Aims of the study
+ Investigating the use of Left dislocation and Right dislocation in English and in Vietnamese short stories in terms of their structure and function
+ Working out the similarities and differences in the use of these two constructions as revealed in some English and Vietnamese short stories in terms of their structure and function
In order to realize the aims, the study purports to answer the following research questions:
1 How are the structure and function of Left dislocation and Right dislocation realized in English and in Vietnamese short stories?
2 What are the similarities and differences in the use of Left dislocation and Right dislocation in English and Vietnamese short stories in terms of their structure and function?
This study examines two non-canonical constructions, Left Dislocation (LD) and Right Dislocation (RD), focusing on their structural features and pragmatic functions Due to the constraints of a minor thesis, the research analyzes data from ten English short stories and ten Vietnamese short stories published since 1990, aiming to identify the similarities and differences between these constructions in both languages.
Method of the study
In order to achieve the aims of the study, both quantitative and qualitative approach are used
In using qualitative method, the author sets up criteria for selecting LD and RD in short stories and deciding which certain function the dislocation construction performs
In using quantitative method, the frequencies of the use of left dislocations and right dislocations in English and Vietnamese short stories to perform a certain function is shown
A contrastive analysis examines the similarities and differences in the use of linguistic devices, specifically LD (Literal Devices) and RD (Rhetorical Devices), in English and Vietnamese short stories, focusing on their structural and functional aspects.
Design of the study
This article is structured into three key sections: an introduction, development, and conclusion The introduction outlines the study's rationale, aims, objectives, research questions, scope, methodology, and significance.
Part B: Development, is the focus of the study, consists of 3 chapters:
The article begins with a Literature Review in Chapter One, which examines relevant literature related to the topic Chapter Two focuses on Left Dislocation and Right Dislocation in both English and Vietnamese, highlighting the structural and functional characteristics of these linguistic constructions.
Chapter three, Methodology, presents the subjects, the research questions, study methods and the procedures of data collection and data analysis
Chapter four, Findings and discussion, analyses and discusses the findings which were gained from the data collected
Part C: Conclusion, concerns with the summaries of main points, the limitation, the implication and some suggestions for further study
Establishing a theoretical framework is essential for authors before conducting a study, as it provides readers with crucial background knowledge on relevant issues This chapter reviews previous studies to outline the investigation's scope, introducing key concepts necessary for understanding the theoretical model It covers a review of prior research, explores canonical and non-canonical constructions, and examines Left and Right Dislocation, while also comparing English and Vietnamese Dislocation constructions in terms of their structure and function.
1.1 Review of previous studies related to the research area
Numerous preliminary studies have been conducted on Left Dislocation (LD) and Right Dislocation (RD), with significant contributions from notable authors such as Lambrecht, Prince, Ward, Birner, and Tizón-Couto Key discussions on RD are also provided by Rodman, Grosz, and Ziv Overall, the research conducted by European scholars on LD and RD in English is both comprehensive and insightful.
Recent studies on dislocation constructions in Vietnamese include works by Nguyen Kim Than (1997), Diep Quang Ban (2004), Nguyen Huu Quynh (2001), Nguyen Lan Trung (2009), and Nguyen Thi Thanh Huyen (2011) While there is extensive research on other noncanonical constructions, such as passive voice and fronting, a contrastive study of dislocations between English and Vietnamese remains absent This study aims to address this gap by exploring the structural and functional similarities and differences of left and right dislocations in English and Vietnamese short stories, ultimately benefiting language learners.
According to Halliday and Matthiessen (2004), sentential subjects can be categorized into three types based on their functions: grammatical, psychological, and logical A grammatical subject is defined as the element that precedes the predicate in a subject-predicate structure The psychological subject represents the initial concept that comes to the speaker's mind when constructing a sentence In contrast, the logical subject identifies the doer of the action within the sentence.
In English grammar, constructions that start with a grammatical subject are known as canonical constructions (Halliday & Mathiessen, 2004; Quirk et al, 1985) According to Quirk et al (1985:721), these canonical structures can be categorized into seven types: Subject-Verb (SV), Subject-Verb-Complement (SVC), Subject-Verb-Object (SVO), Subject-Verb-Adverbial (SVA), Subject-Verb-Object-Object (SVOO), Subject-Verb-Object-Complement (SVOC), and Subject-Verb-Object-Adverbial (SVOA).
SV The boy is running
SVC Your mother seems angry
SVO My brother bought a house
SVA My house is on the third floor
SVOO She gave me an apple
SVOC John‘s son made him sad
SVOA He kicked the ball into the goal
On the other hand, Non canonical constructions are those which do not begin with a grammatical subject except for conversing
Eg: John and his two siblings benefited from the farm
The farm benefited John and his two siblings
In the above examples, both sentences with convertible orders are acceptable
Therefore, both of them are viewed as bearing a non-canonical pattern even though they begin with a grammatical subject
In addition to canonical structures, seven non-canonical constructions exist, including Fronting, Left-dislocation, Argument reversal (which encompasses inversion and passivization), Cleft structures, Post-posing (notably existential and presentational there-sentences), Right-dislocation, and Conversing (Ward & Birner, 2001; Quirk et al., 1985).
In this thesis, left dislocation and right dislocation are considered as the focus for investigating
1.3 Left dislocation in English 1.3.1 Definition
Research on dislocation (LD) has garnered significant attention since its identification by Ross in 1967 He described it as a syntactic structure where certain noun phrases (NP) appear in the initial pre-clausal position, referencing a personal pronoun within the clause For instance, in the examples provided, dislocated elements and their corresponding pronouns are highlighted: "The man my father works with in Boston, he's going to tell the police that the traffic expert has set that traffic light on the corner of Murk Street far too low," and "My father, he’s Armenian, and my mother, she's Greek," as well as "My wife, somebody stole her handbag last night." These examples illustrate the coreferential relationship between dislocated phrases and pronouns, showcasing the complexity of LD in syntactic analysis.
Left dislocation is a sentence structure where a referential constituent, which can serve as an argument or adjunct in a predicate-argument framework, appears outside the clause boundaries to the left of the predicate (Lambrecht, 2001).
LD is often mistaken as pre-posing due to the fact that an item is preposed i.e moved leftwards in the construction:
E.g The cheese they made there , they sold most of it to the miners (Brown, 1983:321)
The canonically constructed sentence would have been:
They sold most of the cheese they made there to the miners
Studies by Ward and Birner (2001), Erteschic-Shir (2007), and Prince (1997) highlight the structural and functional differences between the two constructions.
In the structure of left-dislocation, the canonical position is left unoccupied by the item being discussed, while a resumptive coreferential pronoun, such as "it," occupies the canonical position This contrasts with pre-posing, where the preposed constituent relates to previously established information Specifically, left-dislocation introduces new information that has not been mentioned before in the discourse, as illustrated by the phrase "the cheese they made there," which is entirely new to the conversation.
Douglas (2004) noted that left dislocation features a falling intonation in the main clause, while topicalization ends with a slight rise in intonation This distinction in intonation patterns highlights the differences between these two syntactic structures.
The Saturns , you can get air bags in them
And heavy metal , it‘s noisy
Well, my car , it‘s an eighty six
LD is characterized by a referential constituent that can serve as either an argument or adjunct within the clause's predicate-argument structure However, this constituent appears outside the left-peripheral boundaries of the clause that contains the predicate.
Lambrecht (1984) defines left dislocated elements as extra-clausal constituents that do not participate in the semantic and syntactic dependencies between predicates and their arguments, leading to their optional syntactic property He differentiates between dislocated constituents and adjuncts, where adjuncts relate to a denotatum and predication, while dislocated phrases occupy a specific syntactic position serving cognitive-pragmatic functions Unlike dislocated constituents, adjuncts can appear in various syntactic positions within a clause and may have topic or focus relations to the main predication Dislocated constituents, however, cannot establish such relations as they do not occupy a syntactic position inside the clause.
Typical left dislocated element is usually taken on by a noun phrase And according to