure, they will soon get bored with the lessons In order to the make our lessons more interesting, we can apply many techniques that stimulate our students Teacher can distribute handouts which contains sentences containing correlative conjunctions Students are asked to find out the rules for the usage of the correlative conjunctions We should know that correlative conjunctions are not new to students, for they have learnt this grammar when they are younger Using different exercises is also another solution Exercises should be carefully prepared, so that can test students of different levels Some simple exercises such as Multiple choice 39 questions, rewriting, reordering, completing sentences, making sentences of their own… are common Sometimes, to save the time, some teachers just translate the conjunctions Translation has many advantages in teaching and learning a language Nevertheless, correlative conjunctions in English are different form those in Vietnamese Correlative conjunctions in English are used to link two ideas, while in Vietnamese, they are mainly used to show the time relations (Diep Quang Ban 2005) Testing is also another factor that draws our students‘ attention They know how important that piece of language in their future examination Beside other purposes, the obvious one is examination Correlative conjunctions take an important part in writing and speaking It is the fact that correlative conjunction has significant features: the first one, it takes part in parallel structure; the second one is that it is focus particle; thirdly, it is used to join used to join parts of a sentence or two or more parts of a sentence together in a process called coordination Coordination will grace a sentence with a movement and rhythm more literate than a noncoordinated sentence Correlative conjunctions announce to the reader that the sentence has multiple parts Furthermore, correlative conjunction provide a balanced coordination and heighten its dramatic impact Correlative conjunctions are sets of words that not only link parts of a sentence together but they also "signal" the connection between the parts through specific words such as both X and Y, not only X but also Y, neither X nor Y Good writing is writing that is also pleasing to the ear When we manoeuvre into that sentence-final, stressed, emphatic position our most important ideas and information, we underscore the most significant idea through grammar Even natural, intonational stress can seem weak and anticlimactic if we let a sentence end on lightweight words It is suggested that correlative conjunctions function as a way of making your speaking more fluently and it also makes your vocabulary bigger and more colourful to adjust the flow of the rhythm 40 4.3 Some implications for materials The correlative conjunctions of ―both and‖, ―either … or‖, ―neither … nor‖ and ―not only … but also‖ take an important part in the textbook Especially, in Tiếng Anh 11, there is a lesson specialising on this types of coordinating conjunctions Basing on what we present in previous sections of this study, correlative conjunctions in the textbook have the following features First of all, the number of correlative conjunctions which are used in the textbook is comparatively small In three books of Tiếng Anh 10, 11, 12, we find just 20 sentences that contain this type of conjunctions All the correlative conjunctions are used in the textbook are carefully chosen and have standard usage All of them are used to link conjoins within a sentence And the conjoins are of similar grammatical and functional equivalence Another feature is that the correlative conjunctions in the textbook are used to link two conjoins only There is not any example that contains more than two conjoins The correlative conjunctions are used to link just two words or phrases It is interesting to note that correlative conjunctions can link two clauses However, in the textbook, there is no example in which correlative conjunctions are used to link two clauses, both finite and non-finite Correlative conjunctions are mainly used in simple exercises in order that our students can distinguish the structure, or exactly, the relationship between the correlative and conjunction In the Workbook 11, Unit 14, which teaches the correlative conjunctions, there are two exercises (page 94, 95) that involve in correlative conjunctions However, these exercises focus on distinguishing the differences of both, neither, either as a determiner or as an adverb, rather than a correlative In the Student‘s book 11, there is an exercise which asks students to combine the sentences, using correlative conjunctions This exercise is more creative and take students some effort to complete It is interesting to note that, in the aim of the textbook, and in the teacher‘s book of Tiếng Anh 11, teachers are required to teach ―not only … but also‖, but there are not any sentences in the exercises mention this kind of correlative conjunction From this time to graduated, our students only meet the correlative conjunctions in their textbook twice, and of course, there is no single exercise on this sort of grammar 41 In order to improve our students‘ capability of using conjunctions in their learning, we should apply various types of exercises and practice, so that our students can gradually understand and master them in their daily lives as well their study After two years of teaching new textbook, we often apply the following types of practice for my students At the early stage, students are required to recognise the correlative and its conjunctions This type of exercise is rather simple Before students the exercise, teachers can preteach the grammatical points, mainly structure Choose the best answer to complete the following sentences I felt _ happy and sad at the same time a both b neither c either d not only Error identification I (A)believe (B)either you (C) or he (D) know her secret Complete the sentence with a suitable word In this exercise, teachers either help students with words to fill, or ask students to find the words of their own This type of exercise is used in the textbook At the higher stage, when our students are familiar with the correlative conjunctions, teachers can apply the following types of practice Make complete sentences using words given Make sentences of your own, using correlative conjunctions This exercise is quite creative Teachers should give students some hints for the practice Translate into English and verse vice This exercise is not common nowadays, for translation is not encouraged in teaching foreign languages, and for translation is really difficult Apply conjunctions of all types in productive skills such as writing and speaking When students are recommended using conjunctions, their writing or speaking will be more logical 4.4 Some implications for translation Translation is a method which is not recommended in language teaching because translation focuses on the comparisons between the two languages, rather than developing skills However, it is undeniable the conveniences that translation has And some teachers 42 even though not apply the Grammar-Translation Method in their class, they have to use their mother tongue in their teaching We cannot reject translations when teaching and learning a language In this section, we not concentrate on translation as a method of teaching and learning, or as a subject for students specialising in Translation and Interpretation We only concern about how to translate the correlative conjunctions into Vietnamese, the similarity and difference between the two languages when referring this types of conjunctions The first pair is comparatively similar in Vietnamese is (not only … but) In Vietnamese, we have (khơng những, đã)… mà (lại, mà lại) cịn Vietnamese students don‘t have any difficulty in translating this correlative conjunctions Both … and When ―both … and‖ is in subject position, we can translate ―cả A và/ lẫn B đều…‖ When this conjunction is in predicate position, we can translate ―vừa A vừa B‖ For instance: Both Ann and Tom were late: Cả Ann Tôm đến muốn He was both tired and hungry: Anh vừa mệt vừa đói ―Either … or‖ has a equivalent in Vietnamese ―hoặc … hoặc‖ It is notable that ―either … or‖ is a correlative conjunction, but the equivalent of it in Vietnamese is a coordinating conjunction e.g.: You can come to see me either on Monday or on Tuesday Anh tới gặp vào thứ hai thứ ba ―neither … nor‖ is rather difficult to translate into Vietnamese As we can see in the previous sections, a sentence that contains ―neither … nor‖ can be analysed either ―not (both A and B)‖ or ―not either A or B‖ As the result, we have to translate the correlative conjunction as following: In subject position, the equivalent of ―neither … nor‖ is ―cả A B không …‖ Neither Nam and Mai came to the party: Cả Nam Mai không đến dự tiệc In predicate position, we can translate as ―không A mà không B‖ or ―không A lẫn B‖ She neither wrote nor phoned Cô không viết không gọi điện They go neither on Monday nor on Tuesday 43 Họ không di vào thứ hai lẫn thứ ba Translation is not recommended in teaching a foreign language nowadays, however, it is favoured by teachers in everyday of teaching because it is time-saving, it is suitable for a crowded class, in which students cannot go around to practise in groups or in pairs It is also suitable for learners at earlier stages Another factor that translation is used in class is that our teachers not master communicative approach in teaching, or they are really exhausted after long day teaching Translation is convenient, but we have to be careful when choosing this method It can be suitable for some kinds of practice, but not for others, especially skill practice Conclusion Correlative conjunctions are regarded as a kind of coordinating conjunctions Although they have many features that are similar to other coordinating conjunctions, they have their own characteristics They are used with a definite conjunction; they are used to link two equal syntactic and semantic units The position of correlatives in a conjoin is flexible They can be displaced from their conjuncts We use correlative conjunctions for emphasis Beside this meaning, each correlative conjunction has it own meanings However, they fall into two categories: addition and alternation We used ―both …and‖, ―not only … but‖ affirmative addition and ―either …or‖ for alternation ―Neither … nor‖ can be the negation of ―both … and‖ or ―either … or‖ In this study, we cannot explain all problems relating to correlative conjunctions In some cases, we just present or just describe them I hope, in the future, there are more studies about the pragmatics and implicatures of this type of conjunctions 44 REFERENCE Bach, E and Harms, R (eds) 1968 Universals in linguistic theory New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston Baker, M (1992) In Other Words: A Course Book on Translation London: Routledge Beaugrande, R A de 1980 Text, discourse and process Toward a multidisciplinary science of texts Norwood NJ: Ablex Beaugrande, R de and Dressler, W (1981) Introduction to Text Linguistics London: Longman Blommaert, J (2005) Discourse Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Brown, G & G Yule 1983 Discourse Analysis Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Carrell, P.L 1982 Cohesion is not coherence TESOL Quarterly 16(4): 479-488 Carter, R (1997) Investigating English Discourse London: Routledge Connor, U 1984 A study of cohesion and coherence in English as a second language students’ writing Paper in Linguistics: International Journal of Human Communication, 17 (3), 301-16 10 Crombie, W 1985 Process and relation in discourse and language learning Oxford: Oxford Unitversity press 11 Crystal, D 1992 An Encyclopedic Dictionary of Language and Languages Oxford: Basil Blackwell 12 Donnelly, C 1994 Linguistics for writers Buffalo: SUNY Press 13 Gee, J P (2005) An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method London: Routledge 14 Grice, H P (1975) Logic and conversation In Cole, P and Morgan, J., editors, Syntax and Semantics: Vol.3 Speech acts Academic Press, New York NY 15 Halliday, M.A.K & R Hasan 1976 Cohesion in English London: Longman 16 Harris, Zellig S (1981.) Papers on Syntax Ed by Henry Hiż (=Synthese Language Library, 14.) Dordrecht/Holland: D Reidel, vii, 479 pp.] 17 Harris, Zellig S (1982.) "Discourse and Sublanguage" Sublanguage: Studies of language in restricted semantic domains ed by Richard Kittredge & John Lehrberger, 231-236 Berlin: Walter de Gruyter 45 18 Hatch, E (1992) Discourse and Language Education Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press 19 Hendriks, P., (2001) ‗Either’ as a focus particle Natural Language and Linguistic Theory (submitted for publication) 20 Hoey, M (1983) On the surface of discourse London: Allen & Unwin 21 Hoey, M (1991) Pattern of lexis in text Oxford: Oxford University Press 22 Hubbard, E H (1989) Reference cohesion, conjunctive cohesion and relational coherence in student academic writing Unpublished D Lit et Phil Thesis: Unisa, Pretoria 23 Huddlestone, R (1971) The sentence in written English Cambridge: University Press 24 Jackson, H (1990) Grammar and Meaning A Semantic Approach to English Grammar London/New York: Longman 25 Jaworski, A and Coupland, N (eds) (1999) The Discourse Reader London: Routledge 26 Johnstone, B (2002) Discourse analysis Oxford: Blackwell 27 Kintsch, W and Van Dijk, T 1978 Toward a model of text comprehension and production Psychological Review 85 (5): 363-394 28 Lieber, P.E 1979 Cohesion in ESL students’ expository writing: A descriptive study PhD, New York University 29 Longacre, R.E (1996) The grammar of discourse New York: Plenum Press 30 McCarthy, M (1991) Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 31 Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, S., Svartvik, J., (2000) A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language Longman, London 32 Renkema, J (2004) Introduction to discourse studies Amsterdam: Benjamins 33 Schiffrin, D 1994 Approaches to Discourse Oxford: Basil Blackwell 34 Schiffrin, D., Deborah Tannen, & Hamilton, H E (eds.) (2001) Handbook of Discourse Analysis Oxford: Blackwell 35 Schwarz, B., (1999) On the syntax of either or Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17, 339–370 ... Devices (with reference to the Upper-secondary English textbooks) Nghiên cứu liên từ t-ơng liên nh- ph-ơng tiện liên kết văn (liên hệ với sách giáo khoa Tiếng Anh Trung học phổ thông) MA MINOR