LV An investigation into the Semantics of THE ENGLISH VERB “GET” AND THE VIETNAMESE VERBS “LẤY, NHẬN”

ii ABSTRACT The thesis explores semantic features of English verb “Get” and its Vietnamese equivalents “Lấy, nhận” in terms of the semantic categories of “acquiring”, “obtaining” and “r

i STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP

Except where reference is made in the text of the thesis, this thesis contains no material published elsewhere or extracted in whole, or in part from a thesis by which I have qualified for or been awarded another degree or diploma

No other person’s work has been used without due acknowledgement

ii ABSTRACT

The thesis explores semantic features of English verb “Get” and its Vietnamese equivalents “Lấy, nhận” in terms of the semantic categories of

“acquiring”, “obtaining” and “receiving” Through the contrastive analysis, I identified the similarities and differences of these verbs on semantic and syntactic aspects Especially, greater attention was paid to the semantic field The study was carried out through the qualitative and descriptive approach Over one thousand samples were taken from different sources such as novels, short stories, films, daily conversations in English and Vietnamese to illustrate the structural and semantic analysis The thesis also gives some implications for English teaching-learning process

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Statements of Authorship i

Abstract ii

Table of Contents iii

Abbreviations iv

List of Tables v

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Statement of the Problem 1

1.2 Aims and Objectives of the Study 2

1.2.1 Aims 1.2.2 Objectives 1.3 Scope of the Study 3

1.4 Research Questions 3

1.5 Methods of the Study 4

1.6 Organization of the Study 4

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE 6

2.1 A Review of Previous Studies 6

2.2 Theoretical Background 8

2.2.1 Functional Approach to Meaning 8

2.2.2 Sense Relations 9

2.2.3 General View of Verb 18

2.3 Summary 25

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES 3.1 Research Design and Methodology 26

3.2 Research Procedures 27

3.3 Data Collection 28

3.4 Data Analysis 29

CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH AND DISCUSSION 4.1 Syntactic and Semantic Characteristics of the English Verb “Get” 30

4.1.1 Basic Syntactic and Semantic Characteristics of the Verb “Get” 30

4.1.2 Syntactic and Semantic Performances of the Verb ‘Get’ in the 37

Semantic Categories of “Acquiring,” “Obtaining,” and “Receiving” 4.2 Syntactic and Semantic Characteristics of the Vietnamese Verbs 53

“Lấy”, “Nhận” in the Semantic Categories of “Acquiring,” “Obtaining,” and “Receiving” 4.2.1 Syntactic and Semantic Characteristics of the Vietnamese Verb “Lấy” 4.2.2 Syntactic and Semantic Characteristics of the Vietnamese Verb “Nhận” 4.3 Similarities and Differences of the Verbs “Get” and “Lấy”, “Nhận” 64

Under Investigated Semantic Categories 4.3.1 The Verb “Nhận” in Contrast with the Verb “Get” 64

4.3.2 The Verb “Lấy” in Contrast with the Verb “Get” 67

4.3.3 Some Suggestion for Translating “Get” into Vietnamese and “Lấy”, “Nhận” into English 79

4.4 Summary 82

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS FOR ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING 5.1 Conclusion 83

5.2 Implications on Teaching, Learning, and Translation 85

5.3 Limitation and Suggestions for Further Research 88

REFERENCES vi

APPENDIX vii

Complex-trans V Complex-transitive verb

v LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 2.1 The Main Senses of the English Verb “Get” and the

Vietnamese Verbs “Lấy” and “Nhận” 13

Table 4.1 Diagram of the Main Senses of “Get” 34 Table 4.2 Summary of the Main Senses of the Verb “Get”

and Its Equivalents in Vietnamese 37

Table 4.3 The Semantic Features of the Verb “Get” in Terms of the

Semantic Categories of “Acquiring,” “Obtaining”, and

“Receiving” 50

Table 4.4 Summary of the Main Senses of the Verb “Lấy” and Its

English Equivalents 59

Table 4.5 The Main Senses of the Verb Get and Vietnamese

Equivalents in the Semantic Categories of

“Obtaining,” “Acquiring,” and “Receiving” 64

Table 4.6 The Common and Distinctive Semantic Features of

the Verbs “Get” and “Lấy” “Nhận” 78

vi REFERENCES

[4] Nguyễn Hoà Lạc (2000), An Outline of Syntax, Nxb TPHCM

[5] Trần Hữu Mạnh, (2003), “Phân tích Đối chiếu Động ngữ Tiếng Anh và Tiếng Việt trên bình diện Ngữ pháp-Ngữ nghĩa-Ngữ dụng” - Đề tài KH cấp

ĐHQG Hà Nội, Tạp chí Khoa học ĐHQGHN, Ngoại ngữ, T.XIX (2), 20-33 [6] Huỳnh Vũ Chí Tâm (2004), A Study on Semantic Features of State Related Verbs in English and their Vietnamese Equivalent Expressions,

Luận văn Thạc sĩ, ĐHĐN

[7] Nguyễn Kim Thản, (19 ), Động Từ trong Tiếng Việt, Nxb KHXH

[8] Lương Kim Thư (2003), Verbs Denoting Causative Process, Luận văn

Thạc sĩ, ĐHĐN

[9] Hồ Sỹ Thứ, (1998), “Get Một Động Từ Đa Dạng”, Easy English, Vol

6-7, Tre Publishing House

English

[10] Cruse, D.A (1987), Lexical Semantics, CUP, 3-89

[11] Delahunty, G.P., & Garvey, J.J (1994), Language, Grammar, and Communication, McGraw- Hill, Inc., Singapore

[12] Downing, A., & Locke, P (1992), A University Course in English Grammar, Prentice Hall

[13] Fries, Ch (1963), Teaching and Learning English as a Foreign Language, University of Michigan Press

[14] Ginzburg, R.S et al., (1979), A Course in Modern English Lexicology,

(2nd ed.), Moscow Vyssaja Skola

[15] Gramley, S., & Patzold, K.M (2004), A Survey of Modern English, (2nd

ed.), Routledge, London and New York

[16] Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G.K et al (2002), The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, CUP, 1442

[17] Jacobs, R.A (1995), English Syntax-A Grammar for English Language Professionals, Oxford University Press, 167

[18] Leech, G., Cruickshank, B., & Ivanic, R (1989), An A-Z of English Grammar and Usage, Edward Arnold, A Division of Holder and

Stoughton, London, Melbourne Auckland, 162-175

[19] Levin, B (1993), English Verb Classes and Alternations, University of

SOURCE OF EXAMPLES QUOTED

Vietnamese

[25] Nam Cao (2003), Những Tác Phẩm Tiêu Biểu trước 1945, Nxb Giáo Dục [26] Nguyễn Công Hoan (2001), Bước Đường Cùng, Nxb Đồng Nai

[27] Nguyễn Lân (2000), Từ Điển Từ và Ngữ, Nxb TPHCM, 1039-1040

[28] Nhiều tác giả (1999), Từ Điển Anh Việt, Nxb TP HCM, 733

[29] Nhiều tác giả (1999), Từ Điển Tiếng Việt, Nxb Thanh Hoá

[30] John Steinbeck (1993), The Grapes of Wrath, Biên tập: Phạm Sông Hồng [31] W.M Thackơrê (1988), Hội Chợ Phù Hoa, Người dịch: Trần Kiêm, Tập

[36] Crowther, J (Ed.), (1995), The Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary,

Oxford University Press, 494

[37] Hank, P (Ed.), (1998), The New Oxford Dictionary of English,

Clarendon Press-Oxford, 769-770

[38] Hemingway, E (1986), The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber,

Người dịch: Hoàng Tuý, Foreign Languages Publishing House

[39] Hutchinson, T (1997), Life Lines (Pre-Intermediate), OUP

[40] International Story (1999), Người dịch: Bùi Quang Đông, Nxb TP.HCM

[41] Maugham, S (1999), Dấu Chân Nơi Rừng Thẳm, Người dịch: Huỳnh

Thanh, Nxb Thanh Niên

[42] McIntyre, A.(2005), The Semantic and Syntactic Decomposition of get:

An Interaction Between Verb Meaning and Particle Placement, Journal

of Semantics, 22(4), Oxford University Press

[43] Merriam-Webster (1987), Webster’s Compact Dictionary of Synonyms, USA [44] Segal, E (2000), Chuyện Tình, Người dịch: Hoàng Cường-Bích Thủy, Nxb Thanh Niên

[45] Shakespeare W (1986), Tales from Shakespeare, Người dịch: Cao Xuân Nghiệp, Nxb, TP.HCM

[46] Steinbeck, J (1993), The Grapes of Wrath, David Campbell Publishers Ltd [47] Song Hong Publisher (1963), Impasse, (A Translated version of the original copy Bước đường cùng by Nguyen Cong Hoan)

[48] Thackeray, W.M (1948), Vanity fair, The Zodiac Press

vii APPENDIX

Exercise: Decide between “have” or “get”, sometimes the verb needs

to be conjugated or put in the infinitive or gerund form

1 I don’t care how much it costs! me to the airport as fast as you can!

2 I’d really like fit, I just can’t find the time

3 Waiter: Would you like something to drink?

Customer: Yes, I a diet root beer

4 No, no, you are my dinner guest tonight Let me the check

5 Can you wait for ten minutes? I need a rest

6 This computer is so frustrating! I problems ever since I bought it

7 Linda seems to be second thoughts about her new job

8 Frank really isn’t so bad once you to know him

9 That’s a beautiful new blouse! Where did you it?

10 I hope you a good time tonight

11 Bowling looks like a lot of fun Why don’t we a try?

12 That restaurant five stars

Translation

A Some translational sentences of “Get” in Vietnamese under the

investigated semantic categories of the study

1 He would go down and get that gun and see if he could fire it![40, p.232] Cậu nên xuống giường và tìm lại khẩu súng xem thử cậu có thể bắn

được không?

2 I was thinking what a grand opportunity we’ve got at last to show

these people how a school should be run [40, p.246]

Anh đang nghĩ đây quả là một cơ hội lớn mà cuối cùng chúng ta đã có được

để chứng minh cho mọi người thấy ngôi trường sẽ được gầy dựng ra sao

3 He’s got a permit and he’s already on his way [40, p 258]

Ông ta xin được giấy phép và đang trên đường đến đây

4 She couldn’t see his face and suddenly had an overmastering desire

to get one glimpse of it [40, p.291]

Cô không thể nhìn rõ mặt anh ta, và bỗng nhiên cô muốn được nhìn

qua gương mặt đó một chút

5 He may be bad, but he’s got something that attracts animals [40, p.321]

Có lẽ hắn không may, nhưng hắn đã có một cái gì đó hấp dẫn được

những con vật đấy

6 Some got down on one knee to shoot from below while others ran

from side to side trying to get a profile [40, p.358]

Vài người phải quỳ 1 chân xuống để chụp từ dưới lên, trong khi những người

khác chạy từ bên này sang bên nọ cố gắng để lấy được 1 ảnh chụp nghiêng

8 If they got buff today there would only be rhino to come [38, p.80]

Nếu hôm nay mà họ hạ sát được trâu rừng, thì chỉ còn lại có tê giác thôi

9 We got these pigs from Mount Ida, see you? [44, p.32]

Bọn mình đã cho tụi Mount Ida một mẻ, cậu hiểu không ?

10 Dowstairs it was tough to get a cab, it being theatre hour and all

[44, p.274]

Không dễ gọi được taxi vì đúng vào giờ tan rạp hát

11 He decided, then, that he would try to get more certain proof that his father

was murdered than that of a spirit, or ghost, which might be false [45, p.51]

Bấy giờ chàng quyết định rằng chàng sẽ thử tìm cách có nhiều bằng

chứng chắc chắn chứng tỏ cha chàng bị mưu sát hơn là bằng chứng

của một linh hồn, hay hồn ma có thể giả dối

12 I got out my codebook and worked out what the letter said [41, p.224]

Tôi lấy cuốn mật mã ra và giải mã xem trong thư nói gì

13 Then Hamlet asked her how she could continue to live with this

man and be a wife to him, who had murdered her first husband, and got the crown by the same false means as a thief [45, p.56]

Rồi Hamlet hỏi bà làm sao bà lại có thể tiếp tục sống với con người này và làm vợ của hắn, kẻ đã giết người chồng thứ nhất của bà và

chiếm lấy ngai vàng cũng bằng thủ đoạn gian dối như một tên trộm

14 But Cordelia was filled with shame at the untrue words of her

sisters, which she new only meant to get a large part of their father’s

Kingdom [45, p.93]

Nhưng Cordelia rất hổ thẹn trước những lời lẻ không chân thật của các

chị mình, mà nàng biết chỉ nhằm mục đích lấy cho được phần lớn

vương quốc của cha nàng

15 Before setting off I got very clear directions how to get there [35, p.192]

Trước khi đi, ở nhà tôi đã hỏi đường cẩn thận rồi

17 Then get your ass home to my dinner table [44, p.258]

Thế thì anh liệu mà lê xác về nhà bửa tối nhé

18 Desdemona had not get it with her [45, p.83]

Desdemona không mang theo nó bên mình

20 I mean, there is a certain irony involved when guys who spend the first years

of their sex lives preoccupied with not getting girls pregnant [44, p.246]

Thực vậy, kể cũng khá nực cười là đám con trai trong những năm đầu của

đời sống tình dục thì lo làm sao không để cho bạn gái của mình có thai

21 If this drunkard got the better of Sergeant Tao, fine [35, p.39]

Nếu nó trị được đội Tảo thì tốt lắm

22 And then he showed her the husband she had got instead of him [45, p.56]

Và tiếp đó chàng cho bà thấy bộ mặt người chồng mà bà đã lấy thay

cho người

B Some translational sentences of “Lấy” in English under the investigated semantic categories of the study

1 And what do you want me to put on my back? [40, p.100]

Vậy anh muốn tôi lấy gì để khoác lên lưng tôi đây cơ chứ?

2 And they saw Chi Pheo rolling over and over on the ground

screaming, his face lacerated with broken glass [35, p.23]

Và họ thấy Chí Phèo lăn lộn dưới đất vửa kêu vừa lấy mảnh chai cào

vào mặt

3 They were securely placed and hard to extract [26, p.38]

Những thức ấy khó lòng lấy ra được

4 She had to weave some meters of stuff to sell them the next day to

pay the interests on their debt [47, p.120]

Thị lại phải dệt vải lấy tấm vải để mai đi bán về đưa lãi nợ

5 With his towel, Pha wiped the cup which was on the altar and

reverently carried the tray to the bed [47, p.61]

Pha lấy khăn rửa mặt lau chiếc chén vẫn úp trên củi trong buồng, rồi

cung kính bưng mâm lên

6 The Guard who was lying on a bed nearby rose to his feet picked up the bunch of keys and opened the detention cell [47, p.88]

Một người lính đang nằm ở phản gần đó ngồi nhỏm dậy, lấy chìa khóa,

mở cửa buồng giam

7 His wife dabbed his palms and the soles of his fat with some lime to

sober him up [47, p.123]

Vợ anh lấy vôi bôi vào bàn chân, bàn tay cho anh

8 Where ever you hide it, go and bring it back here [47, p.190]

Giấu chỗ nào thì đi mà lấy về

9 As soon as she had taken leave of Amelia, and counted the guineas which good-natured Mr Sedley had put into a purse for her, and as soon

as she had done wiping her eyes with her handkerchief [48, p.58]

Sau lúc từ biệt Amêlia, khi đã đếm cẩn thận số ghi-nê, ông Xetlê bỏ

trong cái túi biếu mình, cô lấy một cái khăn tay chấm khô nước mắt

10 They are a good deal worn now; but you know, we poor girls can’t afford des fraiches toilettes [48, p.85]

Bây giờ cũng đã cũ lắm rồi, nhưng chị cũng rõ đấy, con gái nhà nghèo

chúng em lấy tiền đâu ra mà may áo mới

11 Osborne took a letter directed to the officer, and giving it the clerk,

requested the latter to deliver it into Dobbin’s own hand immediately

Ông Ôxborn lấy 1 phong thư ngoài bì để gửi cho Đôphin và bảo người

nhân viên của mình trao ngay tận tay viên đại úy

12 And she would break out with her satire, but she could soon put on

a demure face [48, p.239]

Rêbecca hay giở giọng châm biếm ra (như hầu hết mọi trường hợp

khác) nhưng rồi cô cũng lấy lại được vẻ mặt trang nghiêm ngay

13 He pleased himself by noting down with a pencil, in his big

schoolboy hard writing, the various items of his portable property which may be sold for his widow’s advantage

Anh ta lấy bút chì nguệch ngoạc kê ra giấy những thứ có thể bán được

lấy tiền cho người vợ goá [31, p.524]

14 Who broke the Frenchman’s sword with the butt of his musket [48, p.268] Anh ta lấy báng súng đập gãy gươm của tên sĩ quan Pháp

15 Amelia stood scared and silent as William thus suddenly broke the

chain by which she held him, and declared his independence and superiority [48, p.550]

Amêlia sợ hãi đứng lặng nghe Đôphin tuyên bố lấy lại quyền tự do và

ưu thế của mình

16 Because his intention is to drag things cut and seize your land

Ý lão muốn ngâm đấy để lấy ruộng kia [26, p.157]

17 I suppose Becky was discontented with the new piano her husband had hired for her, or perhaps the proprietors of that instrument had

fetched it away, declining further credit [48, p.136]

Tôi cho là Bêcky không ưa cây dương cầm mới, chồng vừa thuê cho

mình, hoặc có lẽ người chủ đã lấy về rồi, không cho thuê tiếp nữa

18 Thi No was very pleased [35, p.58]

Thi No lấy làm bằng lòng lắm

19 I’ve always felt ashamed of having taken the poor old man’s money

[48, p.440]

Bắt buộc phải tiêu tiền của người đàn bà khốn khổ ấy, tôi vẫn lấy làm ngượng

20 Impatient, he stamped the grand and scraped the moss of the wall

Chờ nóng ruột, anh gí chân xuống đất, và lấy tay cạo rêu tường

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Statement of the Problem

Language is the medium by which we think and communicate In the language communication we have difficulties in expressing our ideas, especially in transferring meanings of words from a language to another one,

in our case from English to Vietnamese and vice versa English is very complicated for Vietnamese learners As English and Vietnamese are of two different language types of distant language families In addition, there are quite a lot of differences in the way of thinking, lifestyle, and literature between the Vietnamese people and the English native speakers These differences themselves have caused many difficulties for Vietnamese learners

of English Moreover, the reason is there are some words that have many meaning categories and their meanings sometimes are very different from

each other, as the English verb “get”

The English verb “get”, as some grammarians stated, has eight general

semantic categories which can be divided into approximately twenty-seven semantic meanings, not including its other meanings in fixed expressions [37,

p.769-770] Thus, the verb “get” is most complicated And the Vietnamese verb “lấy” is the most equivalent to it in terms of the semantic categories of

“acquiring,” “obtaining” and “receiving” Lấy is also various in its meanings

in Vietnamese Due to their insufficient knowledge of all semantic components coded in each lexeme, learners of English often have trouble in choosing the right word in the target language for the translational equivalent

We assume that the semantic features of these verbs reveal more complicated and interesting issues to linguists

Learning to interpret and express the idea of “acquiring,” “obtaining,”

“receiving” with the verbs “get” and “ lấy” is a difficult task for Vietnamese

learners of English, and also, the confusion in the choice of words and their meanings is problematic for those who learn Vietnamese Awareness of the meanings of these verbs will help learners get a better understanding of their usage, find out English-Vietnamese as well as Vietnamese-English translational equivalents, avoid producing word-for-word translations in language transfer As far as Vietnamese learners of English are concerned, the

use of the verbs “get” and “ lấy,” “nhận” in the meaning of “obtaining,”

“acquiring” and “receiving” can be of practical value and the same thing can

be said to the learners of Vietnamese From my own teaching experience, I have found that Vietnamese learners in general and the students at my college

in particular have met with some problems in using and understand the

meaning of the English verb “get.”

For example: (1) Let me get my diary [39, p.133]

- Get my diary in (1) means take the diary or go and bring the diary back (2) He hurries out to get the bus [39, p.132]

- Get the bus in (2) means take, catch the bus, or go by bus

(3) Mary can’t get leave from her father [28, p.733]

- Get leave in (3) transfers the sense of asking for permission

Therefore, a study for the successful way to translate ‘Get’ into Vietnamese and ‘Lấy, nhận’ into English will be a contribution to the

teaching and learning the two languages Similarities and differences found from the analysis between English and Vietnamese will be of great benefit to Vietnamese learners of English and foreign students of Vietnamese as well

1.2 Aims and Objectives of the Study

1.2.1 Aims

This study aims to examine the syntax and semantics of the English

verb “get” and the Vietnamese verb “lấy,” “nhận” in terms of the semantic

categories of “acquiring,” “obtaining” and “receiving,” to help learners thoroughly understand the differences and similarities on semantic features of these verbs in English and Vietnamese, and to make the effective use of them

1.2.2 Objectives

The study is intended to:

- set up a theoretical framework to describe the English verb “get” and the Vietnamese verb “lấy,” “ nhận”

- identify, describe and compare syntactically and semantically the

verbs “get” in English and “lấy,” “ nhận” in Vietnamese

- find out their differences and similarities in syntactic and semantic features

-find out the successful way to translate the verbs “get” into Vietnamese and “lấy,” “nhận” into English

1.3 Scope of the Study

It is true that the verb “get” covers a wide range of use in spoken

English The study would be of great success if it dealt with all its senses However, due to the shortage of time and the length limit, the paper is just intended to examine mainly syntactic and semantic features of the English

verb “get” and the Vietnamese verbs “lấy” and “nhận” in terms of the

semantic categories of “acquiring,” “obtaining,” and “receiving” The paper is excluded to investigate the use as a phrasal verb of “get.”

1.4 Research Questions

The above objectives can be attained when several answers to the following questions are sought:

- What are the common syntactic and semantic features of the verbs

“get” and “lấy,” “ nhận”?

- What are the distinctive semantic features of each verb?

- What differences and similarities in terms of syntax and semantics

exist among the verbs “get” and “lấy,” “ nhận”?

- How should we translate the verb “get” into Vietnamese and “lấy,”

“nhận” into English?

1.5 Methods of the Study

The study is carried out through descriptive, qualitative, and contrastive methods The qualitative research design is used and supported by an empirical of data collected

1.6 Organization of the Study

The study consists of five chapters:

Chapter 1, Introduction includes the statement of the problem, the aims

and objectives, research questions, research methods, the scope and organization of the study

Chapter 2 highlights prior studies on which the research can be based

Furthermore, the section discusses a variety of concepts related to the field of semantics in which stress is laid on the semantic features and componential analysis General view of English and Vietnamese verbs is also given

The Methodology and Procedures of the study involving the design, and procedures of the research, the data description of the study are presented

in Chapter 3

Chapter 4 deals with the investigation into common as well as distinctive semantic features of each verb Description of the verbs ‘get’ and

“lấy,” “nhận” particularly on the semantic features of “acquiring,”

“obtaining” and “receiving” is presented The contrastive analysis is then

carried out to discover the differences and similarities of these verbs Some

suggestions for translating the verbs “get” into Vietnamese and “lấy” into

English are also given

Chapter 5, Conclusion will draw some final conclusions and suggest

the implications for teaching and learning It also puts forward some limitations and unsolved problems for further research

Chapter 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1 A Review of Previous Studies

Research into word meaning began long time ago, and set up a branch

of the science of language, which is called Semantics In the 1920s and 1930s,

a number of German and Swiss scholars first put the theory of semantic fields forward A semantic field is a set of interrelated senses based on a conceptual field For example, the colour terms may constitute a field [3, p.125]

The bulk of English words are polysemantic, they possess more than one meaning In polysemantic words, we are faced not with the problem of analysis of individual meanings, but primarily with the problem of the interrelation and interdependence of the various meanings in the semantic structure of one and the same word

Contrastive analysis between the two languages has been considered as

an indispensable stage in language learning and teaching Ginzburg (1979) realized each language contains words, which cannot be translated directly from this language into another [14, p.237] Thus, the comparativist compares languages in order to trace their philogenic relationships, but Contrastive linguistics attempt to find out similarities and differences in both philogenically related and non-related languages Fries [13, p.9] stated that the most effective teaching 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 learners

In recent years among research works of linguistics there have been different schools of thought, and a number of attempts have been made to find efficient procedures for the analysis and interpretation of meaning An

important step forward was taken in 1950’s with the development of componential analysis

In fact the more common the word the more meanings it has It is true for the verb ‘get’ which is most complicated in meaning Kenneth Beare

(2006) stated that the verb “get” is used in many senses in English and can be

confusing at times [52, p.1]

About multiple-class membership of verbs in the book, entitled “A Grammar of Contemporary English” Quirk R et al (1985) defined six patterns

of the verb “get” [22, p.348]

In Vietnam, we may mention certain recent research works on the semantic issues Nguyễn Hoà (2004) relying on the works of many scholars provided us with the complete view on Semantics – a fascinating field In the thesis titled ‘Verbs Denoting Causative Process’ by Luong Kim Thu ‘get’ was

defined as a causative verb, e.g ‘You’ll never get him to understand’ [8,

p.38] And “get” as a state related verb in the thesis ‘A Study on Semantic

Features of State Related Verbs in English and their Vietnamese Equivalent

Expressions’ by Huỳnh Vũ Chí Tâm, e.g ‘It’ll get bigger when you wear the

shirt’ [6, p.34]

There were articles about the verb “get” in “Easy English” magazine in

which Hồ Sĩ Thứ gave some uses of this verb [9, p.20]

But there has not been any research paper which investigates the

syntactic and semantic features of the English verb “get” and the Vietnamese verbs “lấy,” “nhận” in contrast Their semantic categories and expressions

are presented only in dictionaries In my study, I attempt to make a

contrastive analysis of the syntax and semantics of the verb “get” in English and its Vietnamese equivalent verbs “lấy,” “ nhận”’ in terms of the semantic

categories of “acquiring,” “obtaining” and “receiving”

2.2 Theoretical Background

The verbs “get” and “lấy,” “nhận” are put into investigation in the

light of Sense Relations and Componential Analysis Approach Before discussing these main problems, we should have some knowledge about the meaning of the word

2.2.1 Functional Approach to Meaning

There are many approaches to word meaning The functional approach

is sometimes described as contextual, as it is based on the analysis of various contexts [21, p.35]

The functional approach maintains that the meaning of a linguistic unit may be studied only through its relation to other linguistic units and not through its relation to either concept or referent

For instance, the meanings of the two words examine and examination are different because they function in speech differently To examine, can be followed by a noun (examine is a verb), preceded by a pronoun (we examine),

etc The position occupied by the word examination is different: it may be

follow by a preposition (examination of students), preceded by an adjective (important examination), and so on

As the distribution of the two words is different, we can conclude that not only do they belong to different classes of words, but that their meanings are different as well

The same is true of the different meanings of one or the same word We

can observe the difference of the meanings of the word get if we examine its functions in different linguistic contexts; ‘get a letter’ (a chair, a telegram )

as opposed to ‘to get to somewhere’

It follows that in the functional approach 1/ semantic investigation is confined to the analysis of the difference or sameness of meaning; 2/ meaning is understood essentially as the function of the use of linguistic units [21, p.35]

2.2.2 Sense Relations

2.2.2.1 Types of Meaning

Word meaning is not homogeneous but is made up of various components, the combination and the interrelation of which determine to a great extent the inner facet of the word These components are usually described as types of meaning There are 2 main types of meanings: the grammatical and the lexical meanings

+ Grammatical meaning [14, p.18] may be defined as the component of meaning recurrent in identical sets of individual forms of different words as e.g., the tense meaning in the word-forms of verbs (spoke, talked, got, etc) or the case meaning in the word-forms of various nouns (men’s, dentist’s, etc.)

+ Unlike the grammatical meaning, lexical meaning [14, p.19] is

identical in all the forms of the word Thus, e.g., the word forms “get, gets, got,

getting, gotten a message” possess different grammatical meanings of tense,

person and so on, but in each of these forms we find one and the same semantic

component denoting the process of obtaining This is the lexical meaning of the

word which may be described as the component of meaning proper to the word

as a linguistic unit, i.e recurrent in all the forms of this word

The difference between the lexical and grammatical components of meaning is not in the concepts underlying the two types of meaning, but

rather in the way, they are conveyed

2.2.2.2 Word Meaning in Syntagmatics and Paradigmatics (Substitutional and Combinational Sense Relation)

Word meaning can be perceived through intralinguistic relations that exit between words Intralinguistic relations of words are basically of two main types: syntagmatic and paradigmatic

+ Syntagmatic relations define the meaning the word possesses when it

is used in combination with other words in the flow of speech For example,

the meaning of the verb get is different in He got a permit, He got angry, He got to Vietnam, and He could not get the table through the door

Paradigmatic relations are those that exist between individual lexical items which make up one of the subgroups of vocabulary items, e.g sets of synonyms, lexico-semantic groups, etc

+ Paradigmatic relations define the word-meaning through its interrelation with other members of the subgroup in question For example,

the meaning of the verb “get” can be fully understood only in comparison

with other items of the synonymic set: “get,” “obtain,” “receive,” etc E.g He

got a letter, he received a letter, he obtained a letter, etc Comparing the

sentences discussed above we may conclude that an item in a sentence can be usually substituted by one or more than one other items that have identical part-of-speech meaning and similar though not identical lexical meaning [14, p.46]

Besides as we have already known semantic relationships exist between words, such as synonymy (i.e sameness of meaning); meronymy (part-whole relation), and antonymy (oppositeness of meaning)

- Synonymy is often understood as semantic equivalence Semantic equivalence however can exit between words and word-groups, word groups

and sentences, sentences and sentences For example, John is taller than me is

semantically equivalent to I am shorter than John [3, p.55]

- Homonymy and polysemy are closely related The criteria used to distinguish between them are: 1/ relatedness of meanings; and 2/ etymology, this supports the native speaker’s untutored intuition about particular words

Polysemy which is characteristic of most words in English is property

of a single word, so we should talk something about polysemy

2.2.2.3 Polysemy

Analyzing the word-meaning we observe that words as a rule are not units of a single meaning The problem of polysemy is mainly the problem of interrelation and interdependence of the various meanings of the same word

It follows that the main source of polysemy is a change in the semantic structure of the word

- Semantic changes result as a rule in new meanings being added to the ones already existing in the semantic structure of the word some of the old meanings may become obsolete or even disappear, but the large number of English words tend to increase in number of meanings [14, p.38]

-An objective criterion of the comparative value of individual meanings seems to be the frequency of their occurrence in speech The meaning which has the highest frequency is the one representative of the whole semantic structure of the word

About the frequency value of the word as Ginzgurg (1979) defined if the word has a high frequency of occurrence one may suppose that it is monomorphic, simple, polysemantic and stylistically neutral It is true for the verb ‘to get’ It is polysemy, monomorphic, simple and stylistically neutral verb [14, p.180]

The actual meanings of polysemantic words and their arrangement in the semantic structure of correlated words in difference languages may be altogether different This may be seen by comparing the semantic structure of

correlated polysemantic words in English and Vietnamese As a rule it is only the central meaning that is to a great extent identical, all other meanings or the majority of meanings usually differ

Through the table 2.2 (p.13), we easily observe not only the difference

in the arrangement and the number of meanings, making up their respective semantic structures, but also the difference in the individual meanings that may appear similar at first sight Nevertheless, the very interesting thing of

the verbs “get” and “lấy” is that there are many similarities in their

combinations with other words and in their semantic features in terms of the semantic categories of “acquiring,” “obtaining,” and “receiving.” We will detect this in the fourth chapter

2.2.2.4 Semantic Fields

Ginzburg (1979) has stated that words may be classified according to the concepts underlying their meaning This classification is closely connected with the theory of conceptual or semantic fields

Words in the same semantic field are characterized by a common

concept For example, the verbs “stare”, “gaze”, “observe”, “look”, etc may

be described as the semantic field of “vision”

The members of the semantic fields are not synonyms but all of them

joined together by some common semantic component– the concept of vision,

etc This semantic component common to all the member of the field is sometime described as the common denominator of meaning All members of the field are semantically interdependent as each member helps to delimit and determine the meaning of its neighbors and is semantically delimited and determined by them

Table 2.1 The Main Senses of the English Verb “Get” and the

Vietnamese verbs “Lấy” and “Nhận” [29], [27], [37]

3 Xem cho biết có phải không

[29, p.949]

And it should be pointed out that different meanings of polysemantic words make it possible to refer the same word to different lexico-semantic

groups Thus, get in the meaning of ‘come to hold or have something’ is naturally a member of the same lexico-semantic group as the verbs “take”,

“fetch”, “bring”, “receive”, etc., whereas in the meaning of ‘succeed in

attaining, achieving’ it is regarded as a member of a different lexico-semantic

group made up by the verbs “acquire”, “obtain”, “attain”, etc [14, p52-53]

There are many works of Chafe (1970), Cook (1979), and Longacre (1976) addressing the issues of verb classification Levin (1993) defined

about 200 verb semantic classes, where “Get” belongs to the class of verbs of

transfer of possession [53, p.2-6]

2.2.2.5 Hyponymic Structures and Lexico-Semantic Groups

Hyponymy is meant a semantic relationship of inclusion Thus, e.g.,

“vehicle” includes “car”, “bus”, “taxi” and so on; “pine” implies “tree”;

“horse” entails “animal”; “table” entails “furniture” Thus, the hyponymic

relationship may be viewed as the hierarchical relationship between the meaning of general and the individual terms [10, p 88]

The general term (vehicle, tree, animal, etc.) is sometimes referred to as

the classifiers and serves to describe the semantic groups, e.g

lexico-semantic groups of vehicle, movement, emotions, etc

The individual term can be said to contain (or entail) the meaning of the general term in addition to their individual meanings which distinguish them

from each other (cf the classifier move and the members of the group walk,

go, run, saunter, etc.)

A general problem with this principle of classification (just as with lexico-semantic group criterion) is that there often exist overlapping

classifications For example, persons may be divided into adults (man,

woman, wife, etc.) and children (boy, girl, kid, etc.) but also into national

groups (American, Japanese, Vietnamese, etc.), professional groups (teacher,

butcher, housekeepers, etc.) and so on

2.2.2.6 Entailment

In the domain of semantics, we can also identify abilities that indicate the presence of competence Linguistic competence includes an unconscious knowledge of the literal meaning of words [3, p.135]

The literal meaning includes unstated meanings that are very closely tied to stated meanings

For example: I gave Mary a rose (1)

I gave Mary a flower (2)

Æ Mary had a rose (3)

The reason for the close connection between two sentences lies in the hyponymy relation between the words ‘rose’ and ‘flower’ In particular, the notion of being a flower is included in the definition of rose Thus we note that sentence (1) entails sentence (2), but not vice-versa However this is not

absolutely true, for example in the case of Mary got/ or had a rose

2.2.2.7 Componential Analysis

It should be pointed out that componential analysis deals with individual meanings Different meanings of polysemantic words have different componential structure For example, the comparison of two

meanings of the noun boy (1 a male child up to the age of 17 or 18 and 2 a

male servant (any age) esp in African and Asian countries) reveals that though both of them contain the semantic components ‘human’ and ‘male’ the component ‘young’ which is part of one meaning is not to be found in the other As a rule when we discuss the analysis of word-meaning we imply the basic meaning of the word under consideration

In its more elaborate form componential analysis also proceeds from the assumption that word-meaning is not an unanalysable whole but can be decomposed into elementary semantic components [14, p.254]

Semantic Features (Components): Word forms seen from the

meaning point of view are called lexemes or lexical items As lexemes can have many meanings so the term which refers to the combination of one

meaning with one word form is called lexical unit E.g the lexeme ‘old’ represents at least two different lexical units: young and new [15, p 23-24]

Semantically a lexeme is a complex of various semantic features As far as semantically related lexemes are concerned, they carry not only several common features but also distinctive ones of their own

For example, according to John Lyons (1996), the words “boy”, “girl”,

“man” and “woman” all denote human beings We can therefore extract from

the sense of each of them the common factor “human”: i.e., the sense of the English word “human” Similarly, we can extract from “boy” and “man” the common factor “male”, and from “girl” and “woman”, the common factor

“female” As for “man” and “woman”, they can be said to have as one of their

factors the sense- component “adult”, in contrast with “boy” and “girl”,

which lack “adult” (or, alternatively, contain “non- adult”)

Actually, sense-components are generally represented by small capitals,

we can abstract the negative component from “non-adult” and replace it with the negation- operator, as this is defined in standard propositional logic: “~”, and the propositional connective of conjunction “&” So the sense of each of the four words can thus be represented as the product of three factors

(1) “man “ = HUMAN & MALE & ADULT(2) “woman” = HUMAN & ~ MALE & ADULT(3) “boy” = HUMAN & MALE & ~ ADULT

(4) “girl “ = HUMAN & ~ MALE & ~ ADULTThe sense of a lexeme (or one of its senses) is a compositional function

of its sense-components Its value is fully determined by the value of the components and the definition of the operations by means of which they are combined

The lexemes used so far to illustrate the principles of componential analysis can be all seen as property-denoting words We can say, for example, that a lexical item like “undo” has two semantic elements or components, each given separate expression in the word form “un + do” The general point is then, that we can conceive of all lexical items as encodings of one or more semantic elements or components, whether these are overtly signaled or not,

and in identifying them we can establish the denotation of words Thus, one

denotation of the verb “return” can be specified as [come + back], another as [give + back] “Come/go” and “give/take” in turn can be said to consist of components: something along the lines of [move +self + towards/away] on the one hand, and [move + something + towards/away] on the other And thus, “come” contrasts with “go” in respect to the one feature of

directionality: [movement + here] as opposed to [movement + there]

Most important of all is the necessity of introducing in the representation of the sense of certain lexemes a hierarchical structure which reflects the syntactic structure of the propositional content of sentences

For example, Mary gave John a book is interpreted as [vp Mary [v’ CAUSE

[pp John [p’ HAVE a book]]] “Give” is more or less plausibly analysed as one two-place structure (y, z) HAVE, embedded within another two-place

structure (x,*) CAUSE, where the asterisk indicates the place in which it is to

be embedded (x,(y,z) HAVE) CAUSE This may be real as meaning (the question of tense being left on one side) “x causes y to have z”

And “kill” can be analysed, similarly, as a one-place structure embedded within the same causative two-place structure:

(x,(y) DIE) CAUSE may be read as “x causes y to die” [20, p.112-113]

The essential purpose of componential analysis is to identify certain general conceptual categories or semantic principles, which find expression in the particular components Among such categories are state, process, causality, class membership, possession, dimension, location, and, as we have seen with “come” and “go”, directionality [24, p.57]

This approach, known as componential analysis thus provides an

inventory of the semantic features encoded in lexical forms It can, of course, become greatly complicated, and as in all analysis, as the details reproduce they can lose their point and create confusion

2.2.3 General View of Verb

In language teaching and learning, verbs take an important role in language acquisition There are many researches and explorations about verb

area And the verb “Get” is in the top five of the most common verbs in the

English language, with nearly 125,000 citations (out of 100 million) in the British National Corpus [37, p.769-770]

2.2.3.1 Notion of English Verbs

Traditional grammars typically defined verbs semantically as words that designate actions (kiss, run), processes (grow, change), experiences (know), or states of being (be, have) [11, p.117]

English verbs can be subdivided into main verbs and auxiliaries

Main verbs have one function that is the head of verb phrase (VP) As such, they are preceded by their auxiliaries and followed by their objects and complements

a Subclasses of Verbs

Verbs are subdivided into transitive, intransitive, and linking (or intensive):

+ Transitive verbs are verbs that have subjects or objects that receive the action They are either active voice or passive voice Transitive active verbs (e.g read, arrest) require a direct object, which takes the form of a following noun phrase For example: The police arrested the criminal

The subject is the doer and the direct object is the receiver of the action

Transitive passive verbs have the subject receiving the action with the doer in

a prepositional phrase or omitted in the sentence Examples: The chair was broken by the boy The chair was broken badly The verb in the transitive passive voice always has is, am, are, was, were, be, being, or been as an

auxiliary or helping verb

+ Intransitive verbs (die, come) have no receiver of the action They do not require a direct object Examples: The telephone rang suddenly My grandmother knitted all day (There is no receiver of the action.)

+ Linking verbs (be, become, seem) must be follow by a subject

complement, which may be appear as either a noun phrase, example: He is a

famous footballer (predicate nominative); or an adjective phrase, example: The girl is cute (predicate adjective) [11, p.124]

Transitive verbs can be divided into mono-transitive, di-transitive, and

+ Di-transitive verbs have two objects: direct and indirect object

E.g He saved me a seat

Di-trans V IO DO

+ Complex-transitive verbs consist of two sub-elements; a combination

of an object and a Complement

E.g We imagined uncle Tom much thinner

b Verb phrase (VP)

The verb phrase has a verb as its head

+ VP functional formula:

(Auxiliary*) + Head + (Object(s)/Complement) + (Modifier*)

This formula states that a VP must contain a headword, optionally preceded by one or more auxiliaries and optionally followed by any of its object(s), complement, and modifier(s) We already stated that only intransitive verbs do not require an object and that modifiers are optional The possibilities are thus [11, p.196]:

Head

-All of the employees disagree

Auxiliary(ies) + Head

-The character is acting strangely

Head + Object(s) / Complement

-Henry gave his sister a ticket

-I think that Freud was a prude

Head + Modifier(s)

-We left very late

-We walked a great deal

Combinations of the above

-My father never becomes angry with me

-The remains will be shipped to Cleveland on Sunday

c Verbal phrases

+ Verb phrases have one prominent purpose in life: to function as predicates along with subjects and thus to form clauses Traditional

grammarians regularly distinguish these varied extended functions as verbals

The verbal phrases include participles, gerunds, and infinitives [11, p.199]

+ The predicate may consist simply of the predicator realized by a

verbal group such as disappeared in John disappeared, or of a predicator followed by one or more nuclear constituents, as in All the men wore black suits, Father handed me a telegram These nuclear elements are the

complements, using the term ‘complement’ in a general sense Within this category we distinguish more specifically three types of object (direct, indirect and prepositional) and three types of complements (subject complement, object complement and predicator complement) In addition, the clause may contain optional, non-nuclear elements which express inessential circumstances These are the adjuncts, which are always omissible [12, p.25]

d Semantic Feature of Elements of Clause Structure

Traditionally, the clause (or simple sentence) is divided into two basic constituents, subject and predicate

+ Semantically, the subject can be associated with most types of semantic roles, such as

- Agent as in: He headed the ball into the net

- Affected: The ball was headed into the net

- Effected: Holes were made in the road by the hand grenades

- Experiencer: She feels a little bored today

- Instrument: This key won’t open the back door

- Recipient: The secretary has been given some lipsticks [12, p.33]

+ The direct object is associated with a wide variety of semantic roles, such as affected, effected, instrument, phenomenon, verbiage, and range For

examples: - I felt a sudden pain in my arm (Phenomenon)

- Do you always tell the truth? (Verbiage)

+ The indirect is typically associated with the recipient of the action Also associated with the indirect object is the beneficiary, or ‘intended

recipient’ For example: I’ll get you some tea

The beneficiary appears to be a less integrated participant in the situation than the recipient, and this fact is reflected in the syntax Whereas,

recipient indirect objects have as an alternative a to-phrase, with beneficiary indirect objects the preposition is for: I’ll get some tea for you

Moreover, most beneficiary objects do not easily become subject in a

passive clause, although this restriction is not absolute: *You’ll be got some coffee [12, p.47]

+ The subject complement completes the predication by providing information about the subject with regard to its attributes or its identity The identifying type is typically reversible, the attribute not:

- The picnic was wonderful (attributive)

- The music was a great success (attributive)

- The orchestra was the London Philharmonic (identifying) Æ

(The London Philharmonic was the orchestra.)

+ The object complement provides the same type of information about the direct object as the subject complement does about the subject It can characterize the direct object in terms of the following three semantic features: a qualitative or substantive attribute, an entity, which identifies it, or

a circumstance, which relates specifically to the direct object

- Attribute: We found our husbands helpful

- Identity: They appointed him Vice-Director

- Circumstance: I like them on toast

+ Adjuncts, syntactically, represent optional circumstances of many

different types which are attendant on the process I’ll readily help [12, p 51-59]

2.2.3.2 Notion of Vietnamese Verb

a Definition and Classification

+ In the textbook ‘Vietnamese Grammar’ Diệp Quang Ban (2002) stated that verbs are lexical words, which have process meaning (including active meaning, dynamic state) and stative state, understood as direct characteristics of things and nature They can combine with preceding words

‘hãy, đừng, chớ’ and normally play role as direct predicates in sentences

Động từ là thực từ có ý nghĩa quá trình (bao gồm ý nghĩa hành động, trạng thái động) và trạng thái tĩnh, hiểu như là đặc trưng trực tiếp của

sự vật, hiện tượng, kết hợp được (về phía trước) với các từ hãy, đừng, chớ và thường trực tiếp làm vị ngữ trong câu [1, p.18]

+ On the basis of the independence in grammatical situations and their combination competence Vietnamese verbs can be divided into two types:

dependent verbs (such as “cần”, “nên”, “phải”, “cần phải”, “có thể”,

“không thể”…; “toan”, “định”, “chực”…; “bị”, “chịu”…; “bắt đầu”, “tiếp tục”…) and independent verbs (“đọc”, “lấy”, “đi”…; “lo”, “kính nể”…)

+ We may semantically distinguish two types of verbs: momentary action verbs, referring to specific actions which take a more or less definable

amount of time: “đi-go”, “làm-do, make”, “hát-sing”…; extended state

verbs, referring to states of affair, attitudes, feelings, wishes, mental

processes,…, which extend over an indefinite period of time: “biết-know”,

“hiểu-understand”, “muốn-want” [23, p.218]

b Vietnamese Verb Phrases

+ Verb phrases are free word groups, which do not have determiners at the initial position, and have the main - subordinate relations between the head and the dependent element The head is usually a verb

Cụm động từ là tổ hợp từ tự do không có kết từ đứng đầu, có quan hệ chính phụ giữa thành tố chính với thành tố phụ, và thành tố chính là động từ [1, p 87]

E.g (Chuyện) tôi đã nói với anh hôm qua (bây giờ họ mới hiểu)

+ The general formulation of verb phrases concludes three components: the central component, the preceding secondary element, and the following one The central component may be a verb or a group of many verbs

Cấu tạo chung của cụm động từ gồm có ba phần: phần trung tâm, phần phụ trước, phần phụ sau Ở phần trung tâm có thể là một động từ hoặc

tổ hợp gồm nhiều động từ [1, p.87]

E.g Thanh niên hãy sống, học tập và làm việc theo gương Bác Hồ kính yêu

The preceding secondary elements [2, p.271] of the verb phrases may be words denoting:

- Time and state of action: đã, đang, sẽ, vừa, mới, đang…

- Repetition of action: thường, hay…

- Continuation of action, state: vẫn, còn, cứ, mãi, càng…

- Will or ability: toan, định, phải, nên, cần, quyết…

- Command or request: hãy, đừng, chớ…

- Identification, or similar continuation of action and state: đều, cũng, cùng…

- Positiveness or negativeness of actions’ being: chỉ, có, hay, không, chưa, chẳng…

The following (post) secondary elements of verb phrases [2, p.275]: