structural and functional features of fronting in english versus vietnamese equivalents = đặc điểm cấu trúc và chức năng của khởi ngữ trong tiếng anh và tương đương trong tiếng việt

2. Aims and Objectives of the study Aims of the study This study is to help Vietnamese learners of English better understand the structural and functional features of English Fronting and Vietnamese “Khởi ngữ” so that they can use the construction more pragmatically appropriate in their communication with English speaking people. Objectives of the study The study, as entitled, focuses on English fronting construction in comparison to its Vietnamese equivalent “khởi ngữ” not only about the structures but also about the functions. Thus, the study attempts to: - Identify and point out the structural and functional features of Fronting in English and “Khởi ngữ” in Vietnamese. - Find out the similarities and differences in the structural and functional features of fronting in English and “Khởi ngữ” in Vietnamese 3. Research questions The study is carried out in order to answer two main questions as follow: (1) What are the structural and functional features of Fronting in English and “Khởi ngữ” in Vietnamese? (2) What are the similarities and differences in the structure and function of Fronting in English and “Khởi ngữ” in Vietnamese? 4. Scope of the study In order to answer the two research questions, this study is restricted to describe, analyse and contrast the structural and functional features of fronting constructions in English and “Khởi ngữ” in Vietnamese. The analysis is based on 50 samples containing Fronting structures in English and 50 samples containing khởi ngữ in Vietnamese selected from British, American and Vietnamese stories, novels, and political, educational, economic newspapers and magazines since 1945. 2 5. Method of the study Due to the main aims of the study, a systemic descriptive and contrastive analysis on the structural and functional features of English fronting and its Vietnamese equivalents is carried out throughout the study. The thesis uses English as the source language and Vietnamese as the target language. In order to serve the targets stated before, a linguistic contrastive analysis is carried out mainly on the sentential level of the data. 6. Design of the study This study consists of three parts. Part one, Introduction, consists of the rationale, the aims and objectives, the research questions, the scope of the study and the method of study. Part two, Development, is the heart of the study which deals with Fronting in English and “Khởi ngữ” in terms of their structural and functional features. It also introduces a literature review about researches related to the study and the concepts of Fronting and Khởi ngữ by different authors. The last part is the conclusions as well as some suggestions for implementation achieved from all the discussion in the thesis. 3 PART 2: DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW 1.1. Review of previous studies related to the research area Among the pre-eminent authors who discuss fronting in great details are Quirk et al (1985); Ward and Birner (2001); and Erteschik-Shir (2007). Discussions about one or the other aspect of fronting can be found in Halliday (1994); Thompson (1996) Huddleston (1995), and Brown (1983). Fronting (Quirk et al, 1985), which is also referred to as pre-posing (Ward and Birner, 2001) or topicalization (Erteschik-Shir, 2007; Brown, 1983). In Vietnamese grammar, this phenomenon has also been discussed for quite a long time; however, until now it has not been thoroughly and satisfactorily solved. There have been several disagreements among Vietnamese linguists concerning the term. First and foremost, on considering using the term in Vietnamese, Nguyen Kim Than (1997) used the term “Khởi ngữ”; Diep Quang Ban (2004) used the term “đề ngữ” when referring to this grammatical construction. Hoang Trong Phien (1980) mentioned it as Thành phần khởi ý whereas Nguyen Huu Quynh (2001) called it “Khởi ý” for short. Truong Van Chinh and Nguyen Hien Le (1963) used the term “Chủ đề”, Nguyen Tai Can (1975) suggested a compound term “Từ-Chủ đề”. According to Nguyen Lan Trung, when any part of sentence is placed at the beginning of the sentence comparing with its normal position (it may be repeated or not), this part can be regarded as Khởi ngữ in Vietnamese. From my point of view I reckon “Khởi ngữ” is the most suitable. 1.2. Theoretical background 1.2.1. The concepts of canonical and non-canonical constructions Canonical constructions in English are those which begin with a grammatical subject (Halliday & Mathiessen, 2004; Quirk et al, 1985). A grammatical subject is a part of the sentence followed by the predicate. According to Quirk et al (1985:721), 4 there are seven canonical clause patterns. They are SV, SVC, SVO, SVA, SVOO, SVOC, and SVOA. Otherwise, clause patterns not beginning with a grammatical subject are called non-canonical constructions in English except for conversing, a process by which nominal clause elements can equally take either initial or final position in the sentence, as exemplified in the following example: An uncle, three cousins, and two brothers benefited from the will. The will benefited an uncle, three cousins, and two brothers. In the above example both sentences with convertible orders are acceptable. That is the reason why both convertible sentences are considered as bearing a noncanonical pattern even though they begin with a grammatical subject. In English, there are 7 non-canonical constructions (Ward & Birner, 2001; Quirk et al, 1985): Fronting, Left-dislocation, Argument reversal (inversion & passivization), Cleft structure, Post-posing (existential there- and presentational theresentences), Right-dislocation and Conversing. In general, the difference between canonical and non-canonical constructions is that the latter make available contexts in which to embed current discourse. Canonical construction can be considered a device for creating coherent and cohesive representations of text and for changing discourse focus (Sidner, 1978; 1983; Grosz, 1978; 1981). The focus of this thesis is on Fronting, distinguishable with other non-canonical constructions in terms of structure and function. 1.2.2. Fronting in English 1.2.2.1. Definition Fronting (Ross, 1967; Postal, 1974; Parlmutter, 1979; Culicover, 1976; Winter, 1982; Quirk et al, 1985; Ward and Birner, 2001) is a process in which a constituent that normally appears in some position within a sentence is pushed toward the initial position (the front) of the sentence, leaving a gap in its normal position, as in: This subject I enjoy. 5 where „This subject‟ is fronted leaving a gap in its normal position after the verb „enjoy‟. Fronting has been described in literature from different perspectives and is referred to in different terms: Pre-posing (Ward and Birner, 2001), or Topicalization (Erteschik-Shir, 2007; Brown, 1983; Jackendoff, 1972). Quirk et (1985) describe fronting in term of the markedness of the initialized (fronted) elements. Markedness, in this sense, is a concept used to refer to departure from the norm. Thus, fronting is "… the achievement of marked theme by moving into initial position an item which is otherwise unusual there" Quirk et al (1985: 1377). In this respect, James (1980:110) affirms that marked theme can be simply achieved by transposing object, verb or even adverb to sentence initial position. Chomsky (1975) states that fronting is optional, having the effect of representing in the significant first place of a clause something other than the subject. Karris (1982) expresses fronting in terms of ''linearization'' or rather ''alternative linearization‟. Elgin (1979) thinks that fronting is one of the rules used to mark a particular constituent of a sentence as the focus of that sentence. Leech (1975) holds that moving another element to the front of the sentence gives the element a kind of psychological prominence. Davison (1984) refers to fronting as a matter of linguistic performance that relates to the sentence-planning and the order in which its constituents are processed. Quirk et al (1972: 411-12) think it “quite common, especially in informal speech, for one element to be fronted with nuclear stress and thus to be ''marked'' (given special emphasis) both thematically and informationally”. The authors describe the pragmatic function of fronting as to point a parallelism between two elements in the clause concerned and two related elements in some neighbouring clauses, contrast in meaning, especially in rhetorical and heightened language. 6 1.2.2.2. Realizations of fronting The fronted item is in most cases an entire clause or an entire clause element, e.g.: Od: These steps I used to sweep with a broom. The Od can be a Wh-Finite clause, as in: How we are going to get there in time I don‟t really know (Downing & Locke. 1992:230). Cprep: Our daughter we are proud of. V: Sing I can‟t very well. Cs: Rich I may be (Emonds, 1976:35). A: Willingly, he will never do it (he will have to be forced) (Quirk et al, 1985: 946). 1.2.2.3. The difference between Fronting and the other non-canonical constructions (Tuan, 2013) 1.2.2.3.1. The difference between Fronting and left-dislocation Superficially, left-dislocation is rather similar to pre-posing in that an item is pre-posed, i.e. moved leftwards in the construction, for example “The cheese they made there, they sold most of it to the miners (Brown, 1983:321). The canonically constructed sentence would have been: They sold most of the cheese they made there to the miners. Ward and Birner (2001), Erteschic-shir (2007), and Prince (1997) pointed out the following structural and functional differences between the two constructions: Structurally, while in pre-posing the canonical position of the item is left unoccupied, in left-dislocation a resumptive co-referential pronominal element appears in the marked constituent‟s canonical position. In the above example, co-referential with the sentence-initial item the cheese they made there is the direct object pronoun it. 7