Stupid as a Coin: Meaning and rhyming similes in Vietnamese

Thuy Nga Nguyen, The University of Queensland, Australia

Ghil‘ad Zuckermann, University of Adelaide, Australia & Shanghai
International Studies University, China

Similes emphasise affinities between different objects, and they occur

in many cultures. Vietnamese similes can be classified into two types:
Meaning Similes and Rhyming Similes. This paper analyses and
compares their structure and their semantic and phonetic
requirements. It also draws innovative parallels between Vietnamese
rhyming similes and Cockney Rhyming Slang, Multisourced
Neologization of the Phonetic Matching type, and English, Italian and
Israeli euphemisms.

Keywords: Meaning Similes; Rhyming Similes; Vietnamese; Multisourced

Neologization; Euphemism; Phonetic Matching

1. Introduction
Many languages preserve a variety of proverbs. Proverbs connecting similar
characteristics in different objects are known as similes. Similes are
comparisons that set two ideas side by side to show how two different things
are similar in one important aspect (cf. Davidson, 1979; Read, 1955).
Vietnamese similes can be classified into two types: (a) Meaning Similes and
(b) Rhyming Similes. Meaning similes depend on semantic connections and
are used in formal writing. Rhyming similes derive from similarity of sound
especially with respect to the last syllable of two distinct words. Rhyming
similes are informal expressions used among young people and are not
considered standard language. This paper analyses the structures and the
semantic and phonetic requirements prevalent in both types of simile.
2. Meaning and Rhyming similes in Vietnamese
Comparison is common in colloquial speech as a vehicle for understanding
(cf. Dinh, 1998, p. 111). According to Hoang (2010, p. 190), the similarity
between objects compared in a simile can be temporary and relative. A
Meaning simile, as its name suggests, focuses on the semantic connection
between the two linked objects. The following are two examples of meaning
similes in Vietnamese:
1. ‘Vợ chồng như đũa có đôi’
IPA: /və: coŋ ɲɯ duə kɔ doi/

International Journal of Language Studies (IJLS), Vol. 6(4), 2012 (pp. 97-118) 97
98 | Thuy Nga Nguyen & Ghil‘ad Zuckermann

Lit: Wife husband as chopstick has pair.

Trans: 'Wife and husband are like a pair of chopsticks.'
In this example wife and husband are compared to a pair of chopsticks, using
the word như ‘like’. In Vietnam, chopsticks are essential eating utensils—as
forks, spoons and knives in the Western world—and must be used in pairs. A
mental image of a wife and a husband being compared to a pair of chopsticks
would show that they ought to be together. This would bring out the speaker
or writer’s implication that although “wife and husband” and “a pair of
chopsticks” belong to two different semantic domains, they share the same
characteristic (i.e., the need to be in pairs).
2. ‘Cô ấy trông tươi như hoa’
IPA: /ko: ei coŋ tɯi ɲɯ hwa/
Lit: She looks fresh as flower.
Trans: 'She is as fresh as a flower' (cf. English fresh as a daisy).
Rhyming similes, on the other hand, concentrate on the rhyme of the
sentence. There can be no obvious or related semantic similarity between the
two objects. Consider the following two examples:
3. ‘Nghèo như con mèo’
IPA: / ŋɛu ɲɯ kɔn mɛu/
Lit: Poor as cat
Trans: 'Poor as a cat' (juxtapose with the English semantic simile poor as
a church mouse)
4. ‘Yêu quái con gà mái’
IPA: /iəʊ waːɪ kɔn ga maːɪ/
Lit: Cunning a hen
Trans: 'Cunning as a hen' (juxtapose with the English semantic simile
cunning as a fox)
In Example 3, the rhyme ‘èo’ /ɛu/ appears in both ‘nghèo’ “poor” and ‘mèo’
“cat”. There is no semantic tradition in Vietnamese according to which cats
are poor. This is in contradistinction to the English semantic simile poor as a
church mouse.
In Example 4, ‘ái’ /aːɪ/ appears in both ‘quái’ “cunning” and ‘mái’ “hen”, which
are semantically unrelated – as opposed to the English fox, which is
considered cunning.
2.1. Analysis of Meaning Similes
2.1.1. Meaning choice
Vietnamese people use similes not only in poetry but also in everyday life.
They tend to choose established, recognizable characteristics of the
comparing and compared objects. For example, beauty can be compared with
 International Journal of Language Studies (IJLS), Vol. 6(4), 2012 | 99

flowers, fairies or pictures, and ugliness is connected with monkeys, ghosts or

crazy people. In other words, there is a tendency to choose common
characteristics of the compared object or person.
For example:
5. Cô ấy đẹp như tiên
IPA: / ko ei dep ɲɯ tien/
Lit: She beautiful as fairy
Trans: 'She is (as) beautiful as a fairy.'
In Vietnamese culture, a fairy is a beautiful and kind hearted being. On the
other hand, animals such as dogs, monkeys, pigs, ghosts and ducks are
considered bad (Dinh, 1998, p. 178).
For example:
6. Xấu như khỉ
Lit: Ugly as monkey
Trans: ugly as a monkey (cf. The English simile: ugly as sin)
7. Ngu như lợn
Lit: Stupid as pig
Trans: Stupid as a pig (cf. The English simile: stupid as an ass)
8. Hôi như cú
Lit: Smelly as owl
Trans: smelly as an owl (cf. The English simile: smelly as a skunk)
Other examples of meaning similes are as follows:
Vietnamese Lit. Translation Translation
meaning similes
Gầy như mèo hen Thin as cat sick Thin as a sick cat (cf. the English
simile thin as a bean pole)
Nhanh như ngựa Fast as horse Fast as a horse (cf. the English
simile fast as lightning)
Khóc như mưa Cry like rain Cry like rain (cf. the English
simile cry like a baby)
Khóc như cha chết Cry as father dies Cry as when the father dies
Xấu như khỉ Ugly as monkey Ugly as a monkey (cf. the
English simile ugly as sin)
Tối đen như mực Dark black like ink Black as ink (cf. the actual
English simile black as ink)
100 | Thuy Nga Nguyen & Ghil‘ad Zuckermann

Users can create new similes based on a pre-existent one provided that the
comparing and compared objects have obvious or established similar
semantic characteristics. For example, to describe beauty, they can invent
new similes such as the following:

9. Đẹp như tiên (Trans: Beautiful as a fairy) can have various

versions such as:
Đẹp như hoa (Trans: Beautiful as a flower)
Đẹp như tranh (Trans: Beautiful as a painting)

10. ‘Gầy trơ xương’

Lit: thin showing bones
Trans: Thin as a skeleton (cf. The English simile: thin as a rake); this can
be the model for other meaning similes such as:
Gầy như mèo hen (sick cat)
(Thin) as quỷ (devil)
ma đói (starving ghost)

2.1.2. Structure
Full structure
Comparison structure normally includes the compared and the comparing
object, as well as the similarity in quality or characteristic between the two
objects. Therefore, the full comparison structure should include the following:

1) the compared object

2) the comparing object which is usually placed after the connecting word

3) the element that shows the similar characteristic or quality between

compared and comparing object (Nguyen, 1999, p. 107).

Consider ‘Cô ấy xinh như hoa’ (Lit: She is beautiful as a flower). In this
example, ‘Cô ấy’ (She) is the compared object, ‘hoa’ (flower) is the comparing
object standing after the connecting word ‘như’ (as), and ‘xinh’ (beautiful) is
the element showing the common characteristic.

Grammatical structures
In terms of grammar, meaning similes can be analysed as follows:

11. Học dốt như bò

Verb (V) (adv) as Object (O)
 International Journal of Language Studies (IJLS), Vol. 6(4), 2012 | 101

Trans: Study stupidly like a cow

12. Xinh như hoa

Adjective (Adj) as O
Trans: Beautiful as a flower

13. Ăn như hổ
V as O
Trans: Eats like a tiger

14. Đời người như ngọn nến

Noun Phrase (NP) as O
Trans: One’s life is like a candle

15. Gái có chồng như sông có nước

Subject (S) V O as S V O
Trans: A woman has a husband like a river has water

16. Như diều gặp gió

As S V O
Trans: As a kite has wind

From the above examples, we can draw deduce that the possible grammatical
structures are as follows:

V as/like O
Adj as/like O
V+adv as/like O
NP as/like O
S-V-O as/like S-V-O
as/Like S-V

General structure

The focus of the sentence is the Object (O) composed by a Noun Phrase (NP)
or a Clause (Cl) (henceforth, B) placed after ‘as’ or ‘like’. This Object has the
quality described in the subject/verb/adjective/adverb or a clause
(henceforth, A), which is mentioned before the connecting word ‘as’ or ‘like’.
Furthermore, B itself may include the image that helps the readers
understand the meaning of the sentence.
Thus, the general structure of a meaning simile is as follows:
102 | Thuy Nga Nguyen & Ghil‘ad Zuckermann

A as/like B

(B has the characteristic or quality described in A)

For example:

17. Đen như mực

A as/ like B
Trans: Black as ink

2.1.3. Elements

Meaning similes normally consist of three or more elements, as shown in the

following examples:

Three Elements:

18. Khóc như mưa

Trans: Cry like rain (cf. The English simile: cry like a baby)

19. Ngáy như sấm

Trans: Snoring like thunder (cf. The English simile: snore like sawing logs)

20. Chậm như rùa

Trans: Slow as a tortoise (cf. The English similes: slow as a snail, slow as a
tortoise)

Four elements:

21. Ồn như chợ vỡ

Trans: Noisy as a market (cf. The English simile: noisy as crows)

22. Nói như cháo chảy

Trans: Fluent as pouring soup

23. Chạy như ma đuổi

Trans: Run like being chased by a ghost (cf. The English simile: run as fast
as a wind)
 International Journal of Language Studies (IJLS), Vol. 6(4), 2012 | 103

Five elements:

24. Nói như chó cắn ma

Trans: Speak like a dog bites the ghost

Six elements:

25. Khổ như giữ đóm đêm mưa

Trans: Difficult as keeping the torch under the rain

26. Cơm với cá như mạ với con

Trans: Rice and fish are like mother and child

27. Nháo nhác như gà lạc mẹ

Trans: Panic like chickens without their mom (cf. the English expression
like a headless chicken, which imagistically conveys panic)

More than six elements:

28. Người không học như ngọc không mài

Trans: A person who does not study is like a ruby that is not polished.

29. Gái có con như bồ hòn có rễ

Trans: A woman who has a child is like a soapberry that has roots.

2.1.4. Connecting words

Meaning similes are divided into two main parts with the following
connecting words linking them:

x ‘như’ ‘như thể’, ‘bằng’, ‘tựa như’, which mean ‘as’/‘like’

x ‘hơn’ meaning ‘-er than’
x ‘không bằng’, ‘chẳng bằng’, ‘không tày’, ‘chẳng tày’, which mean ‘less than’

For example:

30. Gầy như que củi

Trans: Thin as a branch of a tree
104 | Thuy Nga Nguyen & Ghil‘ad Zuckermann

31. Niềm vui ngắn chẳng tày gang

Trans: Happiness is shorter than the measure of the hand

32. Lời chào cao hơn mâm cỗ

Trans: Greeting is highly appreciated than inviting for a meal

2.2. Analysis of Rhyming similes

2.2.1. Meaning choice

As aforementioned, the comparison made in a rhyming simile can be unusual
semantically. Instead of saying:

33. Xinh như tiên

IPA: /siŋ ɲɯ tien/
Lit: Beautiful as fairy
Trans: Beautiful as a fairy

One can say

34. ‘Xinh như tinh tinh’

IPA: / siŋ ɲɯ tiŋ tiŋ/
Lit: Beautiful as gorilla
Trans: Beautiful as a gorilla

Vietnamese people usually associate beauty with flowers or fairies. Monkeys

and gorillas, on the other hand, are considered ugly and naughty. That said,
rhyming similes can easily violate these semantic norms. Thus, ‘tinh tinh’
(gorilla) is compared to ‘xinh’ (‘beautiful) merely because of the rhyming.
Other examples of rhyming similes with arbitrary comparison are as follows:

35. Méo như cái kéo

IPA: / meu ɲɯ kai keu/
Lit: Unrounded as scissors
Trans: Unrounded as scissors

Scissors often symbolize sharpness rather than unrounded shape. But the
Vietnamese word for scissors rhymes with unrounded, hence the lexical
selection. Such a phonetic consideration—in this case involving the first
syllable or the last—might have been present in the English expressions bite
the bullet, as dead as a doornail, snug as a bug and could have also been an
additional factor (other than extinction) in as dead as a Dodo or as follows:
 International Journal of Language Studies (IJLS), Vol. 6(4), 2012 | 105

36. Sát thủ (như) quả đu đủ

IPA: /sat tu kwa du du/
Lit: Assassin as papaya
Trans: Assassin as a papaya'

The following are other rhyming similes:

Vietnamese rhyming similes Lit. Translation Translation

Keo như con heo
Buồn như con chuồn chuồn
Kiêu như cái niêu
Ngất như quả quất
Mean as pig
Sad as dragon fly
Proud as cooking pan
Faint as mandarin orange
Mean as a pig
Sad as a dragon fly
Proud as a peacock
Faint as a mandarin
orange

The lack of semantic restriction is a virgin soil for new, often funny and
thought-provoking similes. Compare this flexibility with that of Phonetic
Matching, as follows.

2.2.1.1. Phonetic Matching

Phonetic matching (Zuckermann, 2003, pp. 24-29) is a kind of multisourced
neologization that makes use of pre-existent lexical item in the target
language selected to replace a word in a source language because of a shared
coincidental sound. We define phonetic matching as etymythological
(etymological+mythological) nativization in which the target language
material is originally related to the source language lexical item phonetically
but not semantically. In other words, phonetic matching is a camouflaged
borrowing that marries a Source Language lexical item with a phonetically
similar pre-existent autochthonous lexeme/root which is semantically
unrelated to the Source Language lexical item. In the process of neologization,
the Target Language material adopts the meaning of the source language
word.
A simple example of phonetic matching is the English word mayday, which
nativizes French m’aider ‘(to) help me!’ (according to the Radio Telegraph
Convention in 1927; Oxford English Dictionary [OED]) or Dialectal/Colloquial
French m’aidez ‘help me!’ (in contrast to Standard French aidez moi) or
French venez m’aider ‘come to help me!’ (cf. OED). The meaning of the pre-
existent English lexical items May and day have nothing to do with ‘help’. Note
that the currently common calls for help in French are au secours ‘help!,
106 | Thuy Nga Nguyen & Ghil‘ad Zuckermann

assist!’ and aidez moi ‘help me!’

Similarly, the first Spanish sailors who encountered the Nahuatl (Aztec) word
ahuakatl, ‘Persea gratissima, avocado’ (lit. ‘testicle’), adapted it phonetically as
aguacate (this is the current Spanish word for ‘avocado’ and may have been
influenced by Spanish agua ‘water’). However, in some places this adaptation
was matched phonetically with Old Spanish avocado, lit. ‘advocate’ (cf.
Contemporary Spanish abogado ‘advocate’, cf. Spanish evocado ‘recalled,
evoked, invoked’), although of course, ‘advocate’ had nothing to do with the
large testicle-shaped fruit (For example, we do not think that advocates were
considered men with big testicles). Note that the Spanish word avocado
entered English in the late seventeenth century as alligator (pear), again a
phonetic matching.
Phonetic matching is widespread in immigrant societies. Consider the
American Italian words bimbo (‘child’) ‘beam’, giuro (‘I swear’) ‘Jew’, and
grasso (‘fat, greasy’) ‘gas’ (Livingston, 1918, p. 225). In Texas we have heard
Austin Waco (the names of two Texan cities) for Hasta luego ‘see you; bye’ (lit.
‘until later’).

2.2.1.2. Euphemisms
Vietnamese rhyming similes can be considered partial phonetic matches that
are performed within the same language. Consider the following intra-English
euphemisms:

x gosh! (documented 1757, OED) for God! (documented 1340, OED).

x darn! (documented 1840, OED) for damn! (documented 1760, OED).
x frig (cf. frig you! 1936, OED) for fuck; frigging hell! for fuckin’ hell!
x (What the) dickens! (documented 1598, OED) for devil!
x heck (documented 1865, OED) for hell.
x blooming (cf. ‘Oh, you blooming idiot!’ 1882, OED) for bloody.
x blinking (documented 1914, OED, cf. bleeding, bally and ruddy) for bloody.
x shoot! (documented 1934, OED) or sugar! for shit! (documented 1920,
OED).

Intra-Italian euphemisms are cavolo! (lit. ‘cabbage’) for cazzo! (lit. ‘dick’ but
used in the same way as the English exclamation shit!), incavolarsi (‘get
shirty, get angry’ but less vulgar that the following) for incazzarsi (‘get
angry’), mercoledì! (lit. ‘Wednesday’) for merda! (‘shit’), and the rare porca
mattina (lit. ‘pig morning’) for the highly rude porca Madonna (‘“piggy”
Madonna’).
Consider also the Israeli expression ‫ כוס סודה‬kos sóda, lit. ‘a glass of soda-
water’, for the Colloquial Israeli curses of Arabic origin ‫ כוס אחתכּ‬kus ókhtak, lit.
 International Journal of Language Studies (IJLS), Vol. 6(4), 2012 | 107

‘your sister’s cunt’ or ‫ כוס אמכּ‬kus émak, lit. ‘your mother’s cunt’.

2.2.1.3 Cockney Rhyming Slang

The same technique characterizes Cockney Rhyming Slang, in which a lexical
item is replaced by words (usually a conjunction of two) which preserve the
sound of the last syllable of the original lexical item, hence the modifier
‘rhyming’. Consider the following:
x Adam & Eve – believe
x Jelly Bone – telephone
x Sharp & Blunt – cunt
x Donald Duck – fuck / luck
x Tea Leaf – thief
x Buckle My Shoe – Jew
However, sometimes the coiners or the utterers of the Cockney Rhyming
slangism see a link (sometimes jocular) between the expression and its
referent. Therefore, it might be considered phono-semantic matching (see
Zuckermann, 2003, §1.2.4) or at least semanticized phonetic matching
(Zuckermann, 2003, §1.2.5), rather than a phonetic matching tout court.
Consider the following cases:
x Trouble & Strife or the alliterative Struggle & Strife – wife
x Sorry & Sad – bad
x Sorrowful Tale – jail
x Edward Heath – teeth (the former British Prime Minister’s teeth were
subject to caricature; cf. the consequent ellipsis Edwards, with the
meaning of ‘teeth’)
x Ten to Two / Four by Two – Jew (the latter ‘once said unkindly to be the
average size of a Jewish nose, in inches presumably’, [cf. Puxley, 1992,
66]). Note that Four by Two (noun) has been army parlance for the
regulation piece of cloth, measuring 4"x2", used for internal cleaning of
the barrel of a rifle (Raphael Loewe, personal communication).
It looks as if, unlike these Cockney examples, in Vietnamese the additional
rhyme in the rhyming similes is semantically unrelated to the adjective with
which it tries to rhyme. Consider the following example:

37. Dốt như con tốt

IPA: /zɔt ɲɯ kɔn tɔt/
Lit: Silly as pawn (chess piece)
Trans: 'Silly as a pawn'
108 | Thuy Nga Nguyen & Ghil‘ad Zuckermann

In this example, ‘dốt’ and ‘tốt’ are compared only because they share the
similar sound /ɔt/. That said, note the extensive use of animals in
Vietnamese rhyming similes (see e.g., §2.2.3). In other words, there do seem
to be semantic domains which are more common in rhyming similes than
others.

2.2.2. Structure
The structure of the Vietnamese rhyming simile is:

A as/like B

(Rhyming/sound in A is the same as in B)

From the structure above, one can make many rhyming similes. For example:

Ngu như đồng xu (1) / dɔŋ su/

/ŋu/ /ŋɯ/ Xe lu (2) /se lu/
Mua thu (3)’ / muə tu/

The ‘u’ in ‘ngu’ is repeated in ‘xu’, ‘lu’ and ‘thu’. Therefore, the user can choose
from these three options because they all match the rhyming requirement.
The compared object does not need to have a common semantic
characteristic described in the adjective or the verb placed before the
connecting word ‘as’.

Full structure:
Like meaning similes, rhyming similes have a full structure that includes the
compared, the comparing object, the connecting word (as/like), and the
shared characteristic. In the example ‘Nó buồn như con chuồn chuồn’ (Trans:
S/he is sad as a dragonfly), ‘Nó’ (s/he) is the compared object, ‘buồn’ (sad) is
the characteristic, ‘con chuồn chuồn’ (dragonfly) is the comparing object, and
‘như’ (as) is the connecting word.

Grammatical structures:
Rhyming similes have two types of grammatical structure:
 International Journal of Language Studies (IJLS), Vol. 6(4), 2012 | 109

38. Thua như con cua

Verb (V) Object (O)
Trans: Lose as a crab

39. Gầy như con cầy

Adj Object (O)
Trans: Thin as a dog

General structure:
The general structure of a rhyming simile can be described as follows:

A as/like B

B is the Object of the comparison structure which has similar sound

with A (the verb or the adjective used before as/like)

For example:
Nhanh như bát canh
A as B

Trans: quick as a bowl of soup, cf. The English simile: quick as a wink)

2.2.3. The elements of rhyming similes

Unlike meaning similes, rhyming similes cannot have less than three and
more than six elements in their sentences. Rather, they must have either four,
five or six elements. Sometimes five elements can be reduced to four by
omitting the word ‘as/like’, for example ‘buồn như con chuồn chuồn’ (Lit: Sad
as a dragon fly) can be abbreviated to ‘buồn con chuồn chuồn’, omitting ‘như’
(as). Consider the following:

Four elements:
40. ‘Keo như con heo’ (Trans: Mean as a pig)
41. ‘Nhỏ như con thỏ’ (Trans: Small as a rabbit)
42. ‘Xấu như con gấu’ (Trans: Ugly as a bear)
110 | Thuy Nga Nguyen & Ghil‘ad Zuckermann

Five elements:

43. ‘Thô bỉ như con khỉ’ (Trans: Rude as a monkey)

44. ‘Lông bông như con công’ (Trans: Amateur as a peacock)
45. ‘Nhỏ nhoi như con voi’ (Trans: Tiny as an elephant) (note the paradox)

Six elements:

46. ‘Thông minh như con tinh tinh’ (Trans: Clever as a gorilla)
47. ‘Hồn nhiên như con chó điên’ (Trans: Naïve as a rabid dog)
48. ‘Kêu gào như con chào mào’ (Trans: Shouting as a red-whiskered
bulbul)

2.2.4. Connecting words

Unlike in the meaning similes, the only connecting word used in rhyming
simile is ‘như’, which means ‘as’ or ‘like’.

For example:

49. Cao như con dao (Trans: High as a knife)

50. Đá như con cá (Trans: Kick like a fish)

3. Meaning versus rhyming similes

Other than the presence of semantic similarity in the semantic simile but not
in the rhyming one, there are several structural differences between the two
types of simile. The first and most obvious difference is that rhyming similes
do not have the secondary factor, which consists of a clause (S-V). If we
compare the meaning similes with the rhyming similes we can see that the
Object in the meaning simile can be a clause (S-V) whereas the Object in the
rhyming simile can only be the Noun phrase (NP):
The meaning similes have a secondary factor (S-V).
For example:
51. Nói như tép nhảy
V as S- V
Trans: Talk like a little prawn jumping

52. Bám như đỉa đói

V as S- V
Trans: Stick like a hungry leech
 International Journal of Language Studies (IJLS), Vol. 6(4), 2012 | 111

In contrast, rhyming similes do not have a secondary factor (S-V), only a Noun
Phrase (NP)
For example:
53. Khóc như đống thóc
V as O (NP)
Trans: Cry like a rice pile

53. Bình thường như con đường

Adj as O (NP)
Trans: Simple as a road

54.
Khổ như con hổ
Adj as O (NP)
Trans: Unhappy as a tiger

The second difference is that in meaning similes, if the compared object is a

clause, users can omit the verb, adjective or adverb before the connecting
word ‘as’. The meaning of the sentence can be understood by that clause
because of the metaphor conveyed. On the other hand, the describing factor
(verb, adjective) in the rhyming simile cannot be omitted as it would affect
the rhyming requirement. The only word that sometimes can be deleted is the
connecting word ‘as’. Consider the following meaning simile:
56. ‘Mạnh như hổ thêm vây’ (Lit: Strong as the tiger with the wing) can be
abbreviated to ‘Như hổ thêm vây’, omitting the adjective ‘mạnh’ “strong”.
Consider another example:
57. ‘Lên như diều gặp gió’ (Lit: in good situation as the kite has the wind) can
be reduced into ‘Như diều gặp gió’, where the verb ‘lên’ is omitted.
From these two examples, the metaphors can be understood as:
x As a tiger with wings (stronger, more powerful)
x As the kite that has the wind (has opportunity, has good luck)
Rhyming similes will not have meaning if users omit the compared word. In
order to convey the meaning, they must consist of the full sentence.

For example:

58. ‘Ngu như đồng xu’ (Trans: Stupid as a coin)

112 | Thuy Nga Nguyen & Ghil‘ad Zuckermann

If we omit the compared word ‘ngu’ (stupid), the simile will be ‘như đồng xu’
(as a coin). Consequently, the sentence would not make sense. This is in
contradistinction to the aforementioned Cockney Rhyming Slang, where
sometimes only the first part of the conjunction eventually remains in use and
so the rhyme is lost. Consider me Germans are cold meaning ‘my hands are
cold’, German being the first part of the couplet German bands, which matches
hands. Sometimes the couplet is completely forgotten, for instance the
widespread English colloquialism berk ‘fool’ derives from the Cockney
Rhyming slangism Berkeley Hunt or Berkshire Hunt, which stands for cunt (as
in you silly cunt).
The connecting word ‘as’ is omittable in rhyming similes: ‘Nhục như con trùng
trục’ (Lit: Being insulted as an oyster) can become ‘Nhục con trùng trục’.
Similarly, ‘Ồn ào như con cào cào’ (Lit: Noisy as a pest) can be abbreviated to
‘Ồn ào con cào cào’. However, in most cases, users tend to keep the connecting
word ‘as’.
Another difference is the number of elements in each type of simile.
Moreover, the only connecting word in rhyming similes is ‘như’ (as) whereas
meaning similes have a number of options such as ‘như’ ‘như thể’, ‘bằng’, ‘tựa
như’ which mean ‘as’/‘like’, ‘hơn’ meaning ‘-er than’ or ‘không bằng’, ‘chẳng
bằng’, ‘không tày’, ‘chẳng tày’, which mean ‘less than’.

4. Borrowings in meaning and rhyming similes

‘When cultures come into contact, borrowing takes place primarily in the
realm of lexical items’ (Anderson, 1973, p. 95). Borrowings may occur for a
linguistic reason: a semantic gap or a lexical lacuna, i.e., the lack of a native
term for a concept (cf. Haugen, 1953, p. 373; Poplack, et al., 1998; Myers-
Scotton, 1993, p. 167; Huffines, 1989, p. 212; Bavinm, 1989, pp. 270ff;
Haugen, 1989, p. 65; Grosjean, 1982, p. 336; Karttunen & Lockhart, 1976, pp.
16ff), or because of sociolinguistic factors such as speaker identity, cultural
dominance of the donor language, education and politics (cf. Hill & Hill, 1986,
pp. 118-120; Katamba, 1994, pp. 194-195; Trask, 1996, p. 39; Watson, 1989,
pp. 49-51; Mougeon & Beniak, 1989, pp. 303-307; Gal, 1989, p. 318; Mertz,
1989, p. 112; Thomason & Kaufman, 1988, pp. 44ff; Grosjean, 1982, pp. 336-
337), or from convenience and for the purposes of better understanding
(Barvin, 1989, p. 277; Haugen, 1989, p. 67; Hoffmann, 1991, pp. 102-103;
Grosjean, 1982, pp. 311-313).
Words which travel between languages are called ‘borrowings’ or ‘loanwords’
(although ‘it is more like a kind of stealing’ (Haugen, 1953); or ‘copied rather
than borrowed in the strict sense of the word’ (Aitchison, 1988; cf. Trask,
1996; Zuckermann, 2003) because the ‘borrowed’ are never ‘returned’ to the
donor language). Naturally, when two languages coexist – due to social,
 International Journal of Language Studies (IJLS), Vol. 6(4), 2012 | 113

cultural, political or geographical reasons – they influence each other. Lexical

borrowing is ‘the attempted reproduction in one language of patterns
previously found in another’ (Haugen, 1950, p. 212) or ‘the incorporation of
foreign elements into the speakers’ native language’ (Thomason & Kaufman,
1988, p. 21).
As a result of language contact, a great number of words are imported into
Vietnamese lexis in general, and into Vietnamese similes in particular. Now
and then borrowings are employed in meaning similes; most of the names in
meaning similes have a relation to a legend in history. For example:

59. ‘Lẩy bẩy như Cao Biền dậy non’

IPA: /lei bei ɲɯ kao bien dei non/
Lit: Tremble as Cao Bien stand the mountain
Trans: Tremble as Cao Bien standing on land

Cao Biền is the name of a person from China. The simile derives from a story
about a man who had special magic powers to create soldiers from beans;
however, part of the spell was missing, the soldiers were unable to stand
probably. The simile ‘lẩy bẩy như Cao Biền dậy non’ sends the message that if
you are not careful about your actions, you will not achieve your ambitions.
The following is another example:

60. ‘Nét như Sony’

IPA: /net ɲɯ so ni/
Trans: 'Clear as Sony'

Sony is the brand name of a Japanese company that produces televisions and
other products and has a good reputation in Vietnam. Therefore, a
comparison with Sony implies good qualities.
Rhyming similes also use borrowings in composing the comparison, to meet
the requirement of rhyming similes, the Object after ‘as’ will have the same
rhyme with the word describing the quality.
Some of the loanwords that sound similar to the compared objects are
anthroponyms. The original foreign pronunciation of borrowed words tends
to undergo adaptation or nativization. The resulting loan form frequently
conforms to the native phonology of the recipient language, as well as bearing
as much similarity to the source form as possible.
For example:
114 | Thuy Nga Nguyen & Ghil‘ad Zuckermann

61. Dzin như Putin

IPA: /zin ɲɯ pu tin/
Lit: Fresh as Putin

62. Chất như Ních ki bất (Nicky Butt)

IPA: /cʌt ɲɯ nik ki bʌt/
Lit: Stylish as Nicki Butt

63. Xăm như Béc căm (Beckham)

IPA: /sʌm ɲɯ bek kʌm/
Lit: Tattooed like Beckham

64. Sếc –xi (sexy) con gà ri

IPA: / sek si kɔn ga ri/
Lit: Sexy as a Ri hen (a type of hen in Vietnam)

5. Concluding remarks
Similes emphasise affinities between different objects, and occur in many
cultures. Vietnamese similes can be classified into two types: Meaning Similes
and Rhyming Similes. Table 1 analyses and compares their structure and their
semantic and phonetic requirements.

Table 1
Summarizing Meaning and Rhyming Similes
Characteristics Meaning similes Rhyming similes
Meaning Focus on the semantic Do not depend on
affinity between two things semantic affinities
Structure A as/like B A as/like B
Number of elements in Three or more Four to six
the simile
Connecting words như, như thể, bằng, tựa như, như
hơn, không bằng, chẳng
bằng, không tày, chẳng tày.
Elements after Noun Phrase, Clause Noun Phrase
connecting word
Elements that can be Elements before ‘as’ if the Connecting word
omitted Object is composed by a as/like can sometimes
Clause be omitted
Borrowings Anthroponyms possible Anthroponyms possible
 International Journal of Language Studies (IJLS), Vol. 6(4), 2012 | 115

There are fascinating and multifacted parallels between Vietnamese rhyming

similes and Cockney Rhyming Slang, Multisourced Neologization of the
Phonetic Matching type, and English, Italian and Israeli euphemisms.

The Authors
Thuy Nga Nguyen (Email: thuynga.nguyen@uqconnect.edu.au) is a PhD
student of School of Languages and Cultural Comparative Studies, The
University of Queensland, Australia. She conducts research on language
contact, lexical expansion, language development, and borrowings in the
Vietnamese language.
Ghil‘ad Zuckermann (Email: ghilad.zuckermann@adelaide.edu.au) is
Professor of Linguistics and Chair of Endangered Languages at the University
of Adelaide, Australia. He is the founder of Revival Linguistics and expert of
contact linguistics, lexicology, borrowing, hybridity and the study of language,
culture and identity. He is Distinguished Visiting Professor and Oriental
Scholar at Shanghai International Studies University, China, and Visiting
Professorial Scientist at the Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel. He serves
as Editorial Board member of the Journal of Language Contact. Professor
Zuckermann is a well known author and has published numerous books and
papers in various languages including English, Israeli (‘Hebrew’), Italian,
Yiddish, Spanish, German, Russian, Esperanto and Chinese. He has published
groundbreaking articles in various refereed journals and has been referee for
Yale University Press (YUP), Cambridge University Press (CUP), Oxford
University Press (OUP), and numerous scholarly journals.

References

Aitchison, J. (1998). Language Change. Progress or decay? Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Anderson, J. M. (1973). Structural Aspects of Language Change. London:

Longman.

Bavin, L. E. (1989). Some lexical and morphological changes in Warlpiri. In N.

C. Dorian (Ed.), Investigating obsolescence. Studies in language
contraction and death, (pp. 267-286). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
116 | Thuy Nga Nguyen & Ghil‘ad Zuckermann

Davidson, D. (1979). What Metaphors Mean. In S. Sacks (Ed.), On Metaphor,

(pp. 29-46). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Gal, S. (1989). Lexical innovation and loss: The use and value of restricted
Hungarian. In N. C. Dorian (Ed.), Investigating obsolescence: Studies in
language contraction and death, (pp. 313-331). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Grosjean, F. (1982). Life with two language: An introduction to bilingualism.

Cambridge, Mass: Havard University Press.

Haugen, E. (1950). The analysis of linguistic borrowing. Language 26, 210-

231.

Haugen, E. (1953). The Norwegian Language in America: A study in bilingual

behaviour. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Haugen, E. (1989). The rise and fall of an immigrant language: Norwegian in

America. In N. C. Dorian (Ed.), Investigating obsolescence: Studies in
language contraction and death, (pp. 61-73). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Hill, J. H., & Kenneth, C. H. (1986). Speaking Mexicano: Dynamics of syncretic

language in central Mexico. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Hanh, H. V. (2010). Tuyển tập Ngôn Ngữ Học. (Collection of Linguistics). Nhà
xuất bản Khoa Học Xã Hội (Social Science Publishing House).

Hoffman, C. (1991). An introduction to bilingualism. New York, N.Y.: Longman.

Huffiness, L. M. (1989). Case usage among the Pennsylvania German

sectarians and non-sectarians. In N. C. Dorian (Ed.), Investigating
obsolescence. Studies in language contraction and death, (pp. 211-
226). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Katamba, F. (1993). Morphology. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Karttunen, E. F., & Lockhart, J. (1976). Nahuatl in the middle years: Language
 International Journal of Language Studies (IJLS), Vol. 6(4), 2012 | 117

contact phenomena in Texts of the Colonial Period. Berkeley:

University of California Press.

Livingston, A. (1918). La Merica Sanemagogna. The Romanic Review, 9, 206–

226.

Mertz, E. (1989). Sociolinguistic creativity: Cape Breton Gaelic’s linguistic

“tip”. In N. C. Dorian (Ed.), Investigating obsolescence. Studies in
language contraction and death, (pp. 117-137). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Mougeon, R., & Beniak, E. (1989). Language contaction and linguistic change:
The case of Welland French. N. C. Dorian (Ed.), In Investigating
obsolescence. Studies in language contraction and death, (pp. 287-
312). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Myers-Scotton, C. (1993). Duelling languages: Grammatical structure in code

switching. New York: Oxford University Press.

Nguyen, Van H. (1999). Thành ngữ bốn yếu tố trong Tiếng Việt hiện đại. (Four
element proverbs in modern Vietnamese). NXB Khoa Học Xã Hội.
(Social Science Publishing House).

Dinh, T. L. (1998). Phong cách học Tiếng Việt. (Vietnamese learning style).
NXB Giáo dục. (Education Publishing House).

Poplack, S., Sankoff, D., & Miller, C. (1988). The social correlates and linguistic
processes of lexical borrowing and assimilation. Linguistics, 26, 47-
104.

Puxley, R. (1992). Cockney rabbit: A dick’n’arry of rhyming slang. London:

Robson Books.

Read, H. (1955). English Prose Style. Boston: Beacon.

Trask, R. L. (1996). Historical linguistics. London. Arnold

118 | Thuy Nga Nguyen & Ghil‘ad Zuckermann

Thomason, S., & Kaufman, T. (1988). Language contact, creolization and

genetic linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Watson, S. (1989). Scottish and Irish Gaelic, the giant’s bedfellows. In N. C.

Dorian (Ed.), Investigating obsolescence: Studies in language
contraction and death, (pp. 41-59). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Zuckermann, G. (2003). Language contact and lexical enrichment in Israeli

Hebrew. London/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.