A study on syntactic and semantic features of english subordinators with reference to the vietnamese equivalents

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING HANOI OPEN UNIVERSITY NGUYỄN THỊ MAI ANH A STUDY ON SYNTACTIC AND SEMANTIC FEATURES OF ENGLISH SUBORDINATORS WITH REFERENCE TO THE VIETNAMESE EQU

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

HANOI OPEN UNIVERSITY

NGUYỄN THỊ MAI ANH

A STUDY ON SYNTACTIC AND SEMANTIC FEATURES

OF ENGLISH SUBORDINATORS WITH REFERENCE

TO THE VIETNAMESE EQUIVALENTS

(NGHIÊN CỨU ĐẶC ĐIỂM CÚ PHÁP VÀ NGỮ NGHĨA CỦA LIÊN TỪ PHỤ THUỘC TIẾNG ANH TRONG SỰ LIÊN HỆ

VỚI TƯƠNG ĐƯƠNG TIẾNG VIỆT)

M.A THESIS Field: English Language Code: 60220201

HANOI, 2017

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

HANOI OPEN UNIVERSITY

NGUYỄN THỊ MAI ANH

A STUDY ON SYNTACTIC AND SEMANTIC FEATURES

OF ENGLISH SUBORDINATORS WITH REFERENCE

TO THE VIETNAMESE EQUIVALENTS

(NGHIÊN CỨU ĐẶC ĐIỂM CÚ PHÁP VÀ NGỮ NGHĨA CỦA LIÊN TỪ PHỤ THUỘC TIẾNG ANH TRONG SỰ LIÊN HỆ

VỚI TƯƠNG ĐƯƠNG TIẾNG VIỆT)

CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY

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

study on syntactic and semantic features of English subordinators with reference to the Vietnamese equivalents” submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for

the degree of Master in English Language Except where the reference is indicated, no other person’s work has been used without due acknowledgement in the text of the thesis

Hanoi, 2017

Nguyen Thi Mai Anh

Approved by SUPERVISOR

(Signature and full name)

Date:………

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

During the process of implementing this thesis, I have received a great deal of help, guidance and encouragement from a number of people who all deserved my sincerest gratitude and appreciation

First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Assoc Prof

Dr Hoang Tuyet Minh – my supervisor for her guidance and assistance during this challenging process She has generously given me valuable suggestions, advices as well as comments about my study I myself find that this thesis cannot come to an end without her enthusiastic supports

A special word of thanks goes to all teachers of Faculty of Graduate Studies, Hanoi Open University, without whose support and encouragement it would never have been possible for me to have this thesis accomplished

Last but not least, I would like to give my wholehearted thanks to my family whose support and encouragements did play an important role in the success of the study

ABSTRACT

The present thesis discusses a certain field of linguistics focusing on a descriptive - contrastive approach which is applied to investigating and analyzing syntactic and semantic features of subordinators in English and their Vietnamese equivalents As a method of conducting the present research, contrastive linguistic analysis of subordinators in English and their Vietnamese equivalents has been chosen The chief aim of the thesis is to gain more insightful in the semantic and syntactic features of subordinators in English and their Vietnamese equivalents, to figure out the similarities and differences of subordinators represented in these two languages Similarities and differences of subordinators between two languages have been identified in this thesis In general, the position of English subordinators is the same as that of Vietnamese subordinators They can appear in initial, medial and final position Nevertheless, these positions bear different meanings in the two languages That is, in English, the clauses containing the speaker's focus of interest may be put initially whereas in Vietnamese, those clauses may be put finally In terms of their syntactic features, in both languages, the subject and the verb of subordinate clauses can be omitted and the clauses become elliptical clauses Semantically, the English and Vietnamese languages have nine types in common: time, place, condition, concession, reason, result, purpose, manner, comparison Except for the nine types, English language has four other types of subordinators They are subordinators of contrast, proportion, preference and circumstance Vietnamese language also has two different types: subordinators of level and emphasis Moreover, in terms of structure, there are some differences between two languages In Vietnamese, there are no concepts of nonfinite, finite, verbless clauses Meanwhile, these types of clauses are very popular

in English Furthermore, in Vietnamese, the expression of the verb tense and aspect does not seem very complicated It is clear that, Vietnamese grammar, in terms of verb tenses and aspects is much simple than that of English Moreover, in English nonfinite

clauses, the active or passive meaning may be shown through the use of -ing or -ed participles In contrast, Vietnamese is not inflected language so in order to express the

passive meaning, we have to put bị / được before the verb Besides, the way to insert

commas in two languages is also different In English, when the subordinator clause precedes the main clause, a commas is used to separate the two clauses When the subordinate clause follows the main clause, there is no need to use commas Instead, the conjunction may take that function In comparison, in Vietnamese, commas are used to separate two clauses whether the adverbial clauses stand initially, medially or finally Even when a correlative is used, it is advised that a comma should be inserted before the second conjunction The findings of this study can, to some extent, be suggested as a referential material for Vietnamese students and teachers in studying and teaching English subordinators

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Table 2.1: Classification of English subordinators according to Carter &

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EQUIVALENTS

23

4.5 Similarities and differences between English subordinators and their Vietnamese equivalents in terms of syntactic and semantic features

59

4.5.1 Similarities between subordinators in English and Vietnamese 59

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Rationale of the study

There is a blooming trend that the objective of studying foreign language is to communicate people all over the world However, there are many reasons behind studying the language, especially English, if they are not good for using English grammar, it will become difficult in communicating in English with foreigners For instance, it is admitted that subordinators are regarded as a kind of connectors and connectors have the function for linking different parts in sentences This explanation for this could be that subordinators can be the phrase of time, place or reasons and each

subordinator will belong to the situation For example, we use “since” for connecting two sentences: “He gets up early……… he will have the test in this morning” There are two synonyms of this word which can replace “because” and “as”, this connection

means to show the reason Thus, subordinators support in linking successful sentences, they will make the sentences have clearly meanings when they translate from Vietnamese to English

The author decides to choose this topic to study because of two reasons Firstly,

in English, subordinators have been studied by many grammarians, such as Quirk and Sydney Greenbaum (1973), Oshima and Hogue (1998), Biber, Corad and Leech (1999), Rodney Huddleston and Geoffrey K Pullum (2002), Cobuild (2003), Murphy (2001) In Vietnamese, Ban and Thung (2001) and Toan and Luong (2007) used to do research in subordinators However, there has been noone giving out the comparison between English subordinators and their Vietnamese equivalents in terms of syntactic and semantic features Secondly, it can be said that Vietnamese learners have many difficulties in writing and translating English, especially using subordinators in sentences and distinguishing subordinators and other connectors as well The author hopes that this study in terms of form and syntactic function would enable students to learn how to use a certain class of words more accurately and help both teachers and learners to get the best results in teaching and learning English subordinators

1.2 Aims of research

The study is aimed at finding out the syntactic and semantic features of English subordinators and comparing them with the Vietnamese equivalents, thus helping

Vietnamese EFL learners have a better understanding of English subordinators and be able to use them effectively in real life communication

1.3 Research questions

With the aims stated earlier, the following questions were addressed as follows: (1) What are syntactic and semantic features of English subordinators and Vietnamese subordinators?

(2) What are the similarities and differences of subordinators used in English and Vietnamese?

(3) What are some implications for teaching and learning English subordinators effectively?

1.4 Objectives of research

In order to achieve the aims, the following objectives are put forward:

- Pointing out the syntactic and semantic features of English subordinators

- Finding out the similarities and differences of English subordinators and their Vietnamese equivalents in terms of syntactic and semantic features

- Suggesting some possible implications for teaching and learning English subordinators

1.5 Scope of research

This study does stress on the subordinators which are used to connect clauses in sentences in English and Vietnamese Due to the scope of the thesis, the study just works out subordinators syntactically and semantically, any feature relating to culture or pragmatics will not be discussed here in the research Besides, in terms of semantic features, this thesis mainly studies on English subordinators and their Vietnamese equivalents in adverbial clauses

1.6 Significance of the study

Theoretically, the research is expected to contribute an in-depth understanding

of an in-depth description of English subordinators when analyzing their syntactic and semantic features with reference to the Vietnamese equivalents to whoever desires to study subordinators

Practically, subordinators are used popularly in daily life, so this study is conducted in attempt to provide Vietnamese EFL learners with better mastering about the syntactic and semantic features of English subordinators From the findings,

Vietnamese learners of English will enhance knowledge about subordinators as well as

be able to use them effectively in real life communication This study is hoped to make

a major contribution to the process of teaching and learning English

1.7 Structural organization of the study

The study consists of five chapters:

Chapter 1, Introduction, outlines the rational, the aims, the research questions,

the objectives, the scope, the significance and the structural organization of the thesis

Chapter 2, Literature Review, is divided into four parts: review of previous

studies, an overview of syntax and semantic theory, an overview of subordination and the summary

Chapter 3, Methodology, describes the research plans, including research

orientations, research methods and summary

Chapter 4, Syntactic and semantic features of subordinators in English and their Vietnamese equivalents, presents the syntactic and semantic features of English

subordinators with reference to the Vietnamese equivalents to find out and discuss the similarities and differences in term of syntactic and semantic features Significantly, this chapter proposes some implications for teaching and learning English subordinators

as well

Chapter 5, Conclusion, consists of recapitulation, concluding remarks,

limitations of the study and suggestions for further studies References come at the end

of the study

Chapter 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

In order to give a better understanding of the study, it is necessary to provide with the review of literature, some theoretical concepts related to the study

2.1 Review of previous studies

Subordinators play an important role in forming sentences Therefore, in both English and Vietnamese, there have several grammarians who pay attention to subordinators, such as Quirk and Greenbaum (1973), Oshima and Hogue (1998), Biber, Conrad and Leech (1999), Ban and Thung (2001), etc

Quirk and Sydney Greenbaum (1973) partly present subordination formal indicators of subordination, subordinators Subordinators, according to the authors, can

be divided into three types: simple subordinators, compound subordinators and correlative subordinators

Oshima and Hogue (1998) consider subordinator is one of three tools to connect clauses They also list out the popular subordinators that are usually used in connecting clauses

Biber, Conrad and Leech (1999) partly discuss about subordination and subordinators The authors also compare between subordinators and coordinators Furthermore, they give out some signals of subordination, and positions of subordinators in sentences

Rodney Huddleston and Geoffrey K Pullum (2002) also partly discuss about subordinators The authors show the boundaries between subordinators and prepositions and also compare with traditional grammar

Cobuild (2003) gives a definition of subordinators, and compares between coordinating conjunctions and subordinating conjunctions The writer shows specific subordinators in term of semantic and syntactic

Murphy (2001) partly presents about conjunction and preposition, and the author considers subordinator is one of means to connect clauses in a sentences He gives out some kinds of compound sentences that use subordinators to link two clauses

Ban and Thung (2001) claim that subordinators are often presented in sentences which have subordinate relationship According to the authors, subordinators contain

two groups: restrictive subordinators and dependent subordinators based on their effect area Additionally, the writers affirm that depending on different situations, contexts or the intension of the speakers or writers, different subordinators are applied and the order

of clauses in sentences is set up

Toan and Luong (2007) state that subordinator is a means to signal subordinate clause in a sentence The writers also discuss about the usage of some kinds of sentences that use subordinators

In short, although subordinators have been primarily presented in many works, there have not been any studies giving out the comparison between English subordinators and their Vietnamese equivalents in terms of syntactic and semantic features All their studies on subordinator will be used as the theoretical background for my research

2.2 An overview of syntax and semantic theory

2.2.1 Theory of syntax

Syntax is the grammar, structure, or order of the elements in a language statement (Semantics is the meaning of these elements) Syntax applies to computer languages as well as to natural languages Usually, people think of syntax as “word order” However, syntax is also achieved in some languages such as Latin by inflectional case endings Syntax is understood to be the theory of the structure of sentences in a language This view has its direct antecedents in the theory of the immediate constituents, in which the function of syntax is to mediate between the observed forms of a sentence and its meaning According to Bloomfield [1933:161],

we could not understand the form of a language if we merely reduced all the complex forms to their ultimate constituents

Syntax is now the study of the principles and rules that govern the ways in which words are combined to form phrases, clauses, and sentences in a language Syntax is a subfield of grammar focuses on the word order of a language and the relationships between words In this use, syntax is opposed to morphology, the study of word structure In other words, morphology deals with phrase and sentence formation out of words

2.2.2 Theory of semantics

Semantics (as the study of meaning) is central to the study of communication and

as communication becomes more and more a crucial factor in social organization, the need to understand it becomes more and more pressing Semantics is also at the centre

of the study of the human mind – thought processes, cognition, conceptualization – all these are intricately bound up with the way in which we classify and convey our experience of the world through language

Because it is, in these two ways, a focal point in man’s study of man, semantics has been the meeting place of various cross-currents of thinking and various disciplines

of the study Philosophy, psychology, and linguistics all claim a deep interest in the subject Semantics has often seemed baffling because there are many different approaches to it, and the ways in which they are related to one another are rarely clear, even to writers on the subject Leech (1990)

According to Richmond H Thomas (1966), semantics is the study of the meaning of linguistic expressions The language can be a natural language, such as English or Navajor, or an artificial language, like a computer programming language Meaning in natural languages is mainly studied by linguists In fact, semantics is one of the main branches of contemporary linguistics Theoretical computer scientists and logicians think about artificial languages In some areas of computer science, these divisions are crossed In machine translation, for instance, computer scientists may want to relate natural language texts to abstract representations of their meanings; to do this, they have to design artificial languages for representing meanings

Generally, semantics is the study of meaning It is a wide subject within the general study of language An understanding of semantics is essential to the study of language acquisition (how language users acquire a sense of meaning, as speakers and writers, listeners and readers) and of language change (how meanings alter over time)

It is important for understanding language in social contexts, as these are likely to affect meaning, and for understanding varieties of English and effects of style It is thus one of the most fundamental concepts in linguistics The study of semantics includes the study of how meaning is constructed, interpreted, clarified, obscured, illustrated, simplified, negotiated, contradicted and paraphrased

2.3 An overview of subordination

2.3.1 Definition of subordination

In English, subordination is definited by some grammarians According to Quirk and Greenbaum (1973), subordination is a non-symmetrical relation, holding between two clauses in such a way that one is constituent or part of the other In linguistics, subordination is a principle of the hierarchical organization of linguistics units While the principle is applicable in semantics, syntax, morphology, most works in linguistics employs the term “subordination” in the context of syntax, and that is the context in which it is considered here The syntactic units of sentences are often either subordinate or coordinate to each other

Biber, Conrad and Leech (1999) pointed out some signals of subordination According to the writers, subordination can be signaled by an overt link, in the form of subordinator or wh-word, and a non-finite verb phrase, that is, by a verb phrase introduced by an infinitive, present participle or past participle Finite clauses are marked for tense or modality Finite dependent clauses usually have an overt link, starting with a subordinator or wh-word Let’s see the following example:

Brian will attend the class if it suits him

(Quirk, ‘A comprehensive grammar of English language’)

In the above example, we use if as one of the subordinator to connect two

clauses, so the readers and listeners can base on subordinator to recognize subordination

In Vietnamese, according to Toan and Luong (2007), subordination is commonly expressed the relationship between subordinate clause and main clause in a sentence It has some following characteristics:

Firstly, it marks an unequal relationship between two clauses in subordinating compound sentences, drives one clause become main clause, and the other is subordinate clause Let’s check the following example:

Hôm nay tôi nghỉ học vì tôi bị ốm

(Today I don’t go to school because I am sick)

Main clause Subordinate clause Secondly, in semantical relationship, two events in two clauses are connected in

a control relationship each other, such as this event happened because of another event

The final signal characteristic is that all the subordinated components can

change their order in a sentence We can say: Hôm nay tôi nghỉ học vì tôi bị ốm (Today

I don’t go to school because I am sick) or we can also say: Vì hôm nay tôi bị ốm nên tôi nghỉ học (Because I am sick today, I don’t go to school)

2.3.2 Definition of subordinator

According to Quirk and Greenbaum (1973), subordinators are considered as the most important formal indicator of subordination Like preposition, which they resemble in having a relating or connecting function, subordinators form the core of the class consist of single word, and again, as with preposition, there are numerous compound items which act, to various degree, like a single conjunction (Quirk and Greenbaum 1973: 313) The writers also state that there are three types of subordinators (subordinating conjunction): simple subordinators, compound subordinators and correlative subordinators

Biber, Conrad and Leech (1999) show that subordinators differ in important ways from other clause links Subordinators are like coordinators, but they are different from linking adverbial, because subordinators occur in a fixed position at the front of their clause

Oshima and Hogue (1998) claim that subordinators are words and phrases that signal subordinate clause, introduce dependent subordinate clauses and signal the relationship between the subordinate clause and the main clause

Besides, another source shows that subordinators are applied to a grammatical distinct, close class of words whose primary role is to mark a clause as subordinate

In Vietnamese, subordinators are considered as particles of empty words and sentences that show the subordinated relationship Like English, they are means of connecting main element and subordinate element Therefore, subordinators are likely

to connect with subordinate clause elements according to Ban and Thung (2001) Let’s see the following example:

Diệp bị đau đầu vì cô ấy suy nghĩ quá nhiều

(Ban, ‘Ngữ pháp Tiếng Việt’)

(Diep got headache because she thought too much)

In the above example, because joins two clauses Diệp bị đau đầu and cô ấy suy

nghĩ quá nhiều The two clauses have subordinated relationship in which Diệp bị đau đầu is

the main clause and cô ấy suy nghĩ quá nhiều is subordinate clause

Sharing the same idea, Toan and Luong (2007) state that subordinators are empty words and they do not denote things but show the grammatical relationship between two clauses (main clause and subordinate clause) They are considered as very important means in connecting two clauses in sentences Let’s look at the below example:

Bởi tôi ăn uống điều độ và có chừng mực nên tôi chóng lớn lắm

(Tô Hoài, ‘Dế mèn phiêu lưu kí’)

(Because I eat in a diet regularly and moderately, I grow very well)

2.3.3 Classification of subordinator

Grammarians, such as Quirk et al (1985), Downing and Locke (2002), Carter and McCarthy (2006), Martin (2000), etc., agree that subordination of clauses means dependency of clauses on other constructions, in opposition to coordination and subordinators are markers of subordinating status of clauses

However, they adopt different ways to classify subordinators Some grammarians, such as Carter and McCarthy (2006), Quirk et al (1985), etc., describe subordinators in terms of form; others, such as Martin (2000), in terms of meaning; Huddleston and Pullum (2005) divide subordinators from the perspective of syntactic function; still others, such as Biber et al (2000)

Carter and McCarthy (2006) subdivide subordinators into simple and complex Simple subordinators are single words which introduce subordinate clause; complex subordinators consist of more than one word and include common expressions ending

in as and that (or optional that), plus a small number of other expressions Let’s see

Table 1 below

Table 2.1: Classification of English subordinators according to Carter & McCarthy

(2006)

after, although, as, because, before, for,

how, however, if, in case, in order that,

lest, once, since, that, though, till,

unless, until, when, whenever, where,

whilst, who, whoever, whom, whose

as far as, as if, as/so long as, as soon as, as though, assuming (that), considering, given (that), granted (that), in case, in order for,

in order that, insofar as, insomuch as, in the event that, providing/provided (that), seeing

as, seeing (that), such that, supposing (that)

(Carter & McCarthy, 2006, p 558)

It should be said that this standard for classification is neat enough: if a subordinator contains only one word it is a simple subordinator If not, complex subordinator But they include in order that in the simple subordinators, which obviously goes against the standard they mentioned In addition, the labels of simple and complex subordinators can’t provide the learners with any clue on the usage of subordinators

According to Quirk et al (1985), subordination is generally marked by a signal

in the subordinate clause Subordinators are the most important device of subordination, particularly for finite clauses Like prepositions, which they resemble in having a relating function, subordinators forming the core of the class consist of a single word, but there is a larger range of complex subordinators which function, to varying degrees, like a single conjunction In addition, there is a small class of correlative subordinators, which combine two markers of subordination, one being a subordinator (Quirk et al 1985, p 997)

Firstly, they recognize the same conjunctive function of both preposition and subordinator and they added correlative subordinators to the word class So according

to them the subordinators are divided into simple, complex and correlative subordinators, etc

Table 2.2: Classification of English subordinators according to Quirk et al (1985)

Simple

subordinators

Complex subordinators

Correlative subordinators

Marginal subordinators

Other indicators

Ending with that: but

that, that, in order that, insofar that, in the event that, save that, such that

Ending with optional

according as, as far

as, as long as, as soon as, forasmuch

insofar as, insomuch

as

Others: as if, as

though, in case

As…so, as…as, so as, such…as, so/such (that), less/more(- /er) than, no sooner…

barely/hardly/

scarcely…wh en/than, the…the, whether/if…o

r

Even if, if

moment (that), everytime (that);

the fact that, due to the fact that, on

the fact that,

in (the) light

of the fact that, in spite

of the fact that,

regardless of the fact that;

in spite of the fact/the news/your report/my belief

Wh-elements:

whose, which, when, where,

how, whoever, whomever, whichever, wherever, whenever, whatever, however, whosoever, whomsoever, wheresoever, whatsoever, howsoever; the

relative pronoun that; the subject-operator inversion; the absence of a

finite verb

(Quirk et al., 1985, pp 998-1007)

Obviously, Quirk et al (1985) make the class more inclusive and complete Martin (2000) sub-classifies the subordinating conjunctions from the perspective

of meaning

Table 2.3: Classification of English sobordinators according to Martin (2000)

in terms of meaning

Time After, as, as long as, before, since, until, when,

while

though, while

(Martin, 2000, p 423)

Martin (2000) also studies the polysemy of some conjunctions, like since, which

could express meanings of both time and reason and subdivides the conjunctions of time, according to meaning again, into 8 types: simultaneous events, non-simultaneous, immediate sequence, duration, no duration, “time before”, “time after”, extending to the present

Making grammatical classification according to meaning might be easy for readers to follow, but difficult to distinguish from each other It always seems to be just

a list, easy to find exceptions and not exhaustive

Biber et al (2000) first make a distinction between words introducing relative clauses and the ones introducing other clauses, such as subject, object and complement clause etc and use a different term, relativizer, for those words introducing relative clauses and compare relativizers with subordinators They are similar in that both introduce dependent clauses, but they differ from each other in that relativizers have a

syntactic role as clause element or part of a clause element and the clauses relativizer introduce are generally post modifiers of preceding noun phrases, on which the choice

of relativizers depends while subordinators have a purely syntactic role, not roles as subject, object, adverbial, etc Consider the following examples:

(1) That he said nothing doesn’t surprise me

(2) I know that it’s difficult

(3) The teacher complained because the students didn’t finish their homework

(4) The secretary wrote to all the members who were absent from the meeting

According to Biber et al (2000), who in (4) should be relativizer This

distinction is reasonable and necessary in that a relative clause, such as the underlined part in (4) can’t make the whole clause a complex one, whereas the other three examples above are complex clauses So from the perspective of distinguishing simple clauses from complex ones this distinction between relativizer and subordinator is quite useful So relative clauses are different from subordinate clauses though there is subordination between the relative clauses and the noun phrases that are modified by them That is to say, relative clauses are not subordinate clauses like the underlined clauses in (1), (2) and (3)

Biber et al (2000) also propose another term, complementizer, for those

subordinators, if, that, whether and wh- words, introduce complement clauses (or

nominal clauses) These subordinators have little meaning apart from marking

structural dependency However, wh-words do have meaning and, like relativizers

mentioned above, they have syntactic roles as clause elements It is also not desirable

to invent the terms of subjectizer or objectizer, which will result in too much overlapping Actually, Biber et al (2000) have realized the overlap between subordinators and other word classes and talked about the most extreme case of overlap

of that as complementizer, relativizer, subordinator, adverb, determinative and pronoun

Table 2.4: Classification of English subordinators according to Biber et al

than

Introducing complement

nominal clause):

complementiz

er

whether

As: according as, as far

as, as long as, as soon as

Others: as if, as though,

even if, even though, in case, no matter (+ wh- word)

Simple+adv:

if…then, although…y

et, as…as

Degree element:

as…as, more than,

so…that, the…the

(Biber et al., 2000, p 85)

Huddleston and Pullum (2005) argue that there are three subordinators, namely

that, whether and if indicating interrogation They put words in [i] and [iia] in the

following table into the class of preposition

Table 2.5: Some indicators of English subordinators

b- If (i), that, whether

(Huddleston & Pullum, 2005, p 129)

They have good reasons for doing this because they have extended the membership of the class of preposition class by modifying the usage of prepositions

They think that it is not well justified that prepositions should have noun phrase complements by giving the examples as follows:

Table 2.6: Types of complement in subordinate clauses

act

We know the last act

before

Yes, I know

(Huddleston & Pullum, 2005, p 129)

In [i] the complement of before or know is an noun phrase; in [ii] it is a

subordinate clause; and in [iii] there is no complement Everyone agrees that this

difference in the complements has no bearing on the classification of know: it is a verb

in all three examples Know happens to be a verb that licenses either an noun phrase or

a clause as complement, and where the complement is optional However, traditional

grammar treats before in a completely different way It is treated as a preposition in [i],

a subordinating conjunction in [ii], and an adverb in [iii], which is unnecessary

complication It is much simpler to give before a uniform analysis just as know is a verb in all three So before is a preposition, not a subordinator even when the

complement is a clause Thus the boundaries between prepositions and subordinators are redrawn

For words in [iia] in Table 5, they reassign them to the preposition class as well The main reason for doing this is that words in [iia] are not grammatical markers of subordination They have independent meaning, and it is by virtue of this meaning that

we interpret the clauses after them as adjuncts of time and reason respectively So in

the above example (3) because is a preposition because it has independent meaning of

reason we use it to show the relationship between they complained and we didn’t finish

the job this week In contrast, in (1), (2) that is purely grammatical markers of

subordination

To sum up, traditional definitions and classifications treat relative clauses as subordinate clause and thus markers introducing relative clauses are also accounted as

subordinators However, Biber et al (2000) put forward the term relativizer to distinguish markers introducing relative clauses and subordinate clauses Complementizer focuses on the function of the subordinate clause markers, having little meaning but only grammatical role of marking structural dependency Huddleston and Pullum (2005) study whether markers of subordinate clauses are all subordinators They find that some markers of subordinate clauses are not subordinators but prepositions and redraw the boundaries between the preposition class and the

subordinator class and leave a small subordinator class-that, whether and if indicating

interrogation

2.3.4 The relationship between subordinators and other connectors

2.3.4.1 Subordinators and coordinators

Both subordinators and coordinators have the function of connecting units in sentences However, there are many differences between them The first difference between subordinators and coordinators is that while subordinators link units that is constituent of larger one, units connected with coordinators stand on equal footing with each other

In the example: Whenever she goes shopping, she always spends too much

money, the dependent clause she goes shopping subordinates to the main clause by

subordinator whenever It cannot stand independently as a simple sentence but subordinators to the rest clause In contrast, in the example: Tom was tired, so he went

to bed, the two clauses are independent Each of them can stand separately and act as a

simple sentence

The second difference between subordinators and coordinators is that when

clauses are connected with coordinators such as and, but, or, subject ellipsis is allowed; subordinators do not allow subject ellipsis For example, we can’t say I still went to

school although was sick, but we have to say I still went to school although I was sick

In addition, while coordinators can introduce clauses, words, and phrases, most

of subordinators introduce clauses Though the act area of subordinators is smaller than coordinators, in semantic term, subordinators are so variety Let’s consider some following examples:

Although she is very old, she runs fast (Concession)

We walked in quietly so that we wouldn’t wake up her (Purpose)

Because it rained heavily, he came ten minutes late (Reason)

(Thomson & Martinet, ‘A practical English grammar’) The above sentences illustrate some roles of subordinators in sentences in term

of semantic

Besides, most of clauses which can change their position are introduced by subordinators, so they can precede or follow the main clause in complex sentences

Thus, we can say Because it rained heavily, he came ten minutes late or He came ten

minutes late because it rained heavily On the other hand, the clauses are introduced by

subordinators have restricted position; namely, it always follows the rest clause(s) in

compound sentences Therefore, we can’t change the sentence: Tom was tired, so he

went to bed into So Tom went to bed, he was tired

Moreover, subordinators can be put after coordinator and, but, or and for; for example, I don’t forgive him but only if he tells me the truth In the following sentence, two subordinated clauses are joined together with and which precedes the subordinator

because: He left home early because he was unhappy and because he had a meeting

The final difference between subordinators and coordinators is that coordinators usually form looser connections than subordinators do Let’s see the following examples:

Tom was late for school and he was punished by his teacher (Very loose) Tom was late for school; he was punished by his teacher (Loose)

Because Tom was late for school, he was punished by his teacher

From the example Because Tom was late for school, he was punished by his

teacher, we can see the subordinator because creates a tighter link between the ideas

2.3.4.2 Subordinators and Conjunctive Adverbs

Subordinators and conjunctive adverbs are two kinds of conjunction among units in sentences and they are often employed in academic writing However, they are different from each other in many points Learners usually meet difficulties in distinguish them To make it become clearer, the author would like to give out some main differences between them

Firstly, subordinators can show that one idea is more important than another The idea in the main clause is more important, and the idea in the subordinate clause is

less important while conjunctive adverbs such as: however, moreover, nevertheless,

consequently, as a result…ect are used to join two independent clauses A conjunctive

adverb is a word (phrase) that shows how such sentences, sections of a paragraph, or entire paragraphs are related They add a lot of emphasis Let’s look at the examples below:

Although he had enough money, he refused to buy a new car

She felt ill; however, she went to work

(Thomson & Martinet, ‘A practical English grammar’)

It can be seen in the first sentence, subordinator although shows that he had

enough money is less important, and the idea he refused to buy a new car is more

important On the other hand, in the second example, however links two independent clauses she felt ill and she went to work to emphasize that she went to work is contrary

to her illness

Secondly, subordinators are usually a single word, but there are also a number

of multi-word subordinators that function like single subordinating conjunctions Subordinators make the clause depend on the rest of the sentence in order to make sense A comma at the end of an adverbial phrase when it precedes the main clause is

needed Here is an example: Although she doesn’t like the party, she still goes there

Usually, no comma is needed before a subordinating conjunction if the

dependent clause follows the independent clause Here is an example: He doesn’t like

vegetable although it is good for health

To conjunctive adverbs, a semicolon and a comma are used when a conjunctive adverb separates two clauses, and the conjunctive adverb is set off by a comma when it

begins a sentence Look at the following example: David loves Mary; however, Mary

loves Tom A contrary is to make two sentences: David loves Mary Mary loves Tom, however

When conjunctive adverbs are within an independent clause, they are set off by

commas Here is an example: He bought a new car, however, without a second

thought

Conjunctive adverbs can be often moved around in the sentence without loosing

of meaning This cannot be done with true conjunctions like the coordinating

conjunctions The following sentence is an example of it: He wanted to study late;

therefore, he drank another cup of coffee

When a conjunctive adverb is used as an introductory word (at the beginning of

a sentence), it needs a comma after it Here is an example: Naturally, she has a

cosmopolitan view on many topics

Finally, the subordinator is different from the conjunctive adverb in connecting clause While subordinators are used to make a subordinate relationship between two clauses, conjunctive adverbs connect two independent clauses Let’s see the examples below:

My uncle is rather old; however, he is always hard-working

Although he worked very hard, he didn’t manage to pass the exam

(Thomson & Martinet, ‘A practical English grammar’)

2.4 Summary

This chapter is organized into four parts The first part has presented a brief description of previous studies related to the research area which have been done abroad and in Vietnam The second part aims to review the theory of syntax and semantics The third part deals with the existing theory on subordination which involves the defintion of subordination and subordinator, the classification of subordinator and the relationship between subordinators and other connectors The review of literature holds an significant importance in terms of providing the solid theoretical background as well as setting up the analytical framework for the coming chapters The last part has given the summary of the chapter

Chapter 3 METHODOLOGY

This chapter is carried out with a view to mapping out the methods that are utilized in the whole study It contains two sections: (1) research-governing orientations and (2) research methods

3.1 Research-governing orientations

3.1.1 Research setting

The study is conducted in the educational environment with the purpose of helping language learners to master English color idioms effectively as well as suggesting some teaching implications

In order to achieve the aims and objectives of the study as stated in chapter 1, the process of doing this research has come through three major stages Writing the thesis proposal was the first stage in the process which lasted nearly two months from February to April 2017 After the proposal with draft outline having been approved, a material selection from different sources related to main topic of the paper was implemented In order to gather useful materials, this second stage was a long process

to collect, sort out all the needed data The last stage began from July to October for analyzing and discussed the results from data collection This was also the time that the paper was completed both in form and content

3.1.2 Research approach

The study is carried out through qualitative approach Descriptive research and contrastive analysis are used as the general methodology of the study Descriptive research helps to describe and demonstrate linguistics features of subordinators in English and their Vietnamese equivalents Using the contrastive research, we aim to find out the similarities and differences in syntactic and semantic features of subordinators

3.1.3 Criteria for intended data collection and data analysis

The analytic framework of this study has been collected from a number of previous researches, grammar books as well as practical dictionaries in both languages The main characteristics of subordinators in English and Vietnamese are described and analyzed

Data collection is based on three main criteria

 Firstly, all the samples chosen to analyze are about subordinators

 Secondly, subordinators chosen to analyze are common ones

 Thirdly, all subordinators are picked up from reliable sources

3.2 Research methods

3.2.1 Major methods vs supporting methods

The major methods to be employed in the study are descriptive, contrastive methods Descriptive research helps to describe and demonstrate linguistics features of subordinators in English and their Vietnamese equivalents Using the contrastive research, we aim to find out the similarities and differences in syntax and semantics features of subordinators Comparative and contrastive methods help us to set up the similiraties and differences in the way English and Vietnamese people use subordinators in their daily conversations as well as pieces of writing In addition, observation method is also applied to draw out necessary findings

Last but not least, in conducting the investigation, setting up a regular consultancy with supervisor for a guidance and academic exchange is a critical technique to find out a right direction for doing the research successfully

3.2.2 Data collection techniques

To meet the aims of the research, the writer collects essential background knowledge related to the research topic to understand fully about concepts such as syntax, semantics, subordination, subordinator

In order to have knowledge supporting for the study, reading linguistic books for examples: A University Grammar of English (1973), Longman Student Grammar of Spoken and Written English (1999), A Practical English Grammar (1986), ect , as well

as searching internet are important techniques Moreover, frequent talks with the supervisor, lecturers and experts on the field have proved to be useful way for finding and choosing data for the completion of the study Also, the author’s personal experience in studying is a significant skill

3.2.3 Data analysis techniques

Analyzing and classifying is the next step after collecting data collection The data are analyzed on the basis of syntactic and semantic perspectives They will be qualitatively processed to investigate some linguistic features of subordinators in

English and their Vietnamese equivalents The data are categorized into two main aspects: syntax and semantics

The steps will be involved:

- Collecting and classifying subordinators in both languages from books, novels, short stories, dictionaries and the Internet

- Analyzing the syntactic and semantic features of subordinators in English and Vietnamese

- Identifying the similarities and differences between the two languages concerning subordinators with regard to syntactic and semantic features

- Suggesting some implications for teaching and learning subordinators in English and Vietnamese as a foreign languge

3.3 Summary

To sum up, this chapter gives an overview of how to carry out the research It has two main parts The first one is research-governing orientations which present research questions need to be dealt with in the study, state the physic, social, and cultural site in which the research will be conducted, also include when and where the research is planned to conduct Main research approach mentioned in this part is qualitative Moreover, this section also shows criteria in collecting data The second part is research methods which present major methods and supporting methods used in the study In addition, techniques in collecting and analyzing data will be illustrated in this part

Chapter 4 SYNTACTIC AND SEMANTIC FEATURES OF SUBORDINATORS

IN ENGLISH AND THEIR VIETNAMESE EQUIPVALENTS

4.1 Syntactic features of subordinators in English

4.1.1 Subordinators for finite clauses

According to Quirk and Greenbaum (1985), subordinators are considered as the most important formal indicator of subordination Like preposition, which they resemble in having a relating or connecting function, subordinators form the core of the class consist of single word, and again, as with preposition, there are numerous compound items which act, to various degree, like a single conjunction In addition, there is a small class of correlative subordinators, which combine two markers of subordination, one being a subordinator (Quirk and Greenbaum 1985: 998) Thus, according to them, subordinators are divided into simple, complex and correlative subordinators Most of them may introduce finite clauses

4.1.1.1 Simple subordinators

Quirk et al (1985:998) also define that simple subordinators are single words

which introduce subordinate clause: after, although, as, because, before, for, how,

however, if, in case, in order that, lest, once, since, that, though, till, unless, until, when, whenever, where, whereas, wherever, which, while, whilst, who, whoever, whom, whose Of all these subordinators, some are most important introductory words and

appear most frequently such as that, wh- and if/whether Thus, the author shall

thoroughly analyse functions of these subordinators

In this section, while working with subordinators in English, the writer adapted

sentence patterns from Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English by Douglas Bibber el all (2007)

4.1.1.1.1 Simple subordinator that

The subordinator that does not carry meaning but serves as a marker of the

subordinated content It may function as an introductory word in a declarative content clause as complement of a verb, noun and adjective It is sometimes obligatory, sometimes optional, and sometimes inamissible Let’s check the following examples:

That she gets the highest mark is clear (Obligatory)

(She gets the highest mark is clear.)

He arrived before that I went to the station (Inadmissible)

(He arrived before I went to the station.)

She knows that it is true (Optional)

(She knows it is true.)

However, the place of that- is obligatorily to preceed the subject That-

subordinator has complement functions as a subject, an extraposed subject, internal complement of verb, a noun complement and an adjective complement

Firstly, subordinator that stands before a verb, an adjective and it complements

that adjective

That he failed the exam troubled his parents

That they buy a larger house is obvious

We can see from the above examples, the content clause is subject, it is certified

by troubled/obvious

Secondly, that - subodinator introduces a complement as subject can be replaced

by the function of an extraposed subject to express the equivalent meaning as in: It is a

pity that you don’t understand him

An extraposed subject is more popular in an adjectival predicate that mark a

stain or attitude toward what is in the extraposed subject that- implies The most common adjectives controlling extraposed subject that- are: clear, (un)likely,

(im)possible, true, awful, great… Let’s have a look at the following example:

It is great that you can join us

(That you can join us is great.)

Thirdly, to function as internal complement of verb, that occur after the verb

that controls them and complement that verb Let’s check the examples below:

I noted that he did housework (S + V + that - clause)

He informed me that he had done housework

In the sentence “I noted that he did housework”, that is the sole complement of

noted, and in “He informed me that he had done housework”, that is the second

complement of inform in its specifying sense

Fourthly, the subordinator that functions as a noun complement It complements typical nouns such as: fact, possibilty, claim, notion, assumption, hypothesis, rumor,

claim, report, suggestion, proposal, belief, hope, doubt, as in: She can’t deny the fact

that she don't love you anymore

Finally, the subordinator that can functions as an adjective complement It is introduced by a certain kinds of adjectives Take a look at the following example: I am

confident that I will pass the exam

Biber et al (2000) clearly show that that as adjective complement usually controlled by adjectives of degrees of certainty (certain, confident, evident), affective states (annoyed, glad, sad) or evaluations (appropriate, good, important, advisable) It

occurs in post-predicate or extraposed position

4.1.1.1.2 Simple subordinators wh-

While subordinator that is an introductory word of a declarative content clause,

wh- subodinators (whether, who, whom, whoever, whomever, what, when, where, wherever, how, why) function as initial words of an interrogative content clause as

complement of a verb, noun and adjective Unlike the subordinator that, subordinators wh- carry meaning as part of the clause Their complements are the same

as subordinator that which include: subject, extraposed subject, internal complement of

verb, complement of noun, complement of adjective and complement of preposition The following examples illustrate these:

How the goods will sell depends on the customer’s demand (Subject) What caused the damage remains unclear.(Subject)

It remains unclear what caused the damage (Extraposed Subject)

It is clear how he gains the prize (Extraposed Subject) I’ve found out what secret they keep (Internal complement of verb)

He asked his parents why he had to study on Sundays (Internal

I’m not sure when the bank open (Complement of adjective)

My partner was confused why I had betrayed him (Complement of

adjective)

He did not concentrate on what he was reading (Complement of

preposition)

He reminds me of when I was a child (Complement of preposition)

Subordinators wh- place after certain verbs of thinking (know, understand,

suppose, remember, forget, wonder) and saying (ask, say, admit, agree, reply, ague, mention, explain, suggest)

Besides certain verbs, the head nouns that subordinators wh- introduce were also selected These include nouns refferring to speech communication (question, story,

explanation, description, account, discussion), exemplification (example, indication, illustration), problems (problem, issue) or cognitive states or process (knowledge, understanding, sense, analysis, idea, notion)

4.1.1.1.3 Simple subordinators if/whether

If/ Whether are used as subodinators to introduce dependent yes/no interrogative

clause that express indirect questions Let’s see the following example:

Do you know whether/if the banks are open?

Subordinator if and whether are followed by the content of the quote as it relates

to the speaker in time, person, place, and direction, at the moment of speaking With

the verb ask, subordinator if / whether subordinates the indirect reported speech of a

yes/no question

Her friends asked if I was going with them

Her friends ask whether I can drive them

It is noted that the use of subordinator if in indirect question is different from the

if as a subordinator to show condition Let’s check the following sentences:

I would go with you if I was invited

If you finish your homework, you can go swimming

Subordinator if as a marker in showing condition can move to initial position but

in showing indirect question, it can not be moved

4.1.1.1.4 Other simple subordinators

The rest of simple subordinator such as: after, although, as, because, before, for,

however, if, lest, once, since, that, though, till, unless, until can be introductory words

of adverbial clause

Although I love him, I wouldn't want to marry him

After I finished work, I went straight home

I'm locking the door, so nobody can get in

She didn't want any more wine, as she'd already drunk enough

These subordinators can be innital or at the middle of the sentence as the above examples and carry the most important semantic features of subordinators

4.1.1.2 Complex subordinators

Accoding to Quirk et al, 1985, pp 998-1007, complex subordinators consist of

more than one word and include common expressions ending in as and that (or optional that), plus a small number of other expressions as follows:

 Ending with that : in that, so that, in order that, such that, except that, for all that,

save that, etc

 Ending with optional that: now (that), providing (that), seeing (that), provided

(that), supposing (that), considering (that), given (that), granted (that), granting (that), admitting (that), assuming (that), immediately (that), directly (that), etc

 Ending with as : as far as, as long as, as soon as, according as, according as, as far

as, as long as, as soon as, for as much as, in as much as, in so far as, in so much as

4.1.1.2.1 Complex subordinators ending with that

Quirk and Greenbaum (1973:313) list out some important subordinators

including so that, in order that, such that and except that, ect To help readers easy to

follow, the writer would like to indicate and analyze them in group based on their meaning

The first group includes in order that and so that They are used to talk about

purpose Let’s take a look at these following examples:

She stayed at work late in order that she could complete the report

I tried my best to study English so that I can find a better job

(Thomson & Martinet, ‘A practical English grammar’)

In the first sentence, the clause She stayed at work late introduces the cause of purpose she could complete the report Similarly, in the second example, the purpose

of I tried my best to study is I can find a better job Hence, so that and in order that in

two examples above have the same function in expressing purpose, link two clauses into a complete sentence

So that is more common than in order that, and is used in less formal situation

Have a look at these examples:

They wrote the notices in several languages so that foreign tourists could

understand them

He wrote his diary in code in order that his wife wouldn’t be able to read

it

(Thomson & Martinet, ‘A practical English grammar’)

Informally, we can leave out that after so, but we always include of after in

order A present tense verb in main clause is usually followed by a present tense verb

(or modal with present of future reference: can, will, ect) in the clause beginning with

in order that/so that A past tense verb in the clause beginning with in order that/so that, modal verbs are very often could/ would Take a look at the following examples:

Regular checks are very made in order that safety standard are

maintained

These men risk their lives so that we may live more safely

(Thomson & Martinet, ‘A practical English grammar’)

Semantically, we can use other phrases to express purpose such as to + infinitive,

in order to, so as to

He studies hard to/so as to/in order to be able to pass the exam

If we want to express negative purpose, we add not before to as in:

He studied hard so as not to fail the exam

Such that is an other subordinator, it implies result Such that is usually used in

formal contexts, such as academic writing Such that has the same meaning to in a way

that, the result that, ect

The model was designed such that the value of x could be calculated The model was designed, and the result that the value of x could be

calculated

Look at the above examples, it is clear to be seen that such that introduces the result of the model was designed is the value of x could be calculated

And the last subordinator the writer would like to mention is except that Except

that is used to express the fact Look at these examples:

I don’t know what that means, except that it upsets your wife

(Robert Wilson, ‘The company of stranger’ 2002)

I’ve a good mind to sue, except that it would only cause more bad

publicity

(Val Alexander, ‘The secrets of Jin-shei’ 2004)

Therefore, except that is a subordinator indicating for the fact Except that-clause

is separated with main clause by a comma, usually stands after main clause

4.1.1.2.2 Complex subordinators ending with optional that

Complex subordinators ending with optional that include now (that), providing

(that), seeing (that), provided (that), supposing (that), considering (that), given (that), granted (that), granting (that), admitting (that), assuming (that), immediately (that), directly (that), etc In these subordinators, provided (that) and supposing (that) can be

used in conditional sentence, and considering (that) used for showing that opinion about something is affected by a particular fact Supposing (that) and provided (that)

are normally used in conditional sentences In other words, they used to talk about an imaginary situation Let’s look at the below example:

Supposing (that) you win the lottery, what would you do with that

money?

(Thomson & Martinet, ‘A practical English grammar’)

Provided (that), supposing (that) give us a possible situation or action and the

result of it The following sentence illustrates this:

Provided that she passes the exam, she will go abroad

(Thomson & Martinet, ‘A practical English grammar’)

Provided (that) shows a possible situation “she passes the exam” and its result

“she will go abroad” Besides, provided (that) and supposing (that) can be used for

suggesting something Look at the below example:

Hey, supposing that we stop for a lunch break now, what will you eat?

(Thomson & Martinet, ‘A practical English grammar’)

Provided (that) and supposing (that) can be replaced for if in conditional

sentences However, their meaning are not completely similar Study this article: