Dẫn nhập ngôn ngữ học đối chiếu PDF

THE UNIVERSITY OF DANANG University of Foreign Language
Studies
FACULTY OF ENGLISH
DIVISION OF LANGUAGE THEORY
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTRODUCTION TO CONTRASTIVE
ANALYSIS
DẪN NHẬP NGÔN NGỮ HỌC ĐỐI CHIẾU

UNIT 1 INTRODUCTION
I. What is contrastive analysis?

Seeking to improve L2 teaching methodologies, early researchers came to believe that
by comparing and contrasting the learner’s native language with their second language, they
could gain new insights into the language learning process. This approach is known as
Contrastive Analysis (CA).
Broadly speaking, contrastive analysis 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.
In a narrow sense, contrastive analysis is an inductive investigative approach based on
the distinctive elements in a language. It involves the comparison of two (or more) languages
or subsystems of languages in order to determine both the differences and similarities between
them. It could also be done within one language. Contrastive analysis can be both theoretical
and applied according to varied purposes.
Kinds of Contrastive Analysis
Intralingual CA
- Analysis of contrastive phonemes
- Feature analysis of morphosyntactic categories
- Analysis of morphemes having grammatical meaning
- Analysis of word order
- Componential analysis of lexemes
- Analysis of lexical relations
Cross-linguistic CA
- Comparative analysis of contrastive phonemes
- Comparative analysis of morphosyntactic systems
- Comparative analysis of lexical semantics
- Analysis of translational equivalence
- Study of interference in foreign language learning
In a pedagogical view, a contrastive analysis consists of a series of statements about
the similarities and differences between two languages. There has always been an element of
contrastive analysis in foreign language teaching. Some thirty years ago it was believed that
foreign language learning consisted mainly, if not exclusively, in learning the contrast
between L1 and L2. Today contrastive analysis is being reassessed, and its applicability to
language teaching is viewed in a different light. During the last decades, a systematic
contrastive analysis has been advocated as a means of predicting the difficulties in learning a
foreign language. It is now recognized that contrastive analysis should be used to explain
difficulties. In other words, analysis contrastive should also be used as part of the explanatory
stage in error analysis.
We must point out that the value of contrastive analysis is beyond its importance in
explaining the learner’s difficulties. The confrontation of two languages is important from the
point of view of translation theory, language typology and study of language universals.
Contrastive Analysis was used extensively in the field of Second Language
Acquisition (SLA) in the 1960s and early 1970s, as a method of explaining why some features
of a Target Language were more difficult to acquire than others. According to the
behaviourist theories prevailing at the time, language learning was a question of habit
formation, and this could be reinforced or impeded by existing habits. Therefore, the
difficulty in mastering certain structures in a second language (L2) depended on the difference
between the learners' mother language (L1) and the language they were trying to learn.
By Carle James (1980) contrastive analysis is viewed as an interlinguistic,
bidirectional phenomenon which is concerned with both the form and function of language.
As such, contrastive analysis must view language psycholinguistically and sociolinguistically
as a system to be both described and acquired. Due to the need for a psychological component
in the analysis, the notion of transfer is discussed. Setting a theoretical framework, the author
takes a microlinguistic approach and in concentrating on syntax examines the effect of
contrastive analysis of alternative descriptive models - structuralist, transformational-
generative, and case grammar. The models are used as means to isolate general grammatical
categories of unit, structure, class, and system applicable to all descriptive frameworks.
Principles for the practical application of contrastive analysis at various language levels are
also presented. Addressing the contextual side of language, the author adopts a
macrolinguistic approach in a discussion of pragmatics, text analysis, conversational analysis,
and contrastive discourse. Contrastive analysis is presented as a useful contributor to studies
in interlanguage and the predictability of learner difficulty. Combined with error analysis,
contrastive analysis is a useful tool for educators interested in adjusting their teaching to their
students' knowledge.
Lado (1957), one of the strongest proponents of contrastive linguistics, suggests that
the major objectives of contrastive analysis are:
1. Providing insights into similarities and differences between languages;
2. Explaining and predicting problems in second language learning; and
3. Developing course material for language teaching.
He further claims that “the teacher who has made a comparison of the foreign
language with the native language of the students will know better what the real problems are
and can provide for teaching them (Lado, 1957). It is obvious from this statement that the
major concern of contrastive analysis is pedagogic.
The publication of Robert Lado’s book Linguistics Across Culture in 1957 was a
milestone in the study of the field. It was this book that brought together a large quantity of
evidence and on the basis developed a view of language learning that has dominated the
linguistic study of language teaching for about 15 years. The way is in accordance with
behaviorist learning theory. The behaviorists believe that errors occur primarily as a result of
interference when the learner transfers native language habits into the second language.
Interference was believed to take place whenever the habits of the native languages differed
from those of the target language. Wherever the structure of the target language differs from
that of the mother tongue we can expect both difficulty in learning and error in performance.
Learning a foreign language is essentially learning to overcome these difficulties. Where the
structures of the two languages are the same, no difficulty is anticipated and teaching is not
necessary. Simple exposure to the language will be enough. Teaching will be directed at those
points where there are structural differences. By and large, the bigger the differences between
the languages, the greater the difficulties will be.
The function of CA is to predict the likely errors of a given group of learners, to
attempt to predict the difficulty by comparing the linguistic system of the learner’s native
language with that of the Target Language (TL).
But the predictive power of CA faced serious challenges in the late 1960s. For one
thing, the only focus of Contrastive Analysis on the relationship between L1 and L2 without
any consideration of the role of the learner will definitely affect the predictive ability. For
another thing, it is not always true that difference between the native and the target languages
leads to errors through transfer, nor is it true that the native language is the sole source of
error. In addition, teachers and learners have found that difference between L1 and L2 does
not necessarily make the learner feel difficult and that sometimes it is the similarities that
really confuse him or her a lot.
The term 'contrastive linguistics', or 'contrastive analysis', is especially associated with
applied contrastive studies advocated as a means of predicting and/or explaining difficulties
of second language learners with a particular mother tongue in learning a particular target
language. In the Preface to his well-known book, Lado (1957) expresses the rationale of the
approach as follows:
The plan of the book rests on the assumption that we can predict and describe the
patterns which will cause difficulty in learning and those that will not cause difficulty.
It was thought that a comparison on different levels (phonology, morphology, syntax,
lexis, culture) would identify points of difference/difficulty and provide results that
would be important in language teaching:
The most efficient materials are those that are based upon a scientific description of
the language to be learned, carefully compared with a parallel description of the native
language of the learner. (Fries 1945: 9)
II. Theoretical contrastive studies and applied contrastive studies
Contrastivists have long been aware of the fact that contrastive analysis, being a
branch of contrastive linguistics, can be considered to be both theoretical and applied
discipline. Nonetheless, the discussion whether it belongs to ‘pure’ or ‘applied’ science have
yielded three main clearly distinguishable standpoints:
(1) contrastive analysis is a method of contrastive linguistics, which is a branch of
theoretical linguistics, and its results are relevant to both ‘pure’ (e.g. typological studies) and
applied linguistics (e.g. language teaching methodology, translation studies, etc.);
(2) being a branch of applied linguistics, the results of contrastive analysis are
primarily relevant to foreign language teaching methodology;
(3) there is no justifiable reason to insist on the distinction between the two; instead
the term contrastive studies should be used to cover both. Its openness and adaptability to new
approaches, methodologies and techniques, the versatility of its interests and ability to address
the relevant issues at all levels of language structure should grant it a special status among
other disciplines.
While traditional CL compares the learner's mother tongue with the foreign language
to be learnt, current applied CL compares the (often erroneous) learner's version of the FL (his
interlanguage) with the standard target language (TL) version. This development signals the
replacement of Lado's original predictive CL with the current descriptive Cross-linguistic and
the diagnostic Transfer Analysis expounded in Gass & Selinker (1983) and Odlin (1989).
Contrastive linguistics is thus not a unified field of study. The focus may be on general
or on language specific features. The study may be theoretical, without any immediate
application, or it may be applied, i.e. carried out for a specific purpose.
CL or CA could be said to restrict its domain to just contrastive linguistic research,
whether theoretical, focusing on contrastive description of the language/cultures involved, or
practical, applied, intended to serve the needs of particular application.
Contrastive studies are usually divided into theoretical and applied, each with a
tradition of its own. According to Jacek Fisiak (1981:2-3), there are two types of contrastive
studies: theoretical and applied.
Theoretical contrastive studies give an exhaustive account of the differences and
similarities between two or more languages, provide an adequate model for their comparison,
and determine how and which elements are comparable. In other words, theoretical
contrastive studies are language independent. They do not investigate how a given category
present in language A is presented in language B. Instead, they look for the realization of a
universal category X in both A and B.
CA is theoretical with the desire to contribute to
- the establishment of linguistic universals, and
- increasing detailed knowledge of particular languages
Conducted along horizontal dimensions, it sought to systematically compare two—or
more—languages with the aim of offering an exhaustive account of the differences and
similarities between them, providing an adequate model for their comparison, and defining
how and which elements are comparable, hence (Krzeszowski 1977/81:71f.) centring around
morphosyntactic considerations associated with the notion of congruence (Krzeszowski 1967;
W. Marton 1968), correspondence, and semantic considerations associated with the crucial
notion of equivalence (Halliday et al. 1964; Catford 1965; Krzeszowski 1967)—the necessary
criterion for comparability. It consisted in isolating systems, subsystems, constructions, or
rules for comparisons with their cross-linguistic equivalents, resulting in descriptions of their
presence or absence, obligatory or optional status, and hierarchy in the respective languages.
Exploring how universal categories are realized in the contrasted languages, theoretical
contrastive studies were thus frequently language-independent and non-directional;
Applied contrastive studies are part of applied linguistics. Drawing on the findings of
theoretical contrastive studies, they provide a framework for the comparison of languages,
selecting whatever information is necessary for a specific purpose, e.g. teaching, bilingual
analysis, translation, and so on. Applied contrastive studies are preoccupied with the problem
of how a universal category X, realized in language A as Y, is rendered in language B, and
what may be the possible consequences of this for a given field of application. Another task of
applied contrastive studies is the identification of probable areas of difficulty in another
language where, for example, a given category is not represented in the surface and
interference is likely to occur.
CA is applied, with aims related to language teaching and the development of teaching
materials (Sharwood Smith 1974/81). Drawing on the findings of theoretical CA and
providing a framework for the comparisons, applied CA attempted to
- select information pertinent for the purpose (teaching, studies on bilingualism,
translation, etc.) and presented it adequately. As such, it
- devote more attention to surface representations than theoretical contrastive studies
did, since these are what the learners or translators have more immediate access to
and what language teaching has always been concerned with.
- It is unidirectional, investigating how a (universal) category realized in one
language in one way is rendered in the other and what the consequences for a
given field of application may be, and identifying potential areas of difficulty due
to interference.
- Vitally, the value of pointing out similarities in language teaching is emphasized,
with the aim of relieving the learner from having to guess them and preventing
him/her from attempting to construct forms which may ‘sound foreign’ (Fisiak
1981:3).
The aim of developing pedagogical materials was more visible in the US, while
Europe was more interested in the theoretical dimension.
• Theoretical contrastive studies are concerned with spelling out similarities and
differences in the structure of two or more languages – i.e., they have as their major
objective an adequate description and characterization of similarities and differences.
• Formulation of universal features and characteristics of different languages and
general language acquisition principles will naturally be the by-products of such
studies.
• Doing contrastive analysis, as a tool of understanding different peoples' behavior, is
justified by its own virtue. We don't need to justify it by its implication or
applicational values
• Applied contrastive studies aim at making use of the theoretical contrastive analysis
for some specific purposes, of which language pedagogy and translation are perhaps
the most obvious examples.
• Theoretical studies, being neutral with respect to applications, are in equal degree
interested in similarities and difference while applied studies often concentrate on
differences.
The most important contribution of applied linguistic is pedagogical grammar – i.e.,
language descriptions geared to the demands of teaching.
All in all, applied contrastive studies deal more with the surface representation of
languages than do theoretical contrastive studies.
III. The predictive nature of CA

More often than not, most of the results produced by traditional CA were platitudes
known to every experienced language educator (Stevens 1970), claimed to be easily attainable
by means of error analysis. By the end of the seventies the assumption additionally came
under criticism following a body of SLA research where the role of intralingual mechanisms
such as overgeneralisation of target rules was found to be equally if not more influential in
language learning. The strong version of the Contrastive Analysis Hypotheses (CAH to be
presented in Unit 2) stated in Lee (1968:186) which failed to acknowledge sources of
difficulty other than the learner L1 (e.g. lack of saliency, low communicative value,
markedness, processing difficulty) and took no account of the psychological processes[9]
involved in language learning became theoretically untenable with the realization that
grammatical deviance is not always nor exclusively proportionate to the degree of mismatch
between L1 and TL forms (Whitman & Jackson 1972). L1 influence is only one of many
sources of error (others being caused e.g. by overgeneralization, or inconsistencies in the
spelling system of the TL). At the same time, a large portion of the predictions soon became
invalidated (Brire 1968; Politzer 1968): many errors occur that are neither traceable to transfer
(Dulay & Burt 1974a) nor illuminated by CA, while many of those overpredicted by the CAH
including transfer load do not show up in actual performance at all (Jackson & Whitman
1971). Differences in particular areas of language systems only cause interference in some
cases; psychological, pedagogical, and other extralinguistic factors unaccounted for by CA
also contribute to the formation of errors. CAH also disregarded the fact that the operation of
transfer is heavily influenced by individual factors such as learning strategies [10] employed
(e.g. Slama-Cazacu 1971; Nemser & Slama-Cazacu 1970). Hence, the issue of the
predictability of interference and errors was raised against CS (Fisiak 1981:7), which had
failed to meet the criteria of both descriptive and explanatory adequacy [11]. This resulted in
questioning the relevance of CA in designing FL instruction materials (Krzeszowski
1977/81:73);
Thus, contrastive analysis / is the comparison of the linguistic
systems of two languages, for example, the sound system or the grammatical system.
Contrastive analysis was developed and practiced in the 1050s and 1960s, as an application
of Structural linguistics to language teaching, and is based on the following assumptions:
a. the main difficulties in learning a new language are caused by interference from the
first language (see Language Transfer);
b. these difficulties can be predicted by contrastive analysis;
c. teaching material can make use of contrastive analysis to reduce the effects of
interference
In this course, 'Contrastive linguistics' (CL) is synonymous with 'contrastive analysis'
(CA), but CA is limited to a comparison of a pair of languages (any two, even genetically
unrelated). Contrastive analysis is a comparison between native language and target language.
It aims to predict errors learners will make.
Summary
Unit 1 WHAT IS CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS
CA is:
- an inductive investigative approach based on distinctive elements in a language or
- the comparison of the linguistic systems of two languages, for example, the sound
system or the grammatical system of these two languages
- involves comparison of two (or more) languages or subsystems of languages (Cross-
linguistic CA)
- to determine both the differences and similarities between them
- It could also be done within one language (Intra-linguistic CA)
Intra-lingual:
- Analysis of contrastive phonemes, e.g. /p/ & /b/ in English
E.g. forms of verbals as Subject, Objects, Complement
- Analysis of morphemes having grammatical meaning, e.g. morphemes marking number,
tense …
- Analysis of word order, e.g. OSV, SVO …
- Componential analysis of lexemes, e.g.
Salary [+paid monthly] [+usu by cheque]
Wage [+paid weekly] [+in cash] [+usu for manual or clerical work]
E.g. synonymy, antonymy, hyponymy
Cross-linguistic CA
- Comparative analysis of contrastive phonemes between 2 languages
E.g. /p/ in English vs. Vietnamese
E.g. Adjectives in English vs. Vietnamese
E.g. causative verbs in English vs. Vietnamese
E.g. How OSV order in Vietnamese may influence transfers into English
Pedagogic view:
Structuralism:
- a finite structure of a given language that can be documented & compared with
another language
- structural linguists set about to identify the patterns of language
- structural linguistic patterns: the set of habits that characterized a given language
behaviourist theories:
- language learning: habit formation & reinforced or
impeded by existing habits
+ Errors: as result of interference in transfer L1 to L2
+ Habits of MT differed from those of TL (Target Language)
+ Structure of TL differs from that of MT (Mother Tongue)
Lado (1957): major objectives of CA are
3. Developing course material for language teaching
Theoretical CA & Applied CA
CA is theoretical
- look for the realization of a universal category X in both A and B (bilateral CA)
- not investigate how a given category present in language A is presented in language B
(unilateral)
Applied CA attempted to
• select information pertinent for the purpose (teaching, studies on bilingualism,
translation, etc.)
• unidirectional, investigating how a (universal) category realised in L1 in one way is
rendered in L2
• identifying potential areas of difficulty due to interference.
• emphasizing value of pointing out similarities in language teaching
• preventing learner from attempting to construct forms which may ‘sound foreign’
(Fisiak 1981:3).
Words & expressions

1. Contrastive analysis (CA) (n) Phân tích i chi u
S so sánh các h th ng ngôn ng c a 2 ngôn ng , vd, h th ng các âm hay h th ng
ng pháp. CA c phát tri n và th c hành nh ng n m 1950 và 1960 áp d ng các
thành t u c a ngôn ng h c c u trúc vào vi c gi ng d y ngôn ng , và d a vào các tiên
gi nh sau ây:
a. Nh ng khó kh n ch y u trong vi c h c m t ngôn ng m i là do giao thoa hay s c n
tr (Interference) t ngôn ng th nh t (xem Chuy n di ngôn ng (Language
Transfer));
b. Nh ng khó kh n này có th c tiên oán nh Phân tích i chi u;
c. Các ng li u gi ng d y có th v n d ng phân tích i chi u gi m hi u ng c a giao
thoa
2. Language genealogies (n) ng h
Các quan h ng t c mà m t ngôn ng có th chia s v i m t ngôn ng khác cùng
ngu n g c, vd, s phân lo i ng h ch r ng a s các ngôn ng ng d ng Châu
Âu thu c v m t trong b n ng h : Indo-European, Uralic, Caucasian và Basque.
3. Subsystems (n) ti u h th ng/h th ng con
Các t p h p các y u t thu c c p lo i th p h n thu c h th ng các y u t thu c c p
lo i cao h n, vd, h th ng các ng t (c p cao) s bao g m các h th ng con các
ng t nh ngo i ng t (extensive verb) và n i ng t (intensive verb). Hai h
th ng này l i ti p t c phân thành các h th ng con (bi u di n theo s bên d i)
Verb (! ng t )
Intensive Extensive
N i ng t Ngo i ng t
(vd: Be, get, seem, become …)
Intransitive Transitve
T ng t Tha ng t
(vd: Tree grows)
Mono Trans (V+Od)

Di Trans (V+Oi+Od)
Complex Trans (V+Od+Co)
4. Overgeneralization (also analogy n) Khái quát hóa

M t d ng l"i trong quá trình trong ti p th ngôn ng (language acquisition) theo ó
các d ng th c ch a h c/bi t c thành l p theo m t mô th c c a các d ng khác mà
ng i h c ã bi t. Ví d : khi ã bi t d ng quá kh c a sing là sang thì ng i h c có
th suy oán m t cách khái quát hóa r ng d ng quá kh c a fling c#ng là flang
5. Markedness Theory (n) Lý thuy t ánh d u
M t lý thuy t trong n i b ngôn ng và liên ngôn ng , các y u t ngôn ng h c có th
c xem là không c ánh d u, ngh$a là n gi n, c t lõi, hay i n m%u, trong khi
các y u t khác c xem là c ánh d u, ngh$a là ph c h p, ngo i vi, hay ngo i l .
M t s quan h ánh d u có tính l &ng phân (binary). Ví d : nguyên âm có th ho'c
là h u thanh ho'c có th là vô thanh. Nguyên âm h u thanh c cho là không ánh
d u trong khi nguyên âm vô thanh (trong m t s ít ngôn ng ) c xem là ánh d u.
Các quan h ánh d u khác có tính t(ng b c (hierarchy). Ví d : TÍNH T)NG B*C C+A
NG, DANH T- ch m t lo t các c u trúc m nh (cú) có th c s.p x p t ít ánh
d u nh t n nhi u ánh d u nh t. Tính ánh d u ôi khi c xem nh là m t ch báo
tr t t hay khuynh h ng khó kh n trong vi c h c m t ngôn ng hai hay ngo i ng .
Theo quan i m này, n u ngôn ng ích có ch a các c u trúc c ánh d u, các ngôn
ng này s khó h c. Tuy v y, n u các c u trúc ngôn ng ích không ánh d u chúng
có th ít ho'c không gây ra các khó kh n. Hi n t ng này c g i là gi thuy t khu
bi t ánh d u (markedness differential hypothesis)
6. Extralinguistic (adj) Ngoài ngôn ng
Mô t các c u trúc trong giao ti p không ph i là b ph n tr c tiêp c a ngôn ng l i nói
mà là y u t óng góp vào vi c truy n t m t thông i p, ví d : các c/ ng tay, v
m't, … ho'c có nh h ng n vi c s/ d ng ngôn ng , ví d : ch báo tu0i ng i nói,
gi i tính, ho'c giai t(ng xã h i
7. generative theory (n) Lí thuy t T o sinh
thu t ng ch sjw ki n nhi u lý thuy t ngôn ng có chung các m c tiêu (a) cung c p
m t gi i thích các 'c i m hình th c c a ngôn ng , 't ra các qui t.c gi i thích cách
thành l p t t c các câu úng ng pháp c a m t ngôn ng và không t o ra các câu phi
ng pháp (nguyên t.c h p chu1n mô t (descriptive adequacy)), và (b) gi i thích lí do
các ng pháp có các 'c i m v n có và ách tr con h .c chúng trong m t th i gian
nh t nh (nguyên t.c h p chu1n gi i thích (explanatory adequacy)).
8. Intralingual CA (n) ! i chi u n i ngôn ng
! i chi u các y u t , ph m trù trong n i b m t ngôn ng
9. Cross-linguistic CA (n) ! i chi u liên ngôn ng
! i chi u các y u t , ph m trù gi a 2 hay nhi u ngôn ng
Questions:
1. State the major objectives of contrastive analysis suggested by Lado (1957)

2. In what areas of language can CA make prediction? Provide example.
3. State briefly the psychological base for CA?
(Clue: habit formation)
4. State briefly the linguistic base for CA?
(Clue: structuralism)
5. What are the purposes of Cross-linguistic CA?
Summary
Unit 1 WHAT IS CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS
CA is:
- an inductive investigative approach based on distinctive elements in a language or
- the comparison of the linguistic systems of two languages, for example, the sound
system or the grammatical system of these two languages
- involves comparison of two (or more) languages or subsystems of languages (Cross-
linguistic CA)
- to determine both the differences and similarities between them
- It could also be done within one language (Intra-linguistic CA)
Intra-lingual:
- Analysis of contrastive phonemes, e.g. /p/ & /b/ in English
E.g. forms of verbals as Subject, Objects, Complement
- Analysis of morphemes having grammatical meaning, e.g. morphemes marking number,
tense …
- Analysis of word order, e.g. OSV, SVO …
- Componential analysis of lexemes, e.g.
Salary [+paid monthly] [+usu by cheque]
Wage [+paid weekly] [+in cash] [+usu for manual or clerical work]
E.g. synonymy, antonymy, hyponymy
Cross-linguistic CA
- Comparative analysis of contrastive phonemes between 2 languages
E.g. /p/ in English vs. Vietnamese
E.g. Adjectives in English vs. Vietnamese
E.g. causative verbs in English vs. Vietnamese
E.g. How OSV order in Vietnamese may influence transfers into English
Pedagogic view:
Structuralism:
- a finite structure of a given language that can be documented & compared with
another language
- structural linguists set about to identify the patterns of language
- structural linguistic patterns: the set of habits that characterized a given language
behaviourist theories:
- language learning: habit formation & reinforced or
impeded by existing habits
+ Errors: as result of interference in transfer L1 to L2
+ Habits of MT differed from those of TL (Target Language)
+ Structure of TL differs from that of MT (Mother Tongue)
Lado (1957): major objectives of CA are
3. Developing course material for language teaching
Theoretical CA & Applied CA
CA is theoretical
- look for the realization of a universal category X in both A and B (bilateral CA)
- not investigate how a given category present in language A is presented in language B
(unilateral)
Applied CA attempted to
• select information pertinent for the purpose (teaching, studies on bilingualism,
translation, etc.)
• unidirectional, investigating how a (universal) category realised in L1 in one way is
rendered in L2
• identifying potential areas of difficulty due to interference.
• emphasizing value of pointing out similarities in language teaching
• preventing learner from attempting to construct forms which may ‘sound foreign’
(Fisiak 1981:3).
See the full text here
UNIT 2 CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS HYPOTHESIS & LANGUAGE TRANSFER
CA is founded on the assumption that L2 learners will tend to transfer to their L2

utterances the formal features of their L1, that, as Lado puts it “individuals tend to transfer the
forms and meanings and the distribution of forms and meanings of their native language and
culture to the foreign language and culture” (Lado, 1957:2).
Two of the general hypotheses concerning second language acquisition are identity
hypothesis and contrastive hypothesis (Klein, 1986:23). The identity hypothesis asserts that
the acquisition of one language has little or no influence on the acquisition of another
language. Many scholars accept an 'essential identity' of first and second language acquisition
(e. g., Jakobovits, 1969; Ervin-Tripp, 1974; Burt and Dulay, 1975). On the other hand, the
contrastive hypothesis states that the structure of the first language affects the acquisition of
the second language (Lado, 1957; Fries 1945). The term "contrastive hypothesis" refers to the
theory itself while "contrastive analysis" focuses on the method of implementation of the
hypothesis. On the other hand, "contrastive analysis hypothesis" emphasizes both the theory
and method simultaneously. This section will review the historical, linguistic, and
psychological backgrounds of the contrastive analysis hypothesis (hereafter simply CAH)
including its procedures. Then, it will examine arguments for and against. Lastly, the section
will review some suggestions on the modification or improvement of CAH.
I. Backgrounds of Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis
CAH was made when the structural linguistics and behavioral psychology were
dominant in the sixties. It originated from Lado's Linguistics across Cultures (1957). He made
one of the strongest claims of CAH in the preface: "The plan of the book rests on the
assumption that we can predict and describe the patterns that will cause difficulty in learning,
and those that will not cause difficulty, by comparing systematically the language and the
culture to be learned with the native language and culture of the student."(1957: vii) Then, in
the first chapter of the book, Lado (1957: 1-2) continues:
In the comparison between native and foreign language lies the key to ease or
difficulty in foreign language learning- … Those elements that are similar to (the learner's)
native language will be simple for him, and those elements that are different will be difficult.
The linguistic model of CAH is structuralism which was expounded by Bloomfield
(1933), elaborated by Fries (1945) and Lado (1957). Structuralism assumes that there is a
finite structure of a given language that can be documented and compared with another
language. Esser (1980: 181) suggests that contrastive analysis belongs to applied linguistics
in that the analysis may yield practical instructional materials.
Behavioral psychology associated with Skinner was the basis of CAH. Any kind of
learning is viewed as habit formation. At the cross road, one associates the red stop sign with
the need to slow and stop the car. Learning takes place by reinforcement. These are concerned
with Skinner's Stimulus-Response Theory. Associationism and S-R theory are the two
psychological bases of CAH (James, 1985). CAH is also founded on the assumption that L2
(the second language) learners will tend to transfer the formal features of their LI (the first
language) to their L2 utterances. As Lado (1957: 2) claims, "individuals tend to transfer the
forms and meanings and the distribution of forms and meanings of their native language and
culture to the foreign language and culture." This notion of "transfer" means "carrying over
the habits of his mother-tongue into the second language" (Corder, 1971: 158). Ellis (1965)
also suggests that the psychological foundation of CAH is transfer theory, substituting the
first language for the prior learning and the second language for the subsequent learning.
II. Definition and Classification of Language Transfer
1. Defining language transfer
Transfer is originally a basic concept in psychology. In psychology, it refers to the
phenomenon of previous knowledge being extended to the area of new knowledge, i.e. the
influence which the learning or remembering of one thing has on the learning and
remembering of another thing (Sajavaara.1987: 69). And it is this concept that forms the
psychological basis for language transfer.
The notion of language transfer, at its birth, was closely related to the behaviorist
theories. Fires (1945) and Lado (1945) introduced the term into the field of second language
learning. They assumed that learners tended to transfer the characteristics of their native
languages and cultures into the foreign languages and cultures that they were learning.
Accordingly, errors in L2 learning are explained as the interference of learners’ mother
tongue (or the first language) in learning the target language because of differences between
the two. Interference as such is called Negative Transfer (See Negative Transfer below).
Similarities between L1and L2, on the other hand, are believed to facilitate the learning of L2.
Facilitation as such is called Positive Transfer (See Negative Transfer below).
By Odlin’s (1989: 27): “transfer is the influence resulting from similarities and
differences between the target language any other language that has been previously (and
perhaps imperfectly) acquired.”
Language transfer has long been a controversial issue, and the debate on the influence
of L1 on L2 is still an on-going debate among applied linguists. Gass and Selinker (1994: 53)
believe that “the acceptance and/or rejection of language transfer as a viable concept has been
related to the acceptance or rejection of the specific theory with which it has been associated.”
The CAH was suggested in 1957 by Robert Lado, who suggested that L2 learners
depend entirely on their L1 in the process of their SLA. This dependence on the learner’s L1
results in transfer. However, in 1974, the pendulum swung in the opposite direction when
Dulay and Burt argued that transfer had nothing to do with the errors committed by L2
learners. Currently, it is widely accepted that language transfer is one of many factors that are
responsible for the errors committed by L2 learners. McCarthy (2001: 83) states that “when
new languages are encountered, the existing representations of L1 are activated and reshape
L2 incoming information. In language transfer, complex factors interact, including language
distance …, cognitive load, attention, sociolinguistic factors, etc.”
2. Forms of Language Transfer
It is claimed that transfer occurs in one of two forms:
a) Positive Transfer (also known as facilitation), which occurs where there is a similarity
between L1 and L2, leading to something correct. This kind of transfer would assist the
acquisition process.
It may help or facilitate language learning in another later situation, and may occur
when both the native language and the target language have the same form.
E.g. Both French and English have the word table, which can have the same meaning in both
languages.
b) Negative Transfer (also known as interference), which occurs where there is dissimilarity
between L1 and L2, leading to something incorrect. This kind of transfer would impede the
acquisition process.
Negative transfer is one that interferes with language learning in another later
situation. Specifically, it refers to the use of native language patterns or rule that leads to an
error or inappropriate form in the target language.
Gass studied pronoun retention in the speech of two groups learning English as a
second language. The first group included native speakers of Arabic and Persian, i.e.
languages that, unlike English, allow pronoun retention. The second group included native
speakers of French & Italian, i.e. languages that, like English, do not allow for pronoun
retention. The subjects were asked to judge the grammaticality of the ungrammatical sentence
shown on the following page.
*The woman I gave the book to her is my sister.
The results showed that most of the learners in the first group (i.e. speakers of Arabic
and Persian) judged the above sentence grammatical, while most of the learners in the second
one (i.e. speakers of French and Italian) rejected the same sentence as ungrammatical.
This is evidence of the impact of L1 on L2. However, not all errors can be traced to
the learners’ L1 concerning syntax.
Negative transfer can result in 2 forms of inhibition - Proactive inhibition & Retro-
active inhibition:
Proactive inhibition is the interfering effect of earlier learning on later learning. For
example, if a learner first learns how to produce questions which requires AUXILIARY VERB
INVERSION (e.g. I can go Can I go?) this may interfere with the learning of patterns where
auxiliary inversion is not required. The learner may write * I don’t know where can I find it
instead of I don’t know where I can find it.
By contrast, retroactive inhibition/interference is the effect of later learning on earlier
learning. For example, children learning English may learn irregular past-tense forms such as
went, saw. Later, when they begin to learn the regular –ed past tense inflection, they may stop
using went and saw and produce *goed and *seed.
3. Another Manifestation of Transfer
Language transfer is not easy to detect, and it does not show itself merely as either
positive or negative transfer. Ellis (1994: 306) suggests that it is not sufficient to focus on the
production of errors, as many manifestations of transfer will be missed. One of the important
manifestations of language transfer that is not detectable in production is avoidance. That is to
say, learners might avoid using a certain linguistic structure in their L2, because this structure
does not occur in their L1 (e.g. the causative verb patterns with have and get in English). In
other words, language transfer might not surface as the production of errors, but as avoiding
the use of the different structure altogether. In 1974, for example, Schachter found that
Chinese and Japanese learners of L2 English made fewer errors in the use of relative clauses
than Persian or Arabic learners, because they produced far fewer relative clauses overall (Ellis
1994: 304). This important phenomenon was not considered by classical CA.
4. Transfer Errors
According to Lott (1983), transfer errors can be further subdivided into three
categories: overextension of analogy; transfer structure and interlingual or intralingual errors.
Table 1 Classification of Transfer Errors
Overextension or Occurs when the learner misuse an item

analogy because it shares features with an item in the L1
Transfer structure Arise when the learner utilizes some L1 feature

Transfer (phonological, lexical, grammatical, or
errors pragmatic) rather than that of the target
language.
interlingual or Arise when a particular distinction does not

intralingual errors exist in the L1
5. The beginnings of the CAH

The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis began with the following insight stated by C.C.
Fries (1945: 9) in his book Teaching and Learning English as a Foreign Language:
The most efficient materials are those that are based upon a scientific description of
the language to be learned, carefully compared with a parallel description of the native
language of the learner.
In 1957, Robert Lado made CA explicit by stating that L1 plays a very important role
in SLA. In his influential book Linguistics Across Cultures, Lado mentions that […]
individuals tend to transfer the forms and meanings, and the distribution of forms and
meanings of their native language and culture to the foreign language and culture—both
productively when attempting to speak the language and to act in the culture, and receptively
when attempting to grasp and understand the language and the culture as practiced by natives.
(In Gass & Selinker 1993: 53) He adds that […] the student who comes into contact with a
foreign language will find some features of it quite easy and others extremely difficult. Those
elements that are similar to his native language will be simple for him, and those elements that
are different will be difficult. (In Ellis 1994: 306)
The above quotes outline the CAH in its classical form, a form that did hold true in the
face of empirical evidence. However, as argued in a lot of literature (Selinker 1992), the CAH
is worth considering when examining language transfer.
6. Assumptions of the CAH
The CAH states that a feature in the L2 is difficult to learn if it is different from or
does not exist in the learner’s L1. In this case, the learner, the CAH claims, will use a feature
that exists in his/her L1. This is known as negative transfer. In cases where a feature in the L2
is similar to a feature in the L1, the CAH claims that mastering that feature is going to be
easy. Followers of this hypothesis describe language as habit formation and second language
acquisition as developing a new set of habits. Errors in SLA were interpreted as the result of
transferring the L1 “habits” to the L2. This is the view that behaviorists, such as Skinner,
argued for in the 1950s and led to the development of the Audiolingual method of teaching.
Below are the six assumptions that the CAH was based on, summarized by Gass and
Selinker (1994: 60):
1. Contrastive analysis is based on a theory of language that claims that language is
habit and that language learning involves the establishment of a new set of habits.
2. The major source of error in the production and/or reception of a second language is
the native language.
3. One can account for errors by considering differences between the L1 and the L2.
4. A corollary to 3: the greater the differences, the more errors that will occur.
5. What one has to do in learning a second language is to learn the differences.
Similarities can be safely ignored as no new learning is involved. In other words,
what is dissimilar between two languages is what must be learned.
6. Difficulty and ease in learning are determined respectively by differences and
similarities between the two languages in contrast.
7. Three Different Versions of CAH
In view of predictability, CAH is classified into strong, moderate, and weak versions.
Wardhaugh (1970) classified the strong version of CAH as that version that claims the ability
to predict difficulty through contrastive analysis. The assumption is that the two languages
can be compared a priori. The strong version claims the following:
(1) The main obstacle to second language learning is from the interference of the
learner's native language system.
(2) The greater the difference between native language and target language, the greater
the difficulty will be.
(3) A systematic and scientific analysis of the two language systems can help predict
the difficulties.
(4) The result of contrastive analysis can be used as a reliable source in the preparation
of teaching materials, the planning of course and the improvement of classroom
techniques.
Wardhaugh (1970: 126) notes that contrastive analysis has intuitive appeal and that
teachers and linguists have successfully used "the best linguistic knowledge available … in
order to account for observed difficulties in second language learning." He called such
observational use of contrastive analysis the weak version of CAH. Here, the emphasis shifts
from the predictive power of the relative difficulty to the explanatory power of observable
errors. This version has been developed into Error Analysis (EA). CAH is a theory or
hypothesis while the EA is an assessment tool.
'Error' can be systematic and consistent while 'mistake' is a momentary slip of tongue.
Brown (1987) also suggests that the weak version focuses not on the a priori prediction of
linguistic difficulties, but on the a posteriori explanation of sources of errors in language
learning.
Oiler and Ziahosseiny (1970) proposed a moderate version of CAH based on their
study of spelling errors on the dictation section of the UCLA placement test in English as a
second language. They found that the strong version was too strong while the weak version
was too weak. Here they focused on the nature of human learning and proposed the moderate
version which is summarized as: "The categorization of abstract and concrete patterns
according to their perceived similarities and differences is the basis for learning "therefore,
wherever patterns are minimally distinct in form or meaning in one or more systems,
confusion may result'' (186). In the same way, Brown (1987: 162) explains the "technical"
idea applying it to human learning: "interference can actually be greater when items to be
learned are more similar to existing items than when items are entirely new and unrelated to
existing items."
From the strong version to the moderate version, the popularity of contrastive
hypothesis has been reduced drastically by criticism and new evidence against CAH.
However, some scholars continue to make an effort to consider and assess the merits and
demerits of CAH. The following section will deal with the arguments for and against CAH.
Summary
Unit 2 CA HYPOTHESIS & LANGUAGE TRANSFER
I. CAH:
The structure of L1 affects the acquisition of L2 (Lado, 1957; Fries 1945)
Theoretical bases:
- Structural linguistics:
Detailed descriptions of particular languages from a collection of utterances produced by
native speakers (i.e. corpus)
- Behaviourist psychology:
Habit formation by means of ‘stimulus-response-reinforcement’
New learning situations helped by means of the transfer of the old habits
II. Language Transfer
“the influence resulting from similarities and differences between the target language any
other language that has been previously (and perhaps imperfectly) acquired.” Odlin’s (1989:
27)
a) Positive Transfer (facilitation)
- similarity between L1 and L2, result in something correct.
- assist the acquisition process.
b) Negative Transfer (interference)
- dissimilarity between L1 and L2, result in something incorrect
- impede the acquisition process.
Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH)
Process:
(1) Structure by structure comparison of language systems
(2) yields similarities and differences that make it possible to
(3) predict easy and difficult areas for L2 learners.
Assumptions:
(1) Language is a habit
(2) L1 is the major source of errors in SLA
(3) Errors can be explained by the differences between L1 &L2
(4) The more L1 and L2 differ, the greater the chance for errors
(5) Learners must concentrate on differences between L1 & L2
(6) Ease or difficulty in learning correlate to the amount of differences or similarities between
L1 and L2
Three Different Versions of CAH
Strong version: Weak version: Moderate version:

ability to predict difficulty ability to explain observable categorization of abstract &
through CA error concrete patterns according
to similarities. & difficulties:
basis of learning
1. Obstacle to TL learning: 1. use "the best linguistic 1. Minimal distinction of

interference of the learner's knowledge available” to patterns in form & meaning
MT explain observable in systems may results in
difficulties confusion
2. Differences of L1&L2 2. Error: systematic & 2. Difficulty may not be due

trigger chance of error consistent & countable to difference
Error analysis
3. Systematic CA helps 3. Items similar to existing

predict the difficulties items may cause difficulty
4. Result of CA: reliable

source in preparation of
teaching materials, planning
of course, improvement of
classroom techniques
Questions:
1. Which hypothesis states that the structure of the first language affects the acquisition of the
second language?
2. State the major assumption on which CAH is founded?
3. State the definition of language transfer?
(Clue: Odlin (1989)
4. What are the two main forms of language transfer? Provide examples.
5. State six assumptions that the CAH was based on, summarized by Gass and Selinker (1994:
60):
6. What are the three versions of CAH?
7. What are the claims of the Strong Version of CAH?
8. In what way is Error Analysis related to CAH?
(Clue: a priori prediction vs. posteriori explanation)
Words and Expressions
1. Extralinguistic (adj) Ngoài ngôn ng

Mô t các c u trúc trong giao ti p không ph i là b ph n tr c tiêp c a ngôn ng l i nói
mà là y u t óng góp vào vi c truy n t m t thông i p, ví d : các c ng tay, v
m t, … ho c có nh h ng n vi c s d ng ngôn ng , ví d : ch báo tu i ng i nói,
gi i tính, ho c giai t ng xã h i
2. Generative theory (n) Lí thuy t T o sinh
thu t ng ch s ki n nhi u lý thuy t ngôn ng có chung các m c tiêu (a) cung c p
m t gi i thích các c i m hình th c c a ngôn ng , t ra các qui t c gi i thích cách
thành l p t t c các câu úng ng pháp c a m t ngôn ng và không t o ra các câu phi
ng pháp (nguyên t c h p chu n mô t (descriptive adequacy)), và (b) gi i thích lí do
các ng pháp có các c i m v n có và ách tr con h c chúng trong m t th i gian
nh t nh (nguyên t c h p chu n gi i thích (explanatory adequacy)).
3. Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis
Gi thuy t Phân tích t ng ph n cho r ng c u trúc c a ngôn ng th nh t có nh
h ng n vi c th c ngôn ng th hai
4. Language Transfer (n) Chuy n di ngôn ng
Tác ng, nh h ng c a m t ngôn ng i v i vi c h!c m t ngôn ng khác.
Chuy n di tích c c (Positive Transfer): chuy n di khi n vi c h!c d" àng, thu n l i
h n (có th x y ra khi c ngôn ng b n ng l#n ngôn ng ích u có cùng m t d ng
th c). Ví d : ti ng Anh và ti ng Pháp u có t$ table v i cùng m t ngh%a trong c 2
ngôn ng . Chuy n di tiêu c c/giao thoa ngôn ng : là vi c s d ng m t mô th c hay
qui t c c a ngôn ng m& d#n n l'i hay d ng th c không thích h p ngôn ng
ích. Ví d : m t ng i Vi t h!c ti ng Anh có th t o ra m t câu không chu n
My family has 4 people thay vì ph i nói
There are 4 members/people in my family,
do chuy n di c u trúc X có Y trong ti ng Vi t Gia ình tôi có 4 ng i (My family has
4 people).
5. Proactive inhibition (n) Giao thoa ti n ch
Giao thoa do tác ng c n tr c a vi c h!c tr c ó i v i vi c h!c sau ó. Ví d :
n u m t ng i tr c ó ã h!c cách t o câu h(i s d ng o tr ng t$
(AUXILIARY VERB INVERSION, vd: I can go Can I go?) thì ki n th c này có
th can thi p vào vi c ti p thu các c u trúc không òi h(i o tr ng t$. Ng i h!c
có th vi t * I don’t know where can I find it thay vì ph i nói I don’t know where I
can find it.
6. Retroactive inhibition (n) Giao thoa h u ch
Giao thoa do tác ng c n tr c a vi c h!c sau ó i v i vi c h!c tr c ó. Ví d : tr
con h!c ti ng Anh có th h!c các d ng quá kh b t qui t c c a ng t$ nh went, saw.
Sau ó, khi chúng b t u h!c hình thái h u t quá kh qui t c – ed, chúng có th
ch m d t vi c s d ng went và saw t o ra các d ng ng t$ nh *goed and *seed.
7. Overgeneralization (n) (Overextension/Overregularization/analogy) Khái quát
hóa
Khái quát hóa là quá trình chung trong c vi c h!c ngôn ng th nh t và ngôn ng th
hai, theo ó m t ng i h!c m r ng cách dùng m t qui t c ng pháp c a m t n v
ngôn ng v t quá các cách dùng c ch p nh n. Ví d : m t a tr có th s d ng
t$ ball ch r t các v t th tròn, hay s d ng t$ mans thay vì men d ng s nhi u c a
man.
8. Eror analysis (n) Phân tích l'i
Vi c nghiên c u và phân tích l'i do ng i h!c ngôn ng th hai t o ra. Phân tích l'i
c th hi n nh m:
a. xác nh các chi n l c ng i nói s d ng trong vi c h!c ngôn ng
b. n' l c xác nh các nguyên nhân gây l'i c a ng i h!c
c. thu th p các thông tin v các khó kh)n ph bi n trong vi c h!c ngôn ng ,
v i t cách là m t s tr giúp cho gi ng d y hay chu n b cho các ng li u
gi ng d y.
Phân tích l'i c phát tri n nh m t phân ngành c a Ngôn ng h!c ng d ng vào
nh ng n)m 60 và minh ch ng cho s ki n r ng nhi u l'i c a ng i h!c không ph i do
ti ng m& c a ng i h!c mà do các chi n l c h!c nói chung. Do v y, phân tích l'i
c a ra nh m t gi i pháp kh n)ng thay th cho Phân tích t ng ph n. Ng i ta
c g ng phát tri n m t s qui lo i các ki u l'i khác nhau trên c s các quá trình khác
nhau c gi nh cho vi c lí gi i các l'i. Có s phân bi t c b n gi a l'i n i t i
(intralingual error) ngôn ng và l'i liên ngôn ng (interlingual error).
9. L i n i b ngôn ng (Intralingual errors)
Là l'i c phân thành
a) L'i khái quát hóa (overgeneralization) l'i gây ra do s m r ng các qui t c ngôn
ng ích vào các ng c nh không thích h p);
b) L'i n gi n hóa (simplification) l'i gây ra do ng i h!c t o ra các qui t c n gi n
h n qui t c có trong ngôn ng ích.
c) L'i phát tri n (developmental errors) l'i do các giai o n phát tri n t nhiên
d) L'i giao ti p (communication-based errors) l'i do các chi n l c giao ti p
e) l'i qui n p (induced errors) l'i do chuy n di ào t o/
f) L'i l ng tránh (avoidance) l'i do không s d ng c các c u trúc nh t nh ngôn
ng ích do chúng b cho là quá khó), hay
g) L'i s d ng thái quá (errors of overproduction) L'i s d ng m t s c u trúc quá
th ng xuyên
M t l'i n i ngôn ng là l'i do ch h!c m t ph n hay h!c sai ngôn ng ích, h n là do
chuy n di ngôn ng . L'i n i ngôn ng c*ng có th do nh h ng c a m t n v thu c
ngôn ng ích lên m t n v khác. Ví d : m t ng i h!c có th t o ra câu He is
comes, d a trên s tr n l#n các c u trúc ti ng Anh He is coming, He comes
10. Interlingual error (n) l i liên ngôn ng
Lo i l'i do chuy n di ngôn ng , gây ra do ti ng m& c a ng i h!c. Ví d : m t
ng i Anh h!c ti ng Pháp s+ t o ra m t l'i tr t t t$ khi nói câu:
Elle regarde les (ti ng Pháp)
She sees them (ti ng Anh)
L'i này x y ra do tr t t t$ ti ng Anh trong m t câu là S-V-O trong khi tr t t ng
pháp câu c a ti ng Pháp là S- O – V. Nh v y, câu úng ng pháp trong ti ng Pháp
ph i là: Elle les regarde thay vì Elle regarde les
11. a priori (tiên nghi m) vs. a posteriori (h u nghi m/th c ch ng)
Thu t ng a priori và a posteriori c s d ng trong tri t h!c phân bi t 2 lo i
ki n th c, minh ch ng, hay lu n c : ki n th c tiên nghi m c l%nh h i c l p v i
kinh nghi m, còn ki n th c h u nghi m c ch ng minh qua kinh nghi m.
Trong Error Analysis, a priori c dùng nh tính t$ và thu t ng “a priori
prediction” ch các tiên oán hay gi thuy t mang tính tiên nghi m (ch a c ch ng
minh), vd: các tiên oán v nh ng khó kh)n hay l'i c a sinh viên Vi t Nam khi phát
âm / / trong ti ng Anh vì trong h th ng âm ti ng Vi t không có âm này (và gi
thuy t này c n c ki m ch ng qua các nghiên c u h u nghi m). Thu t ng “a
posteriori explanation” ch s gi i thích các nguyên nhân gây ra l'i c a ng i h!c
ngo i ng d a trên vi c phân tích k t qu thu th p các d li u t$ m t nghiên c u h u
nghi m v i các b ng ch ng h u nghi m hay th c nghi m`
Summary
Unit 2 CA HYPOTHESIS & LANGUAGE TRANSFER
I. CAH:
The structure of L1 affects the acquisition of L2 (Lado, 1957; Fries 1945)
Theoretical bases:
- Structural linguistics:
Detailed descriptions of particular languages from a collection of utterances produced by
native speakers (i.e. corpus)
- Behaviourist psychology:
Habit formation by means of ‘stimulus-response-reinforcement’
New learning situations helped by means of the transfer of the old habits
II. Language Transfer
“the influence resulting from similarities and differences between the target language any
other language that has been previously (and perhaps imperfectly) acquired.” Odlin’s (1989:
27)
a) Positive Transfer (facilitation)
- similarity between L1 and L2, result in something correct.
- assist the acquisition process.
b) Negative Transfer (interference)
- dissimilarity between L1 and L2, result in something incorrect
- impede the acquisition process.
Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH)
Process:
(1) Structure by structure comparison of language systems
(2) yields similarities and differences that make it possible to
(3) predict easy and difficult areas for L2 learners.
Assumptions:
(1) Language is a habit
(2) L1 is the major source of errors in SLA
(3) Errors can be explained by the differences between L1 &L2
(4) The more L1 and L2 differ, the greater the chance for errors
(5) Learners must concentrate on differences between L1 & L2
(6) Ease or difficulty in learning correlate to the amount of differences or similarities between
L1 and L2
Three Different Versions of CAH
Strong version: Weak version: Moderate version:

ability to predict difficulty ability to explain observable categorization of abstract &
through CA error concrete patterns according
to similarities. & difficulties:
basis of learning
1. Obstacle to TL learning: 1. use "the best linguistic 1. Minimal distinction of

interference of the learner's knowledge available” to patterns in form & meaning
MT explain observable in systems may results in
difficulties confusion
2. Differences of L1&L2 2. Error: systematic & 2. Difficulty may not be due

trigger chance of error consistent & countable Error to difference
analysis
3. Systematic CA helps 3. Items similar to existing

predict the difficulties items may cause difficulty
4. Result of CA: reliable

source in preparation of
teaching materials, planning
of course, improvement of
classroom techniques
UNIT 3 TERTIUM COMPARATIONIS AND PROCEDURES OF CA
Identifying a common ground for comparison
All comparisons require that there be a common ground against which variation may be
noted, a constant that underlies and makes possible the variables that are identified; this is
known as the tertium comparationis (TC). In CA and translation, this tertium comparationis
is not readily identifiable.
I. Comparability criterion and tertium comparationis

All comparisons require that there be a common ground against which variation may
be noted, a constant that underlies and makes possible the variables that are identified; this is
known as the tertium comparationis (TC). In CA and translation, this tertium comparationis
is not readily identifiable.
Whenever we decide to contrast languages, we should first determine the criteria for
our analysis, because obviously two objects may appear similar or different, depending on the
category we choose to compare. Accordingly, two sentences may turn out to be similar or
different. These two sentences are very similar regarding the syntactic structure (S-V-A), but
different if we compare the use of the subject and verb in the framework of case grammar
where the subject in 1) is viewed as the affected participant while the subject in 2) is regarded
as the agent participant, as far as their participant or theta role is concerned.
e.g. M t con trâu bu c b i tre.
A buffalo stood by the bamboo hedge.
The criterion of our comparison may also be called tertium comparationis and is
determined by the purpose of contrasting a phenomenon in two languages. The comparability
criterion, one of the major theoretical concepts of contrastive studies, has to be established
prior to any analysis itself. Effectively, the analyst is supposed to answer the question what
can be compared in the observed languages. Traditionally, there are three main ways of
dealing with the problem of comparability. Originally, it used to be established either at the
semantic or formal/grammatical levels. The third way of establishing comparability criterion
assumes defining the relations of equivalence, similarity and difference in the observed
languages.
II. What exactly do they refer to?
The notion of equivalence was originally taken from theory of translation and it
involved the concept of translation equivalence. More specifically, equivalence in contrastive
studies assumes that there is a universal feature, a common platform of reference, tertium
comparationis, representing the starting point of any comparison. The actual realization of
that universal feature in the two languages is what the contrastivist is interested in. In other
words, equivalence is one of the key issues of contrastive analysis, and the basic working law
of the discipline can be presented graphically as a triangle, interrelating the contrasted
features in the observed languages by means of tertium comparationis (cf. Fig. 1 below;
Djordjevi 1987: 58).
C
A B
Fig. 1 Equivalence and tertium comparationis
Similarities and differences, on the other hand, are to be observed in the form,
meaning and distribution of the relevant language segments.
Tertium comparationis can be understood as common platform of reference enabling
the process of contrastive analysis. It refers to the third part of comparison. TC does not only
determine the possibility of comparison but also governs the result of comparison. Objects
can be compared via different features to yield the result that these objects are not only similar
in some respects but also different in others. For example, a square and a rectangle: they have
the same number of angles but different side lengths.
TC is different from the similarity in that TC is the basis of comparison without which
a comparison is impossible whereas similarities are just the result from the comparison. In
CA, besides similarity there may also be differences and these are two sides of CA with TC as
the common platform of reference against which differences can be stated. An emphasis on
the former or the latter depends on the purpose and objectives of the study whereas TC is
always the center of the comparison.
TC and equivalence are not equal either. The latter is a notion established on the
foundation of relations concerning with values and ability of substitution. To say A is
equivalent to B means A has the same value as B and can be used to substitute B. By
Krzeszowski “Equivalence and tertium comparationis are two sides of the same coin”. (Cited
from Bui Manh Hung 2008: 99).
In the classical period of contrastive analysis, comparability criterion involved two
basic relations, namely similarities and differences, and they were observed at three separate
levels: in form, meaning and distribution. This standpoint was originally proposed by Lado
(1957).
Following that standpoint, contrasted elements can be similar in form, but different in
meaning and distribution, etc. The introduction of the notion of contrast refined the
contrastive analytical process further, defining differences among the observed language in
more precise terms. Namely, the relation of contrast is to be seen in the so-called convergent
and divergent relations between the analyzed linguistic segments, while the relation of
difference was now observed in the so-called ‘zero relations’. Let us briefly have a closer look
at each of these notions.
Convergent relations between the observed language segments can be established in
the situation when two or more symbols in language A are confronted with only one symbol in
language B representing the same segment of reality. These relations can be observed at both
grammatical and lexical levels. Consequently, divergent relations are to be established in the
situation when one particular symbol in language A is confronted with two or more symbols
in language B representing the same segment of reality. Again, these relations can be
observed at both grammatical and lexical levels. Finally, the notion of difference in
contrastive studies is represented by ‘zero relations’ (cf. Carroll 1963). These relations can be
spotted in a situation when there is a symbol in language A labeling a certain segment of
reality and the corresponding symbol in language B cannot be found. Again, zero relations
can be observed at both grammatical and lexical levels. Fig. 2 below summarizes these basic
contrastive analytical relations fundamental in establishing the comparability criteria (cf. also
Whitman 1970; Djordjevi 1987; Kurteš 1991).
Language A Language B Type of relation

features features
Equivalence +/- +/- 1:1
Similarity +++ ++- all
Contrast ++++ ++-- all
Difference +/- -/+ 1:0/0:1
Fig. 2 Basic contrastive relations

An Encyclopaedia of The Arts Vol. 4 (9):830 - 839 (2006)
http://arts-lasu.org/publications/contents/vol4/9/kurtes.pdf
III. Types of TC
Language is a complicated system of structures consisting of various levels and
aspects. It is a sophistication of units and relations.. Thus TC in CA is said to cover equivalent
types corresponding to the comparative levels, aspects under investigation.
By Krzeszowski (1990) “2-text” in any form of text, spoken or written, in 2 languages
can be used as corpus or data for a contrastive analysis. Texts in 2 languages usually form
equivalent pairs which can be translational version to each other (2-texts [+trans] which
provides data for the qualitative contrastive studies. Besides, equivalent pairs of texts may not
be translational version to each other (2-texts [- trans]) but they must be of the same style or
genre, to mention the same topic, say the least. Texts of this type can be used for quantitative
contrastive studies.
This classification bases itself on the distinction of language and speech, which in turn
is the basis for the distinction between contrastive studies of system and those of within texts.
Typical studies within texts are qualitative studies and quantitative studies basing on the
corpus. Typical studies in systems are contrastive studies of systems, constructions, rules …
Thus, there are 7 possible types of TC corresponding to different types of CA in the scope of
texts and system.
1) Statistical equivalence:
The structures in two languages are considered equivalent in statistics if they occur as
translational version of each other with a highest frequency and/or, if compared with other
structures with the same meaning, their frequency of occurrence in the texts in question is
maximally the same or almost exactly the same. This kind of equivalence can be recognized
as 2-texts [+ trans] or 2-texts [- trans]. The structures that are equivalent in terms of statistics
are not necessarily equivalent in syntactico-semantics. Equivalence of this type functions as a
base for quantitative contrastive studies.
2) Translational equivalence:
Equivalence of this type is established depending on 2-texts [+ trans]. Such 2-texts
usually provide data for qualitative contrastive studies basing on corpus, and contrastive
studies of systems, which constitute the main bulk of contrastive studies. 2-texts which are not
translations, marked [-trans], can be used as data for quantitative contrastive studies.
3) System equivalence:
Equivalence of this type functions as basis for contrastive studies of systems. A CA of
systems must be executed on the paradigmatic axis. However, this must be done along with an
analysis on the syntagmatic axis because an analysis of a systems, say, system of pronouns,
will be impossible without dealing with the structures or constructions with the combination
of the units or members of the system in question. For the establishment of the equivalents in
Language A and Langue B, it is necessary to examine the equivalent structures in those
languages. In other words, equivalents in systems and equivalents in structures are not
separable. In reality, linguistic means called pronoun in English and those labeled i t in
Vietnamese are comparable for an assumption that given such a ‘common’ label, they can be
regarded as system equivalence. Under such an initial ‘shared umbrella’ as TC for the
establishment of the equivalents, further contrastive analysis will yield various specific details
of each system.
4) Semanto-syntactic equivalence:
Equivalence of this type lays the foundation for the contrastive studies of
constructions. By Krezeszowski, the equivalent can be determined on the similar basis of deep
structure known as semantic structure, structure as input for the grammatical derivation.
5) Rule equivalence:
Equivalence of this type functions as basis for contrastive studies of rules. Like
contrastive studies of systems, any comparison of rules cannot be divorced from an implicit
comparison of constructions on which these rules operate. By Krezeszowski, rules are
interpreted in the view of Transformation-Generative Grammar. They are rules to form Phrase
Structure Rules, Transformational Rules. When sentences undergo or experience change
according to the similar formal rules in the transformation process, they are said to have
similar rules. Most rules have a construction as the input and a construction as the output.
Therefore, semanto-syntactic equivalence also underlies rule equivalence.
6) Equivalents in objects:
These equivalences concern with objects or entities outside language, expressed by
units of phonology, vocabulary of the language in use. Equivalents of this type functions as
basis for contrastive studies of phonology and vocabulary which are done on the paradigmatic
axis at the expense of the syntagmatic axis. Krzeszowski stresses that these entities are not
simply physical entities but mental psychological image in the language user.
7) Pragmatic equivalents:
Equivalence of this type functions as basis for contrastive studies of pragmatics,
stylistics or socio-linguistics. These are relations between texts of two different languages
which illicit from the language user the maximally similar cognitive effects.
Among those TC mentioned above, formal equivalences are the least important, for an
assumption that these equivalences of means cannot be regarded as TC. By Wilems et al.
(2004) the comparison of the linguistic devices of languages is significant only if these
comparative devices or means have a function that is comparable to each other.
We can now see that tertium comparationis is in fact the reason why any two texts are
brought together as a 2-text and/or why any two items in two languages are juxtaposed for
comparison. Each type of contrastive studies has its own types of tertium comparationis.
Within each type of comparationis, it is possible to distinguish more specific subtypes,
subsubtypes, etc., unique within each type. Each type of tertium comparationis is connected
with a specific type of equivalence.
Questions:
1. In what way can similarity/difference and TC be distinguished?
2. In what way can equivalence and TC be distinguished?
3. State types of TC.
4. What can be TC in a CA of sound systems of two languages?
5. Explain this statement: “Any comparison presupposes similarity as tertium comparisonis”
(Krzesowski, 1990)
6. What is the most common type of equivalence?
7. Can we conduct a contrastive study with such as title as “A Comparison/Contrastive
Analysis of Articles in English and Vietnamese?”
If yes, please provide the reason. If no, please rephrase the title so that it can conform to the
knowledge and principle of TC.
8. What is TC in the contrastive study with the title “A contrastive analysis of Pronouns in
English vs. Vietnamese”?
Glossary:
An Encyclopaedia of The Arts Vol. 4 (9):830 - 839 (2006)
Comparability criterion: the starting point in the contrastive analytical process which
subsumes establishing what is comparable in the two languages.
Contrast: a contrastive relation referring to a relative low degree of likeness between the
analysed grammatical segments of the two languages. This is observed in the so-called
divergent and convergent relations.
Contrastive analysis: a branch of theoretical linguistics and a principle of applied linguistics
whose aim is to ascertain in which aspect the observed languages are alike and which they
differ, based on a systematic comparison of their grammatical structures.
Difference: a contrastive relation referring to the situation in which there is no corresponding
category in language B for the category found in language A. This is also known as a zero
relation.
Equivalence: a contrastive relation referring to the relative sameness in meaning.
Similarity: a contrastive relation referring to a relative high degree of likeness between the
analysed grammatical segments of the two languages.
Tertium comparationis: a common platform of reference enabling the process of contrastive
analysis. Literally, it is the “third term of a comparison”; that which remains invariant in
translation or in contrastive analysis, which forms the basis for the comparison
textual equivalence
Definition: relation that is observed to exist between an element of a source text and a
corresponding element in its translation, as accepted by a competent bilingual
Source: Catford 1965
translation equivalent
Definition: expression in a target language which can translate a source-language expression
in certain contexts
IV. Procedures of CA
Traditional contrastive methodology subsumed two basic processes – description and
comparison. Krzeszowski (1990), however, speaks about three main steps in classical
contrastive studies – description, juxtaposition and comparison.
1. Steps in Contrasting Two Language Systems
These four steps are relevant to all levels of languages structure, namely, syntax,
lexicon, phonology, pragmatics and discourse.
1) Description
The first step in executing a contrastive analysis is to provide description of the
aspects of the languages to be compared.
Description includes the selection and preliminary characterization of the items under
comparison in the framework of language- independent theoretical model.
No comparison is possible without a prior description of the elements to be compared.
Therefore, all contrastive studies must be founded on independent descriptions in that they
should be made within the same theoretical framework. It will not do to describe one
language in terms of transformational grammar and another language in terms of, say
relational grammar and then to attempt to compare them. The results of such descriptions will
be incompatible and incomparable.
Not all linguistic models are equally well suited as foundations of cross-language
comparisons. It seems that those models which make explicit references to universal
categories are more suitable than those which are connected with language isolationism,
inherent in many variants of structuralism.
The minimum requirement of ‘parallel description’ is that the two languages be
described through the same model of description. Why, we may ask, must the two
descriptions be framed in the same model? There are several reasons: First, different models
can describe certain features of language more successfully than other models/ We saw
instances of this in T-G Grammar which can effectively account for native speaker’s
intuitions that certain construction-type are somehow related (Active and Passive sentences,
for example) and that certain others are ambiguous (e.g. She’s a beautiful dancer); Case
Grammars, on the other hand, provide apparatus for explaining the semantic affinity between
a pair of sentences like
This key opens that door
and
That door opens with this key.
Now, it follows that if the ‘same data from L1 and L2 are described by two different
models, the descriptions are likely to highlight different facets of the data. When this happens,
the subsequent comparison will be unnecessarily difficult, and, what is more serious still, the
analyst will be uncertain of the status of the contrasts he identifies: are they linguistic
contrasts, in representing differences between the L1 and L2 data? Or are they reflections of
the use of two different models, i.e. description-induced rather than data-induced contrast? It
was for this reason that Harris (1963:3) insisted that comparable descriptions of two
languages will only be guaranteed if identical ‘methods’ of description are used for
description of the two: “since any differences between these descriptions will both be due to
differences in method used by the linguists, but to differences in how the language data
responded to identical methods of arrangement’.
Linguistic typology tells us that human languages fall into several types according to
which grammatical, phonological or lexical features they show preferences for. If some
models are better at describing certain features, it must follow that some models will describe
certain languages better than others. It is possible that T-GG, a product of American
Linguistics, describes English better than it describes other languages. It seems that
Applicative Generative grammar, a model devised by the Soviet linguist Shaumjan (1965) is
eminently better suited to describe Russian, a language with a complex morphology, than it is
to describe English. Obviously, distortion would result if we did a CA of Russian and English
using a model which favours one of these languages at the expense of the other: the
descriptions, while being ‘parallel’, would be unequal.
We seem to be faced by a dilemma, then. On the one hand, there, there are good
theoretical reasons for using the same model for yielding the descriptions of L1 and L2; on
the other hand there are equally cogent practical reasons why this undesirable. There would
seem to be two ways out of the dilemma: bilateral CA and unilateral CA.
i) Describe L1 and L2 data independently, using the models which yield the fulliest
descriptions of either language, and then translate these two descriptions into a form which is
model-neutral. There is a precedent for this in Translation Theory, where use is made of an
artificial ‘etalon language’ (Melchuk, 1963:62) which is a neutral intermediary between L1
and L2; in fact it is a composite of the two, or ‘supralingual, in containing the features both of
the L1 construction and of the L2 construction. Catford (1965: 39) illustrates this convention
(see page 65) in comparing an English and a Russian sentence which hare transformationally
equivalent.
Note that the English construction selects from the etalon features 1contrastive studies
3, 5 and 6, while the Russian selects 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7. These sets of features are those which
a good grammar of either language would generate all seven of.
Features in
Sentence (E) the Etalon Sentence (R)
I__________________________1 speaker _____________________________ ja
2 female
have arrived 3 arrival prishla
4 on foot
5 anterior
6 current relevance
7 completed
ii) A second solution would be to abandon the requirement that the two description
need to be equally exhaustive, or, to use Halliday’s term (1961:272) ‘delicate’. A number of
contrastivists have suggested that a CA should indeed show a descriptive imbalance, in favour
of the L2. Sciarone (1970:126) points out that “If both languages are described beforehand,
too much, ie. superfluous work is done for the sake of CA”. He suggests that less attention
needs to be paid to the L1 than to the L2, since it is the latter which must be learnt. Slama
Caxaru (1971) suggests a “procedural adjustment: of CA which she terms ‘contact analysis’:
we should be more concerned with what the learner does with the L2 than with what linguistic
knowledge (the L1) he enters the learning situation. Filipovic (1975:15) openly assert that his
CA of Serbo-Croatian (L1) and English (L2) has been descriptively biased toward the latter.
This unilateral CA is carried out with the contrasted languages that are not equal for
the execution of the contrastive techniques. The unilateral CA can be done with 2 phases:
- The first phase: Establish the subsystem for CA in Language 1.
- The second phase: List out the language means in Language 2. These language
means are used to mark or express the meanings of the factors, categories of the
subsystems in Language 1.
For example, the comparison of ‘possessive case’ in Vietnamese and English should
start with the establishment of the possessive meaning of Noun in Vietnamese in specific
instances (e.g. tình yêu c a Lan) then the CA will go on with the examination of the number
of linguistic devices to express this possessive meaning in English (e.g. by preposition of and
the suffix ‘s bearing the possessive meaning.
Thus, CA of this type is often imbalanced in its nature. In a language, the object of CA
is one linguistic form whereas in the other contrasted language, various forms have to be
listed to form a system of means to express the meaning conveyed by the only form in the
source language.
As Nguyen Van Chien (1992) has put, the unilateral CA can be beneficial to the
foreign language beginners who are typically said to express or represent his/her ideas in
mother tongue in his/her mind, and then automatically translate these ideas into the target
language.
Unilateral CA can become the most essential technique in the case where the target
language there is no equivalent subsystem to the subsystem in the source language or mother
tongue. For instance, for the CA of English and Vietnamese, the morphological category of
number can be found in the former but this category is absent in the latter.
English Vietnamese
one book∅ m t quy n sách∅
two books hai quy n sách∅
n books n quy n sách∅
a box∅ m t cái h p∅
2 boxes hai cái h p∅
Accordingly, in this case, the first step of a typical unilateral CA is:
- to describe the system of system of number of English (analyse the number meaning
of nouns in English and the suffixes denoting these plural meanings of nouns);
- to point out the linguistic means to denote the plural meaning of nouns in English in
Vietnamese (Vietnamse has at its disposal such lexical means (determiners) as
nh ng/các/m i/nhi u …). These means are counted as qualitative information).
The result from a unilateral CA based on the detailed description will help the English
learners master different ways of expressing the plural meanings of nouns in Vietnamese.
As a complementary technique to a unilateral CA, a bilateral CA can help to solve the
problems of the imbalance in the analysis of the contrasted languages. Basing on this
approach, the contrastive analysis can point out the linguistic means to denote the meanings of
category of the units in L1 by means of L2, and “simultaneously” list out the linguistic means
to express this category in L2 by means of units in L1. In fact, these are two successive phases
of a parallel CA. For in stance, a CA of the possessive case in Vietnamese and English, it is
necessary to point out the linguistic means to express the possessive meanings of nouns of
Vietnamese in English, then we have to look for the means to denote the possessive meanings
of nouns of English in Vietnamese.
With the aim of second language teaching, the description of the linguistic means to
express the categories of the mother tongue (L1) in the target language (L2) is at most
important. It is because the result of CA of this type will help the learners prevent the negative
transfer or interference in expressing the meanings of a certain category of a foreign language
with linguistic means of that language.
A bilateral CA is impossible without the balance in means or ways of expressing
categories of the linguistic units in L1 and L2: In some cases, a certain category of the
linguistic units in one of the contrasted language is expressed by the open-system of units
(lexical units) whereas the same category can be expressed by a close-system of units
(grammatical units). In other case, a certain category of the linguistic units in one of the
contrasted language is expressed by the synthetic means (affixes) whereas the same category
can be expressed by the analytic means (determiners). For example, the category of
possessive meaning in Vietnamese can be expressed by the analytic means (Tình yêu c a
Lan) whereas this meaning can be represented in English by either synthetic or analytic means
(Lan’s love; the love of Lan; the love for Lan).
This technique approaches the CA of language phenomena, facts by searching the
linguistic means to express the categories of notions in the contrasted languages.
2) Juxtaposition
Juxtaposition is a step where one decides what is to be compared with what. "The first
thing we do is make sure that we are comparing like with like.”
Juxtaposition involves a search for, and identification of cross/inter-linguistic/cultural
equivalent while the comparison proper evaluates the degree and types of correspondence
between items under the comparison.
This step is crucial in deciding what is to be compared with what. In classical
contrastive studies, this step was based on intuitive judgements of bilingual competence, i.e.
the knowledge of two languages, enables one to make decisions about whether or not element
X in one language is equivalent with element Y in another language. If the two given
elements are equivalent, they are said to be comparable. For example, anyone competent in
English and in Vietnamese intuitively knows on the basis of his “bilingual competence”, that
such ng i mà and cái mà in Vietnamese and which/who in English are equivalent, given
appropriate contexts. Likewise, “bilingual competence” manifests itself in judging the
following pair of sentences as equivalent:
(1) I want John to come.
(2) Tôi mu n John n.
Such judgments are taken for granted in classical contrastive studies, so that elements
recognized as equivalent are intuitively deemed to be comparable. One of the obvious
weakness of this approach consisted in the lack of clearly stated principles underlying
decisions about what to compare and why. Formal resemblance and semantic resemblance
were resorted to, but both, as we have seen, led to circularities: similarity was presupposed
before comparisons yielded results allowing to ascertain it. In many instances, formal
resemblance (at least at the level of surface structures) so drastically contrasts with the
disparity of meaning that comparisons based on formal criteria alone are reduced ad
absurdum. Consider one of the early examples quoted by Stockwell et al. (1965: 40):
(3) English: I said to be sure.
(4) Spanish: Dije estar seguro. ‘I said I was sure.”
Although formally very similar, (3) and (4) are semantically very different. Therefore, they
are incomparable since they do not share a semanto-syntactic tertium compartionis. This
example shows again that formal considerations alone do not suffice in establishing
comparability. Therefore, juxtapositions based on formal criteria alone, though naturally
possible, are ill-conceived and must be discarded in contrastive studies.
In classical contrastive studies, the investigator himself often acts as the bilingual
informants and decide what to compare on the basis of his own knowledge of the two
languages. Unless more criteria constraining the data are applied, such a procedure often leads
to arbitrary decisions, which seriously undermine the rigor required in scientific
investigations. Contrastive Generative Grammar attempts to make explicit “bilingual
competence”, underlying intuitive judgements of bilingual informants.
3) Comparison
In the comparison stage, the actual comparison and contrast of the two systems or sub-
systems are performed. Not always are the two steps of juxtaposition and comparison are kept
discrete.
Here again we encounter a number of theoretical problems, mainly surrounding the
issue of criteria for comparison, or the tertium comparationis. We concentrate here on how to
compare rather than on what basis to compare. Admittedly, this is a somewhat arbitrary
approach, since the ‘how’ and ‘why’ are inextricable.
We compare ‘types’ rather than ‘tokens: that is, to refer again to Catford’s example
above, we do not compare these sentences as strings of sounds or graphic substance, but their
structures. Their structures are:
Pronoun + 1st Person + Sing – Auxiliary – Past, Participle
v v
I have arrived.
Pronoun + 1st Person + Sing – Prefix+ Verb+ Perfective + Past + Feminine
v v
Ya prishla
Any structure, being idealization, represents an infinite number of possible
realizations: if the structure is a sentence, it is the basis of many utterances, as Lyons (1968)
points out. He explains the difference by reference to de Saussure’s famous distinction
between parole and langue: “Utterances stretches of the parole produced by native speakers
out of sentences generated by the system of elements and rules which constitute the langue.”
From the premise that CA compares abstract elements rather than their concrete
realizations it follows that each of its statements has very broad coverage of potential
utterances. We shall now illustrate how CA utilizes parallel description and comparison of
types in L1 and L2.
We distinguish three basic areas of comparisons:
1. Comparisons of various equivalent systems across languages, such as pronouns, articles,
verbs, and in phonology consonants, vowels, as well as subsystems, such as nasals, laterals,
etc. depending on the degree of “delicacy” of the grammar.
2. Comparisons of equivalent constructions, for example, interrogative, relative, negative,
nominal phrase, etc. and in phonology clusters, syllables, diphthongs, and various
distributions of sounds.
3. Comparisons of equivalent rules (in those models where the concept of rule appears), for
example, subject raising from the embedded sentence, adjective placement, interrogative
inversion, passivization, etc., and in phonology assimilation, dissimilation, metathesis, etc.
(cf. Sussex 1976:7 – 11).
In each area of comparison one of three possible situations may arise:
(1) XLi = XLj
when item X in Li may be identical in some respects with an equivalent item in Lj.
(2) XLi XLj
when item X in Li may be different in some respects with an equivalent item in Lj.
(3) ( XLi + - ∅Lj
when item X may be present in Li but absent in Lj.
In fact, (1) and (2) are just two facets of one possibility, for the assumption that two
linguistic phenomena supposed to be identical in some aspects can possibly be different in
some others, and vice versa. This is necessary because as in (1), the contrastivist may consider
the similarities of the two phenomena compared more important. As for (2) the differences are
said to be more important. It is implied that in (1), (2) and (3) there is no case for the systems,
constructions or rules to be completely similar in the two languages compared. In Russian and
French it is noted that gender is a grammatical category to mark the subtypes of nouns.
However, a close examination of the nouns in the two languages still shows the detailed
differences: the category of gender in Russian is established with a three-way distinction
masculine-feminine-neuter whereas the category of gender in French can be characterized
with a two-way contrast masculine-feminine.
In respect of the specification and the ‘inclusiveness of reference’ (Hawkins), the
article ‘các’ of Vietnamese is said to be similar to ‘the’ of English, as in
a) Please remove the books from the table.
b) Please remove some books from the table. (Dik 1989)
in a) ‘the books’ can be interpreted as all the books on the table whereas in b) ‘some books’
refers to not all the books on the table. Similarly, in Vietnamese, a noun phrase with ‘các’ is
presupposed to refer to all the individuals mentioned by the noun without any exclusion of
any other individual as compared with a noun phrase with ‘m t s /nh ng’, as in
a) Các sinh viên ã có m t.
b) Nh ng sinh viên ã có m t.
c) M t s sinh viên ã có m t.
However, there is a difference in the function of marking and collocation between
‘các’ and ‘the’: the former is restricted to the marking of plurality of a noun and it cannot
combine freely with any noun whereas the latter can be neuter in number and is free in
combining with nouns. (Bùi M nh Hùng, 2000).
In reality, there may be a possible situation as (3) where the equivalent of X in L1
cannot be found in L2. However, the so-called absence of the equivalent of X can be
interpreted in different ways; accordingly the next steps of contrastive analysis can be
executed or not. Two possible situations can be mentioned here:
3a) When X in Li is a phonological means or morphological means and does not indicate any
meaning in Lj, and
3b) When X in Li is a linguistic means bearing meaning which is said to be universal or at
least present in Lj.
In the situation 3a) the so-called no equivalent can be interpreted as transparent as it
may mean. For example, the presence of tone in Vietnamese and the absence of this prosodic
means in English.
On the other hand, the contrastive analysis can be conducted where X is a unit bearing
meaning in Li, as mentioned in 3b) though it is absent in Lj. For example, in contrasting
English and Vietnamese in the respect of tense which is present in the former but absent in the
latter, the researcher has to point out that while English makes use different forms of tense to
mark the time, Vietnamese may make use of other means to fulfill the same function.
Further Reading (Cited from Bui Manh Hung (2008)

Basic approaches in contrastive analysis in languages
We can execute a bi-lateral or unilateral contrastive analysis depending on the purpose
and task of our research study.
A bilateral or multi-lateral contrastive study examines the comparable phenomenon in
two or more languages in an inter-relation on a common platform for contrast, depending on a
specific TC. First, we select a TC and determine the linguistic means which belong to the
category in the languages compared. For this procedure, we have to answer which means are
available in Li and Lj to indicate or belong to the category selected as TC.
Due to the lack of explicitly stated comparationis expressed in some universal terms
(such as a semantic representation of the compared items), typical classical contrastive studies
were directional: depending on the aims of a particular contrastive analysis, one could start
with a description of linguistic forms in L1 and match them for comparison with equivalent
items in L2 and look for their equivalents in L1. Presumably an exhaustive contrastive study
concerning the entire grammars of both languages has to be bi-directional. Typical directional
contrastive studies would bear such titles as {system X/Construction Y} in Li and its/their
equivalents in Lj, for example, “English modal auxiliaries and their equivalent constructions
in Polish” …
Establishing semantic tertium comparationis creates the possibility of adopting an
alternative approach, which consists in selecting a concept and examining the ways in which
it is realized through various grammatical means in comparative languages. Typically, such
contrastive studies have the titles of the form Ways of expressing a category X in L1 and L2.
For example, “The expression of future in English and Serbo-Croatian” (Kalogjera 1971),
“Ways of expressing cause in English and Polish” (Danilewicz 1982) or “Directives in
English and Finnish” Markanen 1985).
In bilateral CA, in the scope of tertium comparationis we should deal with one or
some specific meanings. The other meanings that do not fall within the scope of TC in
question will not be mentioned. For example, a study of the linguistic devices to denote the
specification of noun with articles should be restricted to this function of the articles,
accordingly the other functions, if there are any, such as the distinction of gender, number and
substantivisation will not be dealt with.
The so-called bilateral CA is not due the fact that the execution of the contrastive
analysis is done starting from language A then with Language B, and vice versa. In fact, the
bi-lateral CA examines the linguistic devices in 2 comparative languages, then analyses the
similarities and differences in these two languages on the presupposition that neither of them
is considered the source or target language. This is illustrated in the diagram below:
Language A TC Language B
X1
X1
X2
X2
X3
X3
X4
(Adapted from Sternemann et al. 1989, cited from Bui Manh Hung, )
According to the diagram, TC has 4 linguistic devices or means in Language A and 3
in Language B. The diagram shows the relations of convergence or divergence of the
linguistic means in the two languages with the crossing lines linking X1, X2, X3, X4 of
Language A and X1, X2, X3 of Language B. The vertical lines represent the contrast of the
linguistic means within each language.
On the other hand, unilateral CA just examines the meanings of a certain linguistic
means or form in Li and identifies or determines the means that represent the equivalent
meanings in Lj. The CA can be executed with a description of the linguistic forms in Li first,
and then contrasts these with the equivalents in Lj, or vice versa.
This approach is considered unilateral because the contrastivist has to select one
language as the source language and the other as target language. The selection depends on
the aim and purpose of the study. This is illustrated in the diagram below:
X
(in Language A)
meanings
(of X)
Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5
(in Language B)
(Adapted from Bui Manh Hung, 2008:162)
The diagram shows that the form X in Language A denotes various meanings, and Language
B makes use of 5 different means to denote these meanings.
In CA with this approach, when Language A is selected as the source language, the
result of CA should be presented with the reference of the similarities and differences in the
priority of Language A, i.e. we should say Language B is similar or different from Language
A in terms of a certain aspect, but not Language A is similar or different from Language B.
On the other hand, in bi-lateral CA, we can present the result of CA by referring to the
similarities and differences in terms of a certain aspect in expressing a TC, i.e. we can say
Language A and Language B are similar or different in terms of a certain aspect.
Typically, unilateral contrastive studies have the titles of the form System X/
Construction Y in Language A and the equivalent system/constructions in Language B. For
example, Tag-Questions in English and the Equivalent structures in Vietnamese, the Passive
sentences in English and the equivalent structures in Vietnamese …
As Bui Manh Hung (2008) states, in bi-lateral CA, we cannot carry out such a study as
‘A Study of the consonant systems in English and the equivalents in Vietnamese’ because we
cannot describe the English system of consonants and then base on the equivalents of these
English consonants in terms of functions to establish and contrast the equivalents in
Vietnamese with English consonants. A TC such as Consonantal Systems should be
established as first place for a bi-lateral CA.
The execution of CA in the bi-lateral or unilateral approach is supposed to yield
different results, accordingly we can select a CA with one of these approaches depending on
the aim and problems under investigation. A bi-lateral CA of adverbs in 2 languages such as
English and Vietnamese (given that Vietnamese has adverbs) will be formulated with the title
like “Adverbs in English and Vietnamese”. Then TC is established within the scope of
adverbs. A typical unilateral CA of English and Vietnamese will have the title “Vietnamese
adverbs and the equivalent construction/patterns in English”.
If a bi-lateral CA is executed, as in the study of adverbs as mentioned above, all the
patterns identified as adverbs in the two languages will fall within the scope of description
and comparison. On the other hand, if a unilateral CA is executed with the study of adverbs,
the scope of description and comparison will cover all the constructions or patterns that are
identified as adverbs in Vietnamese and the equivalents in English.
Modern contrastive analysis introduces some methodological innovations into its
analytical framework (Chesterman 1998), essentially drawing from Popper’s view expressed
in his philosophy of science (Popper 1972). According to this view, objective knowledge is
gained through an endless process of problem solving, basically consisting of suggesting,
testing and refuting initial hypotheses, which are revised and tested again, etc. Following this
line of argument, a new methodological framework is proposed, its main stages being the
following:
1) Collecting primary data against which hypotheses are to be tested. Primary data
involve all instances of language use, utterances that speakers of the languages in
question produce.
2) Establishing comparability criterion based on a perceived similarity of any kind.
3) Defining the nature of similarity and formulating the initial hypothesis.
4) Hypothesis testing: determining the conditions under which the initial hypothesis
can be accepted or rejected. This process will normally include selection of a
theoretical framework, selection of primary and additional data and use of corpora,
appeal to one’s own intuition or other bilingual informants, even the results of error
analysis of non-native usage.
5) Formulating the revised hypothesis.
6) Testing of the revised hypothesis, and so on.
These contrastive formulations can be successfully tested by finding them in a corpus
or checking the behaviour of speakers. The real task for the contrastivist is to specify the
conditions under which the formulations are valid, which is essentially in traditional
contrastive studies known as the contrastive rule. Depending on the comparability criterion,
these conditions can be syntactic, semantic, pragmatic, stylistic, contextual, etc. (Chesterman
1998).
4) Prediction
Under the influence of the mother tongue the differences are transferred into the
learner's language – i.e., interlanguage – hence, interference is created in certain deviant
structures that are expected to be generated.
This expectation is called prediction. But how do these deviant forms present
themselves? The general assumption is that deviant structures reflect the structure of the
mother tongue.
Lado (1057) states that “The plant of this book rests on the assumption that we can
predict and describe the patterns [of L2] that will cause difficulty in learning and those that
will not cause difficulty”. Odler (1971: 79) again speaks of CA as “… a device for predicting
points of difficulty and some of the errors that learners will make”. By Carl James (145) there
seems then to be three things that a CA can predict – in the sense of ‘pre-identify’ – what
aspects will cause problems; or it can predict difficulty; or it can predict error, and in his view
there is a suggested fourth possibility: of CA predicting the tenacity of certain errors, that is,
their strong resistance to extinction through time and teaching.
However, the phrase “Prediction of errors” may be ambiguous because it may mean
that there will be error or prediction of the form of that error. Obviously, to claim that CAs
have predictive capacity of the second kind would, given the present ‘state of the art’, be quite
presumptuous. According to James (1980:146), rather than risk making wrong predictions
about the form of errors, contrastivists have more cautiously made predictions of an either/or
type: learners with a certain L1 leaning this L2 will produce either x or y or y types of errors.
There are, of course, purely quantitative limitations on the numbers of learner errors
that CAs can predict, limitations stemming from the fact that not all errors of L1 interference,
i.e. interlingual errors. Other major sources of errors have recognized (Selinker, 1972;
Richards, 1974) which are of a ‘non-contrastive’ origin. These include:
- the effects of target-language asymmetries (intralingual errors);
- transfer of training;
- strategies of L2 learning; and
- communication strategies
Given that a CA predicts “behaviour that is likely to occur with greater than random
frequency” (Lado, 1968:125) about 60% of the third to half of all errors, it will not try or
claim to predict the other 70 to 80%. One must be careful not to exaggerate the claims made
on behalf of CA. (James: 146).
There is a further aspect of their predictive capacity that is of great pedagogical
relevance: this is their alleged capacity to predict a scale of incremental difficulty. If this scale
can be validated, it will have powerful implication for pedagogic Grading and for Evaluation
(Testing).
Scale of Difficulty
The most well-known hierarchy of FL learning difficulty is that proposed by
Stockwell & Bowen (1965) for phonology, and again, with certain elaborations by Stockwell,
Bowen & Martin (1965). Attempts to design scales for the level of vocabulary are those of
Higa (1965) and Rodgers (1969). The Stockwell et al. Scale based on the conditions the
notions of positive and negative transfer potential, and conditions for such transfers are
assumed to be statable in terms of the relations holding between matched rules of L1 and L2
(cf. p.172). There are three possible interlingual rule relationships:
a) L1 has a rule and L2 an equivalent one.
b) L1 has a rule but L2 has no equivalent.
c) L2 has a rule but L1 has no equivalent.
The second step is to identify the types of choices that either language makes
available, and relating these choices. There are three types of choice: optional, obligatory and
zero (∅).
Hierarchy of Difficulty:
Optional choice: possible selection among phonemes, e.g. English can have /p/ or /b/ word
initially
Obligatory choice: the selection of conditioned allophones and the limitations in
distribution of phonemes:
- English word initial /p/ must be aspirated
- /s/ but not /z/ and before /m/ at the beginning of a word /z/
- distribution of / / or / /
Zero choice: existence of a certain sound in one language that has no counterpart in
another language, e.g. Vietnamese has no counterpart for / / in English.
An optional phonological choice “refers to the possible selection among phonemes”:
one is free, in English and German, to choose either / / or / /, etc. in word-initial position, to
say (English) show/so, (German) Schau/Sau. Russian allows the free choice of either on …..
or …..to express future reference. An obligatory phonological choice involves little freedom,
since phonetic context determines which of a set of allophones is required to represent freely
selected phonemes: thus /l/ and / / are optional choices in Russian while [ ] and [ ] as
realizations of / / are each obligatory choices in English.
These different availabilities of choice in L1 and L2 allow eight kinds of relationship
between the two languages: the result is an eight-point hierarchy of difficulty, which is
simplified to a scale of three orders of difficulty by coalescing 123(I), 456(II) and 78(III):
Order of Difficulty Comparison of Choice Type
Most L1 L2
1 ………. ∅ Ob
I 2 ………. ∅ Op
3 ………. Op Ob
4 ………. Ob Op
II 5 ………. Ob ∅
6 ………. Op ∅
7 ………. Op Op
III
8 ………. Ob Ob
Least
Note: Op = Optional; Ob = Obligatory
About the Hierarchy:
- Does it make predictions?
- Are these predictions testable?
- How can they be tested? Error counts? Production tests, perception tests?
- Originally developed as a guide to curriculum development
How are counterparts determined? Same phonetic symbol? Same grammatical
category? Same translated meaning. An important ingredient of the teacher’s role as monitor
and assessor for the learner’s performance is to know why certain errors are committed. It is
on the vais of such diagnostic knowledge that the teacher organizes feedback to the learner
and remedial work. Even the learner should know why he has committed errors if he is to
self-monitor and avoid these errors in the future.
Wardhaugh (1970) suggested that the CA hypothesis is only tenable in its ‘weak’ or
diagnostic function, and not tenable as a predictor of error: “The weak version requires of the
linguist only that he use the best linguistic knowledge available to him in order to account for
observed difficulties in second language learning” (Wardhaugh, op. cit.:126) and “reference is
made to the two systems (L1 and L2) only in order to explain actually observed interference
phenomena” (ibid.: 127). Since there are very few published CAs of such on-the-spot ad-hoc
mini CAs anyway. The purpose of doing them is to see if a particular attested error is
explicable in terms of L1 interference. If no L1 structure can be found that the structure of the
errors seems to be a reflection of, then we have to start the long job of finding some cause -
other than L1 transfer. One is certainly given an illuminated short-cut when the L1 suggests
the obvious source of the error.
5) Testing
One of the requirements of a good language test is that it should have validity: it
should be a true measure of the student’s command of the language he has been taught. The
most valid test therefore would be one that was comprehensible, i.e. it would test everything
that has been taught. For obvious reason such a test would be impracticable to administer to
students after their first week or two of instruction. Therefore we must attempt to achieve test
validity by testing a representative sample of the student’s repertoire. This is where CA has a
part to play, and Lado (1961) based his theory of testing to a considerable extent of CA.
Testing experts since Lado have endorsed his approach: “If a test is constructed for a single
group of students with identical language background and identical exposure to the target
language then contrastive analysis is essential” (Davies, 1968: 12).
CA will have two roles to play in testing. First, since sampling is required, it will carry
suggestions about what to test, and to what degree to test different L2 items. If items
isomorphic in L1 and L2 are assumed to be easy for the learner, they can be bypassed in the
test. It will be more informative for the tester to test only the learning problems predicted by
the CA. As for the degree to which to test, it depends on the level of the learner, but a test for
the intermediate student that is CA-based should contain more items of, say, difficulty levels
4,5 and 6 on the Stockwell , Bowen Scale (q.v.) than items of difficulty levels 1 and 2.
Turning to the matter of how to test, if a multiple-choice type of objectives test is
being constructed, a CA of L1 and L2 will suggest the types of distracters to use: as Harris
says: “The most effective distracters in a test item will be those which evoke first-language
responses from those subjects who have not fully mastered the very different patterns of the
target language” (Harris, 1968: 39). For example, since Vietnamese has no participle form
corresponding to English participle form of adjective ‘boring’, expressing inherent
characteristic of an entity but uses the same form ‘bored’ (for person) in such cases, the
Vietnamese will tend to say the erroneous:
* The film was very bored
for the intended
The film was very boring.
corresponding to Vietnamese
Cu n phim này th t chán.
Therefore a discrete-point test of the English participle forms of adjectives for Vietnamese
learners ought to contain at least one distracter evoking * Ving, Ved forms. It is less obvious
how CA predictions might inform the writer of the ‘integrative’ test that are in vogue today:
cloze tests and noise tests for example; but it is not inconceivable that a cloze test could be
designed in which only those elements of the L2 test are deleted which are predictably
difficult for learners of a given L1 to operate: for instance, deleting the articles in an English
test for learners whose L2 is Vietnamese or Chinese.
Further Reading
It is reported that different things are not always the most difficult ones. Students'
perception of difficulty does not always correlate with CA predictions.
That is why the framework of CA we have been explaining and that we will be using
is called the Strong Version of Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis. This is a version in which
practically most, contrastive analysis activities are performed.
Two other versions, namely weak and moderate, are named in the literature which are
not well cultivated yet.
The strong version of CA holds that the degree of difficulty correlates with the
intensity of differences between the two structures in L1 and L2. However, the moderate
version claims that minimally distinct structures are more problematic for learners.
Procedures of CAH
Whitman (1970: 191) breaks the contrastive analysis down to a set of component
procedures. The four steps are (1) taking the two languages, LI and L2, and writing formal
descriptions of them (or choosing descriptions of them), (2) picking forms from the
descriptions for contrast, (3) making a contrast of the forms chosen, and (4) making a
prediction of difficulty through the contrast. Here, the term "form" refers to any linguistic unit
of any size. To describe the prediction stage, Stockwell et al. (1965) propose a "hierarchy of
difficulty" based on the notions of transfer (positive, negative, and zero) and of optional and
obligatory choices of certain phonemes in the two languages in contrast. When the structures
of the given two languages are similar, positive transfer will occur while with those that are
different, a negative transfer will take place. Where there is no relation between those
structures of the two languages, zero transfer will occur. When an English speaker selects a
word among phonemes /p/ or /b/, an optional choice occurs. On the other hand, when he has
/p/ at the beginning of a word, he should choose the aspirated allophone [ph] in that
environment, which is called an obligatory choice. Stockwell et al. used the following criteria
to establish the "preferred pedagogical sequence":
(1) Hierarchy of difficulty
(2) Functional load
(3) potential mishearing
(4) pattern congruity.
Hammerly (1982 : 26) described as "adequate" the a priori hierarchy of difficulty by
Bowen et al. in representing initial difficulty with a second language sound system. He
proposed his own hierarchy that represents the hierarchy of difficulty in terms of the
persistence of pronunciation errors after considerable instruction. His hierarchy is classified
into forty-five items by mean error.
Hierarchy of difficulty (after Prator)
Fries noted that L1 and L2 learning are very different tasks, new set of habits against a
background of old habits, as opposed to no habits at all. Lado held that similar structures will
transfer easily and different structures will cause interference.
Assumptions of CA Language is a habit Major source of L2 error is L1 The greater the
number of differences, the greater interference and learning difficulty L2 involves learning the
differences
The following hierarchy of difficulty is not necessarily predictive of difficulty, which
calls into question the entire theory of contrastive analysis. The problem with the theory is
that similar structures may often prove more difficult to acquire, since the differences are
difficult to perceive. A common Spanish-English contrast is aplicación, which means
'diligence,' and not application. These kinds of close correspondences cause many problems
for students.
Despite the problems with CA theory, the categories identified are found useful by
teachers and students alike. The teacher can use these categories to organize the material to be
taught into logically arranged groupings.
Level 0 Transfer No contrast between the languages: mortal > mortal

(sometimes called ‘correspondence’)
Level 1 Coalescence Two items in L1 become one item in L2:
his/her/your/their > su
Level 2 Underdifferentiation Item in L1 is absent in L2: do > 0 in negatives and
interrogatives) (sometimes called ‘absence’)
Level 3 Reinterpretation Item in L1 used differently in L2: He's a teacher > Es
maestro.
Level 4 Overdifferentiation Item not in L1 must be learned for L2: in Spanish, gender
of nouns (sometimes called ‘new category’)
Level 5 Split The opposite of coalescence, item in L1 becomes two in
L2: know > saber/conocer; to be > ser/estar; to ask for >
preguntar por/pedir (also called ‘differentiation’)
Summary
Unit 3 TERTIUM COMPARATIONIS & PROCEDURES OF CA
I. Comparability criterion and tertium comparationis (TC)

Tertium comparationis:
- a common platform of reference enabling the process of contrastive analysis
- “third term of a comparison”
C
A B
- remains invariant in translation or in CA which forms the basis for the comparison
II. Equivalence:
A contrastive relation referring to the relative sameness in meaning
E.g. Objects can be compared via different features -> similar in some respects but
different in others
– A square & a rectangle:
• Same number of angles;
• Different side lengths
– Box A & Box B: Volume (A > B); Weight (B < A)
Joseph Vendryes:
- under the variety, languages share common attributes -> Foundation for general linguistics
James (1980):
- Translation equivalence is the best TC for CA
- Translation equivalence = semantic equivalence + pragmatic equivalence (contextual
equivalence)
- Formal equivalence is incomplete for CA
TC at different levels of linguistics:
• Phonetics & phonology:
TC: The issues of Position/Manner articulation; Suprasegmental units; distinctive features can
be discussed in both English and Vietnamese
E.g. /p/ & /b/ in English vs. Vietnamese in terms of the aspects mentioned above.
• Lexis:
TC: The issues of mental images in the surrounding world can be discussed in both English
and Vietnamese
E.g. words naming colours in English vs. Vietnamese
• Grammar:
TC: Both English and Vietnamese have corresponding structures & meaning in some aspects
E.g. Existential sentence in English vs. Vietnamese
• Pragmatics:
TC: Both English and Vietnamese share some corresponding language functions
E.g. act of greeting in English vs. Vietnamese
III. Types of TC
2-texts [+/-trans]: data collected as corpus for CA
- 2-texts [+trans]: texts that are translatable
- 2-texts [-trans]: texts that are untranslatable
1) Statistical equivalence (for quantitative Contrastive Studies (CSs))
- Translational version of structures in L1 & L2 with a highest frequency
- Semantic/pragmatic equivalent with almost the same frequency
- 2-texts [+trans]: data for qualitative
- 2-texts [-trans]: data for qualitative CS (Contrastive Studies)
3) System equivalence (for CS of systems):
- Equivalent established on paradigmatic + syntagmatic axis
- Examine members of system + their collocation
4) Semanto-syntactic equivalence (for CS of construction):
- On the similar basis of deep structure as semantic structure, as input for the
grammatical derivation
5) Rule equivalence (for CS of rules):
- Based on comparison of constructions on which these rules operate
- Interpreted in the view of Transformation-Generative Grammar: Phrase Structure
Rules, Transformational Rules, e.g. input & output of Wh-question vs. Vietnamese
equivalents
- Objects or entities outside language expressed by vocabulary in L1 & L2, e.g. foods,
festivals in English culture vs. Vietnamese
7) Pragmatic equivalents (for CS of pragmatics, stylistics or socio-linguistics):
- Relations between texts of two different languages which illicit from the language
user the maximally similar cognitive effects:
+ Functions of a unit, construction, structure
+ How these linguistic devices behave in speech acts in each speech community
- Formal equivalences are the least important
- Comparative devices of languages: significant only if they have a function that is
comparable to each other
4 Steps in Contrasting Two Language Systems
Description Juxtaposition Comparison Prediction
1. Description:
• Selection & preliminary characterization of items under comparison
• Conducted within the same framework of language- independent theoretical model
• 2 approach for description of CA: bilateral/unilateral CA
+ Bilateral CA:
Describe L1 and L2 data independently
Use etalon language form which is model-neutral
Features of
completed
relevance
anterior
On foot
speaker
Current
Etalon lang.
female
arrival
Language CA
Sentence (E) + - + - + + -
I have arrived
Sentence (R) + + + + - + +
Ja prishla
Unfavorable points of bilateral CA:

- No need for the description of L1 & L2 to be equally exhaustive
- Too much work is done for comparison
- impossible without the balance in means or ways of expressing categories of the
linguistic units in L1 and L2
E.g. Intonation: [+] in English but [-] in Vietnamese
- A descriptive imbalance, in favour of the L2
- More concerned with what the learner does with the L2
The unilateral CA can be done with 2 phases:
- The first phase:
Establish the subsystem for CA in Language 1
E.g. possessive category in Vietnamese “tình yêu c a Lan”
- The second phase:
List out the language means in Language 2
E.g. Vietnamese English
The love of Lan
tình yêu c a Lan
Lan’s love
2. Juxtaposition
- decides what is to be compared with what, like with like
- identification of cross/inter-linguistic/cultural equivalent
- bilingual competence, enables one to make decisions about the equivalence of
element X & element Y in L1 & L2 respectively X &Y: comparable
E.g.
Language for CA Vietnamese English
Sentences to be Vì th mà bát cháo hành c a th N This onion soup offered by Thi No

juxtaposed làm h n suy ngh nhi u. made him think much.
- formal considerations alone do not suffice in establishing comparability or TC

E.g.
Sentences to be Tôi thích th t ngu i. I like the meat cold.

juxtaposed
3. Comparison
- compare ‘types’ rather than ‘tokens, i.e. not strings of sounds/graphic substance but their
structures
E.g.
I have arrived.
Ya prishla
CA compares abstract elements rather than their concrete realizations

Three basic areas of comparisons:
CA of various equivalent CA of equivalent CA of equivalent rules

systems across languages constructions
( pronouns, articles, verbs, (interrogative, negative, (subject raising, adjective

and in phonology consonants, nominal phrase…); in placement, interrogative
vowels); subsystems (nasals, phonology (sound clusters, inversion, passivization), in
laterals) syllables, diphthongs, & phonology (assimilation,
distributions of sounds dissimilation, metathesis
Possible situations in each area of comparison:

(1) XLi = XLj
• Similarities of the two phenomena compared more important
(2) XLi XLj
• Differences are said to be more important
(3) XLi + - ∅Lj
Xli has no equivalent in Ylj, e.g. Tone in Vietnamese
4. Prediction
From assumptions of differences of L1 & L2, hypotheses/predictions are made about learner’s
transfer of habit of mother tongue into the use of target language:
• Interference is created in certain deviant structures
• CA power: prediction of errors
- from influence of mother tongue
- the effects of target-language asymmetries;
Pedagogical relevance of predictive capacity: to predict a scale of incremental difficulty

Three possible interlingual rule relationships based on positive and negative transfer potential:
• L1 has a rule and L2 an equivalent one.
• L1 has a rule but L2 has no equivalent.
Three types of choice in the Hierarchy of Difficulty:
The contrastivists identify the types of choices that either language makes available, and
relating these choices
1. Optional choice:
Possible selection among phonemes, e.g. English can have /p/ or /b/ word initially
2. Obligatory choice:
The selection of conditioned allophones and the limitations in distribution of
phonemes:
- English word initial /p/ must be aspirated, e.g. pin [ ] pin
- distribution of /n/ or / /, e.g. / / is restricted to the final position of the syllable in
English, as compared with both initial and final position in Vietnamese, e.g. / /sing
(English); / nga ngang (Vietnamese)
3. Zero choice:
Existence of a certain sound in one language that has no counterpart in another
language, e.g. Vietnamese has no counterpart for / / in English.
Words & Expressions
1. Comparability criterion (n) Tiêu chí i sánh

i m xu t phát trong quá trình phân tích i chi u bao g m c vi c xác l p nh ng y u
t có th so sánh c trong các ngôn ng , vd: có th so sánh ph âm /p/ c a ti ng
Vi t v i ph âm /p/ c a ti ng Anh, c n ph i xác l p tiêu chí so sánh trên bình di n c u
t o âm (place of articulation); cách th c phát âm/ thoát h i (manner of articulation) và
thanh tính (voicing)
2. Contrast (n) i l p/t ng ph n
M t quan h ch m c gi ng nhau t ng i th p gi a các n v ng pháp c
phân tích c a 2 ngôn ng . M c này c quan sát theo các quan h h i nh p
(convergence) và phân ly (divergence)
3. Difference (n) D bi t
M t quan h ch tình hu ng không có m t ph m trù t ng ng ngôn ng B i v i
ph m trù c tìm th y ngôn ng A. Quan h này c g i là quan h zero, vd:
Tone + Ø
4. Equivalence quan h t ng ng
M t quan h i chi u ch s gi ng nhau t ng i v ng ngh a
5. Similarity (n) T ng ng
M t quan h ch m t m c gi ng nhau t ng i cao gi a các n v ng pháp c
phân tích c a 2 ngôn ng .
6. Tertium comparationis (n) C s so sánh
M t n n t ng chung c a s qui chi u cho phép phân tích i chi u. Theo ngh a en,
ây là “y u t th 3 c a m t s so sánh”, và y u t này không thay !i trong khi d ch hay
trong phân tích i chi u, làm c s cho s so sánh.
Theo Wikipedia, ây là thu c tính/ph"m ch t c a 2 s v t c so sánh có i m
chung. ây là i m so sánh g i ý cho tác gi c a s so sánh khi so sánh m t ng #i hay
v t v i m t ng #i hay m t v t khác. Hai s v t c so sánh không nh t thi t ph i ng
nh t/gi ng y nhau. Tuy nhiên hai s v t này ph i có it nh t m t thu c tính hay ph"m ch t
chung. Ph"m ch t chung này c g i là c s so sánh hay thu c tính c so sánh
(tertium comparationis)
Theo phép "n d , tertium comparationis là c s hay i m chung cho phép so sánh,
vd:
• Necessity is the mother of invention. (English proverb)
• Tính c n thi t là m$ c a phát minh.
• it ng so sánh: quan h gi a m$ và con, quan h gi a tính c n thi t và phát minh
• C s so sánh (Tertium comparationis): ngu n, n i m t s v t nào ó phái sinh
• Woman is the nigger of the world. (John Lennon)
• Ph n là ng #i da màu c a th gi i.
• i t ng so sánh: s i x% c a v&n hóa M' v i ng #i da en, s i x% c a v&n hóa
toàn c u i v i ph n
• C s so sánh (Tertium comparationis):s i x phi nhân, s áp b c
7. Textual equivalence (n) T ng ng v n b n
Quan h t n t i gi a m t y u t c a v&n b n g c và m t y u t t ng ng b n d ch,
c ch p nh n b i m t ng #i có kh n&ng song ng
22. Translation equivalent (n) T ng ng i d ch
Di(n t ngôn ng ích (Target languge) dùng d ch m t di(n t ngôn ng
ngu n (Source language) trong m t s ng c nh nh t nh. Thu t ng này còn ch m c
mà các n v ngôn ng (vd: t), c u trúc cú pháp) có th c d ch sang m t ngôn ng
khác mà không th t thoát ý ngh a. Hai n v ngôn ng có cùng ng ngh a trong 2 ngôn
ng c cho là các i d ch hay t ng ng i d ch.
23. Corpus (n) s nhi u corpora Kh i ng li u
Kh i ng li u ( c thu th p nghiên c u phân tích, c th là phân tích i chi u)
24. 2-texts [+/-trans] kh i ng li u c u thành t 2 v n b n (có th /không th d ch)
Kh i ng li u c xây d ng t) 2 v&n b n dùng phân tích i chi u, có th d ch
ho c không th d ch
25. Quantitative Contrastive Studies (CSs)) Các nghiên c u i chi u nh l ng
Theo ngh a h$p, là b t k* nghiên c u có s% d ng qui trình thao tác thu th p d li u
d i d ng s . R ng h n, thu t ng này còn ch ph ng pháp v i m c ích gi i thích quan
h nhân qu c a hi n t ng c quan sát qua vi c xác nh các bi n s d c s% d ng làm
c s cho vi c i u tra th c nghi m
26. Qualitative Contrastive Studies (CS) Các nghiên c u i chi u nh tính
Theo ngh a h$p, là b t k* nghiên c u có s% d ng qui trình thao tác thu th p d li u
không ph i d i d ng s , nh trong các nghiên c u ph+ng v n, quan sát di(n ti n phát
tri n c a cùng m t i t ng, tham gia quan sát
27. paradigm1 (n) paradigmatic adj h hình
M t danh sách/t p h p hay bi u th c ch các d ng c a m t t) trong m t h th ng ng
pháp. Ví d , trong ti ng Anh:
singular plural
boy - boys
boy’s - boys’
(of the boy) (of the boys)
H hình c,ng có th c dùng ch các d ng khác nhau c a m t t). Ví d , trong ti ng
Pháp:
singular plural
je parle “I speak” nous parlons “we speak”
tu parles “you speak” vous parlez “you speak”
il parle “he speaks” ils parlent “they speak”
elle parle “she speaks” elles parlent “they speak”
M c dù h hình th #ng ch các bi n d ng c a m t t), ôi khi thu t ng này c,ng dùng
ch các t) phái sinh c t o ra t) m t t) g c (nh ví d d i ây m c syntagmatic
relations & paradignmatic relations)
28. Syntagmatic relations (n) Quan h cú o n (k t h p) paradigmatic relations (n)

quan h h hình/liên t ng/t v
Quan h cú o n là quan h theo ó các n v ngôn ng (vd, t), m nh (cú)) quan h
v i các n v khác b i chúng có th cùng xu t hi n trong m t chu-i. Ví d : m t t) có th
c cho là có quan h cú o n v i các t) khác xu t hi n trong cùng m t câu, nh ng
chúng l i có quan h h hình v i các t) có th thay th chúng trong cùng m t câu.
Ví d :
I gave Tracy the book
passed = syntagmatic relations
handed
= paradigmatic relations
Threw
paradigmatic axis Tr c h hình
syntagmatic axis Tr c cú o n
passed
I gave Tracy the book
syntagmatic axis
Paradigmatic axis
handed
threw
29. Generative grammar (n) Ng pháp T o sinh

H th ng ng pháp nh.m xác nh và mô t v i m t h th ng các qui t/c hay nguyên lí t t
c các câu ÚNG NG0 PHÁP c a m t ngôn ng và không mô t các câu sai ng pháp.
Ki u ng pháp t o sinh hay s n sinh các câu úng ng pháp. (Xem lý thuy t T o sinh)
30. Generative theory (n) Lý thuy t T o sinh
Thu t ng bao g m các li thuy t ngôn ng khác nhau v i m t m t m c ích chung (a)
cung c p s lí gi i các c i m hình th c c a ngôn ng , xác nh các qui t/c thuy t gi i
cách th c t o thành các các câu úng ng pháp c a m t ngôn ng và không mô t các câu
sai ng pháp (theo nguyên t/c phù h p miêu t Descriptive Adequacy), và (b) lí gi i t i
sao các ng pháp có các c i m v n có và cách tr1 con th /c chúng trong m t th#i k*
ng/n (theo nguyên t/c gi i thích phù h p Explanatory Adequacy)
31. Collocation (n) collocate (v) k t h p t /ng k t h p
Ph ng th c theo ó các t) c s% d ng k t h p th #ng xuyên. Các k t h p ch các ch
nh v cách th c các t) c s% d ng k t h p, ví d , các gi i t) nào c s% d ng v i
các ng t) c th , hay các ng t) và danh t) c s% d ng k t h p
Vd: trong ti ng Anh ng t) perform c s% d ng v i t) operation (cu c gi i ph"u),
nh ng không th c s% dung v i t) discussion (cu c th o lu n)
The doctor performed the operation.
* The committee performed a discussion.
Thay vào ó ta ph i nói:
The committee held/had a discussion.
perform c dùng v i (k t h p v i) operation, và hold / have k t h p v i discussion.
high k t h p v i probability, nh ng không k t h p v i chance:
a high probability but a good chance
do k t h p v i damage, duty, và wrong, nh ng không k t h p v i trouble, noise,
và excuse:
do a lot of damage do one’s duty do wrong
make trouble make a lot of noise make an excuse
Questions:
1. State 4 major steps of the procedures of CA.
2. Briefly describe the two phases of a unilateral CA.
3. Briefly describe the two phases of a bilateral CA.
4. Make a description of the lexical item “Gi ” and its equivalents in English, using a
unilateral CA.
5. How can we generate a hypothesis or make prediction about the learner’s difficulties in
learning and mastering a language construction or lexical item? For example, make prediction
about the Vietnamese learner’s difficulty in using “until” in English.
6. Design a diagnostic test to support a hypothesis about the Vietnamese learner’s difficulty in
using “until” in English.
Summary
Unit 3 TERTIUM COMPARATIONIS & PROCEDURES OF CA
I. Comparability criterion and tertium comparationis (TC)

Tertium comparationis:
- a common platform of reference enabling the process of contrastive analysis
- “third term of a comparison”
C
A B
- remains invariant in translation or in CA which forms the basis for the comparison
II. Equivalence:
A contrastive relation referring to the relative sameness in meaning
E.g. Objects can be compared via different features -> similar in some respects but
different in others
– A square & a rectangle:
• Same number of angles;
• Different side lengths
– Box A & Box B: Volume (A > B); Weight (B < A)
Joseph Vendryes:
- under the variety, languages share common attributes -> Foundation for general linguistics
James (1980):
- Translation equivalence is the best TC for CA
- Translation equivalence = semantic equivalence + pragmatic equivalence (contextual
equivalence)
- Formal equivalence is incomplete for CA
TC at different levels of linguistics:
• Phonetics & phonology:
TC: The issues of Position/Manner articulation; Suprasegmental units; distinctive features can
be discussed in both English and Vietnamese
E.g. /p/ & /b/ in English vs. Vietnamese in terms of the aspects mentioned above.
• Lexis:
TC: The issues of mental images in the surrounding world can be discussed in both English
and Vietnamese
E.g. words naming colours in English vs. Vietnamese
• Grammar:
TC: Both English and Vietnamese have corresponding structures & meaning in some aspects
E.g. Existential sentence in English vs. Vietnamese
• Pragmatics:
TC: Both English and Vietnamese share some corresponding language functions
E.g. act of greeting in English vs. Vietnamese
III. Types of TC
2-texts [+/-trans]: data collected as corpus for CA
- 2-texts [+trans]: texts that are translatable
- 2-texts [-trans]: texts that are untranslatable
1) Statistical equivalence (for quantitative Contrastive Studies (CSs))
- Translational version of structures in L1 & L2 with a highest frequency
- Semantic/pragmatic equivalent with almost the same frequency
- 2-texts [+trans]: data for qualitative
- 2-texts [-trans]: data for qualitative CS (Contrastive Studies)
3) System equivalence (for CS of systems):
- Equivalent established on paradigmatic + syntagmatic axis
- Examine members of system + their collocation
4) Semanto-syntactic equivalence (for CS of construction):
- On the similar basis of deep structure as semantic structure, as input for the
grammatical derivation
5) Rule equivalence (for CS of rules):
- Based on comparison of constructions on which these rules operate
- Interpreted in the view of Transformation-Generative Grammar: Phrase Structure
Rules, Transformational Rules, e.g. input & output of Wh-question vs. Vietnamese
equivalents
- Objects or entities outside language expressed by vocabulary in L1 & L2, e.g. foods,
festivals in English culture vs. Vietnamese
7) Pragmatic equivalents (for CS of pragmatics, stylistics or socio-linguistics):
- Relations between texts of two different languages which illicit from the language
user the maximally similar cognitive effects:
+ Functions of a unit, construction, structure
+ How these linguistic devices behave in speech acts in each speech community
- Formal equivalences are the least important
- Comparative devices of languages: significant only if they have a function that is
comparable to each other
4 Steps in Contrasting Two Language Systems
Description Juxtaposition Comparison Prediction
1. Description:
• Selection & preliminary characterization of items under comparison
• Conducted within the same framework of language- independent theoretical model
• 2 approach for description of CA: bilateral/unilateral CA
+ Bilateral CA:
Describe L1 and L2 data independently
Use etalon language form which is model-neutral
Features of
completed
relevance
anterior
On foot
speaker
Current
Etalon lang.
female
arrival
Language CA
Sentence (E) + - + - + + -
I have arrived
Sentence (R) + + + + - + +
Ja prishla
Unfavorable points of bilateral CA:

- No need for the description of L1 & L2 to be equally exhaustive
- Too much work is done for comparison
- impossible without the balance in means or ways of expressing categories of the
linguistic units in L1 and L2
E.g. Intonation: [+] in English but [-] in Vietnamese
- A descriptive imbalance, in favour of the L2
- More concerned with what the learner does with the L2
The unilateral CA can be done with 2 phases:
- The first phase:
Establish the subsystem for CA in Language 1
E.g. possessive category in Vietnamese “tình yêu c a Lan”
- The second phase:
List out the language means in Language 2
The love of Lan
tình yêu c a Lan
Lan’s love
2. Juxtaposition
- decides what is to be compared with what, like with like
- identification of cross/inter-linguistic/cultural equivalent
- bilingual competence, enables one to make decisions about the equivalence of
element X & element Y in L1 & L2 respectively X &Y: comparable
E.g.
Sentences to be Vì th mà bát cháo hành c a th N This onion soup offered by Thi No

juxtaposed làm h n suy ngh nhi u. made him think much.
- formal considerations alone do not suffice in establishing comparability or TC

E.g.
Sentences to be Tôi thích th t ngu i. I like the meat cold.

juxtaposed
3. Comparison
- compare ‘types’ rather than ‘tokens, i.e. not strings of sounds/graphic substance but their
structures
E.g.
I have arrived.
Ya prishla
CA compares abstract elements rather than their concrete realizations

Three basic areas of comparisons:
CA of various equivalent CA of equivalent CA of equivalent rules

systems across languages constructions
( pronouns, articles, verbs, (interrogative, negative, (subject raising, adjective

and in phonology consonants, nominal phrase…); in placement, interrogative
vowels); subsystems (nasals, phonology (sound clusters, inversion, passivization), in
laterals) syllables, diphthongs, & phonology (assimilation,
distributions of sounds dissimilation, metathesis
Possible situations in each area of comparison:

(1) XLi = XLj
• Similarities of the two phenomena compared more important
(2) XLi XLj
• Differences are said to be more important
(3) XLi + - ∅Lj
Xli has no equivalent in Ylj, e.g. Tone in Vietnamese
4. Prediction
From assumptions of differences of L1 & L2, hypotheses/predictions are made about learner’s
transfer of habit of mother tongue into the use of target language:
• Interference is created in certain deviant structures
• CA power: prediction of errors
- from influence of mother tongue
- the effects of target-language asymmetries;
Pedagogical relevance of predictive capacity: to predict a scale of incremental difficulty

Three possible interlingual rule relationships based on positive and negative transfer potential:
• L1 has a rule and L2 an equivalent one.
Three types of choice in the Hierarchy of Difficulty:
The contrastivists identify the types of choices that either language makes available, and
relating these choices
1. Optional choice:
Possible selection among phonemes, e.g. English can have /p/ or /b/ word initially
2. Obligatory choice:
The selection of conditioned allophones and the limitations in distribution of
phonemes:
- English word initial /p/ must be aspirated, e.g. pin [ ] pin
- distribution of /n/ or / /, e.g. / / is restricted to the final position of the syllable in
English, as compared with both initial and final position in Vietnamese, e.g. / /sing
(English); / nga ngang (Vietnamese)
3. Zero choice:
Existence of a certain sound in one language that has no counterpart in another
language, e.g. Vietnamese has no counterpart for / / in English.
UNIT 4 PHONOLOGICAL CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS
I. Levels of CA
Contrastive linguistics is a very broad field of linguistics, since it embraces all its
major levels: phonology, semantics, syntax and pragmatics, the latter including text studies
and some aspects of the sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic perspective. Especially
pragmatics, which portrays language as a social-cultural phenomenon intertwined with the
subjective reality as perceived by the speakers, is the essential ingredient that was until
recently missing.
II. Phonological CA
The aim of contrastive phonology is to contrast the phonetic sets of both languages
and establish the differences. These may lie in the pronunciation of a phoneme that occurs in
both languages, for example, English and Vietnamese both have the phoneme / / but only
English has the aspirated [ ] as its phonetic variants whereas this phonetic form is absent in
Vietnamese; or in the absence of certain phonemes in one of the languages. A further aim is to
compare the rules for the position of word-stress, if there are any – Vietnamese, for instance
doesn’t have such rules and word-stress must simply be learned individually, which is a great
difficulty for the learners of Vietnamese.
1. Procedures of CA
Two languages could be compared in terms of their phonological systems, syntactic
systems, vocabulary, writing systems, and cultural behavior. Below is the outline that is
usually followed while doing CA. This following outline is based on readings of Gass and
Selinker’s (1993 and 1994).
1. Description of the two languages;
2. Selection of certain areas or items of the two languages for detailed comparison;
3. Comparison, i.e. the identification of areas of difference and similarity;
4. Prediction, i.e. determining which areas are likely to cause errors; and
5. Testing the predictions.
In the field of phonology, Lado suggested that “at least three checks” should be
provided when comparing each phoneme.
The most important three checks are:
(1) Does the L1 have a phonetically similar phoneme?
(2) Are the variants (all allophones) of the phonemes similar in both languages?
(3) Are the phonemes and their variants similarly distributed?
Contrasting Sound Systems
According to James (1980) there are 4 steps involved in executing a CA of the sound
systems of two languages:
- draw up a phonemic inventory of L1 and L2;
- equate phonemes interlingually;
- list the phonemic variants (allophones) for L1 and L2;
- state the distributional restrictions on the phonemes and allophones of each
language.
Some other linguists add a fifth step: a statement of the frequency of each phonemic contrast
within L1 and L2. Stockwell and Bowen point out that there are many minimal pairs, within
English, exploiting phonemic contrast between /p/ and /b/, whereas there only very few
centred on the contrast between / / and / : pleasure/pledger, lesion/legion, etc, The latter
contrast has a low functional load. One might object that such intralingual contrasting is
excessively time-consuming, since one has to take every possible pairing of the phonemes in
the inventory, and that the comparison they make between /p/ and /b/ and / / and / is
arbitrary, since while the first pair contrast by the feature of voicelessness vs. voice, the
second contrast does not hinge on the same feature: fricative / / is compared to an affricate
/ /. A more systematic contrast would be the voiced/voiceless pair / /: / /. Indeed, the [ ]:
[ ] contrast may be in English the a case of free variation, as in [ ]/[ as
alternative realizations of ‘garage’.
We shall now consider each of the four steps in turn:
STEP 1 AND 2: INVENTORISE THE PHONEMES OF L1 AND L2
This first - descriptive step, by Carl James, is not really part of CA. In fact, for most
languages, a phonemic inventory will already have been made available by the phonologist.
The contrastivist’s task consists in equating phonological categories across the two languages.
It is suggested that the categories of IPA chart can be adopted for this purpose. The
consonants of L1 and L2 can conveniently be classified according to the place and manner of
articulation and placed in the appropriate cell of the chart, with voiceless/voiced pairs (e.g.
/p/:/b/) appearing in this order consistently. IPA symbols can be used to represent the sounds.
For the vowels, the conventional vowel-diagram can be used, which allows a specification of
any vowel according to the tongue position during articulation. Rounded or unrounded
variants can be inserted in brackets, and there are diacritics available to indicate any special
extra features, such as nasality (-) or length (:). The two vowel diagrams may be used, one for
monophthongs, the other for diphthongs. The following two figures illustrate how a class of
English teachers handled the inventories of the consonants and the pure, nonnasal vowels of
English and Vietnamese using an adaptation of the IPA charts:
The vowel can be described in terms of articulatory & auditory parameters:
Tongue positions
Tongue part (Advancement)
Shapes of lips 1. front: e.g. [ ], [ ]
2. central: e.g. [ ], [ ]
Mouth aperture 3. back: e.g. [ ], [ ]
Front Central Back Tongue height (Jaw opening)

1. high: e.g. [ ], [ ]
i: u: 2. mid: e.g. [ ], [ :]
close I High
3. low: e.g. [ ], [ ]
Shape of lips (Lip rounding)

1. rounded: e.g. [ ], [ ]
half close e : Mid
: 2. unrounded, e.g. [ ], [ ]
e
Length (Duration)
1. long: e.g. [ ], [ ]
half open 2. short: e.g. [ ]
Low Tenseness
(Effort with tongue & jaw)
open :
1. tense: e.g. [ ], [ ]
2. lax: e.g. [ ]
Cardinal Vowel Scale
Like other Southeast Asian languages, Vietnamese has a comparatively large number of
vowels. Below is a vowel chart of Hanoi Vietnamese.
Front Central Back

High i u
Upper Mid ê â / ô
Lower Mid e[ ] o
Low /a
Front, central, and low vowels (i, ê, e, , â, , , a) are unrounded, whereas the back vowels
(u, ô, o) are rounded. The vowels â and are pronounced very short, much shorter than
the other vowels. Thus, and â are basically pronounced the same except that is long
while â is short — the same applies to the low vowels long a and short .
Vowel Diphthong Diphthong Diphthong Triphthong Triphthong
nucleus with front with back with centering with front with back
offglide offglide offglide offglide offglide
i – iu~yu ia~iê~yê~ya – iêu
ê – êu – – –
e – eo – – –
i u a~ i u
â ây âu – – –
i – – – –
ay au – – –
a ai ao – – –
u ui – ua~uô uôi –
ô ôi – – – –
o oi – – – –
The contrastive analysis of English sound system and Vietnamese sound system yields the
initial result:
Languages English Vietnamese

Systems of phonemes
Vowels 20 33
Semi-vowels (2) 0
Consonants 24 25
Total of phonemes 44 58
The number of phonemes is determined by the number of distinctive features.

Therefore, the contrastive analysis of distinctive features, phonological relations in the
systems of phonemes in 2 languages is an important task of phonological contrastive analysis.
In the contrastive analysis of the system of phonemes of two languages, apart from the
situation where a number of phonemes in Language A have the equivalent phonemes in
Language B, there is a situation where a number of phonemes are present in Language A but
absent in Language B, and vice versa. If some phonemes exist in the Target language (the
foreign language that we are learning, say, English) but absent in the Mother Tongue
(Vietnamese), these phonemes are considered an obstacles for the learner’s pronunciation, e.g.
/ / (thing, thought), / / (they, then), / / (chair), / / (jam). On the other hand, those
phonemes found in the Mother Tongue but absent in the Target Language are said to be no
difficulty to the learners, e.g. / /(nhanh), / (b , nh ) only occur in Vietnamese but not
in English.
In practice we rely heavily on the criterion of minimal pairs: we mentally search the
lexicon for pairs of words that are differentiated by a single phonological segment. This is
what the Vietnamese students did: in establishing the status of [ ], for example, in ba ba
/ /, bi / / and bin / !/, the following contrasting lexical items were cited: like pa pa
/ /, pi / / and pin / !/, etc. Likewise, for the vowels, minimal pairs like sit /" #/: seat
/" #/ and bed / /: bad / / were cited. The allophonic status of [$] and [% ] was established
by noting that [$] occurred word-initially and medially, but not finally, where [% ] occurred.
This brings us to the next step in the CA.
STEP 3: STATE THE ALLOPHONES OF EACH PHONEME OF L1 AND L2
At this step, we identify the allophonic forms of phonemes (phonetic variants of

phonemes) in each language and look for the similarities and differences between the two
languages. It is possible that a phoneme in Language A has its allophonic variants whereas the
equivalent phoneme in Language B does not.
We have already seen examples of this procedure: the aspirated and unaspirated pairs
[ ; & &] occurring in English, but not in Vietnamese, except for [# #]. Another example
was the allophonic variants of the lateral phoneme in English, as contrasted with the
phonemes / ; # #; & &/ in Vietnamese. Politzer (1972:129) has identified a number of
ways in which pairs of languages can exhibit contrasts over the respective statuses of their
speech sounds:
a) For two equated phonemes, one of L1 and one of L2, allophonic variants occur for
one but not for the other. For example, we equate the laterals /$/ of Vietnamese and English.
We now discover that the Vietnamese lateral is always realized by a clear [$] while in English
there are two allophones in complementary distribution. The Vietnamese thus says [$ &] for
‘lake’ and [' $] or [' $ ] for ‘I’ll’, while the Englishman says [$ &] for ‘lake’ and [' %] for
‘I’ll’.
b) What is an allophone in L1 is a phoneme in L2, where the sounds concerned are
physically very similar. Our example of this type of contrast was the ‘clear’ [$] of English,
equated with the [$] in Vietnamese: the former has allophonic status, the latter phonemic
status.
In fact, category b) is conflated with category a): instead of saying that the aspirated
stop is phonemic in Vietnamese but allophonic in English we could have said that Vietnamese
/p/, /t/ and /k/ have no allophonic variants, while English /p/, /t/ and /k/ have.
c) This category of contrast applies to pairs of L1 and L2 sounds that stand in a one-to-
one relationships, not the one-to-many relationships characteristic of category b). Here, the
two equated segments have different absolute statuses in their respective phonological
systems.
STEP 4: STATE THE DISTRIBUTIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON THE ALLPHONES AND PHONEMES
OF L1 AND L2
We already embarked on this operation, when we identified the allophonic variants in

the two languages. What is called for now is a detailed and fully explicit account of the
environments in which typical allophones occur. It is possible for the two languages to have
corresponding phonemes with phonetically very similar allophones, but where the
environment for these allophones are not identical. Both Vietnamese and English for instance
have the two sounds [!] and [(]. The former, [!], occurs before vowels and voiced stop [ ]
as well as word-initially in both languages. However, [n] can also occur before dental or
alveolar in English but it cannot in Vietnamese. Also, the environments determining the
occurrence of [(] are different in English and Vietnamese. In English, [(] can occur as an
allophone of [!] before velars, as in [" (&] (sink), [$ ( "#] (longest). In Vietnamese, [(] can
occur word-initially before a vowel as a phoneme, as in [( ] (nga). In English, [(] cannot
occur in this position. This phenomenon, the contrastive distribution of phonetically similar
allophones, is probably the most formidable one that faces both the contrastivists and foreign
–language learners. (79)
The relative absolute distribution of equated phonemes of L1 and L2 is a less complex
analytical problem. Although Brière (1968) suggested the syllable to be the proper unit within
which to conduct distributional investigation for CA, most contrastivists have continued to
take the word as the relevant unit: so we speak of sound distributional restriction familiar to
most British teachers of French concerns / / in the two languages. In French it can occupy all
three positions within the word: compare [ ] ‘yellow’ [$ ] ‘light’, [ ) ] ‘throat’. In English
/ / occurs only medially and finally as in [* ] ‘measure’ and [ ] ‘rouge’. Consequently
the English learner of French will have difficulty with the pronunciation of French words
having / / initially. For similar reasons, the Vietnamese will experience difficulty with words
where English stops, affricates and fricatives may be released at the final position.
We have just discussed what is called absolute distribution of sounds. Another type of
distribution contrast concerns the combination of sounds: one language may permit certain
sequences of sounds at one or another position in the word. This is what is called the
phonotactics (ways of combining sounds) of the language. Contrastive phonotactics is an
important part of phonological CA. In In English, the combinations /" /, /"#/, /" /, /"# /, /"&/,
/"& / … occur in word-initial and syllable-initial positions [" +t] ‘spot’, ["# ] ‘stay’, [" (]
‘spring’, ["&' ] ‘sky’, ["& , ] ‘screw’ …These phonotactic sequences are impossible in
Vietnamese.
2. A contrastive analysis of Sound System in English vs Vietnamese
2.1. Consonant System in English
The English consonant system consists of 24 consonants: 20 main consonants (/p/, /t/,
/k/, /b/, /d/, /g/, /f/, /v/, / /, / /, /s/, /z/, / /, / /, /d /, / /h/, /m/, /n/, / /) and 4 approximants:
two glides [w], [j] and two liquids [l], [r].
Have a look at consonant /l/: it can appear at the beginning as well as the end of
syllables as in long [l ], hall [h :l].
The sound [j] can be recognized in the following examples:
[j] : yes [jes], young [j ], tune [tju:n], fume [fju:m].
Table 3 Classification of English consonants
Place Bilabial Dental Labio- Alveolar Palato- Palatal Velar Glottal

Manner dental alveolar
Stops
- voice # & -
+ voice
Affricate
- voice #
+ voice
Fricative
- voice . "
+ voice / 0
Nasal * ! (
Lateral $ %
Appro- 1 , 1
ximant
2.1.2. Consonant system in Vietnamese
The Vietnamese consonant system has 23 consonants (/p/, /t/, /k/, /b/, /d/, /g/, /f/, /v/,
/ /, / /, /s/, /z/, /c/, / /, /l/, / , /h/, /r/, /m/, /n/, / /, / /, / /). The consonant /l/ only appears at
the beginning of syllables as in: lúa, lung linh.
The consonants that occur in Vietnamese are listed below in the Vietnamese
orthography with the phonetic pronunciation to the right.
Labial Alveolar Retroflex Palatal Velar Glottal

voiceless p [p] t tr ch c/k
Stop aspirated th
voiced b d
voiceless ph x s kh h
Fricative
voiced v gi r ! " g/gh #
Nasal m $ n % nh & ng/ngh '
Approximant u/o ( l ) y/i *

(adapted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/)
2.2. Distribution of consonants in English and Vietnamese
In English, consonant sounds are usually distributed in three positions: initial, medial
and final. These are about twenty-one consonant sounds distributed at final position. They are
[p, b, t, d, k, , f, v, , , s, z, , , t , d , m, n, , l, r].
The Vietnamese final sound system, except for zero, has 8 positive final sounds: /p/,
/t/, /m/, /n, /k/, / /, / /, / /. Thuat (1980) [3, p.226], in his study about Vietnamese
phonology, introduced some rules of the Vietnamese final sound distribution as follows:
Table 2.6: Vietnamese Final Sound Distribution
Place of articulation Alveolar

Bilabial
Manner of articulation
Tip Back
Voiced p t n
Released Nasal m n
Not nasal
( oàn Thi n Thu t (1998), p.226)

It is clear that every language is composed of a limited number of sounds which a
native speaker can distinguish without difficulty. But languages differ in the number and
nature of these sounds. If a sound does not exist in one’s own language, it can be difficult to
recognize it in another language. In the case of sound [%], it does not exist in the Vietnamese
final sound system. That’s a problem for Vietnamese learners in perceiving and performing it
in many English words which ended by [$].
In addition, there is no sound [j] in the Vietnamese consonant system, According to
C s Ti ng Vi t [1], the sound [j] only appears in Central and Southern Vietnamese by the
letters d or gi while these are pronounced by [z] in Northern Vietnamese. Hence, the sound [j]
exists in Central and Southern Vietnamese rather like English, but in Northern Vietnamese, it
doesn’t [46]. Besides, the people from the South have orientation to produce [j] instead of [v]
(mentioned in section 2.4.2), so the sound [j] is not a problematic one for them to perform at
all. That’s the reason why so many English learners who are from the North of Vietnam find
more difficult in pronouncing this sound than the others who are from the other areas in
Vietnam.
In English as well as Vietnamese, the codas play a crucial role in writing because they
distinguish the meaning of the word. For examples, in English the word “rib” is different from
“rip”, in Vietnamese, the word “càn” is different from “cành”. The codas in English are
pronounced clearly when spoken to the listeners to avoid misunderstanding, but in
Vietnamese, the codas are not pronounced as clearly as English. All of the Vietnamese codas
are unreleased/ closed consonants.
2.3. Contrastive analysis of stop consonants in English and Vietnamese
Apart from using knowledge of our students and our ears in order to be aware of their
pronunciation problems, it is also useful to have some prior knowledge of what elements of
English phonetics and phonology are likely to cause problems to the Vietnamese learners of
English.
2.3.1. Similarities
As we have mentioned above, all languages in the world have stops. In English and
Vietnamese, the consonant system of stops consists of six members: /b/, /p/, /t/, /d/, /k/, / /
and each of them has different places of articulation (see Table 2.1 below)
Table 2.1 The articulation of stops
MANNER OF ARTICULATION Bilabial Alveolar Velar

VOICELESS /p/ /t/ /k/
STOPS VOICED /b/ /d/ / /
Basically speaking, both English and Vietnamese stops have the same production
mechanism. They are divided into three pairs, as we have seen, according to the manner of
articulation. Members of each pair can be distinguished on voiceless and voiced features.
2.3.2. Differences
As mentioned above, the production mechanism of the stops in English and
Vietnamese is similar in general; however when distributed in different contexts of words or
in connected speech, English stops are affected by the surrounding sounds and undergo some
changes. As a result, each stop in English has it own phonetic variants, which foreign learners
of English, especially Vietnamese learners hardly recognize in speaking and listening.
Firstly, in Vietnamese, final stops neither have a release burst nor have a nasal release
whereas English final stops are often produced with these phonetic features (with audible or
no audible release).
Secondly, the English and Vietnamese stops are distributed differently due to the
phonetic systems of both languages as described in Table 2.2 and Table 2.3. Examine Table
2.2 and Table 2.3 below we can have some comments as follows:
English stops are distributed in different positions in words, while Vietnamese does
not have a voiceless stop [p] in the initial position. Therefore, Vietnamese learners may fail to
correctly pronounce the voiceless stops [p] in this position. They may produce the word “pen”
like “Ben” because they might not pay attention to the force of articulation. /p/ is produced
with a stronger breath effort than /b/.
Table 2.2 The distribution of English stops
Stops
/p/ /b/ /t/ /d/ /k/ / /
Position
initial pole bowl toll dole coal goal
middle lopping lobbing bitter bidder postcard beginning
final rip rib writ rid risk rig
Table 2.3 The distribution of Vietnamese stops [3:153, 226]

stops
/p/ /b/ /t/ /d/ /k/ / /
position
initial - bóng t t úng k o g ng
middle - - - - - -
final p - t t - t c -
In Vietnamese /p/, /t/, and /k/ appear at the end of words without releasing. The
learners often have tendency of dropping these sounds in the final positions in English words.
So they may perform words ending with both voiced and voiceless stops identically. For
example, they may perform the two words “tend” and “tent” the same. If they pay too much
attention to pronounce these sounds they may insert / / with the finals. For example, “cart”
may be produced like “carter” [ : ].
Furthermore, /p/, /t/, /k/ in English have the phonetic variants [p ], [t ], [k ] in the
initial position as “the fortis series /p, t, k /, when initial in an accented syllable, are usually
accompanied by aspiration.” [8:151], whereas [p ], [t ], [k ] in Vietnamese are not allophones
of /p/, /t/, /k/. That is, in Vietnamese, [p], [t] and [k] are realizations of the /p/, /t/ and /k/
morphemes and [p ], [t ] and[k ] are realization of the distinct /p /, /t and /k / morphemes. If
the learners do not pay particular attention to this phonetic feature, they may raise a risk of
causing misunderstanding. For example, instead of pronouncing [p n] for the word “pin”
Vietnamese learners pronounce [pin], which listeners may understand as “bin”.
/p/ /t/ /k/

Phonemes
Allophones [p] [p ] [t] [t ] [k] [k ]
Figure 2.1 English voiceless stop phonemes

Another feature that makes English stops different from Vietnamese stops is
consonant cluster. “Consonant cluster is a group of consonants with no intervening
vowel”[10]. In English consonant clusters such as [pl], [bl], [dr], [ l] … are very popular. It is
quite difficult for Vietnamese learners of English to pronounce English consonant clusters
because of no habit of pronouncing these sounds in their mother tongue. They tend to insert
the vowel / / after / p, b, d, k, / followed by / l, r /. For example, they may pronounce the
word “class” [klas] like [k las].
Last but not least, Vietnamese learners of English hardly recognize the influence of
English stops on the length of the preceding sounds. The vowels and even consonants closed
by lenis / b, d, / are often produced longer than those closed by fortis / p, t, k /. For example,
the words “bad” and “bat” are transcribed as [b d] and [b t]. Look at the transcriptions of
the two words, the vowel / / seems to be pronounced the same, but the vowel / / in “bad” is,
in fact, longer than the one in “bat”. “We could not symbolize the length difference in a
phonemic transcription because it is a conditioned difference: whenever a fortis consonant
follows in such words the preceding vowel is shorter than when a lenis follows” [20:189].
Accordingly, Vietnamese learners may perform these sounds incorrectly.
2.4. Syllable structure in English and Vietnamese
A word contains at least one syllable. Most speakers of English have no trouble
dividing a word up into its component syllables. Sometimes how a particular word is divided
might vary from one individual to another, but a division is always easy and always possible.
For example, the word “tomato” is divided into three syllables [t a.t ].
A syllable is a unit of sound composed of a central peak of sonority (usually a vowel),
and the consonant that cluster around this central peak.
A syllable (σ) has its own internal structure: it can be divided into sub syllabic parts as
onset (O) and rhyme (R) within the rhyme we find the nucleus (N) and coda (Co). Not all
syllables have all parts; the smallest possible syllable contains a nucleus only. A syllable may
or may not have an onset and a coda.
The general structure of a syllable consists of the following segments which are shown
in Figure 2.1.
O R
N Co
c(consonant) v (vowel) c (consonant)
Figure 2.2 Internal structure of a syllable

Onset (obligatory in some languages, optional or even restricted in others) is the
beginning sounds of the syllable; the ones preceding the nucleus. These are always
consonants in English. The nucleus is a vowel in most cases, although the consonants [ r ], [ l
], [ m ], [ n ], and the velar nasal (the 'ng' sound) can also be the nucleus of a syllable. In the
following words, the onset is in bold; the rest underlined: card, drop, strain. If a word
contains more than one syllable, each syllable will have the usual syllable parts: win.dow,
to.ma.to, pre.pos.te.rous, fun.da.men.tal .
Rhyme (or rime) is the rest of the syllable, after the onset. The rhyme can also be
divided up: Rhyme = nucleus + coda. Nucleus is obligatory in all languages. Coda (optional
in some languages, highly restricted or prohibited in others)
Vietnamese syllables are constructed as other languages. However, it has a very strict
structure with the presence of tone (T).
O R T
N Co
c v c T
Figure 2.3 Internal structure of a syllable in Vietnamese

Unlike English, Vietnamese is a monosyllabic language. Syllables often coincide with words.
They consist of two mandatory components: a tone and a nuclear vowel. The syllables may
also contain two optional components: an initial consonant and a final consonant or
semivowel. The initial consonant may or may not be accompanied by a secondary labial
articulation. Furthermore, O consists of only one consonant, whereas in English, O may
consists of more than one consonant (clusters). In addition, there are clear-cut borderlines
between words and each syllable ends without releasing the final sounds, which could raise
difficulties to Vietnamese learners of English. They may tend to delete the final sounds and
may forget connecting words in natural speech. The possible negative transfer of the phonetic
features stops in Vietnamese syllabic structure is one of the serious causes which make
Vietnamese learners of English take no notice of the assimilation and the liaison i.e. the
linking of a final consonant in the preceding word to the initial vowel of the following word.
In term of fluency, they may not be successful in performing as well as perceiving sounds in
connected speech.
HYPOTHESES
Based on the comparison of the phonetic systems between English and Vietnamese,
the study sets forth the following hypotheses:
1. The students may fail to pronounce English stops correctly because they do not pay
much attention to the manner of articulation and the positions of English stops in a
word.
2. They may fail to pronounce English stops correctly by transferring habits of
pronouncing Vietnamese stops in Vietnamese words.
3. They may fail to correctly pronounce vowels followed by a voiced or voiceless
English stops.
SUMMARY
Aim:
• to contrast the phonetic sets of both languages and establish the differences
/p/ /p/
[p] [p] [p ]
• to compare the rules for the alternation of sounds in L1 & L2 (if any)
E.g. Devoicing rule: English [+] – Vietnamese [-]
[bi:] [bi:]
1. Procedures of CA
Gass and Selinker’s (1993, 1994)
2. Selection of certain areas or items of L1 & L2 for detailed comparison;
E.g. articulation features
E.g. performance of English stops
4. Prediction, i.e. determining which areas are likely to cause errors;
E.g. performance of aspiration
5. Testing the predictions
E.g. Test learner’s performance
3 important checks
1. Does the L1 have a phonetically similar phoneme?
2. Are the variants (all allophones) of the phonemes similar in both languages?
3. Are the phonemes & their variants similarly distributed?
James (1980):
• draw up a phonemic inventory of L1 & L2;
E.g. consonants in English & Vietnamese
• equate phonemes interlingually;
E.g. English Vietnamese
/p/ /p/
/b/ /b/
• list phonemic variants (allophones) for L1 & L2;
/p/ /p/
• state distributional restrictions on the phonemes & allophones of each language
/(/ /(/
4 steps in conducting a phonological CA (by Carl James)
Steps 1 & 2: Inventorise the phonemes of l1 and l2
Initial result of CA of English sound system and Vietnamese sound system:
English Vietnamese
Language
System of phoneme
Vowels 20 33
Semi-vowels 2 0
Consonants 24 25
Step 3: Equate phonemes interlingually
Vowels can be described in terms of articulatory parameters:
Tongue positions
Shapes of lips
Mouth aperture
E.g. Front vowels in English & Vietnamese
Ø
ê
â
Ø
Front Central Back
Close i: u:
I High
Half close :
e : Mid
Half open
Low
Open :
The INTERNATIONAL PHONETIC ASSOCIATION
u
i
ê ô
e o
a
â
Step 4: List phonemic variants (allophones) for L1 & L2
English Vietnamese
/p/ /p/ phoneme
[ ] [ ] [ ] allophone
Pin spin pin
/ b/ /b/ phoneme
[b] [ ] [b] allophone

About be bi
The distribution of English stops

Stops /p/ /b/ /t/ /d/ /k/ / /
Position
middle lopping lobbing bitter bidder pocket beggar
The distribution of Vietnamese stops
Stops /p/ /b/ /t/ /d/ /k/ / /

Position
middle - - - - - -
Similarities & Differences of stops & their distribution

in English vs. Vietnamese
Stops English Vietnamese
Position
p, t, k, b, d, g p, t, k, b, d, g
initial only th
ph, th, kh
(allophone) (phoneme)
p, t, k, b, d, g no occurence
middle
[-] release
p, t, k, b, d, g only p, t, k
final [+] release [-] release
[+] moved to [-] be moved to
become Onset become Onset
Step 4: Generating Hypotheses

1. The Vietnamese students may fail to pronounce English stops correctly because they do
not pay much attention to the manner of articulation and the positions of English stops in a
word.
2. They may fail to pronounce English stops correctly by transferring habits of pronouncing
Vietnamese stops in Vietnamese words.
3. They may fail to correctly pronounce vowels followed by a voiced or voiceless English
stops.
Step 5: Testing the Hypotheses
DIAGNOSTIC TEST
Performance of production
1/ Please say these pairs of words loudly
1. /b-p/
pin - bin
pen - Ben
...
2/ Please say these sentences loudly
How much is that map? –Ninety- five pence.
Do you go to bed before ten?
…
3/ Choose a topic you like best and talk about it
Describe the house or the flat where you live.
Testing the hypotheses

DIAGNOSTIC TEST FOR SOUND PERCEPTION
Listen to the sentences on the cassette. For each one, underline the word you hear.
/ p-b/
1. Have you got a pet / bet?
2. What does ‘tripe’ / ‘tribe’ mean?
…
/ t-d/
1. There was something wrong with the trains / drains.
2. She tied / dyed the scarf
…
/ k-g/
1. One of the cards / guards is missing.
2. I could see her back / bag in the crowded train

DIAGNOSTIC TEST
1. /b-p/
pin - bin
pen - Ben
...
…
DISCUSSION OF THE RESULT OF TESTING
With the result of the diagnostic test of the learner’s performance of perception and
production of English stops, the researcher can determine whether the result (qualitative &
quantitative evidence) significantly support or reject his/her hypotheses
The discussion should focus itself on the qualitative information (categories or types of errors
made by the learners) and the quantitative information (the frequency of the occurrence of the
learner performance of the stops at various positions)
Please consult tables of result of the diagnostic test *
Conclusions:
Perception:
- Vietnamese students failure to discriminate between minimal pairs of sounds (/p/ - /b/ in
every position, /t/ - /d/, /k/ -/ /) in final position
Production:
Students tend to make common errors when pronouncing English stops:
At word level, most learners mispronounce the phonetic variants of /p/ and /b without
aspiration at initial position
Failure in releasing English stops
Tendency of deleting the stops in the final position
Tendency of inserting schwa / / after /p, b, d, k, / followed by /l, r/
Failure of differentiating vowel length ended with stops
Words & Expressions

1. phoneme (n) âm v
n v nh nh t c a âm c a m t ngôn ng , có th phân bi t 2 t khác nhau v i ý
ngh a khác nhau. Ví d :
A. trong ti ng Anh các t pan và ban ch khác nhau âm u: pan b t u v i / / và
ban b t u v i / /
B. ban và bin khác nhau ch các nguyên âm c a chúng: / / và / /
Vì v y, / /, / /, / / và / / là các âm v khác nhau c a ti ng Anh. Con s các âm v c a
các ngôn ng là khác nhau. Ti ng Anh c xác nh có 44 âm v : 24 ph âm và 20
nguyên âm
2. Allophone (n phonetic variants) âm t / bi n th phát âm c a âm v
B t k bi n th phát âm khác nhau c a m t âm v . Các âm t khác nhau c a m t âm v
c nh n bi t khác nhau v m t phát âm nh ng t ng t nh nhau v m t ng ngh a
c a m t t . Các bi n th âm này xu t hi n trong các môi tr ng/b i c nh ng âm khác
nhau c xác l p theo các qui lu t âm v h!c. Ví d , âm v /p/ trong ti ng Anh là b t
h i (aspirated) khi âm này v trí u m t t hay âm ti t (nh trong pan), nh ng l"i
không b t h i khi b #ng tr c b i âm /s/ (nh trong span), và có th không
nh /buông âm khi xu t hi n v trí cu i c a m t phát ngôn (nh trong “he’s not her
type”). Nh ng âm không buông, b t h i, không b t h i này c nghe và nh n di n
nh cùng m t âm v /p/ mà không ph i là /b/; chúng u là các âm t / bi n th phát âm
c a c a cùng m t âm v /p/ trong t i$n.
/p/ phoneme
pan [ !] span [" !] he’s not her type [#' ] allophone
3. phonemic inventory (n) v n âm v

S l ng âm v có trong h th ng c a m t ngôn ng , ví d : trong h th ng âm v ti ng
Anh có 24 âm v ph âm và 20 âm v nguyên âm
4. distributional restrictions (n) Các ch nh phân b

Kh n%ng xu t hi n c a m t n v (có th là m t âm t hay m t t ) các v trí dành
cho chúng trong các môi tr ng/b i c nh nh t nh. Ví d : âm t b t h i [ ] ch xu t
hi n v trí u t hay âm ti t (nh trong [ !]). Trong khi ó, âm t không b t h i
có th xu t hi n các v trí sau âm [s] (nh trong [" !]), và v trí cu i t (nh
trong [#' ])
5. Hypothesis (n) Gi thuy t

Gi nh c t ra v m t v n ng âm hay âm v h!c d a trên k t qu i chi u
s b gi a 2 ngôn ng L1 và L2 (vd: các t ng &ng hay d bi t gi a các âm v ti ng
Anh và ti ng Vi t).
K t qu s b i chi u các âm v t c b t (stop plosives) /p/, /b/, /t/, /d/, /k/, /g/ trong
ti ng Anh và ti ng Vi t có th xác l p m t s t ng &ng và d bi t nh sau:
T ng &ng:
1) Ti ng Anh và ti ng Vi t u có các âm v / /, / /, /#/, / /, /&/, / /
2) Ti ng Anh và ti ng Vi t u có các âm v t ng &ng v v trí c u âm:
V trí c u âm Môi L i Ng"c
Ti ng Anh / /, / / /#/, / / /&/, / /
Ti ng Vi t / /, / / /#/, / / /&/, / /
3) Phân b (v trí xu t hi n)
Table 2.2 The distribution of English stops
Stops
/p/ /b/ /t/ /d/ /k/ / /
Position
Table 2.3 The distribution of Vietnamese stops [3:153, 226]

stops
/p/ /b/ /t/ /d/ /k/ / /
position
D bi t:
Trong ti ng Anh, v trí u các âm v /p/, /t/, /k/ c th hi n thành âm t b t h i
[p ], [t ], [k ] trong khi ó ti ng Vi t ch có âm t [t ] xu t hi n v trí này.
T k t qu i chi u s b này có th a ra gi thuy t v ng âm nh sau:
Ng i Vi t h!c ti ng Anh có th g p khó kh%n do không có thói quen phát âm các âm
t b t h i v trí u.
Questions:
1. English has at its disposal palato-alveolar / / and / /. Does Vietnamese as the L1 have a
phonetically similar phoneme?
2. English and Vietnamese have at their disposal the stops # & . Are the
variants (all allophones) of their phonemes similar in both languages?
3. Are the phonemes # & and their variants similarly distributed?
4. State the TC (comparison criteria) for a contrastive analysis of the stops in English and
Vietnamese?
5. Design a diagnostic test to support a hypothesis about the Vietnamese learner’s difficulty in
pronouncing the stops # & in English.
SUMMARY
Aim:
• to contrast the phonetic sets of both languages and establish the differences
/p/ /p/
[p] [p] [p ]
• to compare the rules for the alternation of sounds in L1 & L2 (if any)
E.g. Devoicing rule: English [+] – Vietnamese [-]
[bi:] [bi:]
1. Procedures of CA
Gass and Selinker’s (1993, 1994)
2. Selection of certain areas or items of L1 & L2 for detailed comparison;
E.g. articulation features
E.g. performance of English stops
4. Prediction, i.e. determining which areas are likely to cause errors;
E.g. performance of aspiration
5. Testing the predictions
E.g. Test learner’s performance
3 important checks
1. Does the L1 have a phonetically similar phoneme?
2. Are the variants (all allophones) of the phonemes similar in both languages?
3. Are the phonemes & their variants similarly distributed?
James (1980):
• draw up a phonemic inventory of L1 & L2;
E.g. consonants in English & Vietnamese
• equate phonemes interlingually;
/p/ /p/
/b/ /b/
• list phonemic variants (allophones) for L1 & L2;
/p/ /p/
• state distributional restrictions on the phonemes & allophones of each language
/ / / /
4 steps in conducting a phonological CA (by Carl James)
Steps 1 & 2: Inventorise the phonemes of l1 and l2
Initial result of CA of English sound system and Vietnamese sound system:
English Vietnamese
Language
System of phoneme
Vowels 20 33
Semi-vowels 2 0
Consonants 24 25
Step 3: Equate phonemes interlingually
Vowels can be described in terms of articulatory parameters:
Tongue positions
Shapes of lips
Mouth aperture
E.g. Front vowels in English & Vietnamese
Ø
ê
â
Ø
Front Central Back
Close i: u:
I High
Half close :
e : Mid
Half open
Low
Open :
The INTERNATIONAL PHONETIC ASSOCIATION
u
i
ê ô
e o
a
â
Step 4: List phonemic variants (allophones) for L1 & L2
English Vietnamese
/p/ /p/ phoneme
[ ] [ ] [ ] allophone
Pin spin pin
/ b/ /b/ phoneme
[b] [ ] [b] allophone

About be bi
The distribution of English stops

Stops /p/ /b/ /t/ /d/ /k/ / /
Position
middle lopping lobbing bitter bidder pocket beggar
The distribution of Vietnamese stops
Stops /p/ /b/ /t/ /d/ /k/ / /

Position
middle - - - - - -
Similarities & Differences of stops & their distribution

in English vs. Vietnamese
Stops English Vietnamese
Position
p, t, k, b, d, g p, t, k, b, d, g
initial only th
ph, th, kh
(allophone) (phoneme)
p, t, k, b, d, g no occurence
middle
[-] release
p, t, k, b, d, g only p, t, k
final [+] release [-] release
[+] moved to [-] be moved to
become Onset become Onset
Step 4: Generating Hypotheses

1. The Vietnamese students may fail to pronounce English stops correctly because they do
not pay much attention to the manner of articulation and the positions of English stops in a
word.
2. They may fail to pronounce English stops correctly by transferring habits of pronouncing
Vietnamese stops in Vietnamese words.
3. They may fail to correctly pronounce vowels followed by a voiced or voiceless English
stops.
Step 5: Testing the Hypotheses
DIAGNOSTIC TEST
1. /b-p/
pin - bin
pen - Ben
...
…

DIAGNOSTIC TEST FOR SOUND PERCEPTION
Listen to the sentences on the cassette. For each one, underline the word you hear.
/ p-b/
1. Have you got a pet / bet?
2. What does ‘tripe’ / ‘tribe’ mean?
…
/ t-d/
1. There was something wrong with the trains / drains.
2. She tied / dyed the scarf
…
/ k-g/
1. One of the cards / guards is missing.
2. I could see her back / bag in the crowded train

DIAGNOSTIC TEST
1. /b-p/
pin - bin
pen - Ben
...
…
DISCUSSION OF THE RESULT OF TESTING
With the result of the diagnostic test of the learner’s performance of perception and
production of English stops, the researcher can determine whether the result (qualitative &
quantitative evidence) significantly support or reject his/her hypotheses
The discussion should focus itself on the qualitative information (categories or types of errors
made by the learners) and the quantitative information (the frequency of the occurrence of the
learner performance of the stops at various positions)
Please consult tables of result of the diagnostic test *
Conclusions:
Perception:
- Vietnamese students failure to discriminate between minimal pairs of sounds (/p/ - /b/ in
every position, /t/ - /d/, /k/ -/ /) in final position
Production:
Students tend to make common errors when pronouncing English stops:
At word level, most learners mispronounce the phonetic variants of /p/ and /b without
aspiration at initial position
Failure in releasing English stops
Tendency of deleting the stops in the final position
Tendency of inserting schwa / / after /p, b, d, k, / followed by /l, r/
Failure of differentiating vowel length ended with stops
UNIT 5 GRAMMATICAL CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS
Grammatical CAs are carried out on a comparable systems of the two languages
concerned. For the facilitation of the presentation of the aspects or topics of grammatical CA,
CA is often carried out within the domain of units, grammatical classes, grammatical
structures, relations, grammatical categories and linguistic means to express these
categories. Hallidays (1961:247) suggests that there are four fundamental categories: unit;
structure, class, and systems. Moreover, these four categories are universal: they are
necessary and sufficient as a basis for the description of any language – which adds to their
attractiveness for the contrastive analyst. Let us consider these four categories in turn.
UNIT:
The units of grammar which enter into the description of English and any ‘related’
language are: sentence-clause-phrase-word-morpheme. Here they are arranged on a scale
from ‘largest’ to ‘smallest’, which implies that a unit consists of one or more instances of the
next lower unit, and vice-versa, that any unit is a direct constituent of the next higher unit:
sentences consist directly of clauses, clauses directly of phrases, and so on. This order of
direct inclusion in turn implies a scale, which is called the rank scale.
In traditional CA, as in traditional linguistics, one does not analyse, nor, in the case of
CA, juxtapose, units larger than sentences. A single sentence in L1 will always correspond on
a one-to-one basis with a single sentence in L2: the main difference is that some languages
have to be more explicit than the others. Note how explicit English is compared to Russian in
the following translationally-equated pair of sentences:
CA is therefore concerned with the possibilities of, and limitations on, maintaining
1:1 correspondence of units at ranks below that of sentence. In the following sentence-pair:
The pupil (who has fallen asleep) is Peter.
…..
The English version consists of two clauses, whereas the German version is a one-clause
sentence: at clause rank there is a 2:1 correspondence, or, as we shall term it a 2:1 interlingual
rank shift is called for. A more complex set of shifts is exemplified in the following
Russian/English pair:
S Cl. Phr. Wd. Morph.
1 1 2 4 10
She has finished reading
this book. 1 1 2 6 8
The two sentences are unit-identical (isomorphic) down to the rank of phrase: now
they begin to diverge, the Russian sentence employing four words, the English six. This
imbalance is reversed when the morphemes are counted for each sentence, as follows.
(Russian): = 10
(English): She/has/finish/ed/read/ing/this/book = 8
STRUCTURE:
This category is the one most familiar to language teachers who have adopted a
‘structural’ approach. “A structure is thus an arrangement of elements ordered in ‘places’”
(Halliday, op. cit.: 225)/ The ‘element’ making up the structure of the unit clause in English
are the Subject, Predicator, Complement and Adjunct, as in: ‘The cat (S) caught (P) a mouse
(C) last night’ (A). A nominal group such as ‘the green shed outside’ has the structure D E H
Q: Determiner (the), Epithet (green), Head noun (shed) and Qualifier (outside), each of which
is a word. Morphemes, being the smallest units on the level of grammar, have no grammatical
structure, of course: they are composed of phonological units. On the level of phonology one
would say that the words street [ ] and actor [ ] have the structures CCCVC and
VCCV respectively, where ‘C’ means consonant and ‘V’ vowel.
CAs have traditionally focused on the category structure, this sense of the possible
linear arrangement of units into clauses, phrases, and words. Typical CA structural statements
are implicit in the following:
My father, who plays chess, is very patient.
Mein Vater, der Schach spiet, ist sehr geduldig.
In English relative clauses, the finite verb occupies second position, before the complement
and after the subject pronoun: Spron. + Vfin. + Comp. In German the order is Spron. + Comp.
+ Vfin.
In French, adjectives tend to be postnominal, while they are usually prenominal in English: N
+ Adj vs. + N. In French, future is marked by an inflection suffixed to the verb stem, while in
English a pre-verbal auxiliary will is used for this function: Vs + Suff vs. Aux + Vb.
Past participles: gespielt: played
Noun plurals: Apfel-Apfel: apple-apples
Contrasts in word-structure are here exemplified from German and English. Past
participles are composed of a prefix is used. German nouns are frequently pluralized by
vowel-rounding, indicated by the writing convention of the ‘Umlaut’, whereas in English
sibilant-suffixation is normal.
CLASS:
There are restrictions on which units can operate at given places in structures. There is
one class of the unit phrase which can fill the Predicator slot in the clause: this we called the
‘verb phrase’. ‘Thursday next’ exemplifies a unit phrase which typically occurs as Adjunct:
this we may call an instance of the class ‘adverbial phrase’. An interlingual class contrast at
clause rank is exemplified in:
V Londone tumano: London is foggy.
In Russian, a locative prepositional phrase can ocupy Subject position, but not in
English:
* In London is foggy.
A second example, this time distinguishing classes of elements acting as modifiers of
nouns, is:
… eine unter meinem Wagen schlafende Katze …
… a cat sleeping under my car …
cf. * a sleeping under my car cat …
In German the complex modifier (mc) can occur before the noun, whereas this is ruled
out in English, where it must follow the modified noun: the mc element belongs to the e
(epithet) class in German, but to the q (quantifier) class in English.
SYSTEM:
Finally, each language allows its speakers choices from sets of elements which are not
– unlike the class-choices exemplified above – determined by the place which the elements is
to occupy in the structure. “Choices’ here means “the selection of one particular term at one
particular place on the chain in preference to another term or other terms which are also
possible at that place” (Muir, 1972:10). For example, we must use a nominal class phrase to
fill the subject slot in the clause: but we are free to choose between a singular and plural
nominal phrase. When we come to the slot P, we must use a verb phrase, but we are free to
choose between the past and present tense forms, and simultaneously between perfect or non-
perfect, as well as between progressive and non-progressive forms in English: there are in
English three simultaneous two-term systems from which choices must be made. Systems
operate over the domains of units: there are systems of sentences, of clauses, of groups, of
words and of morphemes. Typical systems at clauses rank are mood, transivity, theme, and
information (cf. Muir, op. cit. 119). The mood system offers a choice between indicative and
imperative; if the speaker selects indicative, a second choice is open to him, between
declarative and interrogative, and so on. It is likely that all languages operate the systems of
mood: but they are liable to differ in the formal characteristics of the ‘exponents’ as they are
called, of any option chosen. We know, for example, that thee German who chooses
simultaneously the imperative option from the mood system and the polite option from the
deference will commit himself to the exponent Kommmen Sie morgen, which has a PSA
structure, whereas a Frenchman, making the same two selections from the same two systems
(mood and deference) will produce a PA structure such as Venex demain.
Languages may differ, not in demanding different structural exponents of identical
systems or system-combination choices, but in offering different ranges of options, for the
system number we normally recognize two systems in English: singular vs. plural, whereas in
some languages, like Arabic, there is a third term, dual. Similarly, English operates a two-
term system of case, the terms being common and genitive. In Russian, by contrast, there are
six cases: nominative, accusative, genitive, instrumental, prepositional and dative (Bidwell,
1969: 23): a language like Finnish uses even more.
In this section we have seen the value of having available a fixed set of categories of
language under which one organizes descriptions. CA hinges on the notion of contrast, which
we might define as “difference seen against a background of sameness”. Difference is the
variable which CA is concerned with. It will be most clearly evident when all other
concomitant factors are not variables, but constant. A further opportunity to achieve a
constant is by using the same model of analysis for L1 and L2.
In the domain of CA of grammatical units, CA of morphemes in languages. Thiem
(1989) has focused on the analysis of morphemes in Vietnamese and contrast them with them
with morphemes in European languages. Thiem’s analysis points out the status of morphemes
in Vietnamese as well as their distinctive features as compared with those of European
languages. Basically, morphemes in these languages can be classified into Root and Affixes
whereas this classification is not applied to morphemes in Vietnamese, an isolated language
where morphemes do not change or are modified in corresponding grammatical contexts.
In the realm of CA of words, particularly in word formation and morphological
processes, as compared with processes of word formation in European languages, words in
Vietnamese are not formed with derivation, a typical process of building words with affixes
attaching to the roots. On the other hand, words in Vietnamese are characterized with
reduplication, which is hardly found in languages such as English or French or Russian ….
One of the most noticeable domains of CA is word classes. For the CA of word classes
or parts of speech, conversion is considered one of the aspects that have a great appeal to
linguists who often pay attention to the number of word classes and their grammatical
characteristics, their ability to have collocation with other word classes as well as constraints
of this grammatical phenomenon in synthetic languages like Russian whose morphological
systems to be selected in modification are diversified. As compared, words in English can be
used in different grammatical contexts as different parts of speech. For example,
Next term we shall study plants and how they grow. [T]
Find somewhere quiet for study (= studying) - a place where you won't be disturbed.
The grammatical CA can be executed in the comparison of a given part of speech in
two languages to determine the similarities and differences in the general meaning,
morphological categories, collocation, and syntactic functions. For example, the comparison
of grammatical categories of nouns in Vietnamese, English and Russian:
The comparison of grammatical categories of nouns in Vietnamese, English and Russian
Language Vietnamese English Russian

Category
1. Gender - - +
2. Number - + +
3. Animate/inanimate - - +
4. Definite/indefinite - - +
5. Case - - +
The comparison of grammatical categories of verbs in Vietnamese, English and Russian

Category
1. Person - - +
2. Number - + -
3. Gender of subject/object - - +
4. Tense ? - +
5. Aspect aktionart - - +
6. Mood - + +
7. Voice - + +
The comparison of the grammatical categories of adjectives in Vietnamese, English and

Russian

Category
1. Gender - - +
2. Number - - -
3. Case - - +
4. Short forms - + +
5. Degrees of comparison - + +
Apart from the comparison of all grammatical categories of each part of speech , the
grammatical CA can also be done with comparison of only one grammatical category in two
languages, for example the comparison of one of these categories: gender, number,
definite/indefinite … of nouns. In this case, the researcher has to deal with such matters as to
determine whether a certain category is present in the comparative languages, in which part of
speech this category can be found, which contrasts form the category, the linguistic
realizations of the category… A typical research of this approach will be The category X in
the part of speech of Y in languages Z, Category X in Language Y and Language Y.
Last but not least important in the grammatical CA is the comparison of word order in
the comparative languages, which has been paid more attention to, particularly in analytic
languages like English and Vietnamese.
As for the CA of phrase, a comparison can be conducted regarding the structure of
phrase and means to represent the syntactic relationships between constituent members in the
phrase.
In linguistic typology, word order is the order in which words appear in sentences. In
many languages, changes in word order occur due to topicalization or in questions. However,
most languages are generally assumed to have a basic word order, called the unmarked word
order; other, marked word orders can then be used to emphasize a sentence element, to
indicate modality (such as an interrogative modality), or for other purposes. For example,
English is SVO (subject-verb-object), as in "I don't know this", but OSV is also possible:
"This I don't know." This process is called topic-fronting (or topicalization) and is very
common. In English, OSV is a marked word order because it emphasises the object.
An example of OSV being used for emphasis:
A: I can't see Alice. (SVO)
B: What about Bill?
A: Bill I can see. (OSV, rather than I can see Bill, SVO)
OSV word order is also found in poetry in English.
Sentence word orders
These are all possible word orders for the subject, verb, and object in the order of most
common to rarest:
• SOV languages include the prototypical Japanese, Turkish, Korean, the Indo-Aryan
languages and the Dravidian languages, as well as many others using this most
common word order. Some, like Persian, have SOV normal word order but conform
less to the general tendencies of other such languages.
• SVO languages include English, Portuguese, French, Chinese, Vietnamese, Bulgarian,
and Swahili, among others.
It is not understood why word orders with the subject before the object are much more
common than word orders with the object before the subject. It must be noted that in most
nominative-accusative languages there is the tendency to identify the subject with the topic
(who or what is being talked about), and to place the topic at the beginning of the sentence so
as to establish the context quickly.
Some languages can be said to have more than one basic word order. French is SVO
(Je vois Cécile "I see Cécile"), but it incorporates or cliticizes objective pronouns before the
verb (Je la vois literally "I her see"). This makes French SOV in some sentences. However,
speaking of a language having a given word order is generally understood as a reference to
the basic, unmarked, non-emphatic word order for sentences with constituents expressed by
full nouns or noun phrases. In other languages the word order of transitive and intransitive
clauses may not correspond. Russian, for example, has SVO transitive clauses but free order
(SV or VS) in intransitive clauses.
Phrase word orders and branching
There are several common correlations between sentence-level word order and phrase-
level constituent order. For example, SOV languages generally put modifiers (adjectives and
adverbs) before what they modify (nouns and verbs), and use postpositions. VSO languages
tend to place modifiers after their heads, and use prepositions. For SVO languages, either
order is common.
For example, French (SVO) uses prepositions (dans la voiture, à gauche), and places
adjectives after (une voiture spacieuse). However, a small class of adjectives generally go
before their heads (une grande voiture). On the other hand, in English (also SVO) adjectives
always go before nouns (a big car), and adverbs can go either way, but initially is more
common (greatly improved).
Free word order
Free word order is used to indicate discourse structure rather than to indicate who the doer is.
Free word order languages include Russian, Czech, Latin, and Hungarian.
Further Reading (Extracted from ng Th Thu 2008)

SYNTACTIC FEATURES OF OBJECTS IN ENGLISH AND IN VIETNAMESE
1. Syntactic Properties of Direct Object

The prototypical position for direct object is immediately after the verb. However,
there are some exceptions to this rule. In English if the wh- expression in a question is a direct
object, it is fronted.
[1] “What were you doing behind that curtain?”
[2] “What kind of watch does she buy?”
[3] “What do you want?”
It is quite different in Vietnamese. When we make such a question in Vietnamese, we
do not normally put the object in the prenuclear position. In Vietnamese we often say:
[4] C u làm cái gì sau t m rèm kia v y?
[5] Cô y mua lo i ng h gì v y?
[6] Anh mu n gì? ]
That is to say, the direct object can be placed in front of the subject and the verb in Wh
– question in English, but it often stays behind the subject and the verb in Vietnamese.
There is an interesting difference that in English the positions of the elements in the
sentence pattern S + V + O + Co are often fixed. However, we can change the positions of
direct object and object complement in the Vietnamese equivalent sentences as in the
following example:
[7] They painted the house green.
H s n ngôi nhà thành màu xanh.
or H s n xanh ngôi nhà.
Another important point to raise is that in both English and Vietnamese the canonical
order of sentence including object and adverb is SVOA, but in Vietnamese there are a lot of
cases in which the objects are shifted to the end of the sentences and the sentence pattern
SVOA becomes SVAO as in:
[8] Tôi v t vào s t rác ng lá và m m c i.
S V A O
[9] Em ái m l m l m con ng i y, …
S V A O
The fact of the matter is that in English the verb and the object of the verb normally go
together. We do not put other words between them. The following examples are good
illustration of this point.
[10] I like children very much. (not ‘I like very much children’)
[11] Are you going to invite a lot of people to the party? (not ‘Are you
going to invite to the party a lot of people?)
The O, A inversion sometimes occurs in English when direct object is a clause or
when it is heavy as in:
[12] Don’t leave till tomorrow what you can do today. [proverb]
V A O
ng n hôm sau cái b n có th làm hôm nay.
V A O
[13] He could not see by the slant of the line that the fish was circling
S V A O
Lão ch a th bi t qua nghiêng c a s i dây th ng r ng con cá ang b i tròn
S V A O
[14] She found in the goods a large number of exotic toadstools.
S V A O
Cô y tìm th y trong r ng m t kh i l ng l n các cây n m cr tl .
S V A O
It is obvious that in such cases we also have the same pattern in Vietnamese. However,
object postposing is much more popular in Vietnamese than in English. It should be made
clear that in Vietnamese, it is acceptable to say “ n cu i con ng b n s th y bên trái
m t siêu th ”, “B n có d n d p hàng tu n c n nhà c a mình không?”, but the following
sentences are impossible in English.
[15] * At the end of the street you’ll see on your left a supermarket.
[16] * Do you clean every weekend your house?
Apparently, these are the common errors that the learners often make when
transferring Vietnamese sentences of this pattern into English. And it turns out that the
difference in the arrangement of sentence constituents between English and Vietnamese
results in this type of errors.
Especially, when direct object is marked as the information focus, the speakers /
writers often put the direct object at the beginning of the sentence instead of its normal
position after the predicator. Objects in the initial position of the clauses are highly marked.
Lock (1996) [12] states that these thematized objects are not common in English. However,
they do occur in certain contexts.
[17] Most of the examples come from the texts, but this example I
invented, as I couldn’t find an authentic one.
[18] I find I get on with her very well, but him I really cannot bear.
In these examples, the marked themes highlight a contrast between most of the
examples and this example in [4.29] and between her and him in [4.30]. As thematized objects
are highly marked, they often have this kind of contrastive effect.
In Vietnamese, it has been noted that such constructions are more popular and
preferable. Vietnamese people have a preference to produce sentences such as the followings:
[20] Nhà này ch có nhà giàu m i mua.
[21] Sách này tôi ã c r i.
[22] Cái máy vi tính này tôi mua ã lâu.
The equivalents of such sentences in English often begin with “as for” as in:
[23] As for this house, only the rich want to buy it.
Alternatively, we just put the thematized objects back to the normal position of direct
objects in English sentences. However, in the normal position of a direct object, the focus of
the sentence may be changed. That is to say, when the topic appears at the beginning by the
phrase “As for” it attracts the emphasis and attention of the readers, but when it was located
in the unmarked or normal position of a direct object after the main verb, it lost its value of
attracting readers’ attention.
Furthermore, in Vietnamese we often use sentences with a much greater freedom of
Subject ellipsis and in these cases, direct objects are placed at the sentence beginning as in the
following example:
[24] C m th i r i.
[25] Tóc c t ã xong.
[26] V i này bán ch y l m.
It is apparent that instead of saying “Con th i c m r i”, “Anh y c t tóc ã xong”,
“H bán v i này ch y l m”, Vietnamese people, in certain cases prefer to say as in examples
[24], [25], and [26]. Clearly, in these examples, the subjects “Con”, “Anh y”, and “H ” are
not presented and the objects “c m”, “tóc”, and “v i này” are placed at the subjects’
positions in Vietnamese sentences.
In fact, in context the functional equivalents in English of such clauses are often
unmarked passive clauses such as “The rice has been cooked”. The point is that while clauses
like “C m th i r i” can be glossed as “As for the rice, some one has cooked it”, this
exaggerates the markedness of thematic structure within Vietnamese.
From these examples we can notice that Vietnamese typically does not have a regular
distinction in the verb group comparable to the English active passive distinction.
These examples demonstrate the typological difference between Vietnamese and
English. While in English, subject is an obligatory constituent and occupies the initial position
of a sentence, it may be dropped in Vietnamese. So many Vietnamese sentences start with a
topic which can be taken over by direct object. According to Di p Quang Ban (2005), these
constructions are called middle voice, and Nguy n Minh Thuy t [1981] considers them
sentences without subjects with the direct objects placed at the sentence beginning. He names
this kind of sentences “Câu không có ch ng v i tân ng ng u”. It can be seen that
these sentences are quite popular and preferable in Vietnamese in spoken language.
We can notice that in English, processes such as boil, ring, fly, stop, roll and some
others, in which the affected object in a transitive clause can be affected subject in an
intransitive clause as in “The bell rang twice” are called ergative pairs in English. However,
in English ergative system is more restricted than in Vietnamese. That is to say, in
Vietnamese, ergativity is marked by a special case form on all Agentive Subjects of transitive
clauses.
[27] H mua chi c xe này lâu l m r i.
Chi c xe này mua lâu l m r i.
[28] Anh y c t tóc ã xong.
Tóc c t ã xong.
[29] H óng b bàn gh này theo ki u c .
B bàn gh này óng theo ki u c .
Obviously, in Vietnamese it is normal to say “Th c n này không n c.”, “Bài
lu n c a c u không th hi u n i.”, “Ch in bé không nhìn th y rõ.”, but it is odd to say
*“This food doesn’t eat.”, *“Your essay doesn’t understand at all.”,*“The small print
doesn’t see very well.” In English, we say “We don’t eat this kind of food.”, or “This food is
inedible.”, “We do not see the small print very well.”, “We do not understand your essay at
all.”. To put it more specifically, in English we just put “this food”, “your essay”, “the small
print” in the position of direct objects not in the subjects’ position of active sentences.
In a nutshell, this is considered a remarkable difference between English and
Vietnamese and it causes many problems for Vietnamese learners of English. A long –
standing problem with middles has been that not all verbs in English are equally likely to
occur in the construction. And Vietnamese learners with their mother tongue backgrounds
may have particular difficulty in mastering this distinction. Hence, it is worth taking this
feature into consideration when transferring these Vietnamese sentences into English.
SUMMARY
UNIT 5: GRAMMATICAL CA
Grammatical CA is often carried out within the domain of units, grammatical classes,
grammatical structures, relations, grammatical categories and linguistic means to express
these categories
Halliday (1961):
4 fundamental categories: unit; structure, class, and systems
These 4 categories: universal & sufficient as basis for description of languages
UNIT:
The units of grammar for description of English and any ‘related’ language:
Sentence – clause – phrase – word – morpheme
Each of these units functions as a direct constituent of the next higher unit
S
RANK SCALE
Cl
ona docˇitala etu 1 1 2 4 10
Ph knigu
W She has finished 1 1 2 6 8

reading this book
M
• The two sentences are unit-identical (isomorphic) down to the rank of phrase: now
they begin to diverge, the Russian sentence employing four words, the English six.
This imbalance is reversed when the morphemes are counted for each sentence, as
follows.
• (Russian): on/a docˇi/ta/l/a/e/tu/ knig/u = 10
• (English): She/has/finish/ed/read/ing/this/book = 8
STRUCTURE:
Halliday:
“A structure is thus an arrangement of elements ordered in ‘places’”
The ‘element’ making up the structure of the unit clause in English are the Subject,
Predicator, Complement and Adjunct
S-S P-P C-C A-A
Structural The cat caught a mouse last night
element
Con mèo b t 1 con chu t t i qua
D-D E-H H-E Q-Q
Structural the green shed outside
element
cái láng xanh ngoài
Note: Q: Determiner, E: Epithet, H: Headnoun & Q: Qualifier
CLASS:
Each class of unit phrase can fulfill a grammatical function in a structural slot in the clause
E.g. Unit phrases in English, Vietnamese and Russian
NP VP NP AdvP
element
Prepositional phrase as S Verb phrase

V London tumano
Luân ôn có s ng mù
Noun phrase as S Verb phrase
London is foggy
SYSTEM:
Systems in a given language offer choices/selections from sets of elements determined by the
place which the elements is to occupy in the structure
Muir (1972):
“Choices’: “the selection of one particular term at one particular place on the chain in
preference to another term or other terms which are also possible at that place”
Element NP VP PP
Forms of Tigers live in jungles

choice A tiger lives near the river
The tiger is living/lives in the jungle
Form of Loài c p s ng trong r ng

choice C p ang s ng g n sông
r ng
Differences in choices form members of systems

Languages may differ, not in demanding different structural exponents of identical systems or
system-combination choices, but in offering different ranges of options
E.g. Markers of Category of number in Nouns
English Inikitut Vietnamese
2-way system 3-way system ∅ system
1 pen 2 pens 1 iglu 2 igluk 3 iglut 1, 2 ngôi nhà
E.g. Nominal Markers of Categories in Russian vs. English
nominative accusative genitive instrumental Locative dative

dom ∅ dom- u domov dom-om dom- e dom- u
The grammatical CA can be executed in the comparison of a given part of speech in two
languages to determine the similarities and differences in the general meaning, morphological
categories, collocation, syntactic functions. For example, the comparison of grammatical
categories of nouns in Vietnamese, English and Russian:

Category
1. Gender - - +
2. Number - + +
5. Case - - +

Category
1. Person - - +
2. Number - + -
4. Tense ? - +
6. Mood - + +
7. Voice - + +

Russian

Category
1. Gender - - +
2. Number - - -
3. Case - - +
WORD ORDER:
The order in which words appear in sentences.
Changes in word order occur due to topicalization or in questions.
Basic word order: unmarked word order
Marked word orders:
To emphasize a sentence element:
E.g. topic-fronting (or topicalization)
O S V
Bill I can see
Adverb Auxiliary Subject Verb Object
Never will I forget her
SYNTACTIC FEATURES OF OBJ. IN ENGLISH & VIETNAMESE

Fronted Object
Vmese Anh ∅ mu n gì?
English What do you want?

Prepositional phrase between verb & Object
n cu i con b n s th y bên trái m t siêu th

ng
At the end of the you ‘ll see a super on your

street market left
Sentence with suppressed subject
Suppressed subject Th c n này không n c

Suppressed subject This food is inedible
We don’t eat this food
WORDS & EXPRESSIONS
1. Isomorphic/isomorphous (Adj) ng hình, ng c u

Có hình th c, hình d ng hay c u trúc t ng t . M t h th ng c cho là ng hình v i m t
h th ng khác n u có m t quan h bi u hi n 1:1 bi u l các c tính c a h th ng này liên h
v i các c tính c a h th ng kia. M t quan h ng hình gi a 2 h th ng ngh a là chúng có
cùng m t c u trúc. Phép o m là cách tìm ra m t quan h ng hình gi a các i l ng và
quan h gi a các s l ng.
Ví d : 2 câu d i ây
His eyes frightened everybody. (ti ng Anh)
!ôi m t c a nó làm cho m i ng i s hãi. (ti ng Vi t)
Có quan h ng hình 1:1 c p câu (sentence) và m nh "/cú (clause)
Nh ng khác nhau c p t (word)
Unit level sentence Clause Phrase Word
His/eyes/frightened/everybody 1 1 2 4
!ôi/m t/c a/nó/làm/cho/m i/ng i/s /hãi 1 1 2 10
và hình v# (morpheme)
Unit level sentence Clause Phrase Word
His/eye/s/fright/en/ed/every/body 1 1 2 8
!ôi/m t/c a/nó/làm/cho/m i/ng i/s /hãi 1 1 2 10
2. Morpheme (n) Hình v#

! n v# nh$ nh t có ngh a c a m t ngôn ng . M t hình v# không th c chia c t nh$ thành
các ph%n t mà không làm thay i hay phá v& ngh a c a nó.
Ví d : t kind (trong ti ng Anh) là m t hình v#. N u phân tích thành kin- và –d, thì kin- có
ngh a khác ngh a ban %u. M t s t ch g m m t hình v#, vd: kind, còn m t s t khác có th
g m h n m t hình v#, vd: t unkindness g m có 3 hình v#: thân t (stem) kind, hình v# ti"n t
un-, và h u t t o danh t -ness. Hình v# có th có ch c n'ng ng pháp. Vd, trong ti ng Anh,
hình v# -s trong she talks là m t hình v# ng pháp có ch c n'ng ch báo d ng ngôi th c ba s ít
hi n t i.
3. Structure (n) C u trúc

Trong ngôn ng h c, thu t ng này th ng ch m t chu(i các n v# ngôn ng cs px p
theo m t quan h nh t #nh gi a các n v#.
Vd: m t trong các c u trúc c a m t ng danh t có th là article – adjective – noun, nh trong
the friendly ape. M t trong các c u trúc âm ti t có th có trong ti ng Anh là CVC (consonant
– vowel – consonant), nh trong t concert [ ]
4. Class (n) L p lo i
Trong ngôn ng h c, m t nhóm các n v# ngôn ng có chung m t c i m nh t #nh. Vd,
trong t t c các ngôn ng t có th c nhóm lo i thành t lo i (WORD CLASSES) theo
cách chúng k t h p v i các t khác l p thành c m t và câu, cách chúng thay i d ng,
v.v. Vì v y, horse,child, tree thu c v" l p danh t trong ti ng Anh, và beautiful, noisy, hard
thu c v" l p tính t .
5. Systemic grammar (n) Ng pháp h th ng

M t tr ng phái ng pháp phân tích d a trên vi c xem ngôn ng nh là m t chu(i các h
th ng. M(i h th ng là m t t p h p các l a ch n/kh n'ng ph i c l a ch n t i m t i m
thích h p trong quá trình t o m t phát ngôn/câu. Vd, trong ti ng Anh, ng i nói hay ng i
vi t ch n gi a các h th ng nh S)1 (number): s ít hay s nhi"u; THÌ1 (tense): quá kh , hi n
t i hay t ng lai; TH*C1 (mood): th c tr%n thu t (indicative), th c nghi v n (interrogative),
th c m nh l nh (imperative), và m t s h th ng khác
Ch ng h n, các l a ch n c a câu She jumped
singular, third person, and feminine (for she)
past, active, and action process (for jumped)
6. Transitivity2 (n) Chuy n tác/khi n tác
Trong NG+ PHÁP H, TH)NG, là m t l a ch n gi a các di n trình (process) chính có th

c bi u di n trong m t câu:
a là m t di n trình v t lý (physical) hay “v t ch t” (material) nh trong Fred cut the lawn
b là m t di n trình “tinh th%n” (mental) nh trong David saw Rosemary.
c là m t di n trình “quan h ” (relational) nh trong This view is magnificent.
Liên quan n l a ch n các di n trình này là:
a s l a ch n các tham th . M t tham th là m t ng i hay m t v t nào ó liên quan n các
di n trình, vd, trong các vd trên Fred và c$, David và Rosemary và
b s l a ch n các chu c nh, vd, David saw Rosemary yesterday/in the garden/by accident.
Các l a ch n ti p theo liên quan n s chuy n tác s- là các vai mà các tham th m nh n
trong m t di n trình và cách th c mà các di n trình, tham th , và chu c nh k t h p v i nhau
Theme (n)
7. Functional sentence perspective (n) Quan i m câu ch c n'ng
also FSP
M t ki u phân tích ngôn ng liên quan n Tr ng phái Prague trong vi c miêu t thông tin
c phân b trong câu. FSP c bi t quan tâm n hi u qu c a thông tin ã bi t (given) va
thông tin m i trong DI.N NGÔN. Thông tin ã bi t (theme: !", trong FSP), ch thông tin
không m i i v i ng i c hay ng i nghe. Ph%n Thuy t (Rheme) chi thông tin m i. FSP
khác v i ng pháp truy"n th ng trong vi c phân tích câu b i vì s phân bi t gi a ch ng - v#
ng không ph i luôn luôn nh s i l p " - thuy t. Vd, chúng ta có th so sánh 2 câu d i
ây:
1 John sat in the front seat. 2 In the front seat sat John.
Subject Predicate Predicate Subject
Theme Rheme Theme Rheme
John là ch ng ng pháp trong c 2 câu nh ng là ph%n " (theme) trong câu 1 và thuy t
(rheme) trong câu 2.
Ta c/ng có th dùng tên g i khác ch c p " - thuy t là nêu – báo (topic – comment).
Questions:
1. Examine the data below and answer the questions.
Vietnamese/English pair:
T i qua cô y m t. (Hanoi dialect)
Last night she was tired.
Cô y ã c xong cu n sách này.
She has finished reading this book.
Hôm qua anh y b# chó táp.
He was snapped at by a dog yesterday.
i) Juxtapose the two pair of sentences and compare to state how explicit Vietnamese is
compared to English in the translationally-equated pair of sentences in rank of sentence,
clause, phrase, word, morpheme.
Contrasted ranks S Cl. Phr. Wd. Morph.
Contrasted sentences
T i qua cô y m t.
She was tired yesterday.

Cô y ã c xong cu n
sách này.
She has finished reading
this book.
Hôm qua anh y b# chó
táp.
He was snapped at by a
dog yesterday
2. List out possible translational equivalents in English for the Vietnamese sentences and
answer the following questions:
a. Tôi cho m l n. .
I had pigs slaughtered
b. ! ch# bón cho.
c. V tôi sai mua bánh mì v" 'n l y s c ào ti p.
d. ...... ôi m t c a nó làm cho t t c m i ng i xung quanh "u s hãi.

frighten
e. Cún ã làm cho cô Di u thích.
f. C cho phép con vào m t tý.
g. ! tôi m nó ra gi ng này cho.

h. Em không cho bán ch# Tý!
i) Give your comments on the word order of the original versions and the translational
versions in terms of similarities and differences.
ii) Give your comments on the morphological aspect of the original versions and the
translational versions in terms of similarities and differences.
iii) Give your comments on the explicitness of the sentence elements of the original
versions and the translational versions in terms of similarities and differences.
(Clue: whether some of the sentence elements can be suppressed or must be expressed
syntactically on the surface of the structure)
4. List out the possible Vietnamese equivalents for the style disjuncts in English and answer
the following questions:
E.g. Frankly/Frankly speaking/To speak frankly
Thât tình mà nói/ Nói th c tình/ Th c tình/ Tôi nói th c
i) Give your comments on the word order of the original versions and the translational
versions in terms of similarities and differences.
ii) Give your comments on the morphological aspect of the original versions and the
translational versions in terms of similarities and differences.
iii) Give your comments on the explicitness of the syntactic elements of the original
versions and the translational versions in terms of similarities and differences.
(Clue: whether some of the syntactic elements can be suppressed or must be expressed
syntactically on the surface of the structure)
SUMMARY
UNIT 5: GRAMMATICAL CA
Grammatical CA is often carried out within the domain of units, grammatical classes,
grammatical structures, relations, grammatical categories and linguistic means to express
these categories
Halliday (1961):
4 fundamental categories: unit; structure, class, and systems
These 4 categories: universal & sufficient as basis for description of languages
UNIT:
The units of grammar for description of English and any ‘related’ language:
Sentence – clause – phrase – word – morpheme
Each of these units functions as a direct constituent of the next higher unit
S
RANK SCALE
Cl
ona docˇitala etu 1 1 2 4 10
Ph knigu
W She has finished 1 1 2 6 8

reading this book
M
• The two sentences are unit-identical (isomorphic) down to the rank of phrase:
now they begin to diverge, the Russian sentence employing four words, the
English six. This imbalance is reversed when the morphemes are counted for each
sentence, as follows.
• (Russian): on/a docˇi/ta/l/a/e/tu/ knig/u = 10
• (English): She/has/finish/ed/read/ing/this/book = 8
STRUCTURE:
Halliday:
“A structure is thus an arrangement of elements ordered in ‘places’”
The ‘element’ making up the structure of the unit clause in English are the Subject,
Predicator, Complement and Adjunct
S-S P-P C-C A-A
element
D-D E-H H-E Q-Q

Structural the green shed outside
element
cái láng xanh ngoài
Note: Q: Determiner, E: Epithet, H: Headnoun & Q: Qualifier
CLASS:
Each class of unit phrase can fulfill a grammatical function in a structural slot in the
clause
E.g. Unit phrases in English, Vietnamese and Russian
NP VP NP AdvP
element
Prepositional phrase as S Verb phrase

V London tumano
Luân ôn có s ng mù
Noun phrase as S Verb phrase

London is foggy
SYSTEM:
Systems in a given language offer choices/selections from sets of elements determined by
the place which the elements is to occupy in the structure
Muir (1972):
“Choices’: “the selection of one particular term at one particular place on the chain in
preference to another term or other terms which are also possible at that place”
Element NP VP PP
Forms of Tigers live in jungles

choice A tiger lives near the river
The tiger is living/lives in the jungle
Form of Loài c p s ng trong r ng

choice C p ang s ng g n sông
r ng
Differences in choices form members of systems

Languages may differ, not in demanding different structural exponents of identical
systems or system-combination choices, but in offering different ranges of options
E.g. Markers of Category of number in Nouns
English Inikitut Vietnamese
2-way system 3-way system ∅ system
1 pen 2 pens 1 iglu 2 igluk 3 iglut 1, 2 ngôi nhà
E.g. Nominal Markers of Categories in Russian vs. English
nominative accusative genitive instrumental Locative dative

dom ∅ dom- u domov dom-om dom- e dom- u
The grammatical CA can be executed in the comparison of a given part of speech in two
languages to determine the similarities and differences in the general meaning,
morphological categories, collocation, syntactic functions. For example, the comparison
of grammatical categories of nouns in Vietnamese, English and Russian:
Category
1. Gender - - +
2. Number - + +
5. Case - - +

Category
1. Person - - +
2. Number - + -
4. Tense ? - +
6. Mood - + +
7. Voice - + +

Russian

Category
1. Gender - - +
2. Number - - -
3. Case - - +
WORD ORDER:
The order in which words appear in sentences.
Changes in word order occur due to topicalization or in questions.
Basic word order: unmarked word order
Marked word orders:
To emphasize a sentence element:
E.g. topic-fronting (or topicalization)
O S V
Bill I can see
Adverb Auxiliary Subject Verb Object
Never will I forget her
SYNTACTIC FEATURES OF OBJ. IN ENGLISH & VIETNAMESE

Fronted Object
Vmese Anh ∅ mu n gì?
English What do you want?
Prepositional phrase between verb & Object
n cu i con b n s th y bên trái m t siêu th

ng
At the end of the you ‘ll see a super on your

street market left
Sentence with suppressed subject

Suppressed subject Th c n này không n c
Suppressed subject This food is inedible
We don’t eat this food
UNIT 6 LEXICAL CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS
The main objects of Lexical contrastive analysis are the similarities and differences of
the lexical components or ingredients and lexical relations in the comparative languages.
I. Lexical decomposition (Componential Analysis)
One method that the linguists have used to characterize the sense of words is called lexical
decomposition. This method represents the sense of a word in terms of the semantics features
that comprise it. For example, consider the words man, woman, boy and girl. The sense of
each of each of these words can be partly characterized by specifying a value (+ or -) for the
features [+ adult] and [+ female] as follows.
man woman boy girl
[adult] + + - -
[male] + - + -
The lexical decomposition or componental analysis makes use of the semantic features
or semantic properties in its process of assigning the value [+] or [-] to a linguistic expression,
namely the morphemes and words. To understand more about this semantic analysis we
should pay our attention to the basic notions related to sense as presented in the following
subsections.
1. Semantic properties (also, semantic components, semantic features):
These are the basic units of a word. The semantics of a word may be described as a
combination of semantic features, e.g. the semantic feature [+ male] is part of the meaning of
father, and so is the feature [+ adult] but other features are needed to give the whole concept
or sense of father
These are also piece of information we have about a word which may be stored in our
mental lexicon dictionary. For example the word assassinate may arouse in the speaker’s and
hearer’s mind these pieces of information:
[agent: human, murderer; person killed: important person]
- The same semantic property may be part of the meaning of many different words, e.g.
female is a semantic property that helps to define tigress, hen, doe, ewe, mare, actress,
widow, woman, maiden
- The same semantic property may occur in words of different categories, e.g. female in
breast-feed (V), pregnant (A), and cause in kill, darken, beautify
Semantic features are also understood as semantic categories/ properties that indicate
the relations or classes that a word may have or share with other words.
This can be illustrated in the overlap in meaning between 2 or more words where they
share some but not all the semantic features.
1
E.g. sister niece aunt mother nun mistress
[human] + + + + + +
[male] - - - - - -
[kin] + + + + - -
meaning
of sister meaning
of niece
[+human]
[-male]
[+kin]
Figure 3.1 Illustration of overlap (adapted from Parker, 1994, p.42)

- A certain semantic category may imply others, e.g. human implies animate
- redundancy rules:
• one feature automatically contains another,
• Some semantic redundancy rules reveal negative properties,
e.g. [ +human] [- abstract]
In the position of Richards, Jack [1987], the smallest units of meaning in a word or
words are regarded the meaningful units of a language (the smallest, independent, in fact).
This view is shared by Nguyen Hoa [2000] who claims that the meaning of a word may be
described as a combination of semantic features.
According to Crystal [1987], semantic feature is “a minimal contrastive element of a
word meaning, in some approaches called a semantic component”. E.g. Boy = young + male
+ human.
Girl = young + female + human.
So, semantic features can be considered a common characteristic of words in the same
group. We shall start with a commonly used example from standard literature on semantics.
The words ‘boy’, ‘girl’, ‘man’ and ‘woman’ we can extract another feature ‘male’ and from
‘girl’ and ‘woman’ the feature of ‘female’ or ‘male’, ‘man’ and ‘woman’ have in common the
sense of ‘adult’. Whereas ‘girl’ and ‘boy’ are characterized by an absence of it.
Thus, a man and a woman can be described as, for example:
Woman = [+female], [+adult], [+human]
Man = [+male], [+adult], [+human]
2
What is obvious is that the meaning or sense of a word may be described as a function
of a certain semantic features.
Besides understanding different words in isolation, it is important we take a look at the
semantic field.
2. Semantic Field
The semantic structure of vocabulary of a language can be studied in a precise and
systematic way by means of componential analysis on which the theory of semantic field
greatly learns.
The assumption of lexical field analysis or semantic field analysis is that lexemes can
be grouped together into semantic fields on the basis of shared meaning and that most, if not
all vocabulary of a language, can be accounted for in this way. The description of meaning,
the definition of lexemes, is then undertaken within each semantic field on the basis of shared
meanings and that most, if not all the vocabulary of a language, can be accounted for in this
way.
Different terms such as lexical field, semantic field and word field are usually treated
as synonyms, but some authors have proposed distinctions among then. For example, Lyons
[1996] distinguished between ‘conceptual field’ (a structure of concepts on the semantic level,
a structured conceptual area) and ‘lexical field’ (a set of lexemes that covers a specific
conceptual field).
Semantic field (lexical field) is defined by Richards, Jack and Platt, John and Platt
[1987] as “the organization of related words and expressions into a system which shows their
relationship to one another.”
For example, kinship terms such as father, mother, brother, sister, uncle, aunts belong
to a lexical field whose relevant features include generation, sex, membership of the father’s
or mother’s side of the family, etc.
Likewise, the lexical field is not merely a group of lexemes or words put together to
show the same category of meaning. Rather, as Crystal [1987] puts it, the lexical field should
be viewed in the position that vocabulary of a language is a system of interrelated lexical
networks, and not an inventory of independent items. Examples include the fields of vehicles,
fruit, clothing, colour, and parts of the body. Not all aspects of experience nearly divide into
semantic fields, however, and it is always necessary to consider the context before assigning a
lexical item to a field. For example, “hospital” relates to both the semantic field of health (as
in I was in hospital last week) and that of buildings (as in The hospital needs a new roof).
In the 1920’s and 30’s Edward Sapir, and B.L. Worlf, concerned themselves with the
problems of linguistic determinism, A hypothesis claiming that, since language determine our
perception of reality, and since languages are structured differently, different language
communities have different views of what is, objectively, the ‘same’ reality: “Languages have
a tendency to ‘impose structure on the real world’ by treating some distinctions as crucial, and
ignoring others” (Leech, 1974: 30). The Sapir-Worf hypothesis, then, views language as the
determinant of perceived reality. This view of determinism can, and has been, reversed into a
3
claim that culture is reflected in language: “the language of a particular society is an integral
part of its culture, and … the lexical distinctions drawn by each language will tend to reflect
the culturally important features of objects, institutions and activities in the society in which
the language operates” (Lyons, 1968: 342). Here we have the two views of determinism: first
culture determines language, and then the language determines our view of reality.
A second area in which contrastive lexicology has been kept alive is that of
translation. Here again cultural barriers to effective translation have in the forefront. And of
course, where there are L2 learners and translators, there are bilingual dictionaries. This,
bilingual lexicography, is the third area contrastive lexicology has been maintained. Any
reasonably good dictionary bears witness to this.
On the other linguistic levels, the contrastive analysis proper presupposes the prior
analysis of the lexicons of L1 and L2. To quote Leech (op. cit.) again: “The lexicon will be
considered as an unordered list or set of lexical entries. A lexical entry, in turn, will be
considered as a combination of three specifications: a morphological specification, … a
syntactic specification, … and a semantic specification.” Lado has also mentioned 3 levels for
lexical contrastive analysis: form, meanings and distribution. He stresses that distribution is
not simply the possible contexts of words, but also con-texts or situations in which the words
may be used.
A clear account of semantic components and how they are identified is given in Lyons
(op. cit.: 470). He asks us to consider the following sets of words in English:
man woman child
bull cow calf
ram ewe lamb, etc.
We feel that these triads of words represent a common pattern horizontally, so that we could
set up a proportions like:
man: woman: child = bull: cow: calf
Both ‘man’ and ‘bull’ are (+male), ‘woman’ and ‘cow’ (+female), and ‘child’ and ‘calf’
(+immature). Vertically we see further contrasts: all the first set are (+human), all the second
(+bovine), all the third (+ovine). The features we have isolated are semantic components.
Each lexeme is a complex of such components: ‘lamb’ for example is specifiable as (+ovine,
+ young) corresponding to the dictionary of this item as ‘young sheep’ or ‘young gregarious
ruminant of the species ovis’
In the approach to the lexical CA in terms of word field, we often contrast lists of
lexical units of a specific field, the semantic structure of this field and of the units themselves
as well as their frequency, their collocation and rhetorical ability of these lexical units.
Theoretically, there are different perspectives of “field” such as ‘notional field’,
‘semantic field’, ‘semanto-syntactic field’, ‘semanto-functional field’ … Basing on this, CA
aims to find out the similarities and differences in the structure of linguistic units in each type
of “field” in the contrasted languages; the similarities and differences in number of factors,
4
units … in fields of languages, semantic content of the linguistic units in the field. Each unit,
in the field of different languages, can be members of different “language field”. Thus, this
can lead to the different equivalents of units of different “fields” in the contrasted languages.
In the view of teaching and learning foreign language, the approach to CA in the field
can bring valuable information that help teachers and learners get a better insight into the
interference in semantic fields and avoid them or prevent them. For instance, those
Vietnamese learners of English who are not fully aware of the semanto-syntactic features of
the lexical units in the same semantic field “speaking” in English may make mistakes in using
the verbs to tell, to speak, to say, as in
* He said over the radio instead of
He spoke over the radio.
* He said him about this instead of
He told him about it.
This is due to the influence of the equivalent units of these verbs in Vietnamese such
as nói, k , b o …There is a significant difference in English and Vietnamese in number and
semanto-syntactic features of the linguistic units of English and Vietnamese in the same field.
Bui Manh Hung (2008) puts that the differences in meanings subject to the cultures.
Some meanings that exist in this culture may not be found in another culture. By Surprun
(1988, cited from Bui Manh Hung) even in the same cultural area, say European languages, 5
– 10% of the vocabulary in a specific language do not have the equivalents in the other
comparative languages. This significant difference can also be found in the lexical contrastive
analysis of the lexical units in the same lexical field of two languages.
A notion may be expressed by a lexical unit in this language but by a phrase in
another. For example, to express the verb “nói thách” in English, we have to resort to a phrase
as “to put the price up expecting people to bargain”(cited in Bui Manh Hung: 199). In some
other cases, it is impossible to find out an equivalent for such words as m m nêm, áo dài,
nh u … in English.
The notions denoted in the lexical units of different languages are not prefrabricated,
but are determined by the native speakers. Thus, the lexical units of languages are different
not only in phonetic form but also in ways of structuralizing the world via different systems of
notions corresponding to items that are labeled. This fact gives way to the differentiation of
the semantic structure of the lexical systems of languages. The same meaning can be
expressed by a lexical means but by a grammatical one in another. The contrastive analysis of
the kinship terms referring to people who have the same parents in English and Vietnamese
yield the difference in that the semantic feature [± born before] is an inherent feature in
Vietnamese as in the words anh, ch , em. In contrast, this semantic ingredient is optional in
English, as in brother, sister, i.e. English speakers do not have to express this meaning in the
neutral kinship terms such as brother or sister.
5
The differences on number and semantic structure of lexical units entails the
differences in their collocation. For example, the word “gi ” in Vietnamese may have more
than 10 equivalents in English: fake, false, bogus, counterfeit, sham, imitation, reproduction,
artificial, forged, assumed, replica, glass, prosthetic …. By contrast, the word “wear” in
English may be translated into Vietnamese with such words as
“m c áo” for “wear a dress”,
“ i m ” for “wear a hat”,
“ i/mang/ eo g ng” for “wear the gloves”
“ i tóc gi ” for “wear a wig”
“ râu” for “wear a beard”
“ eo/mang/th t cà v t” for “wear a tie”
“mang/ i giày” for “wear the shoes”
It can be noticed that the semantic structure of “gi ” in Vietnamese or ‘wear” in English is
said to be simpler as compared with the equivalents in the target language, accordingly, its
collocation is higher. That is to say, the collocation of any of the set of fake, false, bogus,
counterfeit, sham, imitation, reproduction, artificial, forged, assumed, replica, glass,
prosthetic is restricted to a specific word in context of use. The collocation must subject to the
specific context where the word in question is used. For example, to express the meaning
“gi ” in “ti n gi ” only the equivalent “counterfeit or fake” can be used to make the noun
phrase “counterfeit notes/coins”. The expressions of the collocation of “gi ” in English can be
represented in the chart below:
gold nugget
sympathy
marriage
painting
product
jewelry
papers
limbs
name
notes
teeth
eye
fake + +
false + +
bogus +
counterfeit + + +
sham + +
imitation +
reproduction
artificial +
forged + +
assumed +
replica +
glass +
prosthetic +
(data borrowed from Tr nh Nh t 2004, cited in Bùi M nh Hùng 202)
6
Further Reading (Cited from Nam, Nguy n B c 2003)
Contrasting the lexical units of two languages in a specific semantic category
Some words have a great number of senses or meanings. These meanings, in turn can
make up a category or field. To conduct a lexical contrastive analysis of a pair of words in
two languages in terms of all the senses or categories is time-consuming and painful. Thus, is
possible to carry out a contrastive analysis of units of a part of speech or semantic field in
terms of a specific sense property.
For the contrastive analysis of a specific kind of verbs of two languages, let’s take the
example of the causative verbs in English and Vietnamese.
Duran made her stand up straight.
Bát cháo hành c a Th N làm h n suy ngh nhi u.
Fog made the light yellow.
Chính tôi làm cái thân tôi kh
The contrastive analysis is based on the observance of the actual use of causative
members in English and their translational equivalents in Vietnamese, illustrated in table
3.1.2e below.
V làm khi n b t cho cho m i thuy t sai b o nh c m ng n

E bu c phép ph c
make + + + + + +
force + +
get + + + +
let + + +
have + + + + +
permit + + +
allow + +
persuade +
ask + + +
tell + + +
forbid +
prevent +
Table 3.1.2e the causative meaning of English causative members manifested in the
Vietnamese translational equivalents
3.1.2. Degree of transitivity of causative verbs in causative constructions

In general, the examples mentioned above all have the typical causative constructions
that are identical in causative structure. However, as the resulting event is paid more interest
in the complementation of the causative verb, a fundamental distinction among causative
constructions should be made here. In (28) and (30), the result is an event while in (29) and
(31) it is a state. We refer to (28), (30) as resulting event-causatives and refer to (29), (31) as
7
resulting-state causatives. The former case describes a situation in which the patient is acted
on and gets engaged in an action. The latter case describes a causative event by which the
patient is brought to a resulting state. This semantics can be mapped on the syntactic structure
to yield the following models:
Causer (agent) Process Causee (patient) Resulting event
Duran made her stand up straight
Bát cháo hành c a làm h n suy ngh nhi u
Th N
Subject Verb Object Object
chart 3.1.2a Causative construction with resulting event
Causer (agent) Process Causee (patient) Resulting state

Fog made the light yellow
Chính tôi làm cái thân tôi kh
Subject Verb Object Complement
chart 3.1.2b Causative construction with resulting state
3.1.3. Semantic strength of causative verbs

3.1.3.1. Likelihood of the success of the causation
In this section we look into the semantics of the causative verbs in terms of likelihood
of success of the causation and notion of agency: animacy, intention, responsibility of the
causer and the use of its own internal energy-source. By Lyons, animate entity X intentionally
and responsibly uses its own force, or energy, to bring about an event or to initiate a process;
and the paradigm instance of an event or an process in which agency is most obviously
involved will be one that results in a change in the physical condition or location of X or of
some other entity. [23, 484]
For the discussion of the likelihood of the success of the causation, we borrowed the
notion "Effect" from Jackendoff [21, 131] to refer to what the causer trying to bring about for
the resulting event. Here we look into the question whether the causer's effort in directing
toward the causee's action or state is translated into factive or potential effect. Technically, we
attempt to find out whether the result or effect can be identified as a factive entailment or
factive implicature. To determine whether the directed action or state was actually brought
about or not we examined the complementation of the causative verb by expanding the
context where the Effect in question could be seen from its continuation. Jackendoff proposed
that by inserting the adverb "successfully/ unsuccessfully" before causative verbs like urge or
impede, these verbs can guide the reader/ hearer to a two value interpretation whereas verbs
like force or prevent can only yield one value interpretation with "successfully". With the
same analogue, we can determine the semantic strength of causative verbs make, force, have
8
as the ones with high effect. The insertion of unsuccessfully here is infelicitous and makes the
utterance irrelevant, e.g.
(87) I (successfully) forced him, with my hand on his shoulder, to look around.
Tôi t tay vào vai h n b t ( c) h n quay nhìn chung quanh.
The semantics of the adverb successfully is compatible with that of causative verbs
with high likelihood of success, although its presence in the sentence with this causative verb
is somewhat redundant.
In Vietnamese, this semantic fact can be manifested with the presence of c or
thành công in the same sentence with factive causative verbs as has been shown in the
translational versions of (87). However, this line of analysis is valid where the causer is
sentient entity that deliberately gets involved in the causation. When the causer is unvoluntary
in the unintended causing event the adverb test is invalid. This fact suggests that c can be
treated as adverb with human propensity. It is also necessary to take the genres and types of
speech act into consideration. By our observance, causative constructions used in report or
representative speech acts made for the narrative purpose usually conveyed the strong factive
implication, i.e. the causing event and resulting event were viewed as true as the former one
entailed the latter. This implication is uncancelable to yield alternative outcome between
positive or negative. On the other hand, causative constructions used in performative contexts
usually suggest a potential result event which is undetermined by the reader or hearer. By
Givón's (15, 133) model, these verbs fall within the scope of manipulative type which requires
that the subject as the agent of the verb in the main clause must be human and the object as
the agent of the complement clause must also be human. According to this constraint of
animacy, verbs like have, get, tell, ask, persuade and let were found to be restricted to
constructions with personal subject. Thus, in (89) below, the verb make in the English
translational equivalent of the Vietnamese source version cannot be replaced by have as its
alternative expression:
(89) Hành ng hy sinh thân mình c a con kh làm ông c m ghét.
Her readiness to sacrifice herself made / ??? had him hate her
The semantic strength of caustive verbs is ranked according to degree of manipulation,
illustrated in the following examples
Successful manipulation
This semantic property signals the factive entailment between the proposition
expressing the causing event and the proposition expressing the resulting event. Verbs like
make, get, have, let, cause, force code this semantic property. E.g.
(90) she made me feel like a damn fool...
và bà y làm tôi có c m t ng mình là th ng ng c nh t i...
(I actually felt like a damn fool indeed ...) In (90) - (92), the truth of the resulting event
necessarily follows from the truth of the causing event, and this successful manipulation can be
9
said to be a presupposition of the verbs mentioned. The Vietnamese causative constructions
with verbs like khi n, làm cho, m c, b t encode this factive entailment. In (93) and (94)
below, the clauses after khi n and làm cho presuppose that the speaker/ writer presented the
situation as a factive event and furthermore presupposed that both the causing event and
resulting event were true. E.g.
(94) S ói rách c a con và s l m than c a v , p i ti n n tr c m t,
ã làm cho anh gan ru t n u nà.
(his heart was struck indeed)
Successful prevention
This property presupposes the success of the agent/ causer in manipulating the causee
toward non-performance of the supposed resulting event. E.g.
(95) The police could prevent others entering the square.
C nh sát ng n c nh ng ng i ch khác xô t i.
(the others did not enter the square indeed)
In (95) the falsity of the resulting event necessarily follows from the truth of the
causing event.
Attempted manipulation
This property implies the potentiality of the supposed resulting event, i.e. the hearer/
reader cannot infer whether the resulting event actually takes place or not. The truth of the
resulting event does not necessarily follows from the truth of the causing event
(96) I had finally persuaded her to allow me to clean up.
Cu i cùng tôi c ng ã thuy t ph c c nàng tôi gánh l y vi c thu d!n.
(Finally she allowed me to clean up)
(97) I order you to come back to the car and cut brush.
Tôi ra l nh cho các anh ph i tr l i xe và ch t cành cây.
(in fact you came back to the car)
(in fact you did not come back to the car)
If the factive adverb finally is removed from (96) the hearer has no way to know
whether the causee allowed the speaker to do the cleaning or not; and in (97) the resulting
action was supposed to take place in future, therefore, the truth of proposition 1 does not entail
the truth of proposition 2.
The Vietnamese causative verbs like b o, m i, ra l nh, thuy t ph c do not presuppose
the success of causation. In Vietnamese, as in the translational version of (96) above, the
success of manipulation was signaled by the presence of the marker c after the causing
verb thuy t ph c. If this marker was removed, the effect was only an implication that can be
cancelled.
10
As illustrated in the following examples, the fact turned out opposite to the content
proposition uttered by the speaker as causer. From the context of (98) we understood that the
hearer as causee did not carry out the action directed on him. The expanded context in (99)
indicates the hearer's/ causee's refusal to accept the speaker's offer and failed to realize the
resulting event. In (100), we cannot infer the likelihood of success of the result "forgetting".
This undetermined likelihood is signaled in the Vietnamese version of translation by the
marker "hãy" and " i" conveying the state of affairs in future. These utterances may have the
implications as follow
(98) Ông b o mày l y thêm r u, làm sao t" nãy d n gi ch a th y?
(You haven't brought me the wine yet)
(99) Tôi m i lão hút tr c. Nh ng lão không nghe. [33, 85]
(He refused to smoke first)
Attempted dissuasion
This property implies the potentiality of the supposed unfulfilment of the resulting
event, i.e. the hearer/ reader cannot infer whether the resulting event actually takes place or
not. The falsity or truth of the resulting event does not necessarily follows from the truth of the
causing event. E.g.
(101) Her father forbade their marriage.
(102) He wouldn't allow Phuong into the house, ...
H n c m không cho Ph ng vào trong nhà, ...
In (101) whether their marriage was celebrated or not was undetermined; and in (102)
we have no access to a categorical assertion that Ph ng did not enter the house, and thus the
possibility was still open.
(103) Bây gi lu t m i nghiêm c m cha m# bán con cho nên v n t ph i vi t nh
th ...
(104) Em không cho ch sang nhà c ngh .
From the context in (103) it is implicated that the parents as causee actually sold their
child and this invalidated the forbiddance of the law, and in (104) the effect was only potential.
Thus, according to the degree of effect that is presupposed by the causative verbs, we
can have four types of causative effect:
i) verbs encoding the successful manipulation and yields an uncancellabe factive
implication of a predetermined positive outcome, namely force, cause, help, have, enable in
English and khi n, b t, làm cho in Vietnamese.
ii) verbs encoding the attempted manipulation and yields a cancelable implication of a
undetermined positive outcome, namely ask, tell, beg, want, allow, let, permit, expect, order
in English and b o, m i, sai, van, xin, cho phép, ra l nh in Vietnamese
11
iii) verbs encoding the successful prevention and yields an uncancellabe factive
implication of a predetermined negative outcome, namely stop, prevent in English and ng n,
d"ng in Vietnamese.
iv) verbs encoding the attempted dissuasion and yields a cancelable implication of a
undetermined negative outcome, namely forbid, not allow in English and c m, không cho
(phép) in Vietnamese
Table 3.1.3.1.a
Likelihood of the success of the causation in English causative verbs
Dimension Successful Attempted Successful Attempted
verb manipulation manipulation Prevention Dissuasion
Make +
Force +
Get +
Let +
Have +
Allow +
Permit +
Persuade + +
Ask + +
Tell + +
Forbid +
Prevent +
Stop +
Table 3.1.3.1.b
Likelihood of the success of the causation in Vietnamese causative verbs
Verb manipulation manipulation Prevention Dissuasion
Làm + + + +
Cho + + + +
khi n + +
B t +
Cho phép +
$ + +
Thuy t ph c + +
Sai +
B o +
Xin + +
12
C m +
Ng n +
D"ng/ ng"ng +
The result in the two tables above shows there is a significant difference in semantic
feature iii) successful prevention between English and Vietnamese causative verbs. Only 2
(prevent, stop) out of 13 members of causative verbs code the factive entailment of a non-
performance of the action manipulated whereas 4 Vietnamese members out of 13 were found
to code this semantics. It is interesting to find that làm, cho, khi n can be used to signal either
the effect of factive positive or factive negative outcome. In this extensional sense, it can be
assumed that these Vietnamese verbs code a wider range of semantics in terms of effect or
likelihood of success.
In semantic feature i), ii), iv) there is an imbalance equivalent in English causative
make, get, have, force and Vietnamese causative làm, cho, khi n, b t. This assymmetric
equivalent manifests itself in diagram below
English Vietnamese Vietnamese English
Make Làm Làm Make
Force B t B t Force
Get Khi n Khi n Get
Have Cho Cho Have

In semantic feature ii), iii) and iv) there is a nearly one-to-one causative equivalent
between English verbs and Vietnamese counterparts. This causative symmetric equivalence is
illustrated in the chart below
English Vietnamese
Let $
Allow Cho
Permit Cho phép
Ask B o
Tell Sai
Persuade Thuy t ph c
Prevent Ng n c n
The semanto-syntactic features of causative verbs in English and Vietnamese
3.1.3.2.c. Degree of contact and syntactic realization in English and Vietnamese
13
The difference among causative verbs can be made along the scale of contact: whether
the manipulation is direct or indirect. This dimension shows the degree of causer's
involvement in the causation upon the causee. Let us compare the two versions of the same
proposition uttered in the form of an active causative structure and a passive one.
(130) Next day we moved Strickland. [49, 92]
(131) Next day we had Strickland move.
(132) Next day we had Strickland moved.
It is obvious that (130) conveys the most directness in the manipulation with the
lexical causative verb move with the causee is viewed with an affected role and passively
receives the action of moving. With (131) and (132), there is a subtle difference in degree of
contact encoded in the active causative structure and the passive one. (131) may imply that
Strickland was physically well enough to move himself without any physical force exerted on
him. Of course he was affected by the act of causing from the speaker and others as causers
but it is a salient point that he could decide and chose to move by himself rather being pushed
on. In contrast, (132) has a strong implication that Strickland might not take an active part in
moving himself but was moved by the other potential participant(s). Both (131) and (132)
imply that the speaker as causer did not act as the performer of the act of moving. However
(131) may suggest that Strickland as the causee was more directly affected by the causing
event whereas (132) may imply that someone else other than Strickland could also be affected
by the causation and acted as the performer of the resulting action. This semantic fact reveals
that active causative construction suggests more causee's involvement in the resulting action
than a passive one does. It is also noted that a sentence with active causative structure signals
more degree of directness in contact between the causer and the causee. In the context of an
utterance of a sentence in the form of a passive structure, it is implicated that both causer and
causee need not be present in the same place and at the same time. This semantic fact can be
manifested in more examples
(133) That sort of thing makes me sick. [49, 48]
Cái ng này làm tôi phát m.
(134) I have had Italian officers visit me frequently... [46, 136]
Tôi th ng c các s quan ý n th m
(135) Will you have the menu brought up? [46, 144]
Vâng, mang h th c %n lên nhé.
Causative Verb like make encode a direct contact between the causer and causee
whereas verbs like cause, get, have encode indirect contact. In (133) the causee was directly
manipulated by the agent of make in the causing event while (134) shows a more indirect
contact between the two interactants. (134) may imply that the speaker delivered his invitation
by sending letter of invitation or by ringing the causee.
14
In contrast, the instances of passive structures in general and causative constructions
with passive structure specifically were found rare in Vietnamese. Nguyen Kim Than stated
that only b t bu c, bu c can be used in passive causative structure. As Nguyen Kim Than
[1999, 158] put, the syntactico-inversional ability of Verb - Noun to Noun - Verb in
Vietnamese allow some causative verbs to occur in passive structure. E.g.
(136a) B!n quân phi t th c dân NP1 ã b t bu c CAUSATIVE VERB chúng tôi NP2
ph i ti p t c chi n u. [3, 159]
(136b) Chúng tôi NP2 b t bu c CAUSATIVE VERB ph i ti p t c chi n u.
This author proposed a test of insertion to determine whether a structure is a passive
causative structure or not. The insertion of NP2 between the causative and the resulting verb
in (136b) creates an odd sentence or makes it sound like an active causative sentence.
(137) Chúng tôi NP2 b t bu c CAUSATIVE VERB ( ) ph i ti p t c chi n u. (passive

sense)
(138) Chúng tôi NP2 b t bu c (nh ng ng i khác) ph i ti p t c
chi n u. (active sense
As we have observed, the deontic modal marker ph i follow the causative verb and
precedes the resulting verb can signal the passive meaning of the causative structure
PASSIVE {NP CAUSATIVE VERB DEONTIC MARKER PH I RESULTING VERB}
A typical passive structure in Vietnamese can be recognized with the occurrence of

passive marker b / c before the causative verb. There is a semantic distinction between
these two markers where the former is used to convey the meaning of misfortune or
unluckiness while the latter suggests luckiness or something favourable in speaker's
viewpoint. E.g.
(139a) Th& ã s p ng l i b h%i l nh làm cho t nh d y. [33, 99]
NP1 B NP2 CAUSATIVE VERB RESULTING VERB
(139b) Th& ã s p ng l i b (h%i l nh) làm cho t nh d y.

NP1 B (NP2) CAUSATIVE VERB RESULTING VERB
(139c) Th ã s p ng l i b làm cho t nh d y (b i) h i l nh.
NP1 B CAUSATIVE VERB RESULTING VERB (B I) NP2
It is observed that structure in version (139a,b,c) was found to be the most frequently
and commonly used in Vietnamese whereas the structure with b i + potential performer of
resulting action was rare. With this line, the marker b can be inserted before causative verb
b t bu c in (139a,b,c) to explicate the passive causative meaning of the structure.
Chúng tôi NP2 b b t bu c CAUSATIVE VERB ph i ti p t c chi n u.
15
This structure was found to be used in the translational Vietnamese equivalents for the English
causative sentences with get. E.g.
(140) We'll get killed up there.
Chúng ta có th b tiêu di t t i n%i này.
(141) He was afraid we would get killed.
Anh ta s chúng ta s' b gi t.
(142) I don't think you'll get drowned.
Ch(ng có lý nào ông b m thuy n âu.
However, in most cases of passive causative constructions in English, specifically with
Have-causative, the Vietnamese translational equivalents were found in active form. Let us
consider the example below
(143) Nobody's going to make me sit out there on the road and have my throat cut.
Ch(ng ai b t chúng tôi ngoài ng ng i ta c t h!ng i.
(143) Miss Van Campen had some sherry put in this.
Cô Van Campen ã cho m t chút r u Sherry vào trong ó.
(144) Will you please have dinner for two brought up here and two bottle of dry wine
caprie in ice. [46, 296]
Anh vui lòng mang lên ây hai ph n n v i hai chai Capri tr ng p l nh không pha
nhé.
(145) She lost me my leave and she might try and get me court-martialled.
Cô y ã c t phép ngh d )ng b nh và có l' s' tìm cách a tôi ra tòa án quân s .
(147) I must get them cleaned before I see the Minister.
Ph i ánh giày tr c khi vào g p ngài b tr ng.
In the English version, the real agent of the resulting action was not mentioned
because the speaker wished to make the resultative meaning salient as in (143) - (147). On the
contrary, the Vietnamese versions express the active meaning of the causative event by
mentioning the real performer of the resulting action as in (143). In the other cases, the real
performer of the resulting action was not mentioned and the subject of sentence naming the
causer may be interpreted as the real performer. Accordingly, the Vietnamese translational
equivalents may manifest assumptions like: Miss Van Campen herself was held to put some
sherry in the wine or she asked someone else to do this, as in (144); the proprietor himself was
held to bring dinner and two bottle of dry wine caprie or he would ask someone else to do this,
as in (145); Miss Van Campen herself was held to bring the speaker to martial court or she
would ask someone else to do this, as in (146); the speaker himself was held to clean his shoes
or he asked someone to do this, as in (147). All the first reading in each pair of interpretations
suggest something more direct than the original one conveyed by the passive causative
16
structure where the causer should be held indirectly responsible for the resulting action. Thus a
sharp distinction can be made between English passive causative expression and Vietnamese
translational equivalents with the expression or suppression of real performer of the result
action. The structures for the translation of English passive causative patterns into Vietnamese
can be modelized as follow:
NP1CAUSER VCAUSATIVE NP2 CAUSEE VRESULT/ (by NP3

PASSIVE PERFORMER:
(source)
English
version
SUPPRESSED)
Nobody going to have my throat cut (by …)

Vietnamese version
NP1CAUSER VCAUSATIVE NP3 VRESULT: NP2

PERFORMER: ACTIVE CAUSEE
EXPRESSED
ch(ng ai … (b t …) ng i ta c t h!ng
(source)
(target)
(chúng tôi)
i
NP1CAUSER VCAUSATIVE NP2 VRESULT/ (by NP3 ADV

AFFECTED PASSIVE PERFORMER: RESULTATIVE
SUPPRESSED)
Englissh
STATE
(source)
version
Miss Van had some sherry put (by s.o) in this

Campen
NP1CAUSER (VCAUSATIVE: (NP3 VRESULT/ NP2 ADV

version (target)
SUPPRESSED) PERFORMER: ACTIVE AFFECTED RESULTATIVE

Vietnamese
SUPPRESSED) STATE
Cô Van ã (b o/ (ng i ta) cho m t chút vào trong ó

Campen nh ) r u Sherry
The instances found in the Vietnamese translational equivalents show that the
syntactic slots for VCAUSATIVE and NP3 PERFORMER are usually empty. The Vietnamese speakers
may find that the information for the potential performer and causative meaning here is trivial
and not irrelevant to be mentioned. In English, with passive causative construction, we focus
17
on what is done to something or someone, not on what someone does, specifically, we stress
on the fact that we are causing someone else to perform a service (build, clean, decorate,
deliver, develop, mend, photocopy, press, print, repair...) and service for us. In Vietnamese,
this semantics of service is rendered by the causative verb nh and occasionally b o in an
active causative structure which may suggest more directness in contact between the causer
and causee.
In short, the contrastive information of the degree of contact of causative verbs in
English and Vietnamese is mapped in the following nominal scale:
Table 3.1.3.2.c. Degree of contact

Contrastive Expressing degrees of contact of the causatives through causative
Criterion meaning
passive causative construction causative verb/particle
Language of CA syntactic Empty implicit form explicit form
English + - + -
Vietnamese - + - +
3.1.3.2.d. Causee's resistance and Causer's coercive effort

Though causative verbs on the same area of the complementation scale share a number
of similarities such as intent, successful manipulation, directness, they may have differences
in degree of interactional force exerted by the interactants. According to the Force-Dynamics
Theory, the causer as Antagonist has to apply exertion of force to some extent to overcome a
potential resistance from the Agonist. In this sense of Force-Dynamics, some causative verbs
suggest that the causer must use more effort to overcome the difficulty or obstacle in the
manipulation. Let us consider the passage below (the italic words in parentheses are our own
remarks)
(148) Next day we moved Strickland (successful causation). It needed a good deal of
firmness and still more patience to induce him to come (effort and exertion of force), but he
was really too ill to offer any effective resistance to Stroeve's entreaties and to my
determination (weak resistance). We dressed him (successful causation), while he feebly
cursed us (weak resistance), got him downstairs (successful causation), into a cab, and
eventually to Stroeve's studio (successful causation). He was so exhausted by the time we
arrived (weak resistance) that he allowed us to put him to bed without a word (successful
causation). [49, 92]
The passage reveals that there was an interaction between Strickland as the causee or
Agonist and the speaker and some others as the causer or Antagonist. In general, the speaker
and some others successfully made Strickland move or exactly got him moved. A significance
18
to be noticed here is Strickland's weak resistance which paid contribution to the likelihood of
success of the causation or manipulation. The stronger the Agonist with his/ her resistance,
the more force exertion the Antagonist has to apply in his/ her manipulation. This is also
encoded in semantics of causative verbs such as force, make, let, permit, allow. Let us
consider the examples below
(149) Rico felt the sting of the blow, as they pinned his arm back and forced him to walk
the path back to the carry-all.
(150) I had forced her to write it and I could feel her pain in every line.
Nay tôi bu c bà ta ph i vi t và tôi th y n i au c a bà ta toát ra t" m i dòng.
(151) I forced him, with my hand on his shoulder, to look around.
Tôi t tay vào vai h n b t h n quay nhìn chung quanh.
(152) I'd make you my orderly, Mac.
Tôi s' cho anh làm lính h u c n c a tôi.
(153) They made me feel civilized.
U ng r u này tôi c m th y mình v n minh lên.
In (149) - (151) the causer achieved successful manipulation through his great effort to
overcome the causee's desire not to write and caused the man's turning around against his will.
(150) suggested that the causer encountered a mental obstacle whereas (149) showed that the
speaker as causer/ Antagonist had to experience a direct contact with the causee's physical
resistance.
In contrast, the example with make suggested nothing about the causee's reaction or
desire to resist the manipulation. In other words, the semantics of make implies that the causee
has no choice other than accept the causation to be directed to him or her as in (152), (153). In
some cases, the causer may practise a coercion of force or effort to cause something to
happen; however this is not encoded in the semantics of make but outside its scope as in (154)
and (155) below.
(154) I was sleep and tried to make him keep quiet.
Tôi bu*n ng và c g ng b t h n im l ng.
(155) Father made a last desperate effort to conquer egg and make it do the things
that would establish his reputation as one who knew how to entertain guests who came into
his restaurant.
In Vietnamese, the causee/ Agonist's resistance and the causer/ Antagonist's coercion
of force can be said to be more explicate than in English. As has been mentioned in section
1.5 in Chapter One, the Force-Dynamics Dyad between the Agonist and Antagonist can be
interpreted in terms of deontic modality with which the Antagonist imposes his/ her
compelling force as obligation, duty or lifts his/ her barrier or force as permission. Let us
consider the following examples
19
(156) B ng i ta y mà hôm nào c ng b t ng i ta ph i m i.
They aren't my father, that I have to extend an invitation to them every time.
(157) C ngh b t ph i xin tri n c a ông nh n th c cho n a.
The deputy told me to ask for your seal...
As in (156) - (157), the strength of the causative verbs carried across the resulting verb
and this semantic fact was signaled by the deontic marker ph i after the NP2 causee before
the resulting verb. (156) signaled the speaker's attitude to the resulting action as unreasonable
duty imposed on him, and in (157) the speaker viewed her resulting action as an official
obligation together with the deputy's compelling force on her.
This deontic force on the causee's resulting action can be intensified with the marker
c& to strengthen the causer/ Antagonist's will and control in the manipulation. In causative
constructions with high likelihood of success like b t, làm cho, khi n, bu c the compelling
force was manifested with the complex marker c& ph i before the resulting verb/ adjective as
in examples (158), (159) and (160) below.
(158) H%n n a , tháng ba n gi , th n b nh s t rét âu ti n n, nó b t anh c
ph i ngh vi c n m nhà.
Furthermore, since last March, a fever had forced him to stay at home
(159) ... th ng D n nh t nh không nghe, nó b t ch c ph i iên r* nh th ..
But Dan stood firm and obliged her to go ahead.
With causative verb encoding attempted manipulation, the marker c clarifies the
causee's freedom in carrying out the action and at the same time suggests the causer's
authority in granting the causee his sheer permission. E.g.
(160) Phát, tao cho phép mày g p th ng Tr %ng Thi âu thì c& c t gân nó i cho tao.
Phat, I allow you to cut that Truong Thi fellow's tendon, wherever you come across
him.
This part of semantics is neither encoded in the causative verb nor in any modality
marker before the resulting verb or adjective while this can be considered as a distribution
feature of causative verbs encoding high likehood of success in Vietnamese with deontic
modality. This can be represented in the chart below
NP1 causer V causative NP2 Causee c&/ ph i DeonticV/ Adj resulting
In a particular situation where the causee can be referred to without being explicated,
there is usually a reduction of arguments in a causative structure to yield such causative
combinations as b t ph i, khi n ph i, ra l nh ph i, cho phép c&. From this syntactic
phenomenon, the chart ... can have its variant where the slot for NP2Causee becomes empty as
in (157) above:
NP1 causer V causative (NP2 Causee ) c&/ ph i DeonticV/ Adj resulting
20
However, the application of the deontic markers c&, ph i is restricted to causative
verbs encoding successful manipulation like khi n , làm cho, b t, bu c. This deontic meaning
is incompatible with such causative verbs encoding attempted manipulation/ dissuasion or
successful prevention like nh , m i, cho, gi c, sai. On the same line, the semantic scope of
c / ph i can carry on to self causative constructions like NP1 c& V/ NP1 ph i V which can be
paraphrased as I allow myself to do this and I force myself to do this, respectively. In the sense
of deontic modality, these self causative structure can be expressed with modal verbs like I'll
(I will) V and I must/ have to V.
Thus the causee's resistance and causer's coercion of force to overcome this resistance
are also motivated by the fact that causee or Agonist views the causation as his/ her cost or
benefit. In Vietnamese, the Agonist's attitude toward the resulting event as his/ her cost and
this semantics of causative construction is explicated syntactically in the form of marker ph i
and sometimes of marker c& whereas this is perceived as a true semantic fact which is
implicated in English.
The presence or absence of force exertion to overcome the causee's resistance or
lifting the barrier to hindrance or blockage of the causee's performance is presented in table
below:
Table 3.1.3.2.d. Causee's resistance and Causer's coercive effort
Dimension of Exertion of Force Non-exertion of Force

interaction
Direct to Directed to No involvement Cease blocking
performance non- to blocking
Causative verb
performance
English make, force, get, forbid, prevent, allow, let, permit allow, let, permit
urge, compel, stop
orer
Vietnamese làm, cho, b t, làm, cho, khi n, , cho, cho , cho, cho
bu c, khi n, yêu c u, ra l nh phép, tha phép, tha
gi c, yêu c u, ra
l nh
3.2. Analytic causative construction versus lexical and morphological

constructions in English vs.Vietnamese
As has been mentioned above, lexical causative constructions encode both the causing
event and the resulting event and these meaning are fused in a lexical item. In general, there is
21
the linguistic relation between the lexical causative verbs and the periphrastic causative verbs
(or analytic causative verbs) in terms of morphological, syntactical and semantical aspects.
First, on the morphological aspect, some causative verbs in English are created
through the derivation process: by conversion/ zero derivation or by affixation.
By conversion, a causative verb can be formed form a root adjective/ verb.
Second, these derived causative verbs can function syntactically as a transitive verb or
intransitive verb following the formula:
1. ADJECTIVE + ∅ V CAUSATIVE
E.g. (166) It was his way to calm them and make them feel safe.
$ó là cách anh ta tr n an chúng làm cho chúng c m th y bình yên.
(167) Opium makes you quick-witted - perhaps only because it calms the nerves and still the
emotions.
Thu c phi n làm ta lanh l# có l' ch vì nó làm th n kinh c th thái và d u i nh ng c%n
c m xúc.
2. VERB INTRANSITIVE + ∅ V CAUSATIVE TRANSITIVE

E.g.
(169) He sat me down in a chair...
Anh ta t tôi ng*i xu ng m t chi c gh ...
The derived causative verb can be used in the modelized pattern as a typical lexical
causative construction
X VCAUSATIVE Y
The causative situation in (166) - (169) can be expressed with the periphrastic
causative construction X V CAUSATIVE Y ADJ RESULT to yield the following sentences
(166') It is his way to make/ keep them calm
(167') ...because it makes the nerves calm and makes the emotions still.
(169') He made/ forced/ asked me (to) sit down in a chair ...
At first look, the pattern X VCAUSATIVE Y implies a natural activity which suggests
little about the success of causation as well as the interaction between the causer and causee.
Syntactically, Y is simply the object of the complement clause verb with the semantic
properties of an object, the role which is saliently most affected by the activity described by
the verb. The uni-syntactic role assigned to Y reflects its semantic role as simply affected
which suggests nothing about its dynamicity to take part in the causation.
In comparison with X V CAUSATIVEY, the pattern X V CAUSATIVE Y ADJ RESULT may
suggest a causative situation with some difficulty from the causer. The causing event may
22
happen not naturally, for Y may not want the action described by the verb. Syntactically, in X
V CAUSATIVE Y ADJRESULT, on the surface structure, Y is coded as the surface direct object of
VCAUSATIVE.. However, on the deep structure, Y is the subject of the complement clause that
carries out the resultative action. We have the syntactic patterns as follow
Lexical type: NP1 SUBJECT AGENT VCAUSATIVE NP2 OBJECT AFFECTED
Analytic type: NP1SUBJECT AGENTVCAUSATIVE NP2 OBJECT :AFFECTED V/ ADJ RESULT
SUBJECT :AGENT
Semantically, with periphrastic causative constructions, X has the semantic properties

of a subject, the role which is most relevant to the success of the activity. Periphrastic
constructions relate the subject of complement clause to impedance of the success of the
activity, and periphrastic or auxiliary causative verb refer to overcoming this impedance.
Viewed in the Figure/ Ground Shift model, the relation between lexical causative type
and the periphrastic type can be made clear by assigning the Figure and Ground to the subject
agent in each type. In the former type the subject agent as causer receives the focus as a
default case whereas in the latter type, the focus may be shifted to the subject agent as the
causee. This is explicated in the result where the causee is understood as the performer or
experiencer of the action or state. From (166'') - (167'') it is implicated that
(166'') (as a result) they became calm
(167'') (as a result) the emotions still.
(168'') (as a result) John walked to the door
(169'') (as a result) I sat down in a chair.
Because the result is paid more attention, the causee becomes the causer as it is
viewed as the Figure in the scene that is presented. Thus, there is a difference in the Figure/
Ground Shift between lexical causative type and periphrastic type in that the former lays more
focus on the cause and its causer while the latter on the result and its performer or
experiencer.
In Vietnamese, the contrast between the lexical causative type and the periphrastic
type is not as explicit as in English. In most instances of causative constructions, the latter
type was preferred and this was shown in most translational equivalents of the English
utterances with causative constructions. Let us reconsider example (167) and (169) for the
contrastive analysis.
(167) and (169) show that the lexical constructions calm, still and sit express the
causing event and the resulting event as has been presented above. These two semantic
ingradients - causing and becoming are fused in a single lexical item. In contrast, these two
ingradients are encoded separately in Vietnamese:
23
(167) nó làm CAUSER th n kinh CAUSEE c th thái RESULT và d u i RESULT
nh ng c%n c m xúc CAUSEE (169) Anh ta CAUSER t CAUSE tôi CAUSEE ng*i RESULT xu ng
m t chi c gh ...
CAUSER CAUSATIVE RESULT CAUSEE
AUXILIARY
VERB
nó làm du i nh ng c%n
c m xúc
CAUSER CAUSATIVE CAUSEE RESULT

AUXILIARY
VERB
Anh ta t tôi ng*i xu ng m t
chi c gh ...
The contrastive analysis also yielded a number of instances of transfer of the causative
meaning from Vietnamese to English. The transfer shows that where an analytic structure
with an extra clause was used to encode the causative event or action in Vietnamese, a lexical
or monomorphemic causative construction was favoured in English. Let us consider the
examples
(173) S ói rách c a con và s l m than c a v , p i ti n n tr c m t, ã làm
cho anh gan ru t n u nà.
The starvation and shabbiness of his children and his wife's miserable working
conditions struck at his heart.
(174) Tinh r t xót xa khi th y nh ng ông khách c c súc (...) t cái mông ít to bành
b nh nh nh cái v i lên m t gh , khi n nh ng s i mây lún xu ng, r*i (...), ng cái l ng to
nh l ng trâu t a vào vành gh khi n cái vành gh ph i o i h n v àng sau.
It broke her heart to see unmannerly visitors (...) plop down, straining the cane
bottoms with their heavy weight, then (...) lean heavily against the backs which bent under
their weight.
(175) R*i khi gió mát bên ngoài ã làm cho cái trán nóng b"ng ngu i b t i (...),
h n t t vào m t ti m gi i khát ....
He would wander about until a fresh breeze cooled his forehead (...), he would go into
a tea room to drink beer or lemonade.
24
If in (173) and (174), the result can only be implied from the verb phrase strike one's
heart and the single verb strain while in (175) the result is coded in the de-adjective verb cool
which explicitly denotes the physical state of the causee.
The causative relation which is covert in a lexical construction is realized
morphologically in a synthetic causative construction. This can be achieved by the derivation
using the prefix en-, un- or the suffix -en which are added to the root or base of the existing
word. Traditionally, these morphemes encode the causative meaning:
prefix en-/ em + Ns/ Vs V = to put into or on
Prefic en-/ em + Adjs/ Ns V = to make into; to cause to be ADJ
Prefix un- + Verbs V = to perform the opposite or reverse of a process
Suffix -en + Adjs V= to make or become Adj
The general causative meaning of these morphological causative constructions can be
established in a rough formula basing on the lexical decomposition and entailment:
X en/ em + ADJ/ N Y X cause Y to be ADJ/ to have N
X un +V Y X cause Y not to be Ved
X ADJ/ N + en Y X cause Y to be ADJ/ to have N
At first look, the rough formulae of the morphological causative construction render
the same causative meaning as with the analytic causative constructions in that they encode a
causing event and a resulting event. However, by a closer examination, the former
constructions express richer meaning than the latter. Let us consider these examples:
Little by little the sky was darkened by the mixing dust...
D n dà, b u tr i t i s m l i sau màn b i h n l!an.
(176') The mixing dust made the sky dark.
(178) The pain had slackened a gain.
Nh ng c%n au ch m l i.
The synthetic causative constructions encode an inchoative meaning embedded in the
causative verb and thus suggest the quality referred to was already present to some extent and
now has been intensified. In this case, darken denotes the coming into existence of the state
being dark and becomes darker by a cause. As compared with, this process meaning was not
present in the analytic causative form which conveys only the resulting state brought about by
the causing action. Periphrastic causative states that the quality has been engendered but does
not tell us about the derivation circle where the resultative state is viewed more specific than
the inchoative state. The meaning of intensification rendered by morphological causative can
be expressed with the comparative form in periphrastic causative, e.g.
(176'') The mixing dust made the sky darker and darker.
D n dà, b u tr i t i s m l i sau màn b i h n l!an....it heightened the poignancy that all
25
beauty has. [49, 84]...nó t ng thêm v+ s c s o mà m!i v+ #p u có.
(179') ...it made the poignancy that all beauty has higher.
(176'') and (179') suggest that the height of beauty is its inherent characteristics which
can be qualified by a causing event. Also, the progressive aspect of getting dark was signaled
with the morphological marker -en after the root dark.
This intensificational meaning can be recognized where the root of morphological
causative is a gradable adjective which can be tested with degree words very/ extremely,
collocation with comparison morpheme and
How question:
very/ extremely high/ dark
higher/ darker
How high/ dark?
In Vietnamese, the intensification is coded by an intensifier marker outside the root
adjective or verb, particular when the result to be brought about to the causee is a state. E.g.
(180) ánh sáng và không khí bên ngoài làm ch (thêm) (càng) (tr nên) t nh táo và
kh e kho n.
The air and the outside air enlivened her.
(181) Pha ch c ti ng ng này làm v th&c gi c.
Pha was sure the noise awakened his wife.
(182) Gió mát r i r i làm ch càng h m h i cho chóng n n%i.
The bracing cool breeze quickened her steps.
Thus, the intensification of a physical or mental state that the causee in a causative
situation may experience or become can be coded with an extra or periphrastic marker in
Vietnamese while this semantics is coded by a causative morpheme added to the root
adjective or noun in English.
Another type of morphological causative construction is characterized with the
causative verb derived from the adding the prefix un- to the front of the root verb to denote
the reversal of the action described by the existing verb. E.g.
(184) ... I undid the throat of my tunic, unbuttoned the shirt collar and dropped him
in under the shirt.
Tôi m c áo choàng ra , m cúc c áo s% mi cho t ng nh vào trong ó.
(185) I sat beside him undid my tunic and tried to rip the tail of my shirt.
Tôi ng*i xu ng c nh anh ta, m áo ngoài ra và c xé m t v t áo s% mi c a tôi.
(186) The manager stopped and unlocked the door and opened it.
Viên qu n lý d"ng l i và m c,a m t phòng.
26
(187) He unhooked his canteen and uncorked it.
Anh ta l y bi ông ra và m nút.
All the examples show that by the act impacting on the causee, the causer manipulated
to get an actual change of the already existing state of the causee, and the resulting one was
the reverse of the previous state.
The translational equivalents in Vietnamese were selected from the antonymic lexical
pairs, either one of which could be referred to as the resulting state of the causee. E.g.
óng - m ; c t - tháo; th t - n i + Noun denoting the referent that is affected by the
causation.
It is obvious that the selection of the antonymic pairs is based on the semantics of the
noun denoting the referent to be affected as the causee. Its semantic properties entail the
nature of action that impinges on it.
With the type en + Noun meaning cause to become, the Vietnamese translational
equivalent to be chosen can be làm (cho) tr thành/ tr nên/ hóa + adjective denoting the
resulting state. E.g.
(188) It is not true that suffering ennobles the character.
Th t là không úng chút nào n u cho r ng s au kh làm cho tính tình tr nên cao
th ng
Table 3.2. Analytic causative construction versus lexical and morphological

constructions in English vs. Vietnamese
Dimensions
Becoming Intensification Reversal
Morphol
Morphol
Morphol
Analytic
Analytic
Analytic
Lexical
Lexical
Lexical
ogical
ogical
ogical
Language
English + + + + + + + + +
Vietnamese - + + - + + - + +
27
Questions:
1. For an intralingual CA of words in the semantic field “arriving at some goal” we can
collect words in English under this field as follows:
reach
accomplish achieve attain gain
There is a considerable overlap between the semantic components of these words. We can,
however, distinguish them as follows:
reach usually means [+come to the limit or end of]
attain usually suggests [+ reach sth above the average]
gain often implies [+much effort]
achieve stresses [+use of skill] and
accomplish [+ success in completing task].
distinction in public life

unexpected proportions
what one set out to do

the top of a mountain
a speed of 150 m.p.h

the end of a book
one’s ambition
a great success
great riches
a great deal
one’s hope
one’s goal
perfection
the shore
prestige
London
victory
power
land
reach + + + + + + +
attain + + + + + + (+) +
gain (+) + + (+) + +
achieve + + + + + + + + +
accomplish + + + +
i) Please list out the semantic equivalents for the mentioned above English verbs in
Vietnamese;
ii) Make a matrix for the Vietnamese members in the semantic field “arriving at some goal”
like the one for the English verbs presented in the table of matrix above;
iii) Make comments about the similarities and differences in members of the field, their
semantic properties and their collocation.
2. Compare the verbs in the semantic field of “breaking” in English and Vietnamese. Use a
good dictionary to list out the semantic ingredients of the members of the field.
Clue:
i) You can start with the verbs in English like this:
break
smash crush shatter crack snap burst
28
ii) You can use a matrix to show the collocation of the verbs in English and Vietnamese as follows:
break broke) (broken)
crush(ed)(ing)
shatter(ed)
smash(ed)
snap(ped)
chip(ped)
crack(ed)
burst
I’m afraid her leg is + in two places
The wrecked ship will + up on the rocks if the winds gets any stronger .
The cat knocked over the cup and + + it.
The angry crowd (+) + all the windows in the street if they passed.
The glass fell on the stone floor and + + into a hundred tyiny pieces.
The brittle rock + under the force of the explosion.
Juice may be extracted from fruit by + it.
Someone sat on my flowers and + them.
I can never + Brazil nuts because they are so hard.
The plate isn’t broken, only + + .
The ice was tight-packed around the door and had to be + away a little at the time.
The wind was so strong that several branches + + clean off the big oak tree.
He + + the twig in two so that they would fit into the fire.
I had my shopping in a plastic bag which + under the weight just as I was getting onto the bus.
The nasty boys + all the pretty balloon we had blown up for the party.
The river has + its banks and flooded a wide area.
iii) Provide the Vietnamese translational equivalents for the English sentences with the collocation of ‘breaking verbs’ and state how many
members of ‘breaking verbs’ in Vietnamese can be used for the translation.
iv) Identify the potential transfer(s), if any, from Vietnamese ‘breaking verbs’ into English.
29
30
Represents the sense of a word in terms of the semantic features that comprise it
1. Semantic properties (semantic components, semantic features):
Crystal: a minimal contrastive element of a word meaning
Semantic widow mother sister aunt seamstress
features
female + + + + +
married + + ? ? ?
profes. ? ? ? ? +
2. Semantic Field
the organization of related words and expressions into a system which shows their relationship to one
another
E.g. Lexical field of widower, father, brother, uncle, tailor
mother father aunt uncle sister brother
sex + + + + + +
generation + + + + + +
membership + + + + + +
mother father aunt uncle sister brother
male - + - + - +
> ego + + + + +/- +/-
father side - + - + + +
31
ive s
gh
a g ak e
ct
cti nou
n
f fe
is
e from ch m
ge
tu r n
ct
rea g e
on
na ctio
o o ff e
tin
e
e a on
h i
sg fe
a
c o tu r t w
las
u s s tr
in
ay ce o
d
c
or
ca ct
itu ge
on effe
urs n
or
to e ff e
alw ur
ep
att han
de
so
An
de
e
An
A
A
affect A
+
influence +
impress + +
sway +
Note: Impress implies a [+ deliberate] act on the part of
the subject, it requires prep ON *
t
ct
th
en
th
tra
fs
fs
ym
ne
eo
on
o
pla
pa
nc
se
us
rm
or
eu
&
itte
te r
he
t te
nf
ip
t th
wr
et
ng
sh
tur
or
gi v
ge
Lo
by
sh
re
of
Lend +
Let + +
Borrow +
Rent + +
Lease + + + + +
Hire + + + +
charter + + + +
Significant differences in English and Vietnamese in number and semanto-syntactic features of the linguistic
units of English and Vietnamese in the same field
E.g. semantic field “speaking”
Errors made by Vietnamese learners of English:
Erroneous sentence Intended sentence
32
* He said over the radio He spoke over the radio
* He said him about this He told him about it
due to the influence of the equivalent units of these verbs in Vietnamese such as nói, k , b o
speak
nói say
talk
tell
Differences in meanings subject to the cultures:

- A notion may be expressed by a lexical unit in L1 but by a phrase in L2
Vietnamese English
“nói thách”
- Untranslatable or no equivalent in TL
“m m nêm, áo dài, nh u”
- The same meaning can be expressed by a lexical means in L1 but by a grammatical one in L2
“dài h n ” “longer”
- A semantic feature inherent in a lexical item in L1 but optional in the equivalent in L2
[±
± born before] in anh, ch , em vs. brother, sister
- The differences on number and semantic structure of lexical units entails the differences in their collocation
E.g. gi has > 10 equivalent collocations in English *
wear has > 5 translational equivalents in collocations
Vietnamese English equivalents Collocation

E.g. fake fake money/product
counterfeit counterfeit jewelry
artificial artificial limbs
Gi
fake fake paper/product

glass glass eye(s)
33
Vietnamese English equivalents Collocation
E.g. mang mang giày
i i m /nón/tóc gi
wear
th t th t cà v t
eo eo kính
ria/râu
2. Aspects of Lexical CA
Leech:
The combination of three specifications of a lexical entry: a morphological specification, … a syntactic
specification, … and a semantic specification.”
Lado:
3 levels for lexical contrastive analysis:
form, meanings and distribution
In terms of word field, we often contrast:
- lists of lexical units of a specific field,
- the semantic structure of this field,
- the units themselves,
- their frequency,
- their collocation, and
- rhetorical ability of these lexical units
A. Morphological CA
Analytic causative construction versus lexical and morphological constructions in E vs.Vmese
1. Conversion
- ADJECTIVE + ∅ V CAUSATIVE
It was his way to calm them ….
$ó là cách anh ta tr n an chúng …
- VERB INTRANSITIVE + ∅ V CAUSATIVE TRANSITIVE
He sat me down in a chair...
2. Synthetic/morphological Causative Verbs in E & V
a. prefix en-/ em + Ns/ Vs V = put into or on
34
She always embodied good sportsmanship on the playing field.
b. Prefix en-/ em + Adjs/ Ns V = make into; to cause to be
ADJ
c. Prefix un- + Verbs V = perform the opposite or reverse of a
process
I … unbuttoned the shirt collar
4. Suffix -en + Adjs V = make or become Adj
Causative verbs in English vs. Vietnamese

Morphological specification
Form English Vietnamese
Analytic She made me cry Cô y làm tôi khóc
Morpho They widen the road (-) H! làm r ng ng
Lexical Opium calms down the nerves (-)Thu c phi n làm d u th n kinh
Analytic: VCAUSATIVE + VRESULTATIVE

make cry
Morphologic: Adj RESULTATIVE Adj + EN CAUSATIVE
wide en
Lexical: V[CAUSATIVE + RESULTATIVE ]
calm/still
B. Syntactic CA (Syntactic specification)
Causative construction with resulting event
Causer (agent) Process Causee Resulting event

(patient)
35
Duran b t cô y &ng th(ng
Subject Verb Object Complement V
Causative construction with resulting state

S %ng mù làm ánh sáng (tr nên) vàng v!t
Syntactic specification
Passive Causative construction
Causer Process Causee Resultative
Nobody is going to our throat cut

have
không ai h!ng chúng tôi b c t
Subject Cau verb Object Complement
Vietnamese Translational equivalent:

Không ai ng i ta c t h ng chúng tôi c .
Không ai chúng tôi b c t h ng c .
Không ai c t h ng chúng tôi c .
C. Semantic CA (Semantic specification)
Likelihood of the success of the causation
1. Successful manipulation
This semantic property signals the factive entailment between the proposition expressing the causing event and
the proposition expressing the resulting event. Verbs like make, get, have, let, cause, force code this semantic
property. E.g.
She made me feel like a damn fool...
36
Bà y làm tôi có c m t ng mình là th ng i ng c
(I actually felt like a damn fool indeed ...)
S ói rách c a con và s l m than c a v , p i
ti n n tr c m t, ã làm cho anh gan ru t n u nà.
2. Successful prevention
This property presupposes the success of the agent/ causer in manipulating the causee toward non-
performance of the supposed resulting event. E.g.
The police could prevent others entering the square.
3. Attempted manipulation
This property implies the potentiality of the supposed resulting event, i.e. the hearer/ reader cannot infer
whether the resulting event actually takes place or not. The truth of the resulting event does not necessarily
follows from the truth of the causing event
I had finally persuaded her to allow me to clean up.
Ông b o mày l y thêm r u, làm sao t" nãy d n gi
ch a th y?
Tôi m i lão hút tr c. Nh ng lão không nghe.
4. Attempted dissuasion
This property implies the potentiality of the supposed unfulfilment of the resulting event, i.e. the hearer/
reader cannot infer whether the resulting event actually takes place or not. The falsity or truth of the resulting
event does not necessarily follows from the truth of the causing event. E.g.
Her father forbade their marriage.
(whether their marriage was celebrated or not was undetermined)
He wouldn't allow Phuong into the house, ...
(The possibility of Phuong’s entering was still open)
37
Summy of Semantic features of causative verbs in E & V
Semantic features of causative V English Vmese
encoding successful manipulation and yields an force, cause, khi n, b t, làm

uncancellabe factive implication of a help, have, cho
predetermined positive outcome enable
encoding attempted manipulation and yields a ask, tell, allow, b o, sai, cho
cancelable implication of a undetermined positive or-der,permit, phép, ra l nh
outcome
encoding the successful prevention and yields an stop, prevent ng n, d ng

uncancellabe factive implication of a
predetermined negative outcome
encoding the attempted dissuasion and yields a forbid, not c m, không

cancelable implication of a undetermined negative allow cho (phép)
outcome
Table 3.1.3.1.a
Likelihood of the success of the causation in English causative verbs
verb manipulation manipulation Prevention Dissuasion
Make +
Force +
Get +
Let +
Have +
Allow +
Permit +
Persuade + +
Ask + +
Tell + +
Forbid +
Prevent +
Stop +
Table 3.1.3.1.b
38
Likelihood of the success of the causation in Vietnamese causative verbs
Verb manipulation manipulation Prevention Dissuasion
Làm + + + +
Cho + + + +
khi n + +
B t + "ng
Cho phép +
$ + +
Thuy t ph c + +
Sai +
B o +
Xin + +
C m +
Ng n +
D"ng/ ng"ng +
Causee's resistance and Causer's coercive effort

Dimension Exertion of Force Nonexertion of Force
of Directed Directed No involve Cease
interaction to perform to non- -ment to blocking
-ance performan blocking
English make, forbid, allow, let, allow, let,

force, get, prevent, permit permit
compel, stop
order
Vmese làm, b t, làm, cho, , cho, , cho,
bu c, khi n, yêu cho phép, cho phép,
khi n, yêu c u, ra tha tha
c u, ra l nh
l nh
39
SUMMARY


features
female + + + + +
married + + ? ? ?
professional ? ? ? ? +
2. Semantic Field
The organization of related words and expressions into a system which shows their
relationship to one another
Semantic mother father aunt uncle sister brother

features
sex + + + + + +
member + + + + + +
Sapir & Worlf linguistic determinism hypothesis:

language as the determinant of perceived reality
Since language determine our perception of reality, and since languages are structured
differently, different language communities have different views of what is, objectively, the
‘same’ reality.
Leech:
“Languages have a tendency to ‘impose structure on the real world’ by treating some
distinctions as crucial, and ignoring others”
40
Reality
(Objective)
View 1
1 Subjectively Vie
w w
Vie perceived 1
Language Language Language

Community 1 Community 2 Community 3
structure 1 structure 2 structure 3
on g h
ive s
a g ake
t
ec
cti no u
is
eff
om h m
re n
ct
rea g e
na ctio
ng
oo ffe
urs n f hic
e a on
s ti
sg fe
a
u
co tur t w
us str
r la
t
in
d
ay e o
r
c
ca ct
itu ge
on ffe
po
alw urc
or
to effe
att ha n
e
ee
de
o
e
An
As
e
An
Ad
Ac
affect +
influence +
impress + +
sway +
* Impress implies a [+ deliberate] act on the part of the
subject, it requires prep ON *
41
t
ct
th
en
st h
tr a
fs
ym
ne
eo
on
of
pl a
pa
nc
se
us
rm
or
eu
&
i tte
ter
he
t te
nf
ip
t th
et
wr
ng
sh
tur
or
gi v
ge
Lo
by
sh
re
of
Lend +
Let + +
Borrow +
Rent + +
Lease + + + + +
Hire + + + +
charter + + + +
Significant differences in English and Vietnamese in number and semanto-syntactic features

of the linguistic units of English and Vietnamese in the same field
speak
nói say
tell
talk

Vietnamese English
“nói thách” “to put the price up expecting the people to bargain”
- Untranslatable or no equivalent in TL (Target language)

“m m nêm, áo dài, nh u” Ø
- The same meaning can be expressed by a lexical means in L1 but by a grammatical one in
L2

[±
- The differences on number and semantic structure of lexical units entails the differences in
their collocation
wear has > 5 translational equivalents in collocations in Vietnamese
42
áo .h* cà v t râu giày nón
m c
eo
i
wear
i/ mang
th t
Leech:
The combination of three specifications of a lexical entry: a morphological specification, … a
syntactic specification, … and a semantic specification.”
Lado:
- their frequency,
A. Morphological CA
Analytic causative construction versus lexical and morphological constructions in E
vs.Vmese
1. Conversion
$ó là cách anh ta tr n an chúng …

b. Prefix en-/ em + Adjs/ Ns V = make into; to
cause to be ADJ
c. Prefix un- + Verbs V = perform the opposite
or reverse of a process
43

Morpho They widen the road (-) H làm r ng ng
Analytic: V CAUSATIVE + V RESULTATIVE

make cry
wide en
calm/still


(patient)

Duran b t cô y &ng th(ng

S %ng mù làm ánh sáng (tr nên) vàng v!t
Subject Causative Verb Object Complement V
Causer Process Causee (patient) Resultative event
44
Nobody is going to have our throat cut
không ai h!ng chúng tôi b c t
Subject Causative Verb Object Complement

a. Không ai ng i ta c t h ng chúng tôi c .
b. Không ai chúng tôi b c t h ng c .
c. Không ai c t h ng chúng tôi c .

This semantic property signals the factive entailment between the proposition expressing the
causing event and the proposition expressing the resulting event. Verbs like make, get, have,
let, cause, force code this semantic property. E.g.
This property presupposes the success of the agent/ causer in manipulating the causee toward
non-performance of the supposed resulting event. E.g.
This property implies the potentiality of the supposed resulting event, i.e. the hearer/ reader
cannot infer whether the resulting event actually takes place or not. The truth of the resulting
event does not necessarily follows from the truth of the causing event
ch a th y?
This property implies the potentiality of the supposed unfulfilment of the resulting event, i.e.
the hearer/ reader cannot infer whether the resulting event actually takes place or not. The
falsity or truth of the resulting event does not necessarily follows from the truth of the causing
event. E.g.
45

outcome
outcome
Semantic Successful Attempted Successful Attempted

Dimension manipulation manipulation Prevention Dissuasion
Make +
Force +
Get +
Have +
Allow +
Persuade + +
Ask + +
Tell + +
Forbid +
Prevent +
Stop +
46
manipulation manipulation Prevention Dissuasion
Làm + + + +
Cho + + + +
Khi n +
B t +
Cho phép +
Th.ph c + +
Sai + +
B o + +
C m +
Ng n +
Ng"ng +
Dimension of Exertion of Force Nonexertion of Force

interaction
Directed to Directed to non- No involve - Cease blocking
perform -ance performan ment to
blocking
English make, force, forbid, prevent, allow, let, allow, let,
get, compel, stop permit permit
order
Vietnamese làm, b t, bu c, làm, cho, khi n, , cho, cho , cho, cho

khi n, yêu c u, yêu c u, ra l nh phép, tha phép, tha
ra l nh
WORDS & EXPRESSIONS
1. Meaning (n): ngh a

Trong ngôn ng h!c, ngh a là nh ng gì di-n t v th gi i ta ang s ng ho c trong b t k. th
gi i kh h u ho c gi t ng nào.
Khoa h!c nghiên c&u ngh a c g!i là Ng ngh a h!c (Semantics). Ng ngh a h!c th ng
quan tâm n vi c phân tích ngh a t", c m t" hay câu (xem CONNOTATION,
DENOTATION, LEXICAL FIELD, SEMANTIC FEATURE) và ôi khi quan tâm n ngh a c a phát
ngôn (UTTERANCE) trong di-n ngôn (DISCOURSE) hay ngh a c a c m t v n b n (text)
2. Form (n) d ng/hình th&c
47
Ph %ng ti n di-n t m t y u t ngôn ng d i hình th&c l i nói hay vi t. Các hình
th&c/d ng có th c bi u th b ng m t h th ng ch vi t cho m t ngôn ng hay b i các ký
hi u ng âm/âm v .
Vd: trong ti ng Anh
D ng ch vi t D ng ký hi u ng âm
House / /
Thông th ng có s phân bi t gi a d ng nói và d ng vi t c a m t %n v ngôn ng và ngh a
hay ch&c n ng c a %n v ó.
Vd: trong ti ng Anh d ng vi t – s và d ng nói /s / và /z / có chung m t ch&c n ng. Các d ng
này u ch s nhi u c a danh t":
/ / cats, / // / dogs
3. Distribution (n): Phân b

Ph m vi, kh n ng xu t hi n c a m t %n v ngôn ng (m t âm v (phoneme) hay m t t")
t i các v trí khác nhau.
Vd1: trong ti ng Anh, âm v / / (th ng c vi t ng) không th xu t hi n v trí u c a
m t t" nh ng có th xu t hi n v trí cu i, nh trong t" sing. Trong các ngôn ng khác, / /
có th xu t hi n v trí cu i, nh trong ti ng Vi t (/ / nga).
Vd2: trong ti ng Anh, t" deep có th xu t hi n tr c t" river và t" sympathy, còn t" profound
ch có th xu t hi n xu t hi n tr c t" sympathy, m c dù t" deep và t" profound *ng ngh a
trong c m t" deep/profound sympathy
4. Lexical decomposition (Componential Analysis): Phép phân xu t ngh a v
M t thao tác ngôn ng h!c dùng phân tích ngh a c a m t t" thành các nét ngh a c% b n.
2. Semantics features: nét ngh a/ngh a v , thông tin ng ngh a c a m t t".
5. Lexeme (n) also lexical item: T" v
$%n v nh/ nh t trong h th ng ngh a c a m t ngôn ng có th c phân bi t v i các %n v
t %ng t khác. M t t" v là m t %n v tr"u t ng. $%n v này có th xu t hi n trong nhi u
d ng khác nhau trong các câu nói hay vi t c th , và c xem nhe cùng m t t" v dù các
hình th&c bi n d ng khác nhau (inflected form).
Vd: trong ti ng Anh, t t c các bi n d ng ng pháp nh give, gives, given, giving, gave thu c
v cùng m t t" v give.
T %ng t , v i các di-n t nh bury the hatcher, hammer and tong, give up, và white papter
(theo ngh a c a v n ki n chính ph ) t"ng %n v này s' c xem nh m t t" v %n l+. Trong
t" i n, m i t" v chi m m t m c hay ti u m c riêng bi t.
Vd: Phân xu t ngh a v các t" v (lexeme) man, woman, boy, girl
Lexeme man woman boy girl

Semantic features
48
[adult] + + - -
[male] + - + -
6. Sense (n): ngh a theo quan h c a các %n v ngôn ng v i nhau trong chính h th ng ngôn
ng ví d , ngh a c a t" cold c hi u theo quan h i ngh a v i t" hot và theo quan h c p
lo i v i t" temperature
7. Lexical field (n) also semantic field: Tr ng ngh a
T ch&c các t" và ng liên quan vào m t h th ng tr ng t" v ng bi u th quan h c a chúng
v i các t" ng khác.
Vd: các t" ng thân t c nh father, mother, brother, sister, uncle, aunt thu c v m t tr ng t"
v ng v i các nét ngh a t %ng quan g*m th h , gi i tính, thành viên thu c ng b hay ng
m#, v.v. S v ng m t c a m t t" m t ch c th trong tr ng t" v ng c a m t ngôn ng g!i
là ch tr ng t" v ng.
Vd: trong ti ng Anh, không có m t danh t" s ít nào có th g*m c s ch c a cow (bò cái) và
bull (bò c) nh t" horse v"a ch c ng a c (stallion) và ng a cái (mare)
8. Denotative meaning (Denotation) (n): Ngh a s ch (ngh a bi u ni m và bi u v t)
Theo ngh a h#p là ngh a ch s v t và theo ngh a r ng là nh ng khái ni m v s v t.
9. Connotative meaning (Connotation) (n): Ngh a bi u thái
Các thông tin v s ánh giá, tình c m, thái c a ng i nói.
Vd: các t" father và dad có th chia s+ và phân bi t v i nhau các nét ngh a bi u ni m và
bi u thái nh sau.
Lexeme
father dad
Semantic features
Denotation human being + +
male + +
adult + +
having children + +
neutral + +
Connotation informal/friendly - +
10. Transitivity1 (n) Chuy n tác/khi n tác

Ph m trù ng pháp ch s tác ng gây khi n c a m t tác nhân hay ch th hành ng iv i
m t i t ng và t o ra m t k t qu (tr ng thái ho c hành ng ho c s ki n)
11. Causative verb (n) $ ng t" truy n khi n
$ ng t" ch báo r ng m t ng i hay s v t nào ó gây ra m t hành ng hay tr ng thái.
Vd: trong câu
Peter killed the rabbit.
killed là m t ng t" truy n khi n, nh ng trong câu:
The rabbit died.
49
Thì died không ph i là ng t" truy n khi n.
$ ng t" truy n khi n ph i là m t tha ng t" (Transitive verb: ng t" c n m t tân ng hay
i ng (Object) có ngh a y )
12. Causer (n): Tác nhân, hay ch th truy n khi n

13. Causee (n): $ i t ng b tác ng hay gây khi n t o ra m t hành ng hay có m t
tr ng thái k t qu nh t nh
Vd1: trong câu ti ng Anh
Peter killed the rabbit.
Peter killed the rabbit (died)
Causer Causative process Causee (Resulting event)
K t qu truy n khi n (hi u ng m) ây là: The rabbit died.
Vd2: She made me cry.
She made me cry

Causer Causative process Causee Resulting event
14. Syntactic realization (n): hình th&c hi n th c v cú pháp

Hình th&c hi n th c v cú pháp trong quá trình nói hay vi t c a m t %n v ngôn ng tr"u
t ng.
Vd: hình th&c hi n th c c a m t ch ng (subject) trong câu có th d i các d ng %n v ng
pháp sau ây:
Syntactitc element Subject Verb Complement
Syntactic realization
Noun Bill is handsome
Gerund Swimming requires skills
To infinitive To swim in this lake requires courage
Noun clause What he did is amazing
15. Morphological causative verb (n) ng t" truy n khi n s, d ng hình thái
$ ng t" truy n khi n s, d ng các hình v ch ý ngh a truy n khi n. Hình v này c
g n/t ng h p vào b n thân ng t" hay tính t" nên ph %ng th&c s, d ng hình v này c g!i
là ph %ng th&c hình thái hay t ng h p tính.
Vd: short (adj) + -en shorten (v) làm cho X ng n
Trong ng t" shorten, hình v -en c t ng h p vào tính t" g c short ch ý ngh a truy n
khi n “làm cho”
Trong ti ng Vi t không có ph %ng th&c s, d ng hình thái t ng h p nh tr ng h p trên
16. Analytic causative verb (n): ng t" truy n khi n s, d ng ph %ng th&c phân tích
$ ng t" truy n khi n s, d ng m t t" ngoài ng t" hay tính t" ch ý ngh a truy n khi n.
Ph %ng th&c s, d ng m t t" riêng bi t ch m t ý ngh a nh v y g!i là ph %ng th&c phân
tích tính, i l p v i ph %ng th&c t ng h p tính ã nêu trên.
Vd: v i tính t" ng n, ch ý ngh a truy n khi n “làm cho ng n”, ph i s, d ng m t t" làm
(cho)/khi n (cho) ch ý ngh a truy n khi n và t" này ph i n m ngoài ng t"/tính t": làm +
ng n, thay vì g n v i tính t" g c nh trong ti ng Anh (shorten).
50
$ ng t" truy n khi n theo ph %ng th&c này c ng c g!i là ng t" truy n khi n theo
ph %ng th&c cú pháp (Syntactic causative verb) i l p v i hình thái/ng pháp
(morphological causative verb) và t" v ng (lexical causative verb).
17. Lexical causative verb (n) ng t" truy n khi n t" v ng
$ây là ph %ng th&c s, d ng các %n v t" v ng mà ý ngh a truy n khi n c mã hóa ngay
trong b n thân %n v t" v ng này mà không ph i s, d ng m t %n v hình v (morpheme),
m t %n v t" ph tr (auxiliary word) ch ý ngh a truy n khi n. Các ng t" truy n khi n t"
v ng này có s0n trong h th ng t" v c a ngôn ng .
Vd: trong ti ng Anh, ng t" ch ý ngh a làm d u (make calm) có th không c n ph i s, d ng
t" ph tr ch ý ngh a truy n khi n make/cause (nh trong ph %ng th&c phân tích tính/cú
pháp). Ta có th dùng ngay ng t" calm ch ý ngh a truy n khi n “làm cho X d u ( i).
Vd: Opium can calm the nerve.
Thu c phi n có th làm d u th n kinh.
Trong ti ng Anh ch c n s, d ng m t t" calm trong khi ý ngh a này c di-n d ch b ng 2 t"
riêng bi t theo ph %ng th&c phân tích tính (làm d u)
Questions:
1. For an intralingual CA of words in the semantic field “arriving at some goal” we can
collect words in English under this field as follows:
reach
accomplish achieve attain gain
There is a considerable overlap between the semantic components of these words. We can,
however, distinguish them as follows:
reach usually means [+come to the limit or end of]
attain usually suggests [+ reach sth above the average]
gain often implies [+much effort]
achieve stresses [+use of skill] and
accomplish [+ success in completing task].
distinction in public life
unexpected proportions
what one set out to do

the top of a mountain
a speed of 150 m.p.h

the end of a book
one’s ambition
a great success
great riches
a great deal
one’s hope
one’s goal
perfection
the shore
prestige
London
victory
power
land
reach + + + + + + +
attain + + + + + + (+) +
gain (+) + + (+) + +
achieve + + + + + + + + +
51
accomplish + + + +
i) Please list out the semantic equivalents for the mentioned above English verbs in
Vietnamese;
ii) Make a matrix for the Vietnamese members in the semantic field “arriving at some goal”
like the one for the English verbs presented in the table of matrix above;
iii) Make comments about the similarities and differences in members of the field, their
semantic properties and their collocation.
2. Compare the verbs in the semantic field of “breaking” in English and Vietnamese. Use a
good dictionary to list out the semantic ingredients of the members of the field.
Clue:
i) You can start with the verbs in English like this:
break
smash crush shatter crack snap burst
52
ii) You can use a matrix to show the collocation of the verbs in English and Vietnamese as follows:
break broke) (broken)
crush(ed)(ing)
shatter(ed)
smash(ed)
snap(ped)
chip(ped)
crack(ed)
burst
I’m afraid her leg is + in two places
The wrecked ship will + up on the rocks if the winds gets any stronger .
The cat knocked over the cup and + + it.
The angry crowd (+) + all the windows in the street if they passed.
The glass fell on the stone floor and + + into a hundred tyiny pieces.
The brittle rock + under the force of the explosion.
Juice may be extracted from fruit by + it.
Someone sat on my flowers and + them.
I can never + Brazil nuts because they are so hard.
The plate isn’t broken, only + + .
The ice was tight-packed around the door and had to be + away a little at the time.
The wind was so strong that several branches + + clean off the big oak tree.
He + + the twig in two so that they would fit into the fire.
I had my shopping in a plastic bag which + under the weight just as I was getting onto the bus.
The nasty boys + all the pretty balloon we had blown up for the party.
The river has + its banks and flooded a wide area.
iii) Provide the Vietnamese translational equivalents for the English sentences with the collocation of ‘breaking verbs’ and state how many
members of ‘breaking verbs’ in Vietnamese can be used for the translation.
iv) Identify the potential transfer(s), if any, from Vietnamese ‘breaking verbs’ into English.
53
54
SUMMARY


features
female + + + + +
married + + ? ? ?
professional ? ? ? ? +
2. Semantic Field
The organization of related words and expressions into a system which shows their
relationship to one another
Semantic mother father aunt uncle sister brother

features
sex + + + + + +
member + + + + + +
Sapir & Worlf linguistic determinism hypothesis:

language as the determinant of perceived reality
Since language determine our perception of reality, and since languages are structured
differently, different language communities have different views of what is, objectively, the
‘same’ reality.
Leech:
“Languages have a tendency to ‘impose structure on the real world’ by treating some
distinctions as crucial, and ignoring others”
Reality
(Objective)
View 1
1 Subjectively Vie
w w
Vie perceived 1

Community 1 Community 2 Community 3
structure 1 structure 2 structure 3
on g h
ive s
a g ake
t
ec
cti no u
is
eff
om h m
re n
ct
rea g e
na ctio
ng
oo ffe
urs n f hic
e a on
s ti
sg fe
a
u
co tur t w
us str
r la
t
in
d
ay e o
r
c
ca ct
itu ge
on ffe
po
alw urc
or
to effe
att ha n
e
ee
de
o
e
An
As
e
An
Ad
Ac
affect +
influence +
impress + +
sway +
* Impress implies a [+ deliberate] act on the part of the
subject, it requires prep ON *
t
ct
th
en
st h
tr a
fs
ym
ne
eo
on
of
pl a
pa
nc
se
us
rm
or
eu
&
i tte
ter
he
t te
nf
ip
t th
et
wr
ng
sh
tur
or
gi v
ge
Lo
by
sh
re
of
Lend +
Let + +
Borrow +
Rent + +
Lease + + + + +
Hire + + + +
charter + + + +
Significant differences in English and Vietnamese in number and semanto-syntactic features

of the linguistic units of English and Vietnamese in the same field
speak
nói say
tell
talk

Vietnamese English
“nói thách” “to put the price up expecting the people to bargain”
- Untranslatable or no equivalent in TL (Target language)

“m m nêm, áo dài, nh u” Ø
- The same meaning can be expressed by a lexical means in L1 but by a grammatical one in
L2

[±
- The differences on number and semantic structure of lexical units entails the differences in
their collocation
wear has > 5 translational equivalents in collocations in Vietnamese
áo .h cà v t râu giày nón
m c
eo
i
wear
i/ mang
th t
Leech:
The combination of three specifications of a lexical entry: a morphological specification, … a
syntactic specification, … and a semantic specification.”
Lado:
- their frequency,
A. Morphological CA
Analytic causative construction versus lexical and morphological constructions in E
vs.Vmese
1. Conversion
ó là cách anh ta tr n an chúng …
Anh ta t tôi ng i xu ng m t chi c gh ...

b. Prefix en-/ em + Adjs/ Ns V = make into; to
cause to be ADJ
c. Prefix un- + Verbs V = perform the opposite
or reverse of a process

Morpho They widen the road (-) H làm r ng ng
Analytic: V CAUSATIVE + V RESULTATIVE

make cry
wide en
calm/still


(patient)

Duran b t cô y ng th ng

S ng mù làm ánh sáng (tr nên) vàng v t
Subject Causative Verb Object Complement V
Causer Process Causee (patient) Resultative event
Nobody is going to have our throat cut

không ai h ng chúng tôi b c t
Subject Causative Verb Object Complement

a. Không ai ng i ta c t h ng chúng tôi c .
b. Không ai chúng tôi b c t h ng c .
c. Không ai c t h ng chúng tôi c .

This semantic property signals the factive entailment between the proposition expressing the
causing event and the proposition expressing the resulting event. Verbs like make, get, have,
let, cause, force code this semantic property. E.g.
This property presupposes the success of the agent/ causer in manipulating the causee toward
non-performance of the supposed resulting event. E.g.
This property implies the potentiality of the supposed resulting event, i.e. the hearer/ reader
cannot infer whether the resulting event actually takes place or not. The truth of the resulting
event does not necessarily follows from the truth of the causing event
Cu i cùng tôi c ng ã thuy t ph c c nàng tôi gánh l y vi!c thu d n.
ch a th y?
This property implies the potentiality of the supposed unfulfilment of the resulting event, i.e.
the hearer/ reader cannot infer whether the resulting event actually takes place or not. The
falsity or truth of the resulting event does not necessarily follows from the truth of the causing
event. E.g.

outcome
outcome
Semantic Successful Attempted Successful Attempted

Dimension manipulation manipulation Prevention Dissuasion
Make +
Force +
Get +
Have +
Allow +
Persuade + +
Ask + +
Tell + +
Forbid +
Prevent +
Stop +

manipulation manipulation Prevention Dissuasion
Làm + + + +
Cho + + + +
Khi n +
B t +
Cho phép +
Th.ph c + +
Sai + +
B o + +
C m +
Ng#n +
Ng"ng +
Dimension of Exertion of Force Nonexertion of Force

interaction
Directed to Directed to non- No involve - Cease blocking
perform -ance performan ment to
blocking
English make, force, forbid, prevent, allow, let, allow, let,
get, compel, stop permit permit
order
Vietnamese làm, b t, bu c, làm, cho, khi n, , cho, cho , cho, cho

khi n, yêu c u, yêu c u, ra l nh phép, tha phép, tha
ra l nh
UNIT 7 PRAGMATIC CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS
As mentioned above, contrastive analysis includes all fields of linguistics such as

phonology, semantics, syntax, morphology and pragmatics. It even seems that contrastive
studies should rather be regarded as an approach, not as a branch of general linguistics.
Most authors tend to distinguish between the so-called microlinguistic and
macrolinguistic features, the former comprising mainly the grammatical level and thus
treating the sentence as the largest analysable unit, and the latter studying language in
situation and context with emphasis on the communicative function.
Throughout the history of contrastive studies great attention was paid to grammar
and lexicon, whereas the situative and cultural aspects were largely neglected.
Concerning the relationships between linguistic signals and the interpretant (the language
user/interlocutor who interprets the use of a particular piece of language) we can
recognize a key factor that encompasses this relationship: the social factor. This is a
crucial factor that reflects the communal characteristic and social factor via the social
behaviours and social interactions, in which the language users who govern all the
language behaviours play the most essential role.
Thus, in studies of pragmatics, it is possible to propose an approach of study to
enter the social aspects of pragmatic phenomena. The purpose of this approach is to bring
into light the relationship between communicative interactants in that language
community. In a certain way, the language messages can be determined by social
behaviours and social affects, the strategies and language rules, the language etiquettes …
This perspective, in the view of contrastive analysis, has given rise to a possibility
to approach the language phenomena: pragmatic contrastive analysis. The aims and
objectives of this branch of CA can be:
1) Establish the communicative values of linguistic units in terms of semanto-
structural aspects in the contrasted languages;
2) Examine different linguistic means conveying the same communicative
message in the contrasted languages
The first aim reveals that languages differentiate each other due to the fact that
their semanto-structural units do not have the same communicative values. Accordingly,
the number of factors, characteristics of types, classes of communicative units in social
communication are not the same in contrasted languages.
The second aim shows that languages are different in that, in the same
communicative situation, a specific social behaviour can be dissimilar in: the choice to
use language communicative means; different social rules that govern the use of those
linguistic means; even the fact that there exists in this language a specific communicative
situation whereas it is absent in another language of contrastive analysis.
The communicative value of a linguistic unit is its value available in
communicative activity. Basically, this value depends on its pragmatic value but it is not
identical with that pragmatic meaning. The communicative value of a certain linguistic
signal is governed by the contrastive relationships between those linguistic units with
other linguistic units, linguistic signals in a specific communicative system.
Pragmatic CA focuses on the domains of speech acts and can be executed in two
approaches.
On the one hand, we can contrast the linguistic means used to carry out or
perform a speech act like thanking, congratulation, inviting, complimenting, asking,
requesting, apologizing (as the pragmatic equivalence) in two languages. To perform the
same speech act in the same communicative situation, for instance, 2 friends (meeting
each other everyday) greet each other in the evening, can use different pieces of language
in English and Vietnamese:
English: Good evening/ Hello!
Vietnamese: n c m ch a? Anh i âu y? Anh làm gì y?
In the scope of the CA of speech acts, perfomative verbs in performative patterns
are the objects of contrastive studies. These are speech act verbs like assert, ask, warn,
promise … in English and kh ng nh, h i, c nh báo, h a … in Vietnamese. Other
linguistic units that signal performative functions in the utterances such as performative
adverbs (honestly, frankly (speaking) in English, and ng th ng (mà nói), th c tình (mà
nói) in Vietnamese) can be found in the realm of CAs of this type.
On the other hand, it can be found in this type of CA that functions of a
construction of Language A can be contrasted with functions of Language B. In this
sense, it is the illocutionary force of the utterances or speech acts can be compared in the
two contrasted languages. These illocutionary forces have been traditionally considered
the pragmatic equivalents in the pragmatic CA of the communicative units in contrasted
languages. Thus, sentences that have the same syntactic structure or pattern like Where
are you going? in English and Anh/ch i âu y? in Vietnamese have different
illocutionary forces and accordingly perform different communicative functions. The
former can be used as a true question in English culture whereas the latter is actually an
act of greeting in Vietnamese.
From the above examples, a question raised in the pragmatic CA of linguistic
units in two languages is what can be the tertium comparationis in CA or what can be
regarded as the pragmatic equivalence? To answer this question, we should distinguish
between semantic equivalence and pragmatic equivalence?
II. Semantic and Pragmatic Equivalence
We can say that expressions are pragmatically equivalent if they communicate the
same content. They are not necessarily also semantically equivalent. In a language in
which metaphors are a common means of expression, one may use a metaphor instead of
speaking literally. Here I would like to concentrate on cases of literal meaning. Grice
proposed a well-known distinction between what is said and what is implicated,
distinguishing truth-conditional aspects of meaning as what is said, and conventional and
conversational implicatures as what is implicated (cf. the diagram in Horn 1988, p. 121).
In this distinction, semantics and pragmatics overlap: there is no clear-cut boundary.
Conventional implicatures, such as the meaning of contrast in 'but', the conclusion to
premises in 'therefore', or overcome difficulty in 'manage', do not contribute to the truth-
conditional content of sentences and yet are part of word meaning. Generalized
conversational implicatures, such as enrichment from 'three' to 'exactly three', do not
require context for their occurrence and are default interpretations, regarded by some as
(i) semantic, e.g. in the framework of Discourse Representation Theory (Kamp & Reyle
1993) or Default Semantics (Jaszczolt 1999a, b), by others as (ii) belonging to the middle
level of meaning (Levinson 1995, 2000), and (iii) are denied the default status and
classified as context-dependent nonce-inference by relevance theorists. So, they can be
regarded as either semantic or pragmatic, unlike particularized conversational
implicatures which are context-dependent and certainly arrived through pragmatic
processes of inference.
With this preliminary distinction in mind, we come to the following hypotheses:
A1. Semantic equivalence is the equivalence of what is said.
A2. Pragmatic equivalence is the equivalence of what is implicitly communicated.
What is said is a proposition, an entity which is either true or false. Hence, we can
try the following:
A'1. Two sentences are semantically equivalent if they correspond to the same
proposition.
A'2. Two sentences are pragmatically equivalent if they render the same set of
implicatures, triggered by rules of conversational inference.
Another question whether a particular illocutionary force of an utterance or a
situation communication found in one language can be regarded as a universal. It can be
said that in most speech communities, some communicative situations are found similar
and these languages communities can find and utilize the equivalent pieces of language to
perform the same communicative functions. These pieces of language in the two
contrasted languages are said to be pragmatically equivalent though they can be quite
different in syntactic forms and even in semantics. However, in some cases, some
distinctive communicative situation reflecting a distinctive feature of culture can be
found only in this speech community but it is absent in some others.
There are suggested procedures to determine possibilities for CA with the
following steps:
1) See whether the socio-cultural phenomenon M in L1 has the equivalent
phenomenon in L2 or not. If not, this can be considered as a socio-cultural
difference, If yes,
2) See whether the language pattern in L2 is attributed to the socio-cultural
phenomenon N in the same way as the language pattern in L1 is attributed to M or
not. If no, we will proceed to a pragmatic CA. If yes,
3) See whether the pattern N in L2 has language pattern that is equivalent in
syntactic and semantic aspect or not. If no, the CA is ceased. If yes, the CA is
conducted concerning the syntactic and semantic aspects until different features
are determined at a certain level of analysis (Krzeszowski 1990).
Apart from the focus on speech acts, pragmatic CAs also look into matters of
issues such as ways of expressing politeness which is characterized with specific speech
acts or illocutionary forces, namely thanking, apologizing, congratulating,
complementing, inviting
! "# $
#
# #
$ $ % %
%
$ ! "
$
%
#
% # &'() *&
+ #
# ,
,
, %
- !
. /" &'() 01 %
2
%
3 4
5 4 6 %6
7 8- 9 4
5 4 : %6
7 , 7 8-
Politeness in linguistic communication is indicated by the appropriateness of the

linguistic forms in use to a social context. Politeness is also expressed by interactants’
manner of speaking and listening and to the sequence of the exchange in extended
interaction (Pascall Brown). Brown and Levinson (1967:61) consider politeness to
display of respect for one’s self-image involving the desire for the freedom of actions and
freedom from imposition
The Politeness theory by Brown and Levinson concerns such concepts as face
(positive and negative), positive politeness, negative politeness and politeness strategies
and face threatening acts (FTA).
Brown and Levinson (1987) divide FTAs into 4 groups.
1. Acts threatening the hearer’s negative face are those which indicate that
speaker does not intend to avoid impeding H’s freedom of action. Directives such as
orders, requests… belong to this group because they predicate some future act of H and
in so doing put some pressure on H to do the act. Besides, commissives likes promises
and offers belong to this group because they predicate some possible future act of S
toward H and thus put some pressure on H to accept or reject them or incur a debt.
2. Acts threatening the hearer’s positive face are those which indicate that the
speaker does not care about the addressee’s feeling, wants, that is, he does not want H’s
wants. Refusals, disagreements belong to this group.
3. Acts threatening the speaker’s negative face are those which offend the
speaker’s negative face. Acceptance of offers, acceptance of H’s thanks, unwilling
promises (S commits himself to some future action although he does not want to) …
belong to this group.
4. Acts threatening the speaker’s positive face are those which directly damage
S’s positive face. Apologies, acceptance of a compliment or confessions belong to this
group.
Further Reading
2.2.6.1 Face
Face is a technical term to denote the public self-image all human beings wish to
maintain. In everyday social interaction people act in such a way as to show respect for
the face needs of their conversation partners. It is a story simply of “If you respect my
public self-image and I’ll respect yours”.
Negative face is the want of every individual and competent interactant to be
unimpeded in the performance of his or her actions by the conversational partner.
Positive face is the want of every individual and competent interactant to have his
or her personal wants and desires displayed as favourable, socially acceptable, agreeable
to the conversational partners.
2.2.6.2 Face Threatening Acts (FTA)
Brown and Levinson (1987) divide FTAs into 4 groups.
1. Acts threatening the hearer’s negative face are those which indicate that
speaker does not intend to avoid impeding H’s freedom of action. Directives such as
orders, requests… belong to this group because they predicate some future act of H and
in so doing put some pressure on H to do the act. Besides, commissives likes promises
and offers belong to this group because they predicate some possible future act of S
toward H and thus put some pressure on H to accept or reject them or incur a debt.
2. Acts threatening the hearer’s positive face are those which indicate that the
speaker does not care about the addressee’s feeling, wants, that is, he does not want H’s
wants. Refusals, disagreements belong to this group.
3. Acts threatening the speaker’s negative face are those which offend the
speaker’s negative face. Acceptance of offers, acceptance of H’s thanks, unwilling
promises (S commits himself to some future action although he does not want to) …
belong to this group.
4. Acts threatening the speaker’s positive face are those which directly damage
S’s positive face. Apologies, acceptance of a compliment or confessions belong to this
group.
2.2.6.3 Positive Politeness and Negative Politeness
Brown and Levinson divide polite behaviour into positive politeness and negative
politeness. Positive politeness is redress directed to the addressee’s positive face. It
means that S’s own wants are similar to the addressee’s wants.
Negative politeness addresses H’s negative face. In other words, it underlines a
sense of personal autonomy, assurance that S does not wish to disturb H’s freedom.
2.2.6.4 Politeness strategies for doing FTA

Brown and Levinson suggest possible strategies for doing FTAs as follows:
1. Bald on-record is efficient when S can claim that other things are more
important than face.
2. Positive politeness strategies satisfy H’s positive face in some respect.
3. Negative politeness strategies satisfy H’s negative face to some degree.
4. Off-record strategies can satisfy H’s negative face to a degree greater than that
afforded by negative-politeness strategy. In this way S can avoid the responsibility for his
action that on-record strategies entail.
2.2.6.5 Politeness and Indirectness
In communication, whenever there is an indirect relationship between a structure
of an utterance and its function, we have an indirect speech act. In such cases, Searle
suggests that the utterance seems to have two illocutionary forces in which one
illocutionary act is performed indirectly by way of performing another. In English, one of
the most common types of indirect speech act has the form of an interrogative, but is not
typically used to ask a question (i.e. we don’t expect answer, we expect action):
Will you open the door? (directing by question)
Is that my fault? (asserting by question)
Could you pass the salt? (requesting by question)
One fact of human communication is that more often than not interactants do not
say directly what they intend to mean. Many researchers consider indirectness and
politeness to be closely related.
Once the speaker decides to use indirectness, a number of parameters are involved
in the calculation of relative power between S and H, social distance, weight of
imposition, rights and obligations and the degree of involvement in the interaction by the
participants. Note that all of these parameters are relative and negotiated in the course of
the interaction. The choice made by the speaker is manifested in the linguistic code
(address form, honorifics, indirect speech acts, passives, formulaic language and forms of
mitigation) and paralinguistic means, specially through prosody.
2.2.6.6 Purposes of indirectness
Despite its costs in cognitive processing, and the risk of being misunderstood,
speakers still use indirectness for the following purposes:
- First, speaker’s goals may clash, as a result, interactants may wish to avoid
direct assertions. Directness may appear insensitive to the feelings of the hearer.
- Second, indirectness leaves the speaker a way out if challenged by the
addressee. Indirectness provides a way to deny perceived intentions, avoid conflict and
escape from responsibility for an utterance.
- Third, indirectness is frequently regarded as polite, although researchers differ
on this topic. Brown and Levinson (1987) state that the degree of indirectness is
inversely proportional to the degree of face threat. Consequently the greater the face
threat, the greater the need to use linguistic politeness and the more indirectness is used.
- Finally, a related purpose for using indirectness is a strategy to gain or maintain
power over others.
2.2.6.7 Mitigation
If saying is doing, it must be an effective doing. Mitigation – according to Claudi
Caffi’s definiton is the result of a weakening one of the interactional parameters – is a
cover-term for a set of strategies, rooted in a metapragmatic awareness, by which people
try to make their saying-doing more effective. Globally, it reduces
participants’obligations (Meyer-Hermann and Weingarten, 1982:243), to which the
felicity conditions of a speech act belong, thereby furthering the achievement of
interactional goals. Thus, mitigation is functional to smooth interactional management in
that it reduces risks for participants at various levels, e.g. risks of self-contradiction,
refusal, losing face, conflict, and so forth.
The basic effect of reducing obligations makes it possible to unify mitigation
which relates to deontic modality. Typically, mitigation affecting deontic modality
reduces addressee’s obligations. Claudi Caffi expected to find different classes of
mitigating devices reducing the speaker’s obligations in the case of constatives-
verdictives, and the hearer’s obligations in the case of directives. Substitutive means are
at work in so-called “indirect speech acts” (Searle, 1969) which question or state fecility
conditions of a speech act, e.g. in requests, preparatory conditions for the performance of
the action. Among the additive means, the following can be employed in many different
illocutions. With the regard to “internal” mitigation (For the distinction between internal
and external mitigation , (Blum-kulka et al., 1989): morphological means, diminutive
suffixes, vocative, address terms (the apostrophe in rhetoric); syntactic: (a) local, e.g.
conditional mood; (b) global, e.g. hypothetical constructions; lexical, markers such as
“please”. Among the whole range of specialized mitigators for “requests, “please”
downgrades the directive and at the same time indexes the act as a request. There is an
inclusive relationship between the two sets of mitigation; in other words, the set of
mitigation markers includes a subset of specialized markers which are also markers of
illocution.
As mentioned above, pragmatic CAs may encompass such communicative

functions of intercultural aspects as requesting, inviting, apologizing, complimenting ….
and examination of linguistic devices utilized in performing these communicative
functions. These linguistic devices may be labeled with such pragmatic terms such as
hedges, boosters, mitigation devices, softeners …in English, and y u t rào ón, y u t
t ng c ng, y u t gi m nh , y u t m m hoá …
For the successful English-Vietnamese cross-cultural study of congratulating, the
following strategies are employed:
-Metapragmatic questionnaire (MPQ) and the Discourse Completion Task (DCT)
questionnaire are in use.
-Relevant Vietnamese and foreign publications are referred to for the theoretical
background of the study.
-Such supporting techniques as supervisor’s consultation, personal observation,
discussion with Vietnamese and foreign teachers and friends are resorted.
-Data collected through MPQ and DCT techniques are interpreted, described, and
analyzed by contrastive and comparative methods, quantitative and qualitative methods,
in which the priority is given to quantitative method. These methods make the data
analyzing reliable and valid. Moreover, during data analyzing, the findings are always
accompanied by the principles in the theoretical background in order to guarantee the
validity and the reliability of the research.
Further Reading
3.1. DATA COLLECTION METHOD (Cited from Hoàng, Võ Th Kim 2008)
This is a cross-cultural investigation into English-Vietnamese similarities and
differences in congratulating. In order to collect data for contrastive analysis, MPQ and
DCT questionnaires are employed. First, MPQ is designed to test the validity and
reliability of 16 situations in four activity areas: familial activities, professional activities,
academic activities and social activities. Informants are asked to give their assessments on
the advisability of five different levels: 1- highly advisable, 2- advisable, 3- yes and no, 4-
inadvisable, 5- highly inadvisable.
Second, DCT questionnaire is composed of four situations, each taken from one
area in the MPQ and commented as highly advisable by both English and Vietnamese
informants. Furthermore, these informants are asked to complete the four given situations,
which are carefully selected after consulting the supervisor, and discussing with
Vietnamese and foreign teachers and colleagues, as well as drawing on the thesis writer’s
experience. The DCT questionnaires was intended to elicit linguistic input for the
discovery and analysis of how congratulating is realized in given situations.
3.2. COMMENTS ON THE INFORMANTS (Cited from Hoàng, Võ Th Kim 2008)

Two groups of informants (100 members) are selected. The first one is NSVs
nearly living in Central Vietnam, who completed the questionnaire in Vietnamese. The
second one is NSEs who completed the questionnaire in English.
The informants were requested to provide such personal parameters of age,
gender, marital status, occupation, area where they spend most of their time and
acquisition of language(s) other than their mother language for analysis of their role
relationship in communication. However, after collecting the questionnaires, the thesis
author decides not to analyze the parameter of acquisition of foreign language(s),
because of the unmatchability of this parameter between the two groups of informants.
Moreover, most of the Vietnamese informants acquire only the English language (rather
poorly) while about two-thirds of the English informants obtain most three foreign
languages (Italian, German, Portuguese, etc,) at fair or poor degree. Below is the table of
informants’ personal parameters.
INFORMANTS
STATUS PARAMETERS
English Vietnamese
U40 23 32
AGE
O40 27 18
Male 18 28
GENDER
Female 32 22
Married 26 32
MARIAL STATUS
Single 24 18
Social 31 27
OCCUPATION
Techno-science 19 23
Urban 36 29
LIVING AREA
Rural 14 21
Distribution of informants with their status parameters.
3.3. COMMENTS ON THE QUESTIONNAIRES
-In the MPQ, fifty English informants and fifty Vietnamese ones are requested to
rank the following 16 situations in terms of their congratulatability. The likert scale is
resorted to with five columns ranging from “highly advisable” to “highly inadvisable”.
SITUATIONS English Vietnamese

Is it advisable to congratulate someone you know when
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
2 2 1 1 1
1 S/he has got very impressive wedding party 3 0 0 7 0
Familial activitives
2 5 1 3 9
1 2 1 3
2 S/he has just bought a nice house. 3 0 0 6 1 0
9 8 1 2
4 3 1
3 S/he has just got the first baby. 5 0 0 0 3 0 0
5 6 1
2 1 2 2
4 S/he has just been recovered from an operation 9 0 0 1 0 0
5 6 8 1
S/he has left a good impression on his/her new boss in 1 3 1 1 1
1 9 1 0 8 0
the first meeting. 0 0 0 6 6
1 3 2 2
activitives
Business
2 S/he has just presented a highly appreciated report. 5 0 0 5 0 0

4 1 0 5
3 1 2 1
3 S/he has just been awarded “Manager of the Year”. 1 0 0 4 2 0
4 5 5 9
1 2 1 2 1
4 S/he has just got a well-paid job. 7 1 0 2 0
4 8 6 1 1
S/he has just successfully defended his/her master 2 2 2 1
Academic activitives 1 1 0 0 2 1 0
thesis. 9 0 8 9
His/Her research has just been published in an 3 1 1 2
2 1 0 0 9 2 0
academic journal. 8 1 2 7
3 1 3 1
3 S/he has just won a scholarship for further study. 0 0 0 3 0 0
9 1 0 7
3 1 2 1
4 S/he has just been created professor. 0 0 0 7 1 0
8 2 7 5
1 2 1 2 1
1 S/he has received a valuable gift on Valentine Day. 0 0 2 8 2
2 6 2 2 6
S/he has just got a letter from his/her best childhood 1 2 1 1 1 1
activitives
2 2 0 7 0
friend after a long time out of touch. 3 4 1 5 7 1
Social
1 2 1 2 1
3 S/he has just been a warmly received by a celebrity. 1 0 5 5 0
3 5 1 1 9
S/he has just hosted a successful charity event for 3 2 3 1
4 0 0 0 1 0 0
poverty- stricken children. 0 0 2 7
Situations and their levels of validity.
1- highly advisable, 2- advisable, 3- yes / no, 4- inadvisable, 5- highly inadvisable

-The DCT questionnaire comprises four situations, which are rated (highly)
advisable by fifty English informants and fifty Vietnamese ones, taken from the MPQ.
The specific situations are:
Situation 1:
How would you verbally congratulate the following person when s/he has
just got the first baby?
Situation 2:
How would you verbally congratulate the following person when s/he has just
been awarded “Manager of the Year”?
Situation 3:
won a scholarship for further study?
Situation 4:
hosted a successful charity event for poverty-stricken children?
In addition, following communicating partners are proposed to informant in the
DCT Questionnaire in order to catch the influence of social factors on the act of
Congratulating:
-his/her close friend,
-one s/he dislike,
-his/her colleague,
-his/her boss,
-his/her employee,
-his/her neighbour,
-his/her brother/sister.
Number of
SITUATIONS COMMUNICATING PARTNERS utterances collected
Vietnamese English
Situation 1: -Close friend 50 50
S/he has just got the first -One you don’t like 50 50
baby. -Your colleague 50 50
-Your boss 50 50
-Your employee 50 50
-Your neighbour 50 50
-Your brother/sister 50 50
S/he has just been -One you don’t like 50 50
awarded “Manager of -Your colleague 50 50
the Year”. -Your boss 50 50
S/he has just won a -One you don’t like 50 50
scholarship for further -Your colleague 50 50
study. -Your boss 50 50
S/he has just hosted a -One you don’t like 50 50
successful charity event -Your colleague 50 50
for poverty - stricken -Your boss 50 50
children. -Your employee 50 50
Number of utterances collected from DCT questionnaires.
However, the writer is aware that the questionnaires above remain some
shortcomings such as the lack of non-verbal factors, paralinguistic factors, settings of
communication and mood. Therefore, the thesis is only regarded as a preliminary study.
Further Reading
2.2.4.2. Positive Politeness Strategies
Brown and Levinson [5, p.101, 103], propose fifteenPositive Politenessstrategies,
which are divided into three groups: claim common ground, convey that the hearer and
the speaker are cooperators and fulfill hearer’s want.
Nguyen Quang [32] not only shares Brown and Levinson’s view, but also
develops these strategies in the light of intracultural and cross-cultural communication,
with the aims for well-cooperated interaction for all those who are in the same or different
cultures. His seventeen strategies show three main mechanisms:
-Mechanism 1: Claim common ground
Strategy 1: Notice, attend to the hearer
Strategy 2: Exaggerate
Strategy 3: Intensify interests to the hearer in the speaker’s contribution
Strategy 4: Use in-group identity markers
Strategy 5: Seek agreement
Strategy 6: Avoid disagreement
Strategy 7: Presuppose, raise, and assert common ground
Strategy 8: Joke
-Mechanism 2: Display the sense of cooperation
Strategy 9: Assert or presuppose knowledge f and concern for the hearer’s want
Strategy 10: Offer, promise
Strategy 11: Be optimistic
Strategy 12: Include both the speaker and the hearer in the activity
Strategy 13: Give or ask for reasons
Strategy 14: Assert reciprocal exchange or tit for tat
-Mechanism 3: Satisfy hearer’s wants
Strategy 15: Give gifts to the hearer
Strategy 16: Console and encourage
Strategy 17: Ask personal questions
2.2.4.3. Negative Politeness Strategies
Like positive politeness, negative politeness has also it own strategies. Brown and
Levinson [5] propose ten strategies. However, Nguyen Quang [32] advances eleven
negative politeness strategies as follows:
-Mechanism 1: Be direct
Strategy 1: Be conventionally indirect
-Mechanism 2: Don’t presume/assume
Strategy 2: Question, hedge
-Mechanism 3: Don’t coerce the hearer
Strategy 3: Be pessimistic
Strategy 4: Minimize the opposition
Strategy 5: Show deference
Mechanism 4: Communicate the speaker’s want not to impinge on the hearer
Strategy 6: Apologize
Strategy 7: Avoid mentioning to the speaker and the hearer
Strategy 8: State the FTA as general rule
Strategy 9: Norminalize
Strategy10: Avoid asking personal questions
Mechanism 5: Redress other wants of the hearer’s
Strategy 11: Go on record as incurring a debt, or as not indebting the hearer.
Strategy 5 (share with mechanism 3)
2.2.4.4. Social Factors Affecting the Use of Positive Politeness and Negative
politeness in Communication
It is widely accepted among researchers of cross-cultural pragmatics that the
following three social factors, to various degree, affect Positive politeness -NP
1. Relative power (P): In the same communicative situation, different strategies
are employed between power-equals and between power-unequals.
2. Social distance (D): The further the social distance is, the more politeness
strategies, especially those of Negative politeness , are used.
3. Ranking of imposition (R): According to Nguyen Quang [32], if P, Directness
are interactant-oriented, R is interaction-oriented. How to minimize the face-threat of an
act virtually depends on such aspects as topic, situation, beneficiality, etc between or
among interactants.
In the light of cross-cultural communication, and on the basis of the theoretical
background of speech act and communication strategies, Vo Thi Kim Hoang (2008) has
carried out an investigation into congratulating in English and Vietnamese.
The study has found out not only the degrees of advisability in given situations,
but also the frequency of such congratulating strategies as D-ID, Positive politeness-NP
under the influence of some social factors: social distance, relative power and blood-
nonblood relationship. As a result, English-Vietnamese cross-cultural similarities and
differences in the realization of congratulating are discovered, and the validity of the
hypothesis on the two languages and cultures are tested.
5.1.1. Congratulating as Seen from Metapragmatic Perspective
The data analysis shows that the HA (highly advisable) and A (advisable) are
highly supported by both groups of informants in all 16 situations. The Y/N (Yes/No) is
strongly encouraged at the fourth area (social activities), except for the situation of
hosting a charity event for poverty-stricken children (Eng: 0%, Vie: 2%). However, this
Y/N holds moderate proportions in the rest of the areas of activities. In addition, the IA
has reasonable percentages (highest 38%, lowest 22%) only in the last area, excluding
sit.16 (charity event). In three areas left, it gets very small or no proportions. The HIA
(Highly Inadvisable) is rarely mentioned, except a small number of Vietnamese
informants (4%) at sit.13 (gift on the Valentine Day). It is resulted from the findings that
the act of congratulating is strongly welcomed by both English and Vietnamese
informants, and frequently occurs as a social act for showing the speaker’s positive
feeling to the hearer, as presented in Bach and Harnish’s speech act classification of
acknowledgment [2].
It is also notable that the Vietnamese informants, in general, are less in favor of
HA and A than the English; however, they are more inclined to the Y/N and IA (
Inadvisable), via their larger rates of these than the English’s (nevertheless, rates may
alter in specific situations between two cultures). This may suggest that the English
perform the act of congratulating as a social etiquette more frequently than the
Vietnamese.
The table 4.5 clearly shows the levels of advisability and potentiality of English-
Vietnamese culture shock in the act of congratulating. From the similarity of advisability,
the potentiality of culture shock badly decreases (except for the sit.5 (RS), sit.13 (RS),
and sit.15 (US)).
5.1.2. D (Directness) and Indirectness (Indirectness) in Congratulating
An obvious finding is that with such a safe act as congratulating; much more
Directness is used than Indirectness in both English and Vietnamese languages and
cultures. This reinforces Nguyen Quang’s hypothesis that when the beneficiality is the
addressee’s, the addressor is possible to apply Directness in interaction [32, p.20]. It can
also be seen that the NSVs more frequently employ Indirectness than the English. This,
once more, supports the hypothesis that the Vietnamese are more in favor of Indirectness
in congratulating than the English. However, the percentages of Directness between
English and Vietnamese informants vary. The Vietnamese more use Directnessthan the
English when congratulating such partners as someone they dislike, close friend and
bro/sis.
It is obvious that there is a close relationship between politeness and ID,
especially conventional indirectness as mentioned in chapter 2, page 19. It has been found
from the analysis of congratulating act that not only Indirectness but also Directness has
significant connection to Positive Politeness and Negative politeness.
-Congratulations (on …) (D, Negative politeness )
-I’m so happy for you (ID, Positive politeness )
-I wish you luck (ID, Negative politeness )
-Chúc m ng ng nghi p c a tôi. (Congratulations, my colleague)(D, Positive
politeness ) (cited from the DCT questionnaires)
It is worthy of note that, in Vietnamese, utterances that appear half Negative
politeness -oriented and half Positive politeness -oriented like “Xin chúc m ng S p nhé”
(D, P-N COM) are quite common. This finding supports Nguyen Quang’s view [31, p.46]
in his discussion of D-ID and politeness in English and Vietnamese.
Furthermore, it is observed that the rates of Directness and SNP, Indirectness and
Single positive politeness are respectively correlative (D>ID, SNP>SPP). Is it true that
Directness is correlative with Single negative politeness, Indirectness with Single positive
politeness in congratulating?
5.1.3. Positive Politeness and Negative Politeness in Congratulating
Both English and Vietnamese informants use most of politeness strategies, of
which the SNP holds the top priority. Common utterances of SNP are “Congratulations”,
“Congratulation on …” in English, and “Chúc m ng”, “Xin chúc m ng”, “Tôi chúc
m ng anh/ch ã …”, “Tôi r t vui vì ch c m tròn con vuông.” in Vietnamese . As a
result, the SNP responses are usually direct utterances, or conventional indirect ones.
One thing beyond our expectation is that NSVs, believed to be collectivistic, are
more SNP oriented than the English from any aspects of communicating partner
relationship and informants’ parameters. This does not advocate our hypothesis that the
Vietnamese are morePositive Politenessthan the English.
The SPP ranks the second, sometimes the third in some cases instead of the P-N
COM. Common utterances used in English and Vietnamese in these strategies are:
-Well done
-I’m very proud of you / I’m happy for you.
-That’s so fantastic. Congratulations.
-Chúc m ng c u nhé. (Congratulations.)
-Em kho ch a? Cháu trông d th ng l m!
(How are you doing? What a lovely baby!) (cited from the DCT
questionnaires)
P.COM is employed but not very frequently, especially by Vietnamese
informants. Finally, the strategy that is rarely applied is Negative combination.
A notable thing is that with C.P as someone one dislikes, both English and
Vietnamese addressors tend not to do the FTA via negative silence (Eng: 28%, Vie
22%), or tend toward on record without redressive action via such an utterance as
“Congratulations” (Eng: 41.5%, Vie: 64%). This, anyway, is still regarded as Negative
politeness. It is interesting that the on record without redressive action, which badly
displays the distance, the unattentiveness, or out-group, is the most favorite
congratulating strategy in the case of someone one dislikes. Just a few English and
Vietnamese informants perform the COM. Similar is the case of non-blood C.P as
neighbor; however, the negative is much lower used than it in the case of someone one
dislikes. The result shows that the more distant the relation is; the smaller the numbered
strategy (on Brown & Levinson’s chart) is resorted to.
One strategy worthy mentioning is silence. Though silence (both non-verbal
expression and non-expression) is beyond the scope of this study; it is, in fact, in use by
both English and Vietnamese informants, especially with someone they dislike (negative
silence ranks the second highest, just after the SNP).
5.1.4. Influence of Communicating partners’ Relationships and Informant’s
Parameters on the Choice of Strategies in Congratulating
5.1.4.1. Influence of Communicating Partners’ Relationships
The study focuses on the influence of the following social factors:
-Social distance: close friend, someone one dislikes
-Relative power: colleague, boss, employee, and,

-Blood – Non-blood relations: neighbor and bro/sis.
A comparative and contrastive analysis is done between partners in the same
group as well as among all groups.
It is obvious that each factor exercises its own impact on the informants’ choice.
An evident difference can be seen in congratulating two partners with close social
distance (close friend) and far social distance (someone you dislike). With close friend,
both English and Vietnamese informants tend to extend the conversation, while they tend
to shorten the conversation, or just simply say “Congratulations” as a social norm with
someone they dislike. In addition, they prefer Directness to Indirectness, Negative
politeness to Positive politeness. These choices are in contrast to the ones in the case of
close friend.
The similar result is for group of “blood - non-blood relation”. The way English
and Vietnamese informants congratulate their bro/sis and close friend is alike;
congratulating neighbor and someone they dislike is not significantly different.
Relative power shows the most preference for Directness and Negative politeness,
as well as similar frequency of using Directness & Indirectness strategies, Positive
Politeness& Negative politeness to each partner of the English group. However, this
equality is less evident in the Vietnamese congratulating than in the English one. This
supports the idea by Tr n Ng c Thêm [37, p.280] that the Vietnamese culture is
hierarchic.
As a matter of course, the frequencies of strategies used for different partners are
different in the two groups. With most of partners, the Vietnamese informants are more
Negative politeness oriented than the English, except for the employee.
5.1.4.2. Influence of Informants’ Parameters

Beside C.Ps, informants’ parameters (age, gender, marital status, occupation, and
living area) are also taken into consideration.
These parameters, with various degrees, influence on the choice of politeness
strategies andDirectness& Indirectness style.
With respect to strategies, most English informants much prefer Directness to
Indirectness. Combination is the strategy that ranks the second.
There are insignificant disparities in using Directness and Indirectness strategies
between two English groups of informants who are O40 and U40.
English informants with such parameters of the male, married status, social
career, and urban residence more tend toward Directness than ones with the female,
single, techno-science and the rural. The groups of U40, female, single, techno-science
and rural are more COM-oriented than the ones of O40, male, married, social and urban.
Vietnamese informants are oriented less to Directness and more to Indirectness
than the English. Groups of the U40, married, urban are more in favor of Directness and
less of Indirectness than those with such parameters as O40, single, rural. Both Directness
and Indirectness are resorted by Vietnamese informants with male and social career more
than ones with female and science-techno.
It can be seen that age and occupation parameters most affect congratulating act.
The disparity in using politeness strategies is not much between two Vietnamese
sexes; while it is in English gender. English males more resort to Positive Politeness but
less to Negative politeness and Combination than English females; whereas, Vietnamese
males more employ Negative politeness but less Positive Politeness and Positive
combination than females.
Politeness strategies are differently resorted by the two English groups of marital
status. Conversely, there are no significant disparities showed by two Vietnamese groups.
Negative combination, in influence of either communicating partners’
relationships or informants’ parameters, is always at the bottom among politeness
strategies.
Generally, informants’ parameters take different effects on the choice of
congratulating strategies.
ABBREVIATION
A Advisable
bro/sis Brother/sister
COM Combination
C.P Communicating partner
D Directness
DCT Discourse Completion Task
Eng English
FTA Face Threatening Act
HA Highly advisable
HIA Highly Inadvisable
ID Indirectness
IA Inadvisable
MPQ Metapragmatic Questionnaire
N.COM Negative combination
NP Negative Politeness
NSVs Native Speakers of Vietnamese
NSEs Native Speakers of English
O40 Over 40
PP Positive Politeness
P.COM Positive combination
P-N COM Positive-Negative combination
SNP Single Negative Politeness
SPP Single Positive Politeness
Str Strategy
sit. Situation
U40 Under 40
Vie Vietnamese
Y/N Yes/no
FURTHER READING
IMPLICATION FOR ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING AND
LEARNING
Role of CA in SLA Research
Before the SLA field as we know it today was established, from the 1940s to the
1960s, contrastive analyses were conducted, in which two languages were systematically
compared. Researchers at that time were motivated by the prospect of being able to
identify points of similarity and difference between native languages (NLs) and target
languages (TLs). There was a strong belief that a more effective pedagogy would result
when these were taken into consideration. Charles Fries, one of the leading applied
linguists of the day, said: "The most efficient materials are those that are based upon a
scientific description of the language to be learned, carefully compared with a parallel
description of the native language of the learner."(Fries 1945: 9, Teaching and Learning
English as a Foreign Language. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.)
Robert Lado, Fries' colleague at the University of Michigan, also expressed the
importance of contrastive analysis in language teaching material design:
Individuals tend to transfer the forms and meanings and the distribution of forms
and meanings of their native language and culture to the foreign language and culture -
both productively when attempting to speak the language and to act in the culture and
receptively when attempting to grasp and understand the language and the culture as
practiced by natives. (Lado 1957, in Larsen-Freeman & Long 1991:52-53, An
Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. New York: Longman.)
This claim is still quite appealing to anyone who has attempted to learn or teach a foreign
language. We encounter so many examples of the interfering effects of our NLs.
Contrastive analysis as applied to L2 teaching

It emphasizes differences between languages rather than similarities;
It contrasts L1 and L2 via the learner’s interlanguage rather than directly. Therefore,
some scholars think that contrastive analysis belongs to interlanguage study; and
It is pedagogically-oriented, with the aim to discover and predict learning problems and
difficulties.
Theoretical bases and basic assumptions

Assumptions
L2 learning involves overcoming difficulties in the linguistic systems of the target
language;
The main difficulties in learning a L2 are caused by interference from the L1;
Contrastive analysis can predict, or at least account for, difficulties in L2 learning;
and
Teaching materials based on contrastive analysis can reduce the effects of
interference and difficulties, and facilitate L2 learning.
I. James’ comment on language teaching and contrastive analysis
In this section we shall be concerned with the two pedagogical principles of
selection (WHAT to teach) and GRADING (WHEN to teach) of target language items.
These, to use Corder’s (1974) industrial analogy, are aspects of Product Design.
Selection
A CA specifies those features of the L2 which are different form the
corresponding features of the L1, and, by the implication, those which are identical. Our
assumption is that the L1:L2 identities will not have to be learned by the L2 learner, since
he knows them already by virtue of his L1 knowledge. Thus, though I have never
attempted to learn Icelandic, some aspects of this language are nevertheless known to me
in advance: on the one hand, I ‘know’ those features of Icelandic that are universal, and
those that are shared by it and my native language. This is not an absurd claim, certainly
no less plausible than Chomski’s (1965: 51) claim that “ … the procedures and
mechanisms for the acquisition of knowledge [and language] constitute an innate
property of the mind”.
The learner must be allowed, indeed encouraged, to transfer this ‘suitable
knowledge to L2 usage. This means that those L2 structures that match L1 structures
must constitute part of the materials, since materials do not only teach what is ‘new’ and
unknown, but provide confirmation of interlingual identities. This point has been missed
by the opponents of CA, of whom the following is representative: “it seems unsound to
say that the linguistic content of a foreign-language course should be based on the
apparent differences between the learner’s native language and the language to be
learned, as if the apparent identities and similarities could be ignored” (Lee, 1972: 61).
Certainly the learner needs to be given opportunities to discover for himself that transfer
from L2 in cases of isomorphism will result in acceptable L2 utterances. There is a
further, non-contrastive , reason why we must not select by exclusion: this is that terms in
ay linguistic SYSTEM are mutually defining and their values co-determined: in
Saussure’s words, a language is “un système où tout se tient”. In English, it is impossible
to fully grasp the value of mustn’t, without seeing in what relation it stand to needn’t, and
so the Vietnamese learner must be given access to the former if he is to grasp the latter.
We therefore reject the notion of selection in the sense of inclusion/exclusion, and prefer
to use the term Intensity Selection. By this we mean that while the learner is exposed to
all parts of the L2, he must be given opportunities to confirm his positive transfer on the
one hand and to learn what he does not on the other. If the latter are denied him he will
negatively transfer. This suggests that we recognize two basic types of teaching materials
(Corder (1973: 37) identifies four types, but does not cater for contrastive dimension):
those for confirming, and those for learning. Confirming will obviously be less time-
consuming than learning: hence our term Intensity Selection. The obvious candidate for
L1: L2 isomorphic constructions is the now much-maligned translation exercise: “The
strongest charge yet against the use of translation … is the claim that it enforces the
expectation of isomorphism … in the students’ minds” (Kirsten, 1972: 74). Transfer is
exactly what we want in those cases where it will be positive, or facilitative. For
contrasting structures we need a different kind of exercises, one which will suppress L1
transfer: audiolingual structural drills would seem to be suitable here, insofar as they
develop automatisation without mediation by the L1.
Grading
The classical CA statement pertinent to grading is: “The student who comes in
contact with foreign language will find some features ot quite eas y and others extremely
difficult. Those elements that are similar to his native language will be simple for him
and those elements that are different will be difficult” (Lado, 1957: 2). We see here an
assumption that learning difficulty is a function of interlingual distance, an assumption
that has been questioned. Since it is a universal principle of education that learning
should proceed from the simple to the difficult, it seems to follow that isomorphic L2
elements should be taught first. There are a number of objections that can immediately be
raised, however. The first is the one we mentioned the previous section concerning the
integrity of linguistic systems: if we postpone just one term of a system in the syllabus,
the student’s grasp of the terms he has learnt must e not only partial, but distorted. Yet is
undeniable that learning takes time, and so must be linearly organized: one must be
prepared to compromise and to produce pedagogic grammars that distort as little as
possible. Additional optimism about necessary distortion comes in the form of evidence,
from natural (i.e. non-classroom) L1 and L2 acquisition processes, that learners are
capable of revising, with continued exposure, their hypotheses about the target language.
A second objection to Grading by contrastivity is that as a criterion it may clash
with other equally important criteria: for example, since the English articles are
contrastively difficult for Slavonic L1 learners, they should be delayed; but they have
such high frequency and utility (functional load) that they must be taught early. But this
clash of Grading criteria is in no way peculiar to the contrastive dimension: it usually
happens that the noncontrastive criteria themselves are contradictory. Once again,
informed compromise is the only solution – find the optimum denominator.
A third objection to following the precept of ‘earliest first’ is a psychological
one: extended early experience of positive transfer (+T) sets up expectations of
continuing +T. So the learner will inevitable be disappointed when he comes to learn
contrasting L2 structures: “… interference and confusion resulting from the pupil’s native
language habits can … be aggravated by using parallel constructions first” (Politzer,
1968). To test this hypothesis, Politzer conducted a number of experiments to investigate
which alternative approach to grading resulted in more successful learning: teaching
contrasting patterns before parallel ones (C-P) or vice-versa (P-C). For example,
French L2 Learning Problem: P Donne-moi le livre!
(Position of indirect object pronoun in Imperatives) Ne me donne pas le livre
Spanish L2 Learning Problem: Quiro hablar
(Subject of 2nd verb) Quiro que habe
In four out of five experiments with first-year learners of French or Spanish, the
C-P ordering resulted in better learning that the P-C order. However, very low
significance levels were registered, and the overriding determinant was the ‘recency
effect’, for both orders of teaching, that which was known best was what had been learnt
most recently. As I said, Politzer’s experiment casts some doubt on the assumption that
parallel constructions should invariably be taught before contrasting ones. (James, 1980:
pp.151-153)
II. Concluding remarks from a number of CAs of English and Vietnamese and
pedagogic implications
1. Implications from an investigation into the pronunciation of dark [ ] and [j] by the
Vietnamese students of English
The students’ wrong pronunciation of dark [ ] and [j] undoubtedly influences the
effective communication and makes students’ performances fail to meet expectation. The
study set out to identify the problems the English students encountered when producing
these sounds and causes of the problems. Here are some conclusions from the results
analysis:
In terms of production, the English students normally had a tendency to drop
dark [ ] (the most popular mistake) at the end of English words as well as being confused
among different sounds [l ], [n] or [ ]. For the Northern Vietnamese students, the sound
[j] seemed to be a problematic sound to produce. Most of them failed to get the exact
pronunciation and tried to perform [z] (the most popular mistake), [i:] (especially in
words beginning with the letter u or eu) or [d ] instead. The first and also the most
important thing is that the students have to master the knowledge about the manner and
the place of articulation of these sounds, especially the distinction between clear [l] and
dark [ ], [j] and [i:].
The causes of the problems are varied. The study pointed out acceptable
explanations for the problems. It is due to the differences between two language systems
and the first language interference on the second language learning. It may be also the
actual teaching and learning English pronunciation such as the students’ background, the
less investment in pronunciation practicing, or the lack of suitable facilities and materials.
Moreover, the subjective reasons can not be ignored. The students themselves have to be
aware of the importance of learning English pronunciation so that they have a positive
attitude and have to practice them more at home to get naturalness and intelligibility in
communication.
The findings or some implications, to some extent, well support the hypotheses:
- The students may make a lot of mistakes in perceiving and pronouncing dark
[ ] and [j] in learning English.
- The Northern Vietnamese students have a tendency to make more mistakes
when pronouncing [j] than the Southern ones.
Nguy n Qu c Th nh (2007) An investigation into the pronunciation of dark [ ] and [j] by
the English students, Quang Nam Teacher Training College, MA. Thesis, Danang
University.
2. Implications from a contrastive analysis of semantic and syntactic features of objects
in English and Vietnamese
[…]
Our survey also reveals that students often confuse the constructions with
ditransitive and complex transitive verbs, therefore, special attention should be paid to
structures with two objects and object plus complement. In this case, translation and
contrast pairs are usually the effective ways to help students distinguish between them.
Taking points from the study, we also conclude that objects in English and
Vietnamese reveal quite many differences in the syntax and semantics. There are some
constructions which only exist in Vietnamese but it is really hard to find them in English
and vice versa. We would like to emphasize that in many cases we cannot find the
complete equivalents in the two languages, therefore Vietnamese learners of English as
well as the translators should choose the most suitable and acceptable relative equivalents
to avoid errors made by the lack of knowledge about sentence elements, especially about
objects in both languages. In such cases, it is impossible to translate words by words, but
chunk by chunk. We must read the grammatical construction as a single unit, compare the
meanings of the sentences in the two languages and determine where the clauses begin
and end to get the most suitable equivalents.
In a nutshell, grammar teaching has always been one of the most controversial and
least understood aspects of language teaching. Few teachers remain indifferent to
grammar and many teachers become obsessed by it. This study is an attempt to shed light
on one small part of the issue. That is to say from the findings and the results of the
study, the teachers can explore the appropriate ways to help students learn and acquire
the semantic and syntactic features of objects better and better and to use them effectively
in communication.
ng Th Thu (2008) Semantic and Syntactic Features of Objects in English and
Vietnamese, MA. Danang University.
3. Implications from a contrastive analysis of causative verbs in English vs.
Vietnamese
The results from the contrastive analysis of causative verbs in English and
Vietnamese give proof for the following suggestions;
1. It seems that for most Vietnamese learners of English, causality is confined in
the process linking two events, the first of which refers to the causing event and the
second to the resulting event, both of which are syntactically realized in two separate
clauses. This assumption makes the speakers stick to periphrastic causative constructions
as the only means to express causality and thus ignore other means such as lexical and
morphological constructions. The negative consequence may be the overuse of make and
let causative constructions. This may be motivated from a rough, literal translation from
make, force and let to Vietnamese as làm, b t bu c and which are considered as
typical causative verbs in the two languages. As has been presented in the result of
analysis, causative lexical and morphological constructions convey richer meaning than
the basic causative meaning such as directness and responsibility and intensification of
the property already existing with the causee. The preference of an analytic construction
may make the speaker fail to convey this additional meaning. From this observance, it is
assumed that Vietnamese speakers of English should be aware of the alternative causative
constructions to be utilized in a particular situation. Despite the universal fact that
English and Vietnamese are isolatic languages that make use of periphrastic causative
constructions as their typical means, lexical and synthetic causative constructions are
central cases to express causative meanings in many situations.
2. Also, the favour of these verbs in language transfer of causative meaning may
lead to a possibility that the speaker may set aside other verbs such as have which is
hardly translated into Vietnamese with a causative verb that is similar on the surface
meaning. This negative consequence manifests itself in the fact that all the Vietnamese
translational equivalents of have/ get constructions with passive meaning are in active
causative construction. This actual performance of translating fail to convey the causative
relation between the causer and causee which are viewed cognitively as Figure and
Ground. Thus the agentivity is emphasized at the expense of the concept of service which
should be emphasized in the passive causative construction. This fact may derive a
language transfer of causative situation that favours the active construction only.
Accordingly, we suggest that knowledge about the involvement of causer and causee in
terms of Figure and Ground, specifically with causative have/ get should be provided to
Vietnamese learners of English. Furthermore, along with this instruction, exercises and
practice should be given to learners so that they can get a language acquisition as well as
pragmatic acquisition and gradually form their linguistic and pragmatic competence.
3. What is more, learners may be unaware of the effect of causation which is
coded in causative verbs of different kinds. They may not be able to conclude that the
result is only potential or factive entailment from the causing event. The lack of
knowledge about the semantic strength of causative verbs make the learners of English
undetermined in predicting the successful causation and thus may misinterpret the
speaker or writer's message. Also, the information about the interaction between the
causer as Antagonist and causee as Agonist are essential for the learners to perform
language transfer and to perform transition from the source causative constructions into
target constructions. For example, some causative verbs suggest more effort and force are
exerted in the manipulation to overcome the possible resistance from the causee.
4. Finally, pragmatic information such as interpersonal function of performative
causative constructions should be taken into consideration. Here, information about the
speaker and hearer's status, authority should be considered to take part in selecting the
performative markers to achieve a polite request or suggestion. Again, the formation of
this pragmatic competence and the effective actual performance of this causative speech
acts need more training with kinds of exercises.
Nam, Nguy n B c. 2003 Causative Verbs and Causality in English and

Vietnamese. MA. Thesis. Danang University.
4. Implications from a contrastive analysis of metonymic expressions in English and

Vietnamese
Metonymy is more pervasive and important, cognitively and rhetorically than has
usually been noted. As we have analyzed, metonymies are matters of relatively
inconsequential word substitutions such as the part for the whole, the container for the
contained, the place for the people, and the like. These substitutions supply elegant
variation in speech and writing without seeming to alter meaning very much.
Syntactically, we have showed that the major function of metonymy is referential
which is fulfilled typically by noun phrase structures. In this syntactic structure, the
modifier-head relations are a high precision feature for recognition of metonymic
expressions. In both English and Vietnamese, noun phrase structures can have
modification in both directions though postmodification is hardly applied in English
while this kind of modification is a predominant feature in Vietnamese metonymic
expression. Also, while this postmodification allows a fairly free shifting of the
characteristics from the entity implicit in the target domain to the enity explicit in the
source domain, this characterstics seems to be a constraint in the use of participle
modification in English noun phrases.
Semantically, metonymic expressions can make use of nearly all types of
idealized conceptual models with relations between the source domain and target domain.
From the data analysis, we notice that there are many correspondences in conceptualizing
and producing of metonymic expressions among English and Vietnamese writers. In both
languages, writers use a place-for-inhabitant metonymy most often when they come to
describing people living in cities, towns or villages. However, the most surprising result
is the high number of the metonymic expressions denoting administration units such as
“Trung ng”, “T nh”, “Nhà n c”, “Chính quy n” are commonly used in Vietnamese
short stories to refer to the people who actually make a decision or perform an act of
referring. As compared, low number of this type is found in our data from English short
stories. Both English and Vietnamese corpus also shows the predominant use of the body
parts such as hand, face, head, eyes or voice standing for the whole person.
Pragmatically, we found that instances of metonymic expressions can be used
according to the addresser’s motivation concerning the grounding of information for the
vivid characterization of the scene in the source domain. Also, the need to avoid a
distraction in the distribution of addressee’s attention and focus more on the description
of the entity in the source domain can be counted as a major cause for the literary
locutionary act and non-locutionary act in the use of metonymic expressions. The
conceptual relations between the entity in source domain and entity in target domain are
well-defined as conceptual universals and they are encoded in English and Vietnamese for
the application of a 2 level analysis of literal and non-literal reading which will be further
discussed below concerning the pedagogical assumptions.
Metonymy can present interesting challenges to the reader. The comprehension
process involves not only identifying the possible interpretation allowed by the grammar,
but also using contextual clues to eliminate some interpretations. Metonymy is also used
to make sense of reference by association, so it forces the reader to work harder at
making meaning in a text as well as in a short story.
Considering a metonymic noun phrase, the reader must have acquired knowledge
of what they have referred to a predicate analysis, the ability to determine the properties
of the implied meaning to the head noun.
With the general understanding of meaning transfer of metonymy, we can give
some of its syntactic implication.
(132) Are you from the press? [62]
In this sentence the predication “from the press” has a transferred meaning where
the head noun phrase “the press” denotes the implied meaning. However, this word can
refer to the publication, the news media, to an edition of the publication or to the
publishing organization itself. Basing on the rule “sortal crossing” proposed by Geoffrey
Nunberg [63] we can indicate which property of one of these sorts can be applied with
the transferred reading. Moreover, we can note that [63] have a possible reading if we
take the subject to denote.
(133) Tôi không bi t ó là c may hay là m m ho i ch , nh ng v i c u m tôi,
nh ng thùng t Nga g i v là m t ngu n s ng trong nh ng n m Hà N i n bo bo, hút
thu c qu n. [37, p.132]
(I do not know that is opportunity or disaster for her, but for my Uncle and Aunt
the package from Russia was their life-spring while Hà N i was eating bo-bo, smoking
cheap cigar.)
Hà n i, the capital of Vietnam, can neither have an animate characteristic of food
consumption encoded by the verb “eat” nor smoke cheap cigar, but via the place-for-
inhabitant metonymy we can say that. It is possible because of the nature of the
relationship between the place and the people living there.
In a comparative study of metonymic expressions in English and Vietnamese, we
have found that we sometimes could not have a word-word translation of metonymic
expressions. “Nhà tôi th ng hay n tr c tôi.”, for instance, the metonymic noun phrase
“nhà tôi” is used to stand for one’s husband or wife in Vietnamese. Obviously, it is
difficult for a foreigner to understand its version literally as the following:
My house has had dinner already.
Such a literal translation may cause ambiguity with at least three possible interpreations: (1)
All the members in my house have had dinner already. (2) Some members in my house have had
dinner already. (3) I have had dinner already.
From what has been presented about the potential difficulties that the Vietnamese
learners of English in the foregoing section and about the similarities and differences of
metonymic expressions in English and Vietnamese we would like to have the following
suggestions.
First, to express the metonymy in English the Vietnamese learners of English can
have much freedom in the language transfer by making use of the similarities in the
mapping relations with ICMs. For the assumptions that English and Vietnamese have
much in common in the ICMs as the universals both in the representation of the
conceptual structures as well as the representation of these ICMs in language. In the two
languages the learners can have at their disposal linguistic means to express the mapping
relations between the entity in the source domain and entity in the target domain. Also,
the ways the addressee’s attention to be directed to the desired target are similar in the
two languages according to the principles of cognitive salience. With these assumptions
in mind, we suggest that this essential knowledge should be provided to the Vietnamese
learners of English as far as the need of using metonymic expressions is concerned. With
knowledge about the ICMs and the language resources to express the metonymy, learners
of English can have more confidence to perform language transfer and apply some of the
transfer patterns. For example
CONSTITUENTS Vietnamese English
PROPER NAME R i Hà N i giàu lên r t nhanh Then, Hanoi was booming.
QUANTIFIER + N C nhà ã soi mình trong chi c The whole family has been looking
g ng ó at themselves in that mirror.
Types of Source Target Example
mapping Matrix Subdomain

domain
CENTRAL Central persons who serve in m Môn vui nh m c trong b!ng khi hay tin Trung
COMMITTEE FOR committee Central committee ng cho t nh liên doanh v i m t công ty c a n c
PERSON
ngoài m x ng óng tàu t i ây
m Môn is very happy when the Central Committee
allows the province to do joint venture with a foreign
company in building a shipping plant.
STATE FOR PERSON State persons who serve in Ít nh t h c"ng hy v ng Nhà n c m ng cho dân ba
the State xã vùng bi#n
At least they still hoped the State would have the roads
built up for the three coastal village.
COURT FOR the court persons who serve in Ti n bán n a c n h do toà án chia cho anh n là s tài
PERSON the court s n duy nh t anh còn l i t m i m y n m xây d$ng cái t%
m ã tan
The money inherited from half-apartment selling divided
by the law-court was my brother n’s only fortune from
his broken family during past ten years.
PRESS AND press and persons who serve in Phía báo ài ang dòm ngó. M t b a, h p vào, quay
BROADCASTING broadcasting the press and phim, ch p hình búa la xua
CORPORATION
croporation broadcasting The press and radio television corporation is peering at us.
corporation One day, they rushed in and took photograph, and took
snapshots…
Apart from the role in cognitive relations, metonymy fulfils mainly referential
functions in communication. In a common case where metonymy is used referentially,
the problem is how the hearer moves from what was said to an obvious related
proposition which contained the intended referent. In Vietnamese literature, Nguy n
Tuân successfully has created metonymies in his writing as well as in his short stories.
Let have a look at the following sentence in his story.
[37]
(134) M t cái mi ng c i, m i ngón tay tháp bút tr c kia là c&a chung thiên
h , b i vì nó không có s c , bây gi ã tr nên c&a riêng m t nhà. [37,
p.102]
This is the value that is worth mentioning. Obviously, what is really being talked
about here a beautiful girl. The metonymy in this sentence produced a rhetorical effect.
Consider the following example.
(135) Good! Wake up the whole country, and get the news through to the San
Francisco police boat. [44, p.56]
It is clearly in (4) it was not “the whole country”, but all the people who living in
the country. The metonymy “the whole country” is normally used to avoid a long
paraphrase like “Good! Wake up all the people who living in the country, and get the
news through to the San Francisco police boat” in order to achieve successful reference.
In Vietnamese, we have a similar case. Let have a look at the following sentence.
(136) Chuy n bay s' h cánh lúc hai gi . C u có gì tr ng i không? [38 ,
p.103]
- The plane will arrive at 2 o’clock. Any questions?
In this case, it is not the plane can arrive by itself, but the pilot who will control
the plane to land. The metonymy “chuy n bay” is also a way of avoiding the use of a
longer, heavier to process
Duyên, Võ Thu. 2007 An investigation into metonymy in English and Vietnamese short
stories. MA. Thesis. Danang University.
5. Implications from a contrastive analysis of Pro-claim markers in English and
Vietnamese
With the aim of studying the proclaim markers in English and Vietnamese in
terms of syntactic, semantic and pragmatic features my research is designed as a
qualitative study executed with a contrastive analysis between PMs in the two languages,
I have come to these conclusions:
1. Typologically, English and Vietnamese have at their disposal lexical units
functioning as markers of proclaims in various structures: adverb structure, adjective
structure, verb structure and noun structure.
2. Syntactically, PMs in the two languages can be recognized with their mobility
in various positions in the clausal structure or utterance: initial, medial and final. Most
PMs in English and Vietnamese can assume the initial position as thematic markers in a
proclaim and a few of them were found to occur as a subject complement in a clausal
structure and in Rheme of information structure. However, while English can be said to
be rich in derived structures from a lexical head, Vietnamese can be acknowledged as an
isolating language in grammatical paradigms to be restricted to set phrases such as th o
nào, hèn chi, or c n ph i th a nh n.
3. Semantically, PMs in English and Vietnamese can be characterized as
epistemic markers and were found to share the same semantic ingredients such as the
status of the information in the proposition P (factivity and evidence), the psychological
effect of P (the badness/ undesirableness or goodness/favorableness of the state-of-affairs
mentioned in P), the dimensions of force and dynamics presupposed in P (resistance to
force and removal of blockage), the addresser’s attitude to P (whether he/she feels the
reluctance to utter P). A major difference can be seen here is that some PMs in English
can be used in switching structures to signal the actualization or non-actualization of the
performer of proclaim whereas this semantic ingredient is blurred in Vietnamese
structures with suppressed person subject.
4. Pragmatically, PMs in both languages were found with a function to assert the
proposition with addressers’ motivation in different dimensions in terms of inner force or
outer force, the characteristics of P in terms of topos of morality or
favorableness/unfavorableness, under the pressure of force and dynamics, politeness
strategies. Both English and Vietnamese have PMs with a function of signaling a
presupposition of the shared knowledge about the factive assumption as a background to
assert a concession given to the addressee or other participants in conformity with
positive politeness strategy. Also, PMs of complex structures with BUT were found to
exert influence as to give a limited concession or agreement so as to protect the
addresser’s face.
Difficulties of Vietnamese students in understanding and using Proclaim markers
As I have mentioned at the first place, the notion of Proclaim and proclaim
markers are still strange both to those who study discourse and pragmatic markers and to
language learners. Little has been written about this topic and accordingly learners in
classroom are not aware of such notions as Pronounce and Expect and related concepts
such as factivity, coercion of force and face wants. However, in everyday
communication, very often than not, addressers and addressees may encounter with
situations where they have to deal with kinds of compulsion to utter what is considered as
favorable, pleasant things or unfavorable, errors, or mistakes. Without an awareness of
this pragmatic knowledge, learners may be ignorant of the nature of inner force or outer
force to make an act of assertion. Without a competence of PMs as far as their semantics
and the corresponding structures are concerned, they may fail to express their claim as
well as to convey their attitude to the proposition and to the other participants in
dialogistic interaction. For example, in studying business English, learners may fail to
interpret the speaker’s intent as well as the hearer’s inference in reading the speaker’s
message as in the exchange below
Davidson: This is Brian Davison speaking (…)
Sanchez: This is Manuela Sanchez Grom Royale Engineering (…) We arranged
delivery by ship from Southampton to Bilbao, but I’m afraid that something has come up
and we now need the consignment rather urgently. Would it be possible for you to send it
airfreight to San Sebastian as soon as possible? Of course, we will pay any additional
costs that arise. Thank you very much. [53]
Learners may understand the meaning of all the words as well as the general idea
of the talk. However, they may ignore the semantics and pragmatics of the marker “of
course” in the context which means an expectation about the shared assumption or
knowledge between the speaker and hearer about the business practice in delivering
consignment. This marker should be interpreted as the speaker’s anticipation of the
hearer’s expectation about the extra payment for the airfreight to another destination. By
using this marker, the speaker attempted to signal a shared agreement in accordance to
given knowledge in the business and thus assure the hearer.
The second point that should be mentioned here is the transfer of an assertion of
proposition into the target language like English where addressers are offered with
various syntactic structures to reflect their semantic and pragmatic ingredients and
dimensions such as impersonalization by means of non-actualization of subject
performer, the illocutionary force of the proclaim. The language users may feel a need to
call for syntactic, semantic and pragmatic knowledge under the framework of epistemic
modality, force and dynamics and politeness theory for a proper transfer. In this sense of
language transfer, syntactic, semantic and pragmatic translational equivalents between
PMs in the two languages should be identified and brought into use.
As mentioned in section 4.4. about the similarities and differences between PMs
in English and Vietnamese, I confidently claim that the Vietnamese learners of English
can make use of these common points in the syntactic representation of the semantic and
pragmatic ingredients to facilitate their transfer of proclaims from the source language to
the target language. For example, the seemingly one-to-one relation between the semantic
entities in a proclaim and the corresponding syntactic elements realized in a sentence or
utterance of this proclaim can provide learners with the suggested good models for
transfer as in Figures 5.1. – 5.6. below
Proclaim markers Proposition to be asserted

Performer of Speech act Explicit assumption to be asserted
proclaim
First person Performative verb Complement clause as direct object
Chúng tôi th a nh n có s$ l i l ng trong qu n lý; ch a v n
d!ng c khoa h c vào công tác tuy#n
ch n. [103]
We admit/ acknowledge there has been loose management;

scientific methods have not been applied
in recruiting procedures.
Figure 5.1.: Transfer of speech act verb structures in Vietnamese and English
Proclaim markers Proposition to be pronounced

Performer Removal speech act explicit assumption to be asserted
of of
proclaim blockage
First Auxiliary Performative complement clause as direct object
person verb
φ Có th# kh ng nh là s$ b t c p nói trên không hoàn toàn b t ngu n
t phía VFF hay ông Riedl, mà chính là h( qu
thói quan liêu và c ng nh c c&a BTC ASIAD.
[32]
We/ I can affirm
that such insufficient consideration was not
Mr.Riedle or VFF’s error, rather it was the
consequence of the red tape and rigidity of the
organization board of ASIAD.
Figure 5.2.: Transfer of speech act verb structures with modification in
Vietnamese and English: Removal of blockage
Proclaim markers Proposition to be expected

Performer of Coercion Speech act Explicit assumption to be asserted
proclaim of force
First person Auxiliary Performative verb Complement clause as direct object
φ Ph i th a nh n m t s cán b coi thi ch a th$c hi(n t t
ch c trách c&a mình, mang i(n tho i vào
phòng thi, làm vi(c riêng. [61]
We/ I must admit that a number of invigilators have not

fulfilled their duty when they brought cell
phones with them and did their personal
work in the examination room.
Figure 5.3.: Transfer of speech act verb structures of Vietnamese and
English with modification: Coercion/Resistance of force
Metaphorical Sensory Evidential explicit assumption to be asserted
Rõ ràng làm SCT là ph i t n kém. [104]
Obviously it will cost to build the super-railway.

Figure 5.4.: Transfer of adverb structures in Vietnamese and English:
Metaphorical Sensory Evidential

In accordance to reference world explicit assumption to be shared/agreed
T t nhiên a v làm con tôi c"ng không ng tình khi
có ng i chê cha mình. [30]
Of course as his son, I will never agree with those who

criticize my father.
In accordance to reference world and general agreement/concession
Proclaim Shared proposition connector Proposition asserted

markers
In accordance to limited agreement Position to be protected
reference world or concession
ng nhiên em có thu n l i l n Nh ng hành trình # có c danh hi(u này
vì c nh ct i c"ng không ph i n gi n vì # t
Hungary, n i c 3 chu)n KTQT em ph i u
th ng xuyên có g n 15 gi i v i các k* th& có ng
gi i u liên t!c. c p. [123]
Naturally I have good but it is a long and winding road to win

advantage to study this title because I have to play in 15
and play chess in tournaments with high rank chess
Hungary where players to win 3 points for
chess tournaments Grandmaster title.
are held regularly
In accordance to reference world and limited agreement/concession
As seen from figures 5.1. – 5.6., the transfer of proclaims from Vietnamese into
English can be facilitated with a nearly one-to-one relationship between semantic entities
and syntactic elements in each language and between the two languages.
From the problems presented above, I recommend teachers of English raise an
awareness of pragmatic knowledge about PMs both in English and Vietnamese for the
students’ acquisition of the syntactic features, the semantic ingredients of PMs as well as
the pragmatic competence about the interpersonal dimensions of PMs. They may have
class activities such as speaking matters of argument, making statement or proclaim, or
responding to some undesirable state-of-affairs. Through these activities, the learners can
be exposed to a good environment where they can have and make use of PMs to express
their point of view, protect their face as well as signal their attitude towards the desirable
or undesirable aspects of the things presented in their claims.
Khôi, Nguy n V n (2007) a Study of Proclaim Markers in English and Vietnamese. MA.
Thesis. Danang University.
III. Designing Exercises from the results of CAs of English and Vietnamese
concerning the usage of Causative verbs
Traditionally, exercises on causative types have been designed for the learners to
use correct forms of causative verbs. Accordingly, the grammatical and syntactic aspects
have been paid more interest. For learners, semantic and pragmatic information about
causative verbs in causative constructions have not been taken into consideration. They
are simply required to select causative verbs from causative group in terms of clausal
types with their complementation. We assume that they should be aware of information
about the status of the causer and causee as Agonist and Antagonist in the interaction or
manipulation. Also, the semantic nature of causative verbs manifested in their strength
should be stressed to highlight the features such as the presupposition of a factive result
or a potential outcome. From these assumptions, we design these types of exercises to
help the learners acquire the linguistic information as well as pragmatic competence.
Types of exercises are designed with two macro skills - receptive skill and
productive skill.
Receptive skill
In order to form the receptive skill for the learners, we require that they should be
exposed to materials where causative verbs are found to be used in both grammatical and
pragmatic environment. The requirement here is not only for the learners to recognize the
appropriate form causative verbs to be selected in sentence, but also to recognize the
semantic and pragmatic information of the verb in a causative construction. Specifically,
the learners will be asked to find out information about the causer/ causee such as human
or non human, animate or inanimate. Once this kind of information is pinned down, the
learner can decide the degree of intent or voluntariness, the resistence and the exertion of
force in the manipulation or caustive event. Also, pragmatic factors should be taken into
consderation here, namely social status of causer, causee and interlocutors. So long as the
learners are aware of information of this kind, they can have a lingusitic and pragmatic
competence to recognize and interpret the semantics of the causative verbs as well as the
speaker or writer's intent in sentences or utterances tailored with causative verbs.
The suggested exercises of this type are as follow:
1. Read the passage below and answer the following questions:
i) identify the causative verbs (note that causative verbs her can be lexical,
synthetic or analytic)
ii) identify and underline which noun phrase (NP) refers to the causer/
mainipulator and causee/ manipulatee
iii) determine whether the causer and causee are animate or inanimate
iv) determine whether the outcome in each of the following causative events is
factive or potential.
v) Determine whether the causer had to practise the coercion of force to overcome
the causee's resistance.
Next day we moved Strickland. It needed a good deal of firmness and still more
patience to induce him to come, but he was really too ill to offer any effective resistance
to Stroeve's entreaties and to my determination. We dressed him, while he feebly cursed
us, got him downstairs , into a cab, and eventually to Stroeve's studio. He was so
exhausted by the time we arrived that he allowed us to put him to bed without a word.
[Maugham, Sommerset, The Moon and sixpence, 92]
2. Examin the utterances below and answer the following questions
1) I order you to come back to the car and cut brush. [46, 194]
2) Dear one, I want you to do something for me. [49, 88]
3) Let me come in for a minute. [50, 87]
4) I want you to let me bring him here. [49, 88]
5) .....But I beseech you not to bring Strickland here.
6) I beg you not to let Strickland come here
7) Let me go finish him. [46, 195]
i) Identify and underline the causative verbs used in the performative utterance in
the syntactic form of a declarative sentence
ii) Identify and cross the causative verbs used in a performative utterance in the
syntactic form of an impreative sentence
iii) Circle the performative marker initiating the utterances.
iv) Explain why these performative were so used.
The productive skill
Along with the practive of recognizing and interpreting causative meanings of
causativ verbs in sentences, the learners are required to produce sentences or utterances
using sppropriate causatives in causative constructions. The performance of utterances
with causative constructions requires that the learners are provided with knowledge the
syntax, semantics and pragmatics of causative verbs. In this sense, knowledge of this kind
is understood as constraints of dynamicity, degree of likelihood of success, degree of
contact in manipulation and other pragmatic information besides grammatical knowledge
such as morphological and syntactic rules of constraints.
The suggested exercises of this type are as follow:
1. Decide where the noun phrase in each pair shoud go into the slot for causer/
maipulator or causee/ manipulatee and in some cases the afectee of the resulting verb
Juan/ the teacher
1. .......... made .........leave the room.
2. a mechanic/ Toshiko/ car
................. had her ................... repaired by ................ .
3. the secretary/ her paper/ Ellen
..............got .................... type .......................
4. the suspect / the policemen
.................. made ................... lie on the ground
5. Dr, Byrd/ a composition/ the students
........... is having .............. write ................... .
2. Translate these following sentences into English uisng appropriate causative
constructions.
(Note that the exercise of this kind requires the learner not only to use analytic causatives
but also lexical and synthetic ones where neccessary)
1. Tôi cho m% l n, i m i h hàng làng n c n # chia vui.
2. # ch bón cho.
3. Bà làm phúc cho cháu ng i ch d n sáng.
4. C # cho cô y khóc...
5. V tôi sai mua bánh mì v n l y s c ào ti p.
6. ...... ôi m t c&a nó làm cho t t c m i ng i xung quanh u s hãi.
7. Cún ã làm cho cô Di(u thích.
8. C! cho phép con vào m t tý.
9. # tôi m nó ra gi ng này cho.
10. Em không cho bán ch Tý!
Besides the types of exercises suggested above which stress the pragmatic aspects of
causative constructions, we provide types of exercises to help learners to acquire a
language competence to master grammar rules in selecting correct form of causative.
These types of exercises are necessary for the learners at the preliminary and pre-
intermediate level and they can be found in the appendix of this paper.
Nam, Nguy n B c. 2003 Causative Verbs and Causality in English and Vietnamese.
MA. Thesis. Danang University.
A SUMMARY

By Pragmatic approach:
- Relationship between communicative interactants in that language community is
brought into light.
- Language messages can be determined by social behaviours and social affects, the
strategies and language rules, the language etiquettes …
Aims and objectives of pragmatic CA:
- Establish the communicative values of linguistic units in terms of semanto-structural
aspects in the contrasted languages;
- Examine different linguistic means conveying the same communicative message in
the contrasted languages
L1≠≠ L2 in that:
- their semanto-structural units do not have the same communicative values.
- the number of factors, characteristics of types, classes of communicative units in social
- in the same communicative situation, a specific social behaviour can be dissimilar in:
+ the choice to use language communicative means;
+ different social rules that govern the use of those linguistic means
Speech acts and 2 approaches of Pragmatic CA
1. We can contrast
- the linguistic means used to perform a speech act - thanking, inviting, complimenting,
asking, requesting, apologizing (as the pragmatic equivalence) in 2 languages
Greeting:
- the linguistic means used to signal performative functions such as speech act verbs like
assert, ask, warn, promise … in English & kh ng nh, h i, c nh báo, h a … in
Vietnamese.
2. We can contrast
the illocutionary force of the utterances or speech acts in the two contrasted languages to
claim that functions of a construction of Language A can be contrasted with functions of
Language B
E.g. Where are you going? (English)
Anh/ch i âu y? (Vietnamese)
Are these two utterances similar in:
- syntactic structure or pattern?
- illocutionary forces?
- performing different communicative functions
Semantic and Pragmatic Equivalence
expressions are pragmatically equivalent
- if they communicate the same content
- they are not necessarily semantically equivalent
E.g. Use of metaphor instead of speaking literally:
I can eat a horse. (actual utterance)
instead of
……………… (intended utterance)
Or ……………… (actual utterance)
You should stop smoking. (actual utterance)
What is said: …………………………….
What is implicated: ………………………
Hypotheses:
A1. Semantic equivalence: equivalence of what is said.
A2. Pragmatic equivalence: equivalence of what is implicitly communicated
What is said is a proposition, an entity which is either true or false
A'1. Two sentences are semantically equivalent if they correspond to the same
proposition.
A'2. Two sentences are pragmatically equivalent if they render the same set of
implicatures, triggered by rules of conversational inference.
Universal or culture-specific?
a particular illocutionary force of an utterance or a situation communication found in one
language can be regarded as a Uinversal or Cuture-specific
Universal:
Most speech communities are similar in:
- communicative situations &
- the equivalent pieces of language to perform the same communicative
functions
Cuture-specific:
some distinctive communicative situation reflecting a distinctive feature of culture can be
found only in this speech community but it is absent in some others
(Krzeszowski 1990).
3 suggested procedures to determine possibilities for CA:
1. the socio-cultural phenomenon M in L1 has the equivalent phenomenon in L2 ?
No: M may be a socio-cultural difference
Yes:
2. the language pattern in L2 attributed to the socio-cultural phenomenon N in the
same way as the language pattern in L1 is attributed to M?
No: proceed to a pragmatic CA
Yes:
3. the pattern N in L2 has language pattern equivalent in syntactic and semantic
aspect?
No: CA ceased
Yes: CA is conducted concerning the syntactic and semantic aspects until different
features are determined at a certain level of analysis
CA & POLITENESS IN INTERACTION
1. Politeness
Means employed to show awareness of another person; public self-image face wants
2. Face
Public self-image of a person
3. Face wants
A person’s expectations that their public self-image will be respected
4. Face threatening act
Utterance or action which threatens a persons public self-image
5. Face saving act
Utterance or action which avoids potential threat of a persons public self-image
6. Negative face
The need to be independent, not imposed on by others
7. Negative politeness
Awareness of another’s right not to be imposed on by another
8. Negative politeness Strategy
An attempt to demonstrate awareness of another’s right not to be imposed on by another
9. Positive face
He need to be connected, to belong to a group
10. Positive politeness
Showing solidarity with another
11. Positive politeness Strategy
An appeal to solidarity with another
Possible strategies for doing FTAs

(Brown/Levison (1987))
Politeness and Indirectness

In communication, whenever there is an indirect relationship between a structure of an
utterance and its function, we have an indirect speech act
Will you open the door? (ordering by question)
Instead of the direct speech act:
………………………….. (ordering by imperative)
.…………………………. (asserting by declarative)
.…………………………. (requesting by imperative)
Politeness and Mitigation

- the result of a weakening one of the interactional parameters
- functional to smooth interactional management in that it reduces risks for
participants at various levels,
e.g. risks of self-contradiction, refusal, losing face, conflict, and so forth
I’m afraid ………………..
X is a bit/kind of Y (undesirable thing/state)
It seems …………………
I wish ……………………
X is rather Y (undesirable thing/state)
Buiding a pragmatic corpus for CA
Metapragmatic questionnaire (MPQ) and the Discourse Completion Task (DCT)
questionnaire are in use *
See the document here
Questions:
1. Examine the data below and anwer the following questions
English Vietnamese
Can I help you with the dishes? Tôi giúp b n r a bát nhé?
Let me wash the dishes for you. # tôi r a bát cho.
It seems that you can use my help with the Có v+ nh b n c n tôi giúp r a chén y.
dishes.
I’ll help you with the dishes. Tôi r a bát giúp cho.
I promise I’ll wash the dishes for you. Tôi h a tôi s' r a bát cho.
i) Establish the TC for the CA of these communicative functions or speech acts.

ii) Describe the syntactic realizations of these communicative speech acts in English and
Vietnamese;
iii) Describe the linguistic devices that contribute to shaping the pragmatic functions of
these speech acts in English and Vietnamese;
iv) State the similarities and differences of these speech acts in terms of syntax, semantics
and pragmatics;
v) How can you build up a corpus for a contrastive analysis of these speech acts of
English vs. Vietnamese? (Clue: Metapragmatic Questionnaires & Discourse Completion
Task)
English Vietnamese
rather h i
a bit m t tí/m t chút
kind of/ sort of m t tí/m t chút
I think Tôi ngh, là

maybe/perhaps/probably có l'/có th#/có kh n ng
There’s a possibility/chance that … Có kh n ng là
It seems that … D ng nh là …
i) Establish the TC for the CA of these linguistic devices.

ii) Describe the syntactic realizations of these polite markers in English and Vietnamese;
these polite markers in English and Vietnamese;
iv) State the similarities and differences of these polite markers in terms of syntax,
semantics and pragmatics;
v) How can you build up a corpus for a contrastive analysis of these polite markers of
Task)
English Vietnamese
Would you like to come to dinner tonight? M i anh n t i v i tôi t i nay.
How about dinner tonight? T i nay mình n t i nhé?
I’d like to invite you to have dinner Anh mu n m i em n t i v i anh t i nay.

tonight.
You must you dinner with me tonight. Mày ph i n n t i v i tao y!
(…) (…)
i) Establish the TC for the CA of these linguistic devices.

ii) Describe the syntactic realizations of these speech acts in English and Vietnamese;
these speech acts in English and Vietnamese;
iv) State the similarities and differences of these speech acts in terms of syntax, semantics
and pragmatics;
v) How can you build up a corpus for a contrastive analysis of these speech acts of
Task)
REFERENCES
Vietnamese
Nguy n V n Chi n (1992), Ngôn ng h c i chi u và i chi u các ngôn ng !ông Nam Á,
Vi(n Khoa h c Xã h i Vi(t Nam, Vi(n ông Nam Á
Bùi M nh Hùng, 2008 Ngôn ng h c i chi u, Nhà Xu t b n Giáo d!c.
Lê Quang Thiêm (1988, 2004) Nghiên c u i chi u các ngôn ng Nhà Xu t b n ih c
Qu c gia Hà N i
oàn Thi(n Thu t (1998), Ng Âm Ti ng Vi t, Nhà Xu t B n i H c Qu c Gia Hà
N i.
English
An, Nguy n Th . 2008 An investigation into the pronunciation of English Stops
experienced by the students at Tuy Hoa Industrial College. MA. Thesis. Danang
University.
Berman, R. A. 1978. "Contrastive analysis revisited: obligatory, systematic, and
incidental differences between languages." ED196292.
Bloomfield, L. 1933. Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Broselow, E. 1984. "An investigation of transfer in SL phonology." 1RAL, Vol. 22/4.
Brown, H. D. 1987. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. 2nd ed. New Jersey
Prentice Hall.
Burt, M. K. and H. Dulay. 1975. "New Directions in Second Language Learning,
Teaching, and Bilingual Education. " On TESOL ' 75. Washington, D. C.
Carroll, John B. 1963 “Linguistic relativity, contrastive linguistics and language
learning”. In IRAL, 1.1: 1-19.
Catford, John C. 1968 “Contrastive analysis and language teaching”. In James E Alatis
(ed) Contrastive linguistics and its pedagogical implications. Report of the 19th Annual
Round Table Meeting on linguistics and language studies, Washington DC:
Georgetown University Press: 159-173.
Chesterman, Andrew. 1998 Contrastive functional analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Chiang, T. 1979. "Some interference of English intonations with Chinese tones." IRAL,
Vol. 17/3.
Corder, S. P. 1967. "The significance of learner's errors." IRAL Vol. 5, . 1971.
"Idiosyncratic dialects and error analysis." IRAL Vol. 9.
Crystal, David.1987 The Cambridge Encyclopaedia of Language, Cambridge. Cambridge
University Press.
Djordjevi-, Radmila. 1987 Uvod u kontrastiranje jezika [An introduction to contrasting
languages]. Beograd: Nau.na knjiga, .
Duyên, Võ Thu. 2007 An investigation into metonymy in English and Vietnamese short
stories. MA. Thesis. Danang University.
Dulay, H. and M. Burt. 1972. "Goofing : an indicator of children s second language
learning strategies. " Language Learning, Vol. 22.
Duskova, L. 1969. "On sources of errors in FLL. " IRAL Vol. 7.
Eckman, F. 1977. "Markedness and the conrrastive analysis hypothesis. " Language
Learning, Vol.27.
elementary and intermediate students in ESL." Language Learning, Vol. 25.
Ellis, H. C. 1965. The Transfer of Learning. New York : MacMillan.
English: Implications for CAH." ED271009.
English: The segmental phonemes." Language Learning, Vol. 9/1&2.
Erdmann, P. H. 1973. "Patterns of stress-transfer in English and German." IRAL Vol.
11/3.
errors." Language Learning, Vol. 20.
Ervin-Tripp, S. 1974. "Is second language learning like the first?" TESOL Quarterly 8.
Esser, J. 1980. "CA at the crossroads of linguistics and foreign language teaching." IRAL,
Vol.
Filipovi-, Rudolf (ed). 1971 B. Studies, 3. Zagreb, Washington DC: Institute of
Linguistics – Center for Applied Linguistics, Yugoslav Serbo-Croatian - English
Contrastive Project.
Filipovi-, Rudolf. 1975 Contrastive analysis of English and Serbo-Croatian, Vol .
Zagreb: Institute of Linguistics.
Fisiak, Jacek, M Lipi ska-Grzegorek, W Zabrocki. 1978. An introductory English-Polish
contrastive grammar. Warszawa: Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe,
Fries, Charles C. 1945 Teaching and learning English as a foreign language. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press.
Gass, S. M. and L. Selinker. 1983. Language Transfer in Language Learning. Rowley,
Georgetown Monograph No. 21. Washington, D. C. •' Georgetown Univ. Press.
Goodman, Nelson. 1972 “Seven structures on similarity”. In Nelson Goodman (ed).
Problems and projects. Indianapolis, In.: Bobbs-Merrill: 437-447.
Grandgent, Charles H. German and English sounds. Boston: Ginn, 1892.
Halliday, Michael A K, Angus McIntosh, Peter Strevents. 1964 The linguistic sciences
and language teaching. London: Longmans.
Hammerly, H. 1982. "Contrastive Phonology and Error Analysis. " IRAL Vol. 20/1.
Hamp, Eric P. 1968 “What a contrastive grammar is not, if it is”. In James E Alatis (ed)
Contrastive linguistics and its pedagogical implications: reports of the 19th
Annual Round Table Meeting on Linguistics and Language Studies. Washington
D.C.: Georgetown University Press: 137-150.
Haugen, E. 1956. Bilingualism in the Americas. The American Dialect Society.
Hoàng, Võ Th Kim. 2008 An English - Vietnamese Cross-Cultural Study of
Congratulating. MA. Thesis. Danang University.
Hughes, A. 1980. "Problems in Contrastive Analysis and Error Analysis." ED192573.
Ivir, Vladimir. 1969 “Contrasting via translation: formal correspondence vs. translation
equivalence”. In Rudolf Filipovi- (ed). B. Studies, 1. Zagreb: Institute of
Linguistics: 12-25.
Jakobovits, L. A. 1969. "SLL and transfer theory : a theoretical assessment. " Language
Learning, Vol. 14/1&2.
James, C. 1969. "Deeper contrastive study. " IRAL Vol. VII/2.
James, C. 1985. Contrastive Analysis. Singapore: Longman Singapore Publishers.
James, Carl. Contrastive analysis. London: Longman, 1980.
Khôi, Nguy n V n (2007) a Study of Proclaim Markers in English and Vietnamese. MA.
Klein. W. 1986. Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge : Cambridge Univ. Press.
Kleinmann, H. H. 1977. '"Avoidance behavior in adult second language acquisition."
Language Learning, Vol. 27/1.
Krzeszowski, T. P. 1974. Contrastive Generative Grammar . Theoretical
Foundations.Lodz Univ. Press.
Krzeszowski, Tomasz P. 1990 Contrasting languages: the scope of contrastive
linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Krzeszowski, Tomasz P. Contrasting languages: the scope of contrastive linguistics.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1990.
Lado, R. 1957. Linguistics across Cultures. Ann Arbor, Michigan : Univ. of Michigan
Press.
Lance. D. M. 1969. A Brief Study of Spanish-English Bilingualism. College Station,
Texas: Texas A&M Univ. Language Learning, Vol.12.
Learning: Issues & Approaches. J. C. Richards (ed.) Rowley, Mass. Newbury House.
Lee, R W. “The contribution of contrastive linguistics to the preparation of language-
teaching materials”. In Gerhard Nickel (ed). Proceedings of the 3rd AILA Congress,
Copenhagen 1972, V.1: Applied contrastive linguistics.
Lee, R W. 1972 “The contribution of contrastive linguistics to the preparation of
language- teaching materials”. In Gerhard Nickel (ed). Proceedings of the 3rd AILA
Congress, Copenhagen , V. 1: Applied contrastive linguistics.
Lee, W. R. 1968. "Thoughts on contrastive linguistics in the context of language
teaching."
Lehn, W. and W. R. Slager. 1959. "A contrastive study of Egyptian Arabic and American
Lyons, John.1996 Linguistic Semantics. An Introduction, London, Cambridge University
Press
Mackey, William F. 1965 Language teaching analysis. London: Longman. Massachusetts
: Newbury House Publishers.
Mathesius, Vilém. 1964 “On linguistic characterology with illustrations from Modern
English”. In Josef Vachek (ed). A Prague School Reader in Linguistics.
Bloomington (Indiana): Indiana University Press: 59-67.
Nam, Nguy n B c. 2003 Causative Verbs and Causality in English and Vietnamese. MA.
Nemser, William. 1971 “Recent Center activities in contrastive linguistics”. In Rudolf
Filipovi- (ed) B. Studies, 4, Zagreb Conference on English Contrastive Projects,
7-9 December 1970. Papers and Discussions. Zagreb: Institute of Linguistics: 11-30.
Newmark, L. and D. Reibel. 1968. "Necessity and sufficiency in language learning."
IRAL Vol.9/3.
Noblitt, J. S. 1972. "Pedagogical grammar."IRAL, Vol. 10/4.
Odlin, T. 1989 Language Transfer: Cross-linguistic influence in language learning.
Cambridge University Press.
Oiler, J. W. and S. M. Ziahosseiny. 1970. "The contrastive analysis hypothesis and
spelling
Passy, Paul E. , 1906 Petite phonétique comparée des principales langues européennes.
Leipzig: Teubner.
Perez, B. 1978. "A choice of approach : SLL." System, Vol. 8.
Politzer, R. L. 1960. Teaching French-an introduction to applied linguistics. New York:
Blaisdell Pub. Co.
Popper, Karl. 1972 Objective knowledge. An evolutionary approach. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Richards Jack, Platt John & Platt Heidi. 1993 Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching
& Applied Linguistics , Longman Group UK Limited.
Ritchie, W. (ed. ) 1978. Second Language Acquisition Research : Issues and
Implications. New York: Academic Press.
Rivers, W. M. and M. S. Temperley. 1978. A Practical Guide to the Teaching of English
as a Second or Foreign Language. New York : Oxford Univ. Press.
Rutherford, W. 1982. "Markedness in second language acquisition. Language Learning,
Vol.32.
Schacter, J. 1974. "An error in error analysis." Language Learning, Vol. 24/2.
Sciarone, A. G. 1980. "Contrastive Analysis ; Possibilities and Limitations. " IRAL. Vol.
8.
Selinker, L. 1972. "Interlanguage." IRAL.Vol. 10/3.
Slama Cazacu, T. “Psycholinguistics and contrastive studies”. In R Filipovi- (ed) 1971:
188- 206.
Stock well, R. , J. D. Bowen and J. W. Martin. 1965. The Grammatical Structures of
English and Spanish. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
Susanne Niemeier, and René Dirven (eds) Applied cognitive linguistics II: language
pedagogy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2001, 117-146.
Tarone, E. 1979. "Interlanguage as chameleon." Language Learning, Vol. 29/3.
Taylor, B. P. 1975. "The use of overgeneralization and transfer learning strategies by
Th nh, Nguy n Qu c (2007) An Investigation into the Pronunciation of Dark [ ] and [j]
by
the English Students at the Quang nam Teacher Training College. MA. Thesis,
Danang University.
Thu , ng Th . 2008 A study of syntactic and semantic features of Objects in English
and Vietnamese. MA. Thesis. Danang University.
Viëtor, Wilhelm., 1894 Elemente der Phonetik des Deutschen, Englischen und
Französischen. Leipzig: Reisland.
Wardhaugh, R. 1970. "The contrastive analysis hypothesis." TESOL Quarterly 4.
Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 1968: 159-173.
Weinreich, M. 1953. Languages in Contact. Linguistics Circle of New York.
Whitman, R. 1970. "Contrastive analysis: problems and procedures." Language
Learning, Vol. 20.
Whitman, R. and K. L. Jackson. 1972. "The unpredictability of contrastive analysis."
Language Learning, Vol. 22.
Whitman, Randal L. 1970 “Contrastive analysis: problems and procedures”. In Language
learning, 20.2 : 191-197.
Whorf, Benjamin L. 1967“Language and logic”. In Carroll, John B (ed). Language,
thought and reality, selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Cambridge, Mass.:
The MIT Press: 233-245.
Wilkins, D.A. 1968. "Review of A. Valdman: Trends in language teaching." IRAL, Vol.
6.
Younes, M.A. 1984. "The Stressing of final superheavy syllables by Saudi learners of
Zabrocki, T. 1980. "Theoretical contrastive studies." Theoretical Issues in Contrastive
Linguistics. Fisiak, J. (ed. ) Amsterdam: John Benjamins B.V.
A SUMMARY

By Pragmatic approach:
- Relationship between communicative interactants in that language community is brought
into light.
- Language messages can be determined by social behaviours and social affects, the
strategies and language rules, the language etiquettes …
Aims and objectives of pragmatic CA:
- Establish the communicative values of linguistic units in terms of semanto-structural
aspects in the contrasted languages;
- Examine different linguistic means conveying the same communicative message in the
contrasted languages
L1≠ ≠ L2 in that:
- their semanto-structural units do not have the same communicative values.
- the number of factors, characteristics of types, classes of communicative units in social
- in the same communicative situation, a specific social behaviour can be dissimilar in:
+ the choice to use language communicative means;
+ different social rules that govern the use of those linguistic means
Speech acts and 2 approaches of Pragmatic CA
1. We can contrast
- the linguistic means used to perform a speech act - thanking, inviting, complimenting,
asking, requesting, apologizing (as the pragmatic equivalence) in 2 languages
Greeting:
- the linguistic means used to signal performative functions such as speech act verbs like
assert, ask, warn, promise … in English & kh ng nh, h i, c nh báo, h a … in Vietnamese.
2. We can contrast
the illocutionary force of the utterances or speech acts in the two contrasted languages to
claim that functions of a construction of Language A can be contrasted with functions of
Language B
E.g. Where are you going? (English)
Anh/ch i âu y? (Vietnamese)
Are these two utterances similar in:
- syntactic structure or pattern?
- illocutionary forces?
- performing different communicative functions
Semantic and Pragmatic Equivalence
expressions are pragmatically equivalent
- if they communicate the same content
- they are not necessarily semantically equivalent
E.g. Use of metaphor instead of speaking literally:
I can eat a horse. (actual utterance)
instead of
……………… (intended utterance)
Or ……………… (actual utterance)
You should stop smoking. (actual utterance)
What is said: …………………………….
What is implicated: ………………………
Hypotheses:
A1. Semantic equivalence: equivalence of what is said.
A2. Pragmatic equivalence: equivalence of what is implicitly communicated
What is said is a proposition, an entity which is either true or false
A'1. Two sentences are semantically equivalent if they correspond to the same proposition.
A'2. Two sentences are pragmatically equivalent if they render the same set of implicatures,
triggered by rules of conversational inference.
Universal or culture-specific?
a particular illocutionary force of an utterance or a situation communication found in one
language can be regarded as a Uinversal or Cuture-specific
Universal:
Most speech communities are similar in:
- communicative situations &
- the equivalent pieces of language to perform the same communicative functions
Cuture-specific:
some distinctive communicative situation reflecting a distinctive feature of culture can be
found only in this speech community but it is absent in some others
(Krzeszowski 1990).
3 suggested procedures to determine possibilities for CA:
1. the socio-cultural phenomenon M in L1 has the equivalent phenomenon in L2 ?
No: M may be a socio-cultural difference
Yes:
2. the language pattern in L2 attributed to the socio-cultural phenomenon N in the
same way as the language pattern in L1 is attributed to M?
No: proceed to a pragmatic CA
Yes:
3. the pattern N in L2 has language pattern equivalent in syntactic and semantic
aspect?
No: CA ceased
Yes: CA is conducted concerning the syntactic and semantic aspects until different features
are determined at a certain level of analysis
CA & POLITENESS IN INTERACTION
1. Politeness
Means employed to show awareness of another person; public self-image face wants
2. Face
Public self-image of a person
3. Face wants
A person’s expectations that their public self-image will be respected
4. Face threatening act
Utterance or action which threatens a persons public self-image
5. Face saving act
Utterance or action which avoids potential threat of a persons public self-image
6. Negative face
The need to be independent, not imposed on by others
7. Negative politeness
Awareness of another’s right not to be imposed on by another
8. Negative politeness Strategy
An attempt to demonstrate awareness of another’s right not to be imposed on by another
9. Positive face
He need to be connected, to belong to a group
10. Positive politeness
Showing solidarity with another
11. Positive politeness Strategy
An appeal to solidarity with another
Possible strategies for doing FTAs

(Brown/Levison (1987))
Politeness and Indirectness

In communication, whenever there is an indirect relationship between a structure of an
utterance and its function, we have an indirect speech act
Will you open the door? (ordering by question)
Instead of the direct speech act:
………………………….. (ordering by imperative)
.…………………………. (asserting by declarative)
.…………………………. (requesting by imperative)
Politeness and Mitigation

- the result of a weakening one of the interactional parameters
- functional to smooth interactional management in that it reduces risks for participants
at various levels,
e.g. risks of self-contradiction, refusal, losing face, conflict, and so forth
I’m afraid ………………..
X is a bit/kind of Y (undesirable thing/state)
It seems …………………
I wish ……………………
X is rather Y (undesirable thing/state)
Buiding a pragmatic corpus for CA
Metapragmatic questionnaire (MPQ) and the Discourse Completion Task (DCT)
questionnaire are in use *
See the document here

Dẫn nhập ngôn ngữ học đối chiếu PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dẫn nhập ngôn ngữ học đối chiếu PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE UNIVERSITY OF DANANG University of Foreign Language

DẪN NHẬP NGÔN NGỮ HỌC ĐỐI CHIẾU

I. What is contrastive analysis?

III. The predictive nature of CA

Words & expressions

Mono Trans (V+Od)

4. Overgeneralization (also analogy n) Khái quát hóa

1. State the major objectives of contrastive analysis suggested by Lado (1957)

CA is founded on the assumption that L2 learners will tend to transfer to their L2

Table 1 Classification of Transfer Errors

Overextension or Occurs when the learner misuse an item

Transfer structure Arise when the learner utilizes some L1 feature

interlingual or Arise when a particular distinction does not

5. The beginnings of the CAH

Strong version: Weak version: Moderate version:

1. Obstacle to TL learning: 1. use "the best linguistic 1. Minimal distinction of

2. Differences of L1&L2 2. Error: systematic & 2. Difficulty may not be due

3. Systematic CA helps 3. Items similar to existing

4. Result of CA: reliable

1. Extralinguistic (adj) Ngoài ngôn ng

Strong version: Weak version: Moderate version:

1. Obstacle to TL learning: 1. use "the best linguistic 1. Minimal distinction of

2. Differences of L1&L2 2. Error: systematic & 2. Difficulty may not be due

3. Systematic CA helps 3. Items similar to existing

4. Result of CA: reliable

Identifying a common ground for comparison

I. Comparability criterion and tertium comparationis

Language A Language B Type of relation

Similarity +++ ++- all

Contrast ++++ ++-- all

Difference +/- -/+ 1:0/0:1

Fig. 2 Basic contrastive relations

Further Reading (Cited from Bui Manh Hung (2008)

Level 0 Transfer No contrast between the languages: mortal > mortal

Unit 3 TERTIUM COMPARATIONIS & PROCEDURES OF CA

I. Comparability criterion and tertium comparationis (TC)

Description Juxtaposition Comparison Prediction

Unfavorable points of bilateral CA:

Language for CA Vietnamese English

Sentences to be Vì th mà bát cháo hành c a th N This onion soup offered by Thi No

- formal considerations alone do not suffice in establishing comparability or TC

Language for CA Vietnamese English

Sentences to be Tôi thích th t ngu i. I like the meat cold.

CA compares abstract elements rather than their concrete realizations

CA of various equivalent CA of equivalent CA of equivalent rules

( pronouns, articles, verbs, (interrogative, negative, (subject raising, adjective

Possible situations in each area of comparison:

Pedagogical relevance of predictive capacity: to predict a scale of incremental difficulty

1. Comparability criterion (n) Tiêu chí i sánh

28. Syntagmatic relations (n) Quan h cú o n (k t h p) paradigmatic relations (n)

I gave Tracy the book

passed = syntagmatic relations

I gave Tracy the book

29. Generative grammar (n) Ng pháp T o sinh

Unit 3 TERTIUM COMPARATIONIS & PROCEDURES OF CA

I. Comparability criterion and tertium comparationis (TC)

Description Juxtaposition Comparison Prediction

Unfavorable points of bilateral CA:

Language for CA Vietnamese English

Sentences to be Vì th mà bát cháo hành c a th N This onion soup offered by Thi No

- formal considerations alone do not suffice in establishing comparability or TC

Language for CA Vietnamese English