Generally, in our language nouns differ from verbs in that they are different in compound with such other words as những, các, này, no.... According to the hypothesis of iconicity in syn
Trang 1\ N E X P E R I M E N T O F IN V K S T IÍỈA T IN ÍỈ S Y N T A C T I C B E H A V I O R O F N O U N S A N D
VKRBS IN V IETNAMESE IN TERMS O F I C O N I C n Y
N g u y e n V a n H ie p (’’
Abstract
This paper deals with syntactic behavior of
nouns and verbs in Vietnamese Generally, in our
language nouns differ from verbs in that they are
different in compound with such other words as
những, các, này, no (as for nouns) or đà, dang,
sẽ, xong, rói (as for verbs) However, in some
cases, a noun or a verb may lack these abilities
According to the hypothesis of iconicity in
syntax, the syntactic behavior of nouns and verbs
in Vietnamese are determined by the way they
are used either prototypically or non-
prototypically The categories of nouns and verbs
actually manifest themselves only when the
discourse requires them to: the less a linguistic
element is required by the discourse either to
report an discrete discourse event or to introduce
a discrete entity participating in the state of
affairs, the less saliently it will be marked as verbs
or nouns
l.T h e iconic features in syntax
The study o f linguistic universals in the
60s m ad e m an y lin guists surprised when they
realized that n atural la n g u a g e s in the world
rese m b le e a ch o th e r in s o m e aspects This fact
led them to su sp ec t the so-called arbitrariness
o f language Som e o b s e rv a tio n s sh o w ed that
"linguistic form s are fre q u e n tly the w ay they
are b ecau se, like d ia g ra m s , th ey resem b le the
c o n c ep tu a l structures they are used to convey;
or, that linguistic s tru c tu re s re se m b le each oth er b e cause the d iffe re n t c o n c ep tu a l d o m ain s they rep resent are th o u g h t in the sa m e way" [12, p 1 ] A rm e d with a special co n c ern , som e functional linguists have been co n d u c tin g research on the Icon icity in language The result o f this re se a rc h c a n be resu m e d as following:
- M a n v linguistic universals are tend encies rather than a bso lute restrictions;
- T h e universals c a n be e xplained
In details, tw o typ es o f iconicity in lang u a g e are a d v a n c e d as hy potheses:
+ Isom orph ism : the te n d e n c y for there to
be a o n e -to -o n e c o rre s p o n d e n c e b e tw e e n form and m eanin g
+ M otivation: the reflection in linguistic structure o f so m e asp ec t o f the structu re o f reality
In the s u m m e r o f 1983, a c o n fe re n c e about iconicity in sy n ta x too k place in Stanford,
g a th e rin g m a n y fam o u s linguists A m o n g them , T ai d isc u s s e d the tem p o ral s e q u en c e o f
c o m p o u n d se n te n c e s in C h in e se as one linearity m an ifest o f iconicity, recalling Caesar'
s "veni, vidi, vici" D ealin g with s o m e reduced Assoc Prof Dr Department of Linguistics College of Social Sciences & Humanities VNU
55
Trang 256 Nguyen Van Hiep
e x p re s s io n s , Cỉivón a r g u e d that in p rinciple
re d u c e d e x p re s s io n s o f m o re p red ic ta b le
in fo rm a tio n is a n icon o f the le s s e r attentio n
paid to s u c h in fo rm a tio n B ybee m a d e the point
that the c lo s e n e s s b e tw e e n a v e rb s te m and
in flectional c a te g o rie s te n d s to reflect the
rele v anc e o f c o n c e p tu a l c lo s e n e s s that these
inflectional c a te g o rie s c a rr y to s u c h v e rb stem
She c o n fir m e d that the p r o x im ity o f e le m e n ts
in a cla u se fo llow s s o m e iconic p rin c ip le w hose
result is that e le m e n t s g o in g to g e th e r
s e m a n tic a lly ten d to o c c u r c lo s e to g e th e r in the
cla u se A W i e r z b ic k a s h o w e d that s e e m in g ly
a rb itra ry d is tin c tio n s in te rm s o f sin g u la r/
plural b e tw e e n oats a n d w heat are in fact
m o tiv ate d by a set o f c o g n itiv e principles
[12] In F ra n c e , m a n y re s e a rc h pap e rs with the
sa m e spirit w e re c o lle c te d an d p u b lis h e d in
"Faits dc L a n g u e s " N o 1/1993
In V i e tn a m e s e g r a m m a r , P h a n N g o c has
sh o w n s o m e ico n ic p h e n o m e n a that are
c o n s id e re d as a r g u m e n ts fo r a n e w a p p ro a c h to
g r a m m a r o f V i e tn a m e s e o n s e m a n tic
principles F o r e x a m p l e , in serial verb s the one
tak e s p r e c e d in g p o sitio n will be the one
d e s c r ib in g th e e a rlie r e v e n t (M ời ố n g cỉi lên Ị.lập
ô n g g iá m đ ố c ) o r the o r d e r o f attribute
m o d ifie rs in V i e tn a m e s e is d e te r m i n e d by
d e g re e o f a b s tr a c tn e s s ( Q u y ể n s á c h lịch s ử Việt
N am bìa vủm> in c h ừ dò) He m a d e the point
that ig n o rin g that rule w o u ld c re a te lon g and
c u m b e r s o m e s e n te n c e s [6, p 2 7 1 - 3 0 1 ] W h ile
stro n g ly c ritic iz in g the p lau sib ility o f m o d el
Subject “P re d ic a te fo r d e s c r ib in g V ie tn a m e s e
se n te n c es, C a o X u a n H a o m e n tio n e d one
iconic asp ec t o f V i e tn a m e s e sy n ta x by
c o n firm in g that the o n l y a p p ro p ria te w ay to
describe se n te n c e o f such an isolating la n g u a g e
as V ie tn a m e s e is to use m odel T h e m e - R h e m e
S poradically so m e c o n i c aspects o f
Vietnamese syntax were mentioned such as the
s y m m e tr y o f proverbs, the role o f o r d e r o f words H ow ever, in V ie tn a m e s e no one officially pays attention to iconicity in syntax
2 The iconicity in sjntactic behavior of noun and verb in Vietnamese
In this paper, in term o f iconicity we deal
w ith syntactic b e h a v io r of n o u n s and verbs, two
m o st im portant parts o f speech in V ietnam ese
T h e refo re, we w o u ld like to provide data from
an isolating la n g u a g e to c o n firm the iconic
as p e c t o f the tw o parts o f sp eech , which has
b e e n studied a lot by functional g ram m aria n s
in inflectional la n g u a g e s (14]
N ouns and verbs in V ie tn a m e s e as well as
in o ther la n g u a g e s are two m a j o r classes that have sem antic co rrelation with the two m ost
im portant c o n c e p ts [11, p.320 -3 2 1 ] As for
no u n s the e n tity it p resents is som ething prototypicaiiy like "thing" o r " o b je c t” and is consid ered a s "tim e-stability" V e rb s, on the
o th e r hand, are c o n sid e red to report som ething prototypicaily like "actions" o r "events"; they are used to sy m b o liz e c o n c ep ts that lack time- stability T h e distin ctio n b e tw e e n nouns and verbs is a linguistic u n iversa l phen om eno n prevailing all o v e r the w orld T h a t is why in
V ie tn a m ese as well as in o th e r languages, the
" g eneral m e a n in g " c rite riu m is o fte n used for
d istingu ish ing n o u n s an d verbs: nouns have
g e n e ra l n e a n i n g a b o u t th in g s o r objects, verbs
h a v e general m e a n i n g a b o u t a c tio n s o r events
r v r Joirnalof Science, Soc., Sci., Human., S o l E, 2002
Trang 3I'll is c o n te n t d istin c tio n has been
suppo rted from the fo rm al d istin ctio n : If in
inflectional lan g u a g e s n o u n s d i f f e r from verbs
in tra p p in g s o n gender, n u m b e r, tense, aspect,
m o o d , v oice then in such iso la tin g la n g u a g e s
as V ie tn a m e s e that n o u n s a n d verbs are
d ifferen t in the way ihev are c o m p o u n d e d with
a n o th e r parts o f sp eech hav e until n o w b een
agreed by m ost linguists In itia ted by Le V a n
Ly, the list o f "evidential w o r d s ” used for
d is tin s u is h in g n o u n s and v e rb s is c o n fir m e d in
alm ost hooks about parts o f sp e e c h as
following:
a) Such w ords for p lural m a r k e r as
"những, c á c ” c a n he put b e fo r e a n d s u c h
d e te rm in e rs as "này, ấy, nọ, kia" a fte r a noun
For e xam ple,
- "Cúc han ấ y nói c h u y ệ n với nhau suốt
n s a y ’TITiesc students are alw ays talking in class)
b) Such function w o rd s for te n s e , aspect,
m ood, neg ation as "đã, d a n s , sè, k h ô n g , c h ả n g ,Cr c c
chưa, cứ còn " can be located b e fo r e and such
words as "xong, ròi" a fte r a verb F o r e x a m p le :
-"Hm tôi chưa làm x o n g bài tập" (M y
brother hasn't d o n e his h o m e w o rk yet)
The d istinctio n h as b e e n s u p p o rte d by
m an y studies on n o u n p h ra s e s a n d v e rb p h rases
in V ietnam ese T h e fact that g e n e ra lly in
c o m p a rin g with a n o th e r p arts o f s p e e c h no uns
sharply d iffe r from v e rb s in term o f s y n ta c tic
behavior (for an s u c h isolating la n g u a g e as
V ie tn a m es e it m e a n s th e ability to c o m p o u n d
with a n o th e r w ord) m e e ts th e fo llo w in g
hypothesis a bo ut the ico n ic ity o f lexical
categories principle:
' T h e m o re a form refe rs to a d isc re te
d is c o u r s e e n tity o r rep o rts a d is c r e te d isc o u rs e
e ven t, the m o r e d istin ct will he its linguistic
fo rm fro m n e ig h b o r in g fo rm s, both
p a r a d ig m a tic a lly and s y n ta g m a tic a lly " [1 4 ,p 151] F o llo w in g fro m w h a t m e n tio n e d above, the hypothesis seem s to be unchallenged
H o w e v e r, fro m all o f w hat m e n tio n e d
a b o v e it is a ls o e a s y to re a liz e that th e re is an
e x tr e m e te n d e n c y by fo c u s in g in herent
s e m a n tic f e a tu re s o f n o u n s an d verbs,
re g a r d in g th e s e fe a tu re s as d e c is iv e factors
w h ic h d e te r m i n e s y n ta c tic b e h a v io r o f n o u ns and verbs So re s e a rc h e rs m u s t be c o n fu s e d
w h e n th e y c o n f r o n t the c a s e s in that n o u n s and verbs lack th e o w n c h a ra c te r is tic ab ility o f
c o m p o u n d i n g S o m e in sta n c e s c a n be cite d as
fo llow ing : -A s for no u n s:
- L a c k o f ab ility o f c o m p o u n d i n g as
m e n t io n e d in (a), e.g ab ility to g o a lo n g with
" n h ữ n g ’, " các" (pu t b e fo re ) a n d "n ày ", "ấy",
"nọ", "kia" (put after) and e x istence o f tendency
s e m a n tic a lly to in c o r p o r a te in the prio r verb
F o r e x a m p le : " N g ư ờ i V iệt N a m á n d ũ a '\
(T h e V i e tn a m e s e cat w ith c h o p s tic k s )
"Anil ta làm ruộng" He d o e s the fa r m in g ) W e
c a n not say:
- N gư ời V iệt N a m ăn * n h ữ n g /* c á c dũa
*này
- A n h ta làm * n h ĩfn g /* c ác ruộng *dó.
-L a c k o f a b ility o f c o m p o u n d i n g as
m e n tio n e d in (a) w h ile e it h e r p laying attributiv e role in c o p u la s e n te n c e s (B ỏ tôi là
g iá o viên) ( M y f a th e r is a te a c h e r) o r p laying the role o f o b je c t in s u c h s e n te n c e s in w hich
I \ ( Journal of Science Soc , Sci Human , \ ,11:, 2002
Trang 458 Nguyen Van Hiep
transitive v e rb s are u s e d in a sp e cia l w a y as
"C hị làm ỵ tú đ à m ấ y n ã m n ay "( She h a s b e e n a
nu rse for several y e a rs ) W e c a n no t say:
- Bô tôi là giáo viên *đó.
- C hị làm V tá *ấy d ã m ấ y n ă m nay.
- N o u n re f e rr in g to a n " a tta c h e d " body
part lack ability o f c o m p o u n d i n g as m e n tio n e d
in (a) w hile g o in g a lo n g w ith its o w n e r , as in
se n te n c e ' T ô i đ a u đ ầ u " ( I have a headache),
"Tai nạn làm g â y tay nó" ( H e broke his arm in
the accident) W e can not say:
- T ô i đ a u đ ầ u *này.
- T ai nạn làm g ã y * n h ữ n g /* c á c tay (cúa) nó.
A s fo r verbs:
- L a c k o f a b ility o f c o m p o u n d i n g as
m e n tio n e d in (b) w h ile p la y in g the role o f
s u b je c t in s e n te n c e , fo r e x a m p l e : "Yêu là chết
ờ trong lò ng m ộ t ít" ( L o v e is b lu e ), "77?/ dua
là yêu nước" ( E m u l a ti o n is p a trio tisiin ) W e
c a n not say:
- * Đ ã / * d a n g /* s ẽ yêu là c h ế t ở tro n g lòng
m ộ t ít
- * Đ ã / * đ a n g /* s ẽ thi đ u a là y ê u nước.
- L a c k o f a b ility o f c o m p o u n d i n g as
m e n tio n e d in (b) in th e s o -c a lle d e x iste n tial
se n te n c e s , f o r e x a m p l e : " Đ á u làn g trồng một
c â y đ a to" ( T h e r e is a tall tre e at th e d g e o f the
village), ' T r ê n tư ờ n g treo m ộ t bức tranh"
(There is a picture o n the wall) W e c a n not say:
- " Đ á u làn g * đ ă /* d a n g / * s ẽ trồiìiị m ộ t cây
đ a to
- T r ê n tư ờ n g * d â /* d a n g / * s ẽ treo m ộ t bức
tranh
- L a c k o f ability o f c o m p o u n d in g as
m e n tio n e d i n (b) while playing the ro le o f
m o d if ie r to predicate in s u c h type o f s e n te n c e
as "C hiếc d ồ n g h ổ này trông rất đẹp" (T h is
w atch looks very nice), "Chuối này àn k h ô n g
n g o n ” (T his k in d o f b an anas d o n 't taste
d e l i c i o u s ) W e c a n not say:
- C hiếc đ ồ n g hồ này * đ ã /? đ a n g /* sẽ trông
rất đẹp
-Chuối này *đã/*đang/*sẽ ân k h ô n g ngo n
Shortly speaking, in the fo re go ing stu d y casesx n oun s and verbs in V ie tn a m e s e lac k e d the characteristic ability o f c o m p o u n d in g ,
w hich would be used as criteria to th eir differentiation
H o w w o uld these seem ly o d d p h e n o m e n a
be e x p la in e d by linguists?
W e think that these p h e n o m e n a s h o w an
a sp ec t o f the iconicity in sy ntax in V ie tn a m e s e ,
sp e cta cu la rly p erfo rm ed by no u ns and verbs Its nature c on sists in the d istinctio n be tw e en
ce n tral/p erip h era l o r pro toty pical/non - proto typ ical in respect o f the syntactic b e h avio r
o f nouns and verbs C o n se q u e n tly , on ly a pro to ty p ical n o u n would be m a x im a lly distinct fro m a prototypical verb [15, p.30] B ecause
th o se nouns a n d verbs in the study c a se are used non-prototypically so th eir d istin ctio n in term o f syntactic be havior is not c le a rly shown
T h e n the q u e stio n is: in w hat situation will
a n o u n o r a ve rb be c o n s id e r e d being used prototvpicaily?
A functional point o f v iew c a n sh ed light
on that issue and give a n reason able explanatio n: it is the role o f a n e le m e n t in
I'XU Journal o f Science, Soc., Sci., Human., No IE, 2002
Trang 5d isc o u rse that d e te rm in e s Its n a tu re , and by
that d e te r m in e s its form So the s u bje c tiv ity
and c o m m u n ic a tiv e intention p lay s a c ru c ial
role and if sa v in g in term of f u n c tio n a lis m we
can co n firm that Pra g m a tic s d e te r m in e s
S em an tics a n d in its turn, S em an tics d e te r m in e s
S yntax [ 10 p 13],
In o th e r w ord s, in respe c t o f
p rototypically, intrinsic se m a n tic featu res are
relevant, but not e n o u g h to a s sig n a form to
nou n or verb c a te g o ry W e have to resort to the
ultim ate reason: the p ro to ty p ic a lity in n o u n s
and verbs is u ltim a tely derivative o f th eir
respective fu n ctio n s in sentence A n d the
intrinsic sem a ntic fe a tu r e s o f n ouns an d verbs
arc ultim ately d erive d from their fu n ctio n s in
sentence By using this statem en t we will
e xplain the s y n ta c tic b e h a v io r o f n o u n s a n d
verbs in V ie tn a m e s e in turn
As for n oun, the proto ty p ical use is to
deno te a d is c r e te en tity involving in d is c o u r s e
as a participan t [14, p 156] D ue to that, the
categorical sta tu s o f n o u n s will d isp la y in a
scale reflec tin g the ico n ic d e g re e h o w th ey are
used to that aim In o t h e r words, th e m o re a
form is to be used to d e n o te a d is c r e te e n tity ,
the more a fo rm has c a te g o ric a l sta tu s o f n o u n
with all o f its o w n c ha ra c te ris tic form al
features
In such s e n te n c e s a s "Người V iệt N a m ăn
đũa", "Anh ta làm r u ộ n g " the o b jec ts arc n on-
referring n o u n s , that m e a n s bv u sin g th e m the
sp eaker/w riter has no inte n tio n to a s so c ia te
with any d isc re te , s e p a r a te entity at all T h u s ,
from the fu n ctio n al v iew p o in t, th ese n o u n s d o
not denote p a rticipa nts i n any state o f affairs
T h e y are not n o u n s p la y in g p ro toty pical
f u n ctio n in s e n te n s e T h a t is w h y they lose
c h a ra c te r is tic a n d p o te n tia l a b ility o f n o u n
c o m p o u n d i n g
T h is e x p la i n a t i o n is a ls o a p p lie d for n o u n s that play e it h e r a ttrib u tiv e role in c o p u la
s e n te n c e ("B ỏ tôi là g i á o v i ê n ” ) o r o b jec t role
in s e n te n c e w h o s e v e rb - p r e d ic a te is used in a
sp e cia l w a y ("C h ị tỏi làm y tá đ ã m ấ y n ăm
n a y ” )
A s f o r s u c h s e n te n c e s as "Tôi đ a u đ ầ u ",
"Tai nạn là m g ã y ta v nó " the situ a tio n b e c a m e
m o re c o m p lic a te d T h e o r e t ic a l ly , it is not
d iffic u lt to rea liz e th at b o d y - p a r t n o u n is used
as re fe rrin g e x p r e s s io n s H o w e v e r , its referen t
is not a u t o n o m o u s bu t is tre a te d as d e p e n d e n t,
u n in v id id u a te d e n tity in re la tio n w ith its o w n e r
So, in d e s c r i b in g fra m e o f pred ic ate -
p a rtic ip a n ts c o n s tr u c ti o n it is n o u n refe rring the
p o ss e s s o r" that is d i s c o u r s e sa lie n t e ntity In fact, s o m e t h in g w h i c h h a p p e n s to a b o d y part is
n o rm a lly d o n e by th e b o d y - p a r t p o s s e s s o r, so the b o d y -p a rt n o u n s in q u e s ti o n really are not used p ro to ty p ic a lly a n d c o n s e q u e n t ly th ey will lose c h a ra c te r is tic f e a tu re s o f n o u n s in resp e c t
o f p o ten tia l c o m p o u n d i n g ability
A s for v e rb s , the p ro to ty p ic a l use is to
r ep ort an a c tu a l a c tio n o r e v e n t D u e to that, the
c a te g o ric a l sta tu s o f v e rb s will d isp la y in a
s c ale reflec tin g th e i c o n ic d e g r e e h o w th e y are used to that a im In o t h e r w o r d s , the m o re a form is to be u s e d to rep o rt a n a c tu a l a c tio n o r
e vent, the m o r e a fo rm h a s c a te g o r ic a l sta tu s o f
a ve rb w ith all o f its o w n c h a ra c te r is tic fo rm al features
I M Journal o f Science, Sac., Sci., Human., No IE, 2002
Trang 66 0 Nguyen Van Hicp
In s u c h s e n te n c e as "Y ê u là c h ế t tro n g lòng
m ộ t ít”, "Thi d u a là y ê u n ư ớ c " , the v erb s "yêu",
' thi đ u a" (in th e role o f s u b je c t ) a re not u sed to
report e ith e r a c tio n o r e v e n t So th ey d o not
f u n c tio n as p r o to ty p ic a l verbs; and
c o n s e q u e n tly th e y lose c o m p o u n d i n g potential
m e n tio n e d in (b) T h is e x p la n a ti o n is also
s u ita b le to the v e rb s th a t f u n c t i o n as m a n n e r
c o m p l e m e n t to p r e d ic a te s in s u c h s e n te n c e s as
" C hiếc đ ồ n g h ổ n à y trô ng rất đ ẹ p ", "C h u ố i này
ân k h ô n g ngon".
S u c h s e n te n c e s as " Đ á u iàn g trổng m ộ t
c â y đ a to", " T rê n tư ờ n g treo m ộ t bức tranh"
m a y g e n e ra lly be c a lle d e x is te n tia l se n te n c e s
T h e y are c o n s id e r e d to be u s e d to c o n fir m the
e x is te n c e o f id en tity o f s o m e e n tity , s o the
v e rb -p re d ic a te in t h e m ( tr ổ n g , treo ) is not used
in p ro to ty p ic a l w ay In V i e tn a m e s e , one
m e n tio n e d s o m e c o n s tr a in ts to v e rb -p re d ic a te
in e x is te n tia l s e n te n c e s : th e v e rb - p r e d ic a te lose
the ab ility o f c o m p o u n d i n g w i t h s u c h fun ctio n
w o rd s for tense , a s p e c t, resu lt [1] T h e s e
c o n s tra in ts , in o u r view , a re c o n s e q u e n c e s o f
the fact that the v e rb s in q u e s ti o n w ere not
p ro to ty p ic a lly used
H o w e v e r, as we h a v e ju s t said,
p ro to ty p ic a lly is a d e g r e e c o n c e p t T h u s , there
are s o m e c a s e s w h e re n o u n s o r v e rb s j u s t partly
lose their o w n a b ility o f c o m p o u n d i n g F o r
insta n c e, stative v e rb s loses th e ability to go
a lo n g w ith s o m e fu n c tio n w o r d s fo r a s p e c t or
result, but m a i n ta i n th e a b ility to g o a lo n g with
f u n ctio n w o rd s for ten se C o m p a re :
+ A n h ta y ê u * x o n g / * đ ư ợ c c ả b a cô
+ A n h ta đ ã /đ a n g y ê u c ả b a cô
A n o t h e r distintction o n c o m p o u n d in g ability is a lso o b s e rw ed b etw een v e rb s u s e d to
p resen t a fo reg ro u n d ie d action o r e v e n t a n d the
s a m e u s e d to presentt a b a c k g ro u n d e d actio n or event L o o k at how tlhe state o f affairs "Cô ấy li
dị c h ổ n g " (She hias d ivo rced ) is used
d iffe re n tly in followiing sentences:
+ C ô ấ y đ ã li dị c h ồ n g (fo re g ro u n d e d ) + C ô ấ y *dà li (dị chổng k h iế n m ọi người
k in h n g ạ c (b ac k g ro u in d e d ) + V i ệ c cô ấy *cđă li dị chồng khiến m ọ i
người k in h ng ạc ( b a c k g r o u n d e d )
T h e d istin ctio n b e tw e en p rototypical and
n o n -p ro to ty p ic a l usatge h e lp us to u nderstand
s o m e c a s e s w h e n a tform, w h ich is not a noun,
te m p o ra lly has s y n t a c t i c b e h avio r o f a noun For e x a m p le , adjectdves "rắc rối", "khó khản"
f u n ctio n as n o u n in f o llo w in g sentences:
- N hữ ng rắc rối ấ y k h iế n ông phát
k h ù n g (T he tro u b le s m a d e h im m a d )
- N hữ ng k h ó k h ă n này k h ồ n g dề khắc
phục tro n g thời giam n g ắ n (It is not easy to solve th ese d iff ic u ltie s im short tim e.)
S om e r e s e a r c h e r s a r g u e d that there was a
c h a n g e in sta tu s o f w o r d classes: "rắc rối",
"kh ó k hă n" w e re n o l o n g e r adjectives, they
b e c a m e no un s A c c o r d i n g to o u r view such inte rpre ta tio n is too m e c h a n ic a l W e incline to
a n o th e r in te rp re ta tio n : i n that fo re g o in g cases, the a d je c tiv e s t e m p o r a l l y fu n c tio n in the way
an p ro to ty p ic a l n o u n fuinctions, e g to present discrete entitie s p a r t ic ip a tin g in fram e
p re d ic a te -p a rtic ip a n ts off se n te n c e Thus, they
te m p o ra lly g a in ab ility o f c o m p o u n d in g o f a
p ro toty pical noun
YNU Journal o f Science, Soic., Sci., Human., No IE, 2002
Trang 73 C o n c l u d i n g
F r o m s o m e fo regoing ro u gh e x p e rim e n ts ,
we h a v e reason to c o n firm that sy n ta c tic
b e h a v io r o f nouns a n d verbs in V i e tn a m e s e IS
not b e v o n d the g e n e ra l iconic p rin c ip le o f
nouns and verbs in natural la n g u a g e s The
d istinctio n o n s y n ta c tic b e h a v io r o f
prototypical n o u n s and verb s reflec ts the
distinctio n in c o m m u n ic a t iv e in tention: a
prototypical nou n inclin es to be u sed to p resent
a d isc re te e n tity in d isc o u rs e , a p ro to ty pical
verb in clines to be u sed to report a n actual
action o r event in d isc o u rs e O th e rw is e , both
n o u n s an d v e rb s lose, at d iff e re n t d e g re e , their
o w n ability o f c o m p o u n d i n g W e think that the
fo re g o in g ico n ic p rin c ip le on syn ta c tic
b e h a v io r o f n o u n s a n d verb s w o u ld criticize
a ny a to m ic v iew in c irc le o f V ie tn a m e s e
g r a m m a r ia n s , w h ic h led to m a n y
m is u n d e rs ta n d in g for a long tim e and
m e a n w h ile w o u ld c o n f ir m p rin c ip le s and interpretin g c a p a c ity o f F u n c tio n a l G r a m m a r that p ro fe s s o r C a o X u a n H a o firstly rep re sen t
in m o n o g r a p h " T iế n g V iệ t- Sơ th ả o N g ữ p h á p chức nàng, q u v ể n I" ( V i e t n a m e s e - a s k e tc h o f
F u n c tio n a l G r a m m a r , v o l u m e 1) [4]
R E F E R E N C E S
1 Cao Xuân Hao, Vietnamese- a sketch OÍ Functional Grammar, volume 1, 1991
2 Diẽp Quang Ban Some issues on existential sentences in m odern Vietnam ese (Ph D Dissertation , Teaching training college o f Hanoi I, 1980
3 Nguyền Tài cấ n Vietnamese grammar: Morphem- Compound word- Phrase Hanoi, Universities and professional Colleges Press, 1975
4 Đinh Van Đức, Vietnamese grammar: parts of speech, Hanoi Universities and professional Colleges Press, 1986
5 Cao Xuân Hạo Tiếng Việt- Some issues on phonology, semantics and grammar, Hanoi, Education Publisher, 1998
6 Phan Ngoc, Pham Đức Dương, Linguistic contact in South-East Asia, Hanoi, South-East Asia Institute, 1983
7 Nguyền Thị Quy Action verbs in Vietnamese and arguments HCM city Social Science Publisher 1995
8 Nguyền Kim Thíin V erbs in Vietnam ese, Universities and professional Colleges Press, 1977
9 Boileau L.D (ed), Faits cie Langues, M otivation et icomcite Presses um versitaires de France, 1993
10 Dik S The Theory o f Functional Grammar Part 1 : the Structure o f the clause Dordrecht Foris, 1989
1 1 Givón T On understanding grammar New York Academic Press 1979
12 Haiman J (ed) Iconicily III Syntax Am sterdam / Philadenphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company 1985
13 Halliday M.A.K All Introduction o f Functional Grammar London : Arnold 1985
14 Hopper P.J and Thompson s.A: 'T h e iconicity of the universal categories NOUN and VERB“ In Haiman
J ( ed) 1985
15 Rosch E H and Lloyd ( eds) Cognition and Categorization Hillsdale Eribaum Associates, 1978
16 Rosch E H “Princip les o f Categorization*4 In Rosch E H and Lloyd ( eds), 1978
rxc Journal o f Science, Sot'., S c i , Human Vi;//:' 2002