A CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS ON RHETORICAL QUESTIONS IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE

The aims of doing this is to find out the similarities and difference of rhetorical questions into Vietnamese based on bilingual story – An Ideal Husband to help English learner can tran

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

HANOI OPEN UNIVERSITY

M.A THESIS

A CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS OF

RHETORICAL QUESTIONS IN ENGLISH

AND VIETNAMESE

(NGHIÊN CỨU ĐỐI CHIẾU CÂU HỎI TU TỪ

TRONG TIẾNG ANH VÀ TIẾNG VIỆT)

LE NAM THANG

FIELD: ENGLISH LANGUAGE

Hanoi, 2017

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

HANOI OPEN UNIVERSITY

M.A THESIS

A CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS OF

RHETORICAL QUESTIONS IN ENGLISH

AND VIETNAMESE

(NGHIÊN CỨU ĐỐI CHIẾU CÂU HỎI TU TỪ

TRONG TIẾNG ANH VÀ TIẾNG VIỆT)

LE NAM THANG Field: English Language Code: 60220201

Supervisor: Nguyen Dang Suu, PhD

Hanoi, 2017

CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY

I, the undersigned, hereby certify my authority of the study project report entitled

“A CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS ON RHETORICAL QUESTIONS IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE” submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master in English Language Except for the indicated reference, no other person’s work has been used without due acknowledgement in the text of the thesis

Hanoi, 2017

Le Nam Thang

Approved by SUPERVISOR

Nguyễn Đăng Sửu, PhD

(Signature and full name)

Date:………

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First of all I would like to thank all of my teachers in the Faculty of postgraduateH.O.U for teaching and providing me with knowledge of English language so that today I can do this research

I own my deepest gratitude to my respectful supervisor, Nguyen Dang Suu, who inspired me with the interest of rhetorical question and helped me to understand it to the core If not for his guidance and encouragement, this paper would not have been completed I thank him for being very caring and supportive

Last but far from least, I am immensely grateful to my parents and my dear ones for their credit and responsibility toward me during my study at Hanoi Open University

as well as their vital support for my writing this thesis

Although every effort has been made, there still are inevitable shortcomings here and there in the paper I am, once again, grateful to any one who reads and is tolerant of those shortcomings

ABSTRACT

This study looks at rhetorical questions in English and Vietnamese The major concern is the contrastive analysis of pragmatic of rhetorical questions in English and Vietnamese It also analyzes the similarities and difference of rhetorical questions into Vietnamese and find out some mistakes on the bilingual story “An ideal husband” We use the extracts from such story to prove the mistakes The aims

of doing this is to find out the similarities and difference of rhetorical questions into Vietnamese based on bilingual story – An Ideal Husband to help English learner can translating effectively translate works in general and rhetorical questions in particular into Vietnamese

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Table 4.1 Frequency of translation methods of questions in biligual story 50

Table 4.2 Frequency of cohesive devices in the bilingual story “An ideal husband”

52

Figure 4.1 Percentage of cohesive devices used in the bilingual “An ideal husband”

53

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Certificate of originality i

Acknowledgements ii

Abstract iii

List of tables and figures iv

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION 1.1 Rationale 1

1.2 Aims and objectives of the study 2

1.3 Research questions 2

1.4 Methods of the study 2

1.5 Scope of the Study 2

1.6 Significance of the study 2

1.7 Structure of the graduation paper 3

CHAPTER 2 –LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Previous study 4

2.1.1 In English 4

2.1.2 In Vietnamese 7

2.1.3 The Thesis 8

2.2 Theory framework 8

2.2.1 Theories of Speech Act 8

2.2.2 Criteria to Recognize Speech Act 13

2.2.3 Classifications of questions 16

2.3 Some necessary theory of translation equivalence 22

2.4 Summary 23

CHAPTER 3: CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS OF RHETORICAL QUESTIONS IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE 3.1 Characteristic of pragmatics of the rhetorical questions in English 24

3.2 Pragmatic characteristic of the rhetorical questions in Vietnamese 27

3.2.1 Questions as Greetings 27

3.2.2 Questions as Invitations 27

3.2.3 Question as a wonder 28

3.2.4 Questions as requests 29

3.2.5 Questions as threats 29

3.2.6 Questions as assertions 30

3.2.7 Questions as negations and denials 31

3.2.8 Questions as complaints 32

3.2.9 Questions as suggestions/ advice 33

3.2.10 Questions as offers 34

3.2.11 Questions showing incredulity and surprise 34

3.2.12 Questions as reproach 35

3.2.13 Questions for imprecation 35

3.2.14 Questions as wishes 35

3.2.15 Questions as regret 36

3.2.16 Questions requesting for permission 36

3.2.17 Questions as promises 36

3.2.18 Questions as exclamations 37

3.2.19 Questions as jokes 37

3.3 Comparison between rhetorical questions in English and Vietnamese base on bilingual story 38

3.3.1 In terms of the similarities rhetorical question in English 38

3.3.2 Interm of the differences of rhetorical question in English 41

CHAPTER 4: AN ANALYSIS OF RHETORICAL QUESTIONS BASING ON THE BILINGUAL STORY “AN IDEAL HUSBAND” – HOANG NGUYEN 4.1 Collaborative research easy make mistake intranslating by Vietnamese learner 45

4.1.1 Equivalence of Translation 45

4.1.2 Some lexical cohesive devices cross-cutting and cross-cultural 46

4.1.3 Some major translation methods 48

4.2 The analysis of translation used in the bilingual story “An ideal husband” 49

4.2.1.Translation methods in the bilingual story “An ideal husband 49 4.2.2.The uses of cohesive devices in the bilingual story “An ideal husband” 50

4.3 The analysis combinative with methods translation in the bilingual story “An ideal husband”into Vietnamese 53 4.3.1 The methods in the bilingual story “An ideal husband” into Vietnamese 53 4.3.2 Some mistakes and suggestions Vietnamese learner when translating in the bilingual story “An ideal husband” into Vietnamese 54 4.4 Summary 57

Chapter 5 - CONCLUSIONS

5.1 Concluding remarks 58 5.2 Limitation of the study 58 5.3 Recommendations/Suggestions for further study 58

REFERENCES

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION

1.1 Rationale

In everyday communication, exchanging information is a very common activity The act of giving and receiving information takes place anywhere, which a conversation is formed The question is a category, so It is one of the common actions Questions, therefore, become an important component in communication They play a significant role in human’s activity As a result, there have been, so far, many researches on grammatical question Many grammatical issues are focused on analyzingthe structure of questions and pointed out conventional uses of questions.Therefore, referring to rhetical question with response, and also to the important role in the activity and human perception, communication event research is considered to describe the elements which are relevant to achieve its Order, warning, advice, offer.,

However, for the past decades, new branches of linguistics, semantics, pragmatic have been developing rapidly together with phonetics, lexicology and grammar Some linguists such as, Austin, Searle, Yuleis prominent in the field of pragmatic Thus, more and more pragmatics-basing researches on aspects of linguistics are being carried out

Among those researches, pragmatics-based study of questions makes a mentioning contribution to this development Recently, other functions or unconventional uses of questions are studied by T Givón in English and by Cao Xuân Hạo in Vietnamese These two authors state that questions are used not only for the purpose of seeking information to fulfill the questioner’s gap of information but also for many other purposes

worth-However, the study of comparing and contrasting these functions of questions in the two languages remains a gap for readers to understand the rhetorical question in English and Vietnamese, which is useful for the Teaching and Learning of translation For the above-mentioned reasons, the writer chooses the thesis A CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS ON RHETORICAL QUESTIONS IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE based on bilingual story – An Ideal Husband translated by Hoang Nguyen

1.2 Aims and objectives of the study

The study aims at giving the characteristics of English and Vietnamese rhetorical questions and the detailed contrastive analysis to find out the similarities and diferences between English and Vietnamese rhetorical questions At the same time, the researcher tries to suggest some solutions to the mistakes in translating questions from English into Vietnamese on the bilingual story “An ideal husband”

As clearly stated above, the objectives of the research are to:

- Study the similarities and differences of CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS OF

RHETORICAL QUESTIONS in relation to particular contexts;

- Find out the similarities and differences of rhetorical questions in both English and Vietnamese languages;

- Deliver the mistakes made by the translator basing on the bilingual story “An ideal husband” in translation and some possible suggested solutions to the problems

1.3 Research questions

- What are the similarities and differences of rhetorical questions in English?

- What are the similarities and differences of rhetorical questions in Vietnamese?

- What are the mistakes on the bilingual story – An Ideal Husband in particular?

1.4 Methods of the study

The main methods are the qualitative, quantitative and descriptive in combination with data collection and data analysis approaches to find out the similarities and differences of rhetorical questions in the research into the bilingual story “An ideal husband”

1.5 Scope of the Study

The scope of this study is the CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS and find out the similarities and differences of rhetorical questions IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE based on bilingual story – An Ideal Husband

1.6 Significance of the study

One of the main contributions of this thesis is find out the similarities and differences of rhetorical questions IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE based on bilingual story – An Ideal Husband and easy make mistakes when translate which can provides the knowledge of questions in general and rhetorical questions in

particular for students of English so that they can use them in a better way after graduating from university

1.7 Structure of the graduation paper

This graduation paper is divided into 5 chapters:

Chapter 1: Introduction where the writer would like to introduce the reason why choose the topic for my research, the aims, the scope, the methods ofthe study and the structure of the paper, as well

Chapter 2: Overview of general theories of questions are mentioned

Chapter 3: Contrastive study of rhetorical questions in English and Vietnamese Chapter 4: Applications of rhetorical questions

Chapter 5: Conclusion

CHAPTER 2 –LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Previous study

Questions are seen in every language It is definitely clear that different languages have different grammatical structures; therefore, questions of on language difference from studying questions, referring to rhetical question with response, and also to the important role in the activity and human perception, communication event research is considered to describe the elements which are relevant to achieve its Order, warning, advice, offerthe similarities and difference which will be stated bellow

2.1.1 In English

Starting with the observations of 79 languages by Russell Ultan (1969), many languages make use of a terminal rising contour to designate a question, sometimes with, sometimes without other interrogative markers such as inversion of subject or object, interrogative particles etc., Furthermore, all studied language have non–intonational devices for indicating questions Certainly, at the very least all

languages mark information questions with interrogative words such as who, what,

where…Many label questions especially yes/no questions with special interrogative particles

Statement Questions

You are a student Are you a student?

The fact that interrogative particles usually occur either at the beginning of the clause (or enclitic to the initial constituent) or at the end leads us to suppose some relationship between the particle position and the dominant type of constituentorder for a given language Similarly, interrogative words seem to occur most commonly

in sentence-initial position, which may account for inversion in some types of information questions Probably, most languages append questions to declarative

statements to request confirmation

You are a student, aren’t you?

You are French, aren’t you

Many modern European languages make use of standard inversion patterns to signal questions such as in English

(Russell Ultan, Some General Characteristics of Interrogative Systems 1969, p.213)

Did he come home?

When did he come home?

From the above observations, Bollinger,D in his study (1957) divided the identifying characteristics of interrogative utterances into four classes: interrogative distribution (general occurrence before a reply); syntax (inversion, interrogative words, interrogative tags and other syntactic devices); interrogative intonation (predominance of terminal rising or high pitch); interrogative gestures (eyebrow lifted, head inclined forward, mouth left open at the end of the utterances) Besides other factors such as emphasis and nuances added to the general interrogative theme (degree of familiarity between speaker and hearer, degree of doubt (rhetority of questions) characteristically produce variation in from of interrogative sentences According Encylopedia of Linguistics, questions are a universal structure type with

at least one universal function, that of requesting information Structurally, two major types of questions are WH or special questions and YES/NO or general

questions The former includes one or more questions pronouns such as who, how…

which typically are related in form to indefinite relative pronouns Languages show considerable similarities in how they use intonation, word order and morphology to differentiate questions from statements Some recurrent structural characteristics include

a) Rising intonation, generally at the sentence final position, in yes/no questions

b) Sentence initial or preverbal position of questions pronouns, especially

in languages with other than Subject Verb Object order

c) Inversion of the declarative Subject-Verb order

Questions particles may mark either kind of question:

Questions particles may be positioned sentence-finally

Are you teacher ?

In English, interrogative auxiliary verbs like, to be, to have, to do, as for me, are

considered the so-called questions particles

Statement Question

You like Mozart → Do you like Mozart?

They are laughing → Why are they laughing? You have seen John → Have you seen John?

Semantically, questions differ from statements for the reason that they are

not propositions: They cannot be true or false As speech acts, questions resemble

commands and they require some actions in response When the answer is not categorically determined by the questions, questions may form a third type semantically clear-cut Some yes/no questions require more than yes/no answer

Has anything happened?

The answer to the above questions is definitely not “yes” or “no” It depends on the

context of the utterance; the answer may be a long story

In general, the type of answer appropriate to questions may not be determined syntactically or semantically: it is often a pragmatic matter depending on the speech

situation Hence a distinction must be made between “answer” and “response”; all

answers are responses, but not all responses are answers:

Where’s my box of chocolate?

I’ve got to catch the train

The non-answer “I’ve got to catch the train.” Includes indication on listener’s part

that he is unable or provide an answer to the questions; it is based on incorrect presupposition on part of speaker

Semantic subclasses of questions may be defined by reference to the speaker’s degree of prior knowledge of the answer (rhetorical questions or examination questions) or his degree of certainty about one correct answer (negative question)

May I help you? – (an offer)

Would you close the door? – ( a request)

(Diep Quang Ban, Ngữ pháp tiếng Việt, 2000, p.226)

A Vietnamese interrogative sentence is formed by the following factors:

- Interrogative pronouns ai (who, person), gì, cái gì (what, thing), nào (Which, alternative), ‘như’ thế nào (how, manner, quality), sao (why, reason), bao nhiêu (how much, how many, quality), bao giờ (when, time), đâu (where , place)…

Sao họ vẫn chưa đến?

- The conjunction ‘hay’ (or) in alternative questions

Anh lấy quyển sách này hay quyển sách kia?

- The interrogative particles in general questions ( yes/no question)

Such as à, ư, ạ, a, nhỉ, nhẻ, hả, hở, chứ, chớ, etc…

Cậu mới về hở “hả, chứ, à”?

The interrogative particles are positioned at the end of the utterance, of which

aconvey neutral bias, the rest are used with different emotion on the part of the speaker

- The interrogative tone

In his book, professor Cao Xuân Hạo states that a question has an illocutionary act, which requires an answer giving information on predicate or part of it and provides

true presupposition He divides questions into two major types: Information

Question and Rhetorical Question The former has an illocutionary act of asking

for information i.e the information answer is needed Meanwhile, the latter has another illocutionary act Depending on context that the participants are playing their roles in conversation, this type of question can function as a requirement, an exclamation, a suggestion and so forth

2.1.3 The Thesis

In the chapter 1 the auther would like to introduce Rationale, Aims of study, Objective, Scope and Methods of the study The thesis deals with general features and the theories of the rhetorical question

Into English and Vietnamese languages, questions are the sentence with a question mark at the end of the utterances The function of questions is seeking for information or the explanation that the speakers (the questioner) do not know or doubt

Tuổi về hưu của công ty anh là bao nhiêu?

Tại sao bà ta không tha thứ chứ?

(A.H, p192, 193)

Questions are, however, not always used to fulfill the information gap In specific context, a question has other functions Specifically, it can function as a greeting, an assertion, and an invitation…in form of interrogative sentence

Why don’t you see a doctor ? → advice

Tại sao cậu không đi khám xem ? → khuyên răn

Can’t you unplug that phone ? → a requirement

Mày tắt cái phone đi → yêu cầu

by an alternative action The utterance “Where is my hat?” is not a mere strings of

words but has the effect of urging the listener to join in the search for the speaker’s hat Such sequences of speech are called speech acts

The theory further identify that there are two kinds of utterances, they are called constative and performative utterances In his book of ‘How do things with words’ Austin clearly talks about the disparities between the constative and performative utterances

A constative utterances is something which describes or denotes the situation, in relation with the fact of true or false

The performative utterances is something which do not describes anything at all The utterances in the sentences or in the part of sentences are normally considered

as having a meaning of its own The feelings, attitudes, emotions and thoughts of the person performing linguistic act are much of a principal unit here

Mrs Erlynne: Oh! What am I to say to you? You saved me last night? (Goes toward her) (A.H P.442, 443)

This utterance have its specific meaning only in relation to it specific context

In Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistic, speech act is defined as: “Speech act is an UTTERANCE which has a functional unit in communication In speech act theory, an utterance has two kinds of meanings: Propositional meaning and Illocutionary meaning

a) Propositional meaning (known as locutionary meaning)

This basic literal meaning of the utterance is conveyed by the particular words and structures that the utterance contains

b) Illocutional meaning (known as illocutionary force)

This is the effect the utterance or written text which has on the reader or listener

For example in “Where is my hat?” the propositional meaning is what the

utterance says about the place that the hat is laying The illocutionary force is the request for the listener It may be intended as a request for the listener to join the search

Therefore, the utterance that has both propositional meaning and illocutionary meaning is called a speech act Every speech act conveys at least one illocutionary

force but most convey more than one For instance, “I’ve got a headache.” Apart

from the propositional meaning of the speaker’s physical state,it may function as an excuse or a complaint…

(Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, Jack C

Richards,Richard W Schmidt P 542, 543) John has two small sons The two sons are fighting

John: Be quiet! I’ve got a headache → (A complaint)

For these reasons, speech acts are part of social interactive behaviour and must be interpreted as an aspect of social interaction It is this feature that attributes to the role of speech act in communicative language

2.2.1.2 Components of Speech Act

Speech acts consist of three parts: locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary

Locutionary act is an act that produces utterances through three operations namely phonetical, syntactical and semantic

- Phonetic operation provides a phonetic interpretation of the surface of the utterance

- Syntactic operation is a syntactic arrangement of words which varies in size

in specific speech act

- Semantic operation provides a semantic interpretation of syntactic structure

Illocutionary act in an act which makes use of the enunciation to imply something that speakers want to do through language, for instance, an order, an invitation, a suggestion and a threat… Illocutionary act is the final act of hierarchy of speaking aiming at doing something to the hearer in concrete contexts

One utterance can have more than one illocution the utterance “Take action now!”

Can funtion as an order or a piece of advice

Therefore, speech act must be interpreted with attention to their context and their function as an intergral part of social interactive behaviour

Perlocutionaryact is performed when the purpose of speaking is to cause an effect

on the hearer Speakers want their opinions to be recognized, their advice taken, warning heeded… By this act, the speakers aim at bringing about or effecting the thought or action of the hearer or others with words, (which is involved with the locution and illocutionary points of the utterances) The point of carefully distinguishing the perlocutionary effect of speech act from others is that perlocutions can be often accidental and thus bear a relatively unsystematic relationship to any claussification sentence types or unprediction in communication This results in unexpected information gap in communication It normally creates a sense of consequential effects on the audiences The effects may be in the form of

thoughts, imaginations, feelings or emotions The effect upon the addressee is the main charactership of perlocutionary utterances

Austin himself admits that these three components of utterances are not altogether separable.“We must consider the total situation in which the utterance is issued- the total speech act – if we are to see the parallel between statements and performative utterance, and how each can go wrong Perhaps indeed there is no great distinction between statements and performative utterances.” Austin

2.2.1.3 Speech Act Classification

There are two major approaches of speech act classification: (1) a lexical classification of so-called illocutionary verbs initiated by J Austin (1962) and (2) J Searle’s classification of acts, which will be introduced as follows:

2.2.1.3.1 A Lexical Classification of Speech Acts

Lexically, there are five classes of illocutionary verbs:

- expositives: utterances which have verbs to expound view, to conduct arguments,

clarify usage or reference, for example, state, contend, insist, deny, remind, guess…

- verdictives: utterances which have verbs of giving a verdict, for example, rank,

grade, call, define, analyze…

- commissives: which commit the speaker to dong something, but also include

declaration or announcements of intention such as promise, bet, advise, dare…

- behavitives: utterances which have verbs of reacting other people’s behavior or

attitudes such as thank, criticize, bless…

2.2.1.3.2 Classification of Acts

2.2.1.3.2.1 Criteria of classification

Searl John (1975) listed 12 differences between acts among which there were only three main criteria he used to classify speech act

a) Illocutionary force : the purpose of the act from the speaker’s perspective or

speaker’s intention, for example, a request attempts to get the hearer to do something, a description is a representation of something, a promise is the undertaking of an obligation that a speaker does something

b) Direction of fit : true value lies on the basis of word-to-world correspondence

of the speaker; or requests have a world-to-words fit because the word must be changed to fulfill the speaker’s request

c) Expressed psychological states: for example, a promise expresses a speaker’s

intention to do something; a request expresses a speaker’s desire that hears should do something

2.2.1.3.2.2 Classification of Speech Act

On the basis of the three above criteria, Searle John classifies speech act into five classes :

a) Representative/ Assertive is speech act which describes state or event in the world This is on of the basic thing man does with language in order to tell people how things are The illocutionary point of representative is to commit a speaker in

varying degree (assert, claim, say, suggest, doubt, deny…) to the truth of something

Speech act of this kind has a truth-value and show word-to-world correspondence and express a speaker’s belief of the propositional content

SIR R C: You think science cannot grapple with the problem of women?

SIR R C: Thế bà có cho rằng khoa học cũng không nắm bắt được vấn đề phụ nữ không?

SIR R C: And now tell me, what makes you leave your brilliant Vienna for our gloomy London – or perhaps the question í indiscreet?

SIR R C:Bây giờ , xin bà cho biết vì sao bà từ giã Viên chói lọi của bà để tới Luân Đôn u ám của chúng tôi? Chết, hỏi thế này có hơi hớ henh không?

SIR R C: Well, at any rate, may I-know if it is politics or pleasure?

SIR R C: Vậy thì dù sao bà cũng có thể nói cho biết: vì chính trị hay là vì vui thú?

something

Situation : (commanding officer – recruit – at a parade ground)

At-ten-tion! Now, quick match Left…right…left…right

c) Commisive is speech acts that commit the speaker to doing something in the future either by threatening or promising

If you don’t stop, I’ll call the police. (a threat)

I’ll take you to the movie tomorrow. ( a promise )

d) Expressive is speech acts in which the speaker expresses feeling and attitude to something such as an apology, a complaint, a thank, a congratulation…

I’m sorry; my car was broken down on the road

Expressive has the function to express the speakers’ attitude to a certain state of affairs specified in the propositional content that must be related to the speaker or hearer There is no direction of fit but a greater variety of psychological states in this type than the three above-mentioned ones since representative, directive and commissive are only associated with consistent psychological dimension (belief, wish and intent respectively)

e) Declarative is speech acts that change the state of affairs in the world simply through their successful execution They bring about correspondence between the propositional content and the world, thus direction of fit is both world-to-word and word-to-world This kind of speech act is closest to the concept of a performative, an act of doing something with words

(Judge – an accused man, at court)

With the alibi, I declare this man innocent.

2.2.2 Criteria to Recognize Speech Act

It is not so easy to recognize and classify speech acts; still, Anna Wierzbicka and Searle John have introduced a thorough criteria of classification of speech acts on which I will mainly base to compare the speech acts in my collected questions Additionally, I take context of situation as criteria for my classifying the speech act conveying in those questions

2.2.2.1 Anna Wierzbicka’s Classification

She classifies the speech acts into 37 groups:

Order Group Nhóm

2.2.2.2 Searle’s Criteria of Classification

As clearly presented in 2.1.3.2.1, there are three typical criteria of classification of speech act:

If we were to attempt to say what an utterance in conversation meant, but ignored its context of use, we would not be successful or forced to conclude that its meaning would be vague and ambiguous

It is, therefore, impossible to say what most utterances mean, or what their intent is, without having some knowledge of the situation in which they occur Ronald Warchaugh writes that context includes not only the linguistic one, the utterances preceding of following the utterance in question, but also the surrounding physical context, previous conversation, relevant aspects of the partipants’ life history, the general rules of behavior the parties subscribe to, the assumptions about how the various bits pieces of the world function

Only by acknowledging that all these factors contribute to the meaning of particular utterance in a particular context can we hope to understand what is going on when a person say something to another

It is context that creates possibilities for interpretation and helps remove the multiple ambiguities that a utterance would have if they occur in isolation Take the following utterance for example:

A: Would you like another drink?

B: Yes, I would Thank you, but make it a small one

The utterance of “A” is both a question and an offer We know that with the help of

the surface form of the response in which “Yes, I would.” Responds to the question and “Thank you” responds to the offer However, in other context the utterance

“Would you like anther drink?” does not function as what it has been discussed In

some case, the host in saying “Would you like another drink?” may have the

intention of embarrassing the guess who has already finished several bottles of wine, or he may have the intention of getting the guest to take the hint and leave, and so on

Thus, in labeling utterance in general and questions in particular, we need to know who is talking to whom We must be concerned with the where and when of the utterance We must also examine the content with the content of what is said and the precise manner in which the content is communicated The specific choice of words and phrases that relate to the topic or topics under discussion also interest us,

as well as the discovery of what a particular utterance achieved

2.2.3 Classifications of questions

Questions can be divided into three major classes according to the type of answer they expect:

- Those that expect the answer yes or no are yes/no questions

And were you interested? ( A.H.p.24)

- Those that contain a “wh-element” (who, what, how,…) and expect an

answer supplying missing information are wh- questions

Hum! Which is Going? Beautiful idiot, or the other thing? (A.H P28)

- The third type of lesser important is the alternative questions, which expect

an answer of two or more alternatives mentioned in the questions

(Quirk et al, A grammar of Temporary English 1995, p.387)

There will be a quick look through the types of questions as follows

(Subject- Operator – Predication) (Operator – Subject – Predication)

The boat has left Has the boat left?

Lexical “be” can be treated as auxiliary

He was in the garden
Was he in the garden?

If there is no item in the verb phrase that functions as an operator, “do” is introduced

(Subject – Operator) (Operator: Do/does/did – Subject – Predication)

He likes Dickens Does he like Dickens?

2.2.3.1.2.Uses

Yes/no questions are normally used to seek for the truth or falsity of the whole propostion

Do you have anything to do after this?

Yes, I do/ No, I don’t

Mrs Chevely: “I must go, goodbye Won’t you shake hands?”

Bà Sêvêly: “Tôi phải đây, xin chào tạm biệt ông Ông có bắt tay tôi không?” Lord Goring: “With you? No ” (A.H.210)

(Ông không bắt tay ư?)

Nam Tước Gôrinh: “Bắt tay bà à? Không.” (A.H.211)

2.2.3.2.Tag-questions

2.2.3.2.1.Forms

The tag questions comprises 2 parts: a super ordinate clause (a statement) and a tag (a questions), which is formed as follows

1) The tag consists of operator + subject (an enclitic negative particle precedes the subject, a full one follows the subject): is he → isn’t he → is he not…

2) The operator is the same as the the operator of preceding statement:

You haven’t finished your writing, have you?

(When the statement contains no operator, use is made of do/ does/ did, as for

question formation in general:

John knows you, doesn’t he?

3) The subject of the tag is a pronoun that either repeats or appropriately substitutes for the subject of the statement

4) If the statement is positive, the tag is negative, and vice versa

5) The nuclear tone of the tag occurs on the auxiliary, and is either rising or falling

There are four main types of tag question:

Structure Rising tone Falling tone

Positive + negative He likes his JOB, DOESn’t he? He likes his JOB, DOES he?

(neutral expectation) (positive expectation) Negative+ positive He doesn’t like his JOB, DOES he? He doesn’t like his JOB, DOES he?

(neutral expectation) (negative expectation)

There are two further, less common, types of tag question in which both statement and question are positive or negative:

Your car is outside, is it?

The tag always has a rising nucleus, and the situation is characteristically preceded

by Oh or So, indicting the speakers’s arrival at a conclusion by inference or by

recalling what has already been said:

So that’s your little game, is it?

Oh, so he doesn’t like his job, doesn’t he?

We may add two further, less usually, types of tag question to the earlier types:

Structure Rising tone Falling tone

Positive + positive So he likes his JOB, DOES he?

Negative + negative So he doesn’t like his JOB, DOESn’t he?

2.2.3.2.2 Uses

Like yes/no question, this type of question usually requires yes or no answer

However, the tag with falling tone invites confirmation of the statement, and has the force of an exclamation rather than a genuine question

2.2.3.3 Wh- Questions

2.2.3.3.1 Forms

Wh- questions are formed with the aid of one of the following interrogative words

or (Q- words): who, whom, whose, what, where, when, how, why, which

As a rule:

1) The Q- element (i.e clause element containing the Q-word) comes first in the interrogative sentence

2) The Question word itself takes first position in the Question

The only exception to the second principle is when the Q-word occurs in a prepositional complement Here English provides a choice between two constructions, one formal and the other informal In formal style, the complement comes first and the preposition is left “trailing” at the end of the sentence:

On what did you base your prediction? (formal)

What did you base your prediction on? (informal)

At times, when a question- word is the subject, there is no subject + auxiliary inversion The word order is the same as in the statement

The naughty boy broke the window

Who broke the window?

Thằng quỷ con đã làm vỡ ô kính cửa sổ

Ai đã làm vỡ ô kính cửa số?

Her words made him sad

What made him sad?

Lời cô ta nói đã khiến anh ấy buồn

Điều gì khiến anh ta buồn?

Lord Goring: “What is your price for it?” (A.H 201) Nam tước Gôrinh: “Bà đòi giá như thế nào?” (A.H 202) M.C ( coming up to L.C) : Why do you call Lord Goring good-for-nothing?

M.C ( tiến đến gần huân tước Ca vơ sam): Tại sao Huân tước lại gọi Nam tước Gô ring là người vô dụng?

L.C : You don’’t call that leading an idle life, do you?

L.C : Huân tước gọi một cuộc đời như vậy là vô dụng sao?

(A.H, 26, 27) 2.2.3.3.2 Uses

This type of question is normally used to get specific information More precisely, wh- questions are those that expect a reply supplying an item of information

What is your name? → Tên anh là gì?

How old is your child? → Cháu nhà anh chị mấy tuổi rồi?

2.2.2.4 Alternative questions

2.2.2.4.1 Definition

Alternative questions (questions with “or”) are “those that expect the reply of one of two or more options in the questions” (Cook p.192) Alternative questions, together with yes/no questions and wh-question mentioned above, are considered to be one

of the main types of questions

Did you come here by bus or by train?

Anh đến đây bằng xe buýt hay tàu hỏa?

SIR R C (smiling) : And what prizes did you get, Mrs Cheveley?

SIR R C( mỉm cười) : Còn bà, thưa bà Sê vê ly , bà được thưởng gì?

(A.H p34,35) SIR R C: But may I ask, at heart, are you an optimist?

SIR R C: Nhưng xin thành thật hỏi bà: bà là một người theochur nghĩa lạc quan hay bi quan?

SIR R C: You prefer to be natural?

SIR R C: Thế bà thích tự nhiên hơn phải không?

SIR R C : What would those modern psychological novelists, of whom we hear so much, say to such a theory as that?

SIR R C: Thế những nhà viết tiểu thuyết tâm lý thời nay, mà ta nghe thấy nói tới luôn, có ý kiến về lý thuyết này như thế nào?( A.H, P 36,37)

2.2.2.4.2 Forms

Normally, an alternative question contains at least two alternative answers so the word “or” is often place before the last choice In fact, there are two main types of alternative questions, one resembles yes/no question, one resemble wh- questions

a) Alternative questions resembling yes/no questions:

The structure of alternative yes/no question is the pattern of clausal coordinative which two or more separate questions are collapsed together whenever convenient

by ellipsis

Did Italy win the World Cup or (did) Brazil (win the World Cup?)

Đội Italia đã đoạt Cup Thế Giới hay đội Brazin (đã đoạt Cup Thế Giới)?

The elliptical part of an alternative questions is usually placed within the first question

Did Italy or Brazil win the World Cup?

Đội Italia hay đội Brazin đã đoạt Cup Thế Giới?

Any positive yes/no question can be converted into an alternative question by adding “or not” or matching negative clause

Yes/no: Are you coming? → Cậu sẽ đến chứ?

Alternative: Are you coming or aren’t you (coming?)

Cậu sẽ đến hay không đến?

b) Alternative questions resembling wh- question

This type of wh-alternative question is really a compound of two separate questions:

a wh- question followed by an alternative question of the first type

Which would you like? Would like chocolate, vanilia, or strawberry?

Anh muốn loại kem nào? Anh muốn loại kem Sô-cô-la, Va-ni hay Dâu tây?

The above question can be reduced as:

Which would you like? Chocola, vanilia, or strawberry?

Anh muốn loại kem nào? Sô-cô-la, va-ni, hay Dâu tây?

2.3 Some necessary theory of translation equivalence

This paper would have been incomplete without reference to Peter Newmark, one of the founders of the Institute of Linguists and a fervent advocate for the professionalization of translators Newmarks Approaches to Translation (1981) and

A Textbook of Translation (1988) do not aim to promote any monolithic translation theory but rather attempt to describe a basis for dealing with problems encountered during the translation process More specifically, Newmark replaces Nidas terms of formal and dynamic equivalence with semantic and communicative translation respectively The major difference between the two types of translation proposed by Newmark is that semantic translation focuses on meaning whereas communicative translation concentrates on effect In other words, semantic translation looks back at the ST and tries to retain its characteristics as much as possible Its nature is more complex, detailed and there is also a tendency to over-translate On the other hand, communicative translation looks towards the needs of the addressees, thus trying to satisfy them as much as possible In this respect, communicative translation tends to under-translate; to be smoother, more direct and easier to read Hence, in semantic translation a great emphasis is placed on the author of the original text whereas communicative translation is meant to serve a larger readership It should be pointed out that during the translation process, communicative translation need not be employed exclusively over semantic or vice versa It may well be the case in a literary text that a particular sentence requires communicative translation whereas another sentence from the same text may require a semantic one Hence, the two methods of translation may be used in parallel, with varying focuses where each is employed Moreover, Newmark (1981) strongly believes that literal translation is the best approach in both semantic and communicative translation (p 39) However,

he is careful to note that when there is a conflict between the two forms of translation, then communicative translation should be favoured in order to avoid producing an abnormal, odd-sounding or semantically inaccurate result In order to

illustrate his point, he uses the example of the common sign bissiger Hund and

chien méchant , which should be translated communicatively as beware the dog! instead of semantically as dog that bites! and bad dog! so that the message is

communicated effectively (p 39) Although Newmark has been criticized for his prescriptivism (Munday, 2000, p 46), the wealth of practical examples in his books constitutes a good advisory guide for both trainees and established translators

2.4 Summary

This chapter the writer mentions about the English and Vietnamese Linuists’ opinions on question and giving clearly about theoretical of speech act and the ways translation on previous studies in English and Vietnamese It also gives briefly theory of pragmatics and questions

Certainly, at the very least all languages mark information questions with interrogative words such as who, what, where…Many label questions especially yes/no questions with special interrogative particles

Its nature is more complex, detailed and there is also a tendency to over-translate

On the other hand, communicative translation looks towards the needs of the addressees, thus trying to satisfy them as much as possible

CHAPTER 3: CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS OF RHETORICAL

QUESTIONS IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE

3.1 Characteristic of pragmatics of the rhetorical questions in English

A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question that is asked to

make a point rather than to elicit an answer Though a rhetorical question does not require a direct answer, in many cases it may be intended to start a discussion or at least draw an acknowledgement that the listener understands the intended message

A common example is the question "Can't you do anything right?" This question, when posed, is intended not to ask about the listener's ability, but rather to insinuate the listener's lack of ability

Although sometimes amusing and even humorous, rhetorical questions are rarely meant for pure, comedic effect

A rhetorical question intended as a challenge The question is often difficult or impossible to answer In the example, What have the Romans ever done for us? (Monty Python's Life of Brian) the question functions as a negative assertion It

is intended to mean The Romans have never done anything for us! When Shakespeare's Mark Antony exclaims: Here was a Caesar! when comes such another? it functions as an assertion that Caesar possesses such rare qualities they may never be seen again (Julius Caesar, Act 3, scene 2, 257)

Negative assertions may function as positives in sarcastic contexts For example,

in Smoking can lead to lung cancer Who knew?! the question functions as an assertion that the truth of the statement should have been utterly obvious

Rhetorical questions as metaphors

Rhetorical questions are often used as a metaphor for a question already asked Examples may be found in the song Maria from the 1959 Rodgers and Hammerstein musical, The Sound of Music, in which the How do you solve a problem like Maria? is repeatedly answered with another question: How do you catch a cloud and pin it down?, How do you keep a wave upon the sand? and How

do you hold a moonbeam in your hand? These responses may be taken as asserting

that "the problem of Maria" cannot be solved; and furthermore the choice

of cloud, wave and moonbeam

character and the nature of the problem

In the vernacular, this form of rhetorical question is most often seen as

affirmation, where the certainty or obviousness of the answer to a question is expressed by asking another, often humorous, question for

equally obvious; popular examples include

sky blue? and Is the Pope Catholic?

Rhetorical questions are examples of utterances whose form does not match their func- tion They have the structure of

are generally defined as questions that neither seek information nor elicit an answer

(Borkin 1971, Sadock1971,

within semantic and pragmatic analyses since mos

informative or at least information

Standard analyses typically

questions with single negative

define them as biased assertions

while others treat them as constrained questions (van Rooy 2003) I introduce new data (including naturally occurring data from the Switchboard corpus1) for which

no prior account exists I propose an analysis to account for rhetorical questions with a wider range of answers: positive/negative, null/non

Negative answer: Who lifted

Positive answer: Has the

That anybody who above

Non-nullanswer: Who always

Multiple answers What’s

In addition to the major types of questions that have been discussed previously, it comes to my attention th

that "the problem of Maria" cannot be solved; and furthermore the choice

moonbeam as metaphors for Maria give insight into her and the nature of the problem

In the vernacular, this form of rhetorical question is most often seen as

affirmation, where the certainty or obviousness of the answer to a question is expressed by asking another, often humorous, question for which the answer is equally obvious; popular examples include Does a bear shit in the woods?,

Is the Pope Catholic?

Rhetorical questions are examples of utterances whose form does not match their tion They have the structure of a question but the force of an assertion and so are generally defined as questions that neither seek information nor elicit an answer

Sadock1971, Banuazizi1999,andothers).This makessemantic and pragmatic analyses since most utterances are assumed to be informative or at least information-seeking

typically associate rhetorical

negative answers (Krifka 1995,Han1998) Some assertions (Sadock1971),

others treat them as constrained questions (van Rooy 2003) I introduce new data (including naturally occurring data from the Switchboard corpus1) for which

no prior account exists I propose an analysis to account for rhetorical questions

nge of answers: positive/negative, null/non-null, single/multiple

lifted a finger to help?

educational system been so watered down above average is now gifted

always shows uplate to class?

What’s going to happen to these kids when they grow

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question

In addition to the major types of questions that have been discussed previously, it comes to my attention that there is another type of questions, which is formed as

that "the problem of Maria" cannot be solved; and furthermore the choice

as metaphors for Maria give insight into her

In the vernacular, this form of rhetorical question is most often seen as rhetorical affirmation, where the certainty or obviousness of the answer to a question is

which the answer is Does a bear shit in the woods?, Is the

Rhetorical questions are examples of utterances whose form does not match their

a question but the force of an assertion and so are generally defined as questions that neither seek information nor elicit an answer

makes them unique

t utterances are assumed to be

In addition to the major types of questions that have been discussed previously, it

at there is another type of questions, which is formed as