structural and functional features of fronting in english versus vietnamese equivalents = đặc điểm cấu trúc và chức năng của khởi ngữ trong tiếng anh và tương đương trong tiếng việt

V
V
I
I
E
E
T
T
N
N
A
A
M
M


N
N
A
A
T
T
I
I
O
O
N
N
A

A
L
L


U
U
N
N
I
I
V
V
E
E
R
R
S
S
I
I
T
T
Y
Y
,
,


H

H
A
A
N
N
O
O
I
I


U
U
N
N
I
I
V
V
E
E
R
R
S
S
I
I
T
T
Y

Y


O
O
F
F


L
L
A
A
N
N
G
G
U
U
A
A
G
G
E
E
S
S


A

A
N
N
D
D


I
I
N
N
T
T
E
E
R
R
N
N
A
A
T
T
I
I
O
O
N
N
A

A
L
L


S
S
T
T
U
U
D
D
I
I
E
E
S
S


F
F
A
A
C
C
U
U
L

L
T
T
Y
Y


O
O
F
F


P
P
O
O
S
S
T
T
-
-
G
G
R
R
A
A
D

D
U
U
A
A
T
T
E
E




S
S
T
T
U
U
D
D
I
I
E
E
S
S




NGUYỄN THỊ ÁI ANH



STRUCTURAL AND FUNCTIONAL FEATURES
OF FRONTING IN ENGLISH
VERSUS VIETNAMESE EQUIVALENTS

Đặc điểm cấu trúc và chức năng của khởi ngữ trong Tiếng Anh
và tương đương trong Tiếng Việt

M.A. MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS


F
F
i
i
e
e
l
l
d
d
:
:

E
E
n
n
g
g
l
l
i
i
s
s
h
h


L
L
i
i
n
n
g
g
u
u
i
i

s
s
t
t
i
i
c
c
s
s

C
C
o
o
d
d
e
e
:
:








6

6
0
0
.
.
2
2
2
2
.
.
0
0
2
2
.
.
0
0
1
1







HANOI, 2014

V
V
I
I
E
E
T
T
N
N
A
A
M
M


N
N
A
A
T
T
I
I
O
O
N

N
A
A
L
L


U
U
N
N
I
I
V
V
E
E
R
R
S
S
I
I
T
T
Y
Y
,
,

H
H
A
A
N
N
O
O
I
I


U
U
N
N
I
I
V
V
E
E
R
R
S
S
I
I
T

T
Y
Y


O
O
F
F


L
L
A
A
N
N
G
G
U
U
A
A
G
G
E
E
S
S

A
A
N
N
D
D


I
I
N
N
T
T
E
E
R
R
N
N
A
A
T
T
I
I
O
O
N

N
A
A
L
L


S
S
T
T
U
U
D
D
I
I
E
E
S
S


F
F
A
A
C
C
U

U
L
L
T
T
Y
Y


O
O
F
F


P
P
O
O
S
S
T
T
-
-
G
G
R
R
A

A
D
D
U
U
A
A
T
T
E
E




S
S
T
T
U
U
D
D
I
I
E
E
S
S






NGUYỄN THỊ ÁI ANH



STRUCTURAL AND FUNCTIONAL FEATURES
OF FRONTING IN ENGLISH
VERSUS VIETNAMESE EQUIVALENTS

Đặc điểm cấu trúc và chức năng của khởi ngữ trong Tiếng Anh
và tương đương trong Tiếng Việt

M.A. MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS


F
F
i
i
e
e
l
l
d
d

:
:


E
E
n
n
g
g
l
l
i
i
s
s
h
h


L
L
i
i
n
n
g
g
u
u

i
i
s
s
t
t
i
i
c
c
s
s

C
C
o
o
d
d
e
e
:
:

6
6
0
0
.
.
2
2
2
2
.
.
0
0
2
2
.
.
0
0
1
1
S
S
u
u
p
p
e

e
r
r
v
v
i
i
s
s
o
o
r
r
:
:

Dr. Huỳnh Anh Tuấn





HANOI, 2014
i

DECLARATION

I certify that all the material in this minor thesis which is not my own work has
been identified and acknowledged, and that no material is included for which a degree
has already been conferred upon me.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I could not complete my thesis without the great help and useful advice from my
teacher, my family as well as my friends.
Firstly, I would like to express my great thanks to my supervisor, Dr. Huynh
Anh Tuan for his useful lectures. Without his informative lectures, advice and
enthusiasm in teaching, I could not have completed my assignment.
Secondly, I would like to express my deep thanks to all the lecturers in the post-
graduate faculty for giving me enthusiastic advice.
Finally, my thanks are also sent to my family and my colleagues and my friends
for their encouragement and help during the course.

To everyone, thank you very much.

Hanoi, July 2014


Nguyen Thi Ai Anh








iii

ABSTRACT
Fronting seems to be a new concept for English learners and teachers although it
can be used unconsciously in daily life. Research into fronting in English and “khởi
ngữ” in Vietnamese are numerous; however, no research has been done into the
similarities and differences in this linguistic phenomenon in the two languages. This
research is carried out to provide a more comprehensive understanding of “fronting” in
English and “khởi ngữ” in Vietnamese. The analytical data include 50 fronted
sentences in English and 50 sentences with “khởi ngữ” in Vietnamese collected from
books and newspapers since 1945. In the research, “fronting” in English is compared
and contrasted with “khởi ngữ” in Vietnamese in terms of their structure and function.
The result of the research shows that there are similarities and differences in both
structure and function of “fronting” and “khởi ngữ”.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii
ABSTRACT iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS iv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS………………………………………………………… v
PART 1: INTRODUCTION 1
1. Rationale 1
2. Aims and Objective of the study 2
3. Research questions of the study……………………………….…………3
4. Scope of the study 2
5. Methods of the study 2
6. Design of the study 3
PART 2: DEVELOPMENT 4
Chapter 1: Literature Review 4
I. Review of previous studies 4
II. Theoretical background ………………………………………………….4
1.1. The concepts of canonical and non-canonical constructions…………………… 4

1.2. Fronting in English……………………………………….……………………… 5
1.2.1. Definition of Fronting …………… …….…………….……… 5
1.2.2. Realizations of Fronting…………… ….……………… …………………… 7
1.2.3.The differences between Fronting and the other non-canonical
constructions ………………………………………………….….…………………………7
1.2.3.1. Fronting and Left-dislocation……… …… ……….…… 7
1.2.3.2. Fronting and Argument reversal…… … …….……… 8
1.2.3.3. Fronting and Cleft-sentence……………… … …………………….10
1.2.3.4. Fronting and Post-posing…….………… ………………………… 11
1.2.3.5. Fronting and Right-dislocation.………… ……… ….…………… 12
v

1.2.3.6. Fronting and Conversing……………… ……………… 12
1.2.4. Fronting and presupposition in Topic-Comment Articulation (TCA)……………….12
1.2.5. Structural features of Fronting……….……………………….…………………… 13
1.2.6. Functional features of Fronting ……………………………….…………………….14
1.3. English vs. Vietnamese sentence structures and sentence elements………………… 15
1.3.1. The notion of fronting in Vietnamese…………………………… ……………….19
1.3.2. Structural features of "Khởi ngữ" in Vietnamese………….……….……………….19
1.3.3. Functional features of "Khởi ngữ" in Vietnamese 20
1.3.4. Distinction between "khởi ngữ" and Adverbial in Vietnamese .…… 21
Chapter 2: Methodology 22
2.1. Research questions .22
2.2. Research methods .22
2.3. Data collection .23
2.4. Data analysis .23
Chapter 3: Data analysis and Discussions 24
3.1. Data analysis .24
3.1.1. The structures of Fronting and “Khởi ngữ”. .24
3.1.1.1. Fronted elements in English 24

3.1.1.2. Sentence elements as “Khởi ngữ”. 26
3.1.1.3. Percentages of English fronted elements and Vietnamese “khởi ngữ”
in contrast 27
3.1.2. Realizations of Fronting and “Khởi ngữ”. 28
3.1.3. Functions of Fronting and “Khởi ngữ” 30
3.2. Discussions. 33
3.2.1. Similarities 33
3.2.2 Differences 34
PART 3: CONCLUSION 37
vi

1. Conclusions 37
2. Limitations of the study 38
3. Pedagogical implications… …………………………………………………………… 39
4. Suggestions for the research 39
REFERENCES 40
APPENDICIES……………………………………………………………………………….I

vii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

A : Adverbial
Adj : Adjective
AdjP.: Adjective Phrase
C : Complement
Cs : Subject Complement
Co : Object Complement
Cprep. : Preposition Complement
Conj. : Conjuction
N : Noun
O : Object
Od: Direct Object
Oi: Indirect Object
Prep. : Preposition
Pron. : Pronoun
S : Subject

V : Verb
Vaux : Auxiliary Verb










1

PART 1: INTRODUCTION

1. Rationale
At the beginning of the twentieth century, the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de
Saussure put forward a very influential view in linguistics. He argued that a language is
best viewed as a structured system, with each element in it defined chiefly by how it is
related to other elements. In this view, he might not have taken into consideration the
fact that people are social entities; they live in a society with many social relations and
language is one of the means they use for different purposes. Of course, English and
people using it are not exceptional. For language use, word order is changed in many
ways. English at its simple description is a Subject Verb Object (SVO) language
(Tomlin, 1986). However, it is not limited to SVO order. Clefts, pseudo-clefts,
inversion, left dislocation and various types of fronting are instances of deviation from
SVO order. The term „non-canonical constructions‟ is used to refer to such
constructions which do not begin with a grammatical subject (Ward and Birner, 2001).
Those constructions are found not only in literary writing but also in colloquial speech

(Quirk et al, 1985). An interesting question arising is what functions these structures
perform. Numerous studies in linguistic literature have attempted to provide answers to
the question: to change the discourse focus; to help the speaker/writer to construct a
discourse representation; to create coherent and cohesive representations of texts for
better understanding of existing representations on part of the listener/reader (Sidner,
1978; 1983; Grosz, 1978; 1981).
In an attempt to investigate one of those constructions to better understand it and
to help Vietnamese learners of English use it more appropriately and efficiently in
communication, I have decided to carry out my research into “Structural and
functional features of fronting in English and khởi ngữ in Vietnamese”.


2

2. Aims and Objectives of the study
Aims of the study
This study is to help Vietnamese learners of English better understand the
structural and functional features of English Fronting and Vietnamese “Khởi ngữ” so
that they can use the construction more pragmatically appropriate in their
communication with English speaking people.
Objectives of the study
The study, as entitled, focuses on English fronting construction in comparison to
its Vietnamese equivalent “khởi ngữ” not only about the structures but also about the
functions. Thus, the study attempts to:
- Identify and point out the structural and functional features of Fronting in
English and “Khởi ngữ” in Vietnamese.
- Find out the similarities and differences in the structural and functional features
of fronting in English and “Khởi ngữ” in Vietnamese
3. Research questions
The study is carried out in order to answer two main questions as follow:

(1) What are the structural and functional features of Fronting in English and
“Khởi ngữ” in Vietnamese?
(2) What are the similarities and differences in the structure and function of
Fronting in English and “Khởi ngữ” in Vietnamese?
4. Scope of the study
In order to answer the two research questions, this study is restricted to describe,
analyse and contrast the structural and functional features of fronting constructions in
English and “Khởi ngữ” in Vietnamese. The analysis is based on 50 samples
containing Fronting structures in English and 50 samples containing khởi ngữ in
Vietnamese selected from British, American and Vietnamese stories, novels, and
political, educational, economic newspapers and magazines since 1945.

3

5. Method of the study
Due to the main aims of the study, a systemic descriptive and contrastive
analysis on the structural and functional features of English fronting and its
Vietnamese equivalents is carried out throughout the study. The thesis uses English as
the source language and Vietnamese as the target language. In order to serve the
targets stated before, a linguistic contrastive analysis is carried out mainly on the
sentential level of the data.
6. Design of the study
This study consists of three parts.
Part one, Introduction, consists of the rationale, the aims and objectives, the
research questions, the scope of the study and the method of study.
Part two, Development, is the heart of the study which deals with Fronting in
English and “Khởi ngữ” in terms of their structural and functional features. It also
introduces a literature review about researches related to the study and the concepts of
Fronting and Khởi ngữ by different authors.
The last part is the conclusions as well as some suggestions for implementation

achieved from all the discussion in the thesis.











4

PART 2: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW
1.1. Review of previous studies related to the research area
Among the pre-eminent authors who discuss fronting in great details are Quirk
et al (1985); Ward and Birner (2001); and Erteschik-Shir (2007). Discussions about
one or the other aspect of fronting can be found in Halliday (1994); Thompson (1996)
Huddleston (1995), and Brown (1983). Fronting (Quirk et al, 1985), which is also
referred to as pre-posing (Ward and Birner, 2001) or topicalization (Erteschik-Shir,
2007; Brown, 1983).
In Vietnamese grammar, this phenomenon has also been discussed for quite a
long time; however, until now it has not been thoroughly and satisfactorily solved.
There have been several disagreements among Vietnamese linguists concerning the
term. First and foremost, on considering using the term in Vietnamese, Nguyen Kim
Than (1997) used the term “Khởi ngữ”; Diep Quang Ban (2004) used the term “đề
ngữ” when referring to this grammatical construction. Hoang Trong Phien (1980)
mentioned it as Thành phần khởi ý whereas Nguyen Huu Quynh (2001) called it “Khởi

ý” for short. Truong Van Chinh and Nguyen Hien Le (1963) used the term “Chủ đề”,
Nguyen Tai Can (1975) suggested a compound term “Từ-Chủ đề”. According to
Nguyen Lan Trung, when any part of sentence is placed at the beginning of the
sentence comparing with its normal position (it may be repeated or not), this part can
be regarded as Khởi ngữ in Vietnamese. From my point of view I reckon “Khởi ngữ” is
the most suitable.
1.2. Theoretical background
1.2.1. The concepts of canonical and non-canonical constructions
Canonical constructions in English are those which begin with a grammatical
subject (Halliday & Mathiessen, 2004; Quirk et al, 1985). A grammatical subject is a
part of the sentence followed by the predicate. According to Quirk et al (1985:721),
5

there are seven canonical clause patterns. They are SV, SVC, SVO, SVA, SVOO,
SVOC, and SVOA.
Otherwise, clause patterns not beginning with a grammatical subject are called
non-canonical constructions in English except for conversing, a process by which
nominal clause elements can equally take either initial or final position in the sentence,
as exemplified in the following example:
An uncle, three cousins, and two brothers benefited from the will.
The will benefited an uncle, three cousins, and two brothers.
In the above example both sentences with convertible orders are acceptable.
That is the reason why both convertible sentences are considered as bearing a non-
canonical pattern even though they begin with a grammatical subject.
In English, there are 7 non-canonical constructions (Ward & Birner, 2001;
Quirk et al, 1985): Fronting, Left-dislocation, Argument reversal (inversion &
passivization), Cleft structure, Post-posing (existential there- and presentational there-
sentences), Right-dislocation and Conversing. In general, the difference between
canonical and non-canonical constructions is that the latter make available contexts in
which to embed current discourse. Canonical construction can be considered a device

for creating coherent and cohesive representations of text and for changing discourse
focus (Sidner, 1978; 1983; Grosz, 1978; 1981).
The focus of this thesis is on Fronting, distinguishable with other non-canonical
constructions in terms of structure and function.
1.2.2. Fronting in English
1.2.2.1. Definition
Fronting (Ross, 1967; Postal, 1974; Parlmutter, 1979; Culicover, 1976; Winter,
1982; Quirk et al, 1985; Ward and Birner, 2001) is a process in which a constituent that
normally appears in some position within a sentence is pushed toward the initial
position (the front) of the sentence, leaving a gap in its normal position, as in:
This subject I enjoy.
6

where „This subject‟ is fronted leaving a gap in its normal position after the verb
„enjoy‟.
Fronting has been described in literature from different perspectives and is
referred to in different terms: Pre-posing (Ward and Birner, 2001), or Topicalization
(Erteschik-Shir, 2007; Brown, 1983; Jackendoff, 1972).
Quirk et (1985) describe fronting in term of the markedness of the initialized
(fronted) elements. Markedness, in this sense, is a concept used to refer to departure
from the norm. Thus, fronting is "… the achievement of marked theme by moving into
initial position an item which is otherwise unusual there" Quirk et al (1985: 1377). In
this respect, James (1980:110) affirms that marked theme can be simply achieved by
transposing object, verb or even adverb to sentence initial position.
Chomsky (1975) states that fronting is optional, having the effect of
representing in the significant first place of a clause something other than the subject.
Karris (1982) expresses fronting in terms of 'linearization' or rather 'alternative
linearization‟. Elgin (1979) thinks that fronting is one of the rules used to mark a
particular constituent of a sentence as the focus of that sentence. Leech (1975) holds
that moving another element to the front of the sentence gives the element a kind of

psychological prominence. Davison (1984) refers to fronting as a matter of linguistic
performance that relates to the sentence-planning and the order in which its
constituents are processed. Quirk et al (1972: 411-12) think it “quite common,
especially in informal speech, for one element to be fronted with nuclear stress and
thus to be 'marked' (given special emphasis) both thematically and informationally”.
The authors describe the pragmatic function of fronting as to point a parallelism
between two elements in the clause concerned and two related elements in some
neighbouring clauses, contrast in meaning, especially in rhetorical and heightened
language.


7

1.2.2.2. Realizations of fronting
The fronted item is in most cases an entire clause or an entire clause element,
e.g.:
Od: These steps I used to sweep with a broom.
The Od can be a Wh-Finite clause, as in:
How we are going to get there in time I don‟t really know (Downing & Locke.
1992:230).
Cprep: Our daughter we are proud of.
V: Sing I can‟t very well.
Cs: Rich I may be (Emonds, 1976:35).
A: Willingly, he will never do it (he will have to be forced) (Quirk et al, 1985:
946).
1.2.2.3. The difference between Fronting and the other non-canonical
constructions (Tuan, 2013)
1.2.2.3.1. The difference between Fronting and left-dislocation
Superficially, left-dislocation is rather similar to pre-posing in that an item is
pre-posed, i.e. moved leftwards in the construction, for example “The cheese they made

there, they sold most of it to the miners (Brown, 1983:321).
The canonically constructed sentence would have been:
They sold most of the cheese they made there to the miners.
Ward and Birner (2001), Erteschic-shir (2007), and Prince (1997) pointed out
the following structural and functional differences between the two constructions:
Structurally, while in pre-posing the canonical position of the item is left
unoccupied, in left-dislocation a resumptive co-referential pronominal element appears
in the marked constituent‟s canonical position.
In the above example, co-referential with the sentence-initial item the cheese
they made there is the direct object pronoun it.
8

In terms of function, left-dislocation is also distinct from pre-posing. In pre-
posing, the pre-posed constituent consistently represents information standing in a
contextual relationship with information either discourse-old or evoked or inferable
based on prior discourse.
However, left-dislocated item introduces discourse-new (or maybe hearer-new)
information. In the above example, „the cheese they made there‟ has never before
appeared in the discourse. Regarding dislocation, Gundel (1977) suggests that the
structures underlying left-dislocation sentences are derived by simply reversing the
order of topic and comment in these structures. Thus, the sentence “It was a great
place, Babylon” is derived from “Babylon, it was a great place‟, which is, in its turn,
derived from “Babylon was a great place” (cf. Gundel 1977).
1.2.2.3. 2. Fronting and argument reversal
Argument is a structural-functional term used to indicate a phrase (mainly but
not exclusively nominal) required by a verb as its complementation (Ward and Birner,
2001). In the reversing process, one clause element is pushed to the sentential initial
position resulting in another element normally occupying that position being pushed
towards the sentential final position.
Argument reversal exists in two constructions: inversion and by-phrase

passives, both subject to the same discourse constraint in which they both place
relatively familiar information before unfamiliar information while performing a
linking function. That is, the pre-verbal constituent conveys information interlocked in
a linking relationship with a previously evoked or inferable item in the discourse.
While comparing the two constructions, Ward and Birner (2001:130) claim that
„passivization and inversion represent distinct syntactic means for performing the same
discourse function in different syntactic environments‟.
The inversion process involves the logical subject appearing after the main verb,
while other elements, canonically appearing after the main verb, occupy preverbal
position. Birner (1994) while examining 1778 naturally occurring inversions found out
9

that in 78% of the tokens, the pre-posed constituent represented discourse-old
information while the post-posed constituent represented discourse-new information.
He also argued that felicitous inversion in English depends on the „discourse-familiar‟
status of the information represented by the pre-posed and post-posed constituents. For
instance:
We have complimentary soft drinks, coffee, Sanka, tea, and milk. Also
complimentary is red and white wine. We have cocktails available for $2.00. (Ward
and Birner, 2001:129)
In the italicized part of the example, the discourse-old item „complimentary‟ is
pre-posed to provide linkage with the previously mentioned „complimentary‟.
However, there are cases in which both the pre-posed and post-posed constituents
represent discourse-old information. In these cases it is the recency of being mentioned
that appoints which element to be pre-posed, for example:
Each of the characters is the centerpiece of a book, doll and clothing collection.
The story of each character is told in a series of six slim books, each $12.95 hardcover
and $5.95 in paperback, and in bookstores and libraries across the country. More than 1
million copies have been sold; and in late 1989 a series of activity kits was introduced
for retail sale.… Complementing the relatively affordable books are the dolls, one for

each fictional heroine and each with a comparably pricey historically accurate
wardrobe and accessories. (Ward and Birner, 2001:129)
Though the dolls have been evoked in prior discourse, the reason for their being
post-posed is that they are less recently evoked than the books.
English by-phrase passives are sub-categorized with inversion as argument
reversal because both constructions involve the reversing of the canonical order of two
arguments. In such sentences, the logical subject is mentioned in a by-phrase, e.g.:
The device was tested by the manufacturers. (Quirk et al, 1985: 1389)
In this example, „the device‟ is pre-posed for linking purpose, thus preserving
the continuity of the topic/theme in the discourse (the previous sentences in the
10

discourse have „the device‟ as their topic/theme). „The manufacturers‟, according to
Quirk et al (1985) is the focus according to the principle of end-focus.
1.2.2.3.3. Fronting and Cleft-sentence
The cleft structure (Quirk et al, 1985), or focus construction (Brown, 1983), is a
construction aimed giving an item more prominence by cleaving the sentence into two
parts. The outcome of this process is a cleft sentence, which is the general term for
both „it-cleft‟ and „wh-cleft‟ (or „pseudo-cleft‟).
Cleft structure can be said to have two simultaneous functions: focusing and
contrasting, the contrasting one often rectifying participants‟ wrong assumptions or
propositions, e.g.:
It-cleft: It was the rain that destroyed the crops. (Widdowson, 1978:35)
Wh-cleft: What I need is a good holiday. (Richards and Schmidt, 2002:75)
A loaf of bread is what we chiefly need. (Halliday and Mathiessen, 2004:70)
What happened to the crops was that they were destroyed by the rain.
(Widdowson, 1978:38)
As shown in the examples above it-cleft involves the pushing of an item towards
the front of the sentence after the structure “it + to be‟. A wh-cleft consists of a wh-
nominal clause which can come first or second in the sentence. The other part of a wh-

cleft can be a nominal phrase or clause (e.g. that-clause or wh-clause).
The difference between the two is in their structural features. While the focused
item is always in the first part of the sentence after „it + to be‟ in „it-cleft‟, in the
pseudo-cleft, it can be in either sentence initial or final position. For this reason,
Halliday and Matthiessen (2004:70) call the pseudo-cleft construction a „thematic
equative‟ because in this construction, there is the equated proportion of the two parts
of information in the sentence: the Theme and the Rheme.
Other constructions, e.g. fronting are non-equative, in which elements rather
than the subject can be the theme. Cleft structure (it-cleft and wh-cleft) differs from
other non-canonical structures as follows:
11

Whereas the cleft structure functions as a means of focusing, the others
(fronting, e.g. with the exception of existential there-sentences) functions as a means of
topicalizing (Erteschik-Shir, 2007). Jackson (1982) states that the cleft construction is
used particularly in written English because it marks unambiguously the focus of
information that can usually be done in speech by means of contractive stress and
intonation, as in:
It was Demy that Jim found last night.
In terms of the given/new distribution, while most of the other constructions
(fronting, e.g.) set their items a very clear status, it is not so fixed with the cleft
structure when viewed in the whole discourse, though it is always explicitly clear
within the sentence.
1.2.2.3.4. Fronting and Post-posing
As opposed to pre-posing, post-posing is an information movement tendency in
which an item is dislocated from its canonical position towards the typically (but not
exclusively) final position in the sentence, either emptying its canonical position or
allowing it to be occupied by „there‟ (Birner and Ward, 1996).
In terms of the given-new contrast, post-posing distinguishes itself from pre-
posing in that while pre-posing enables the marked constituent to represent discourse-

old information; post-posing enables the marked element to represent new information.
There are two frequent post-posing constructions with the logical subject post-posed,
leaving the expletive there in the canonical subject position… traditionally known as
existential there and presentational-there sentences, e.g.: Existential there-sentence:
“There’s a warm relationship, a great respect and trust” between [United
Airline]‟s chairman, Stephen M. Wolf, and Sir Colin Marshall, British Air‟s chief
executive officer, according to a person familiar with both sides. (Ward and Birner,
2001:126)


12

1.2.2.3.5. Fronting and Right-dislocation
As we have seen and as suggested by the terms used to indicate the
constructions, left-dislocation (LD) stands in a close relationship with pre-posing, in
terms of their structural and functional features, especially when it comes to the
discourse constraints that regulate their communicative operations. The same scenarios
of similarities and differences exist between right-dislocation and post-posing.
Structurally, both constructions involve the non-canonical placement of a
complement of the verb in post verbal position. The difference lies in the given-new
status of the information expressed by those non-canonically positioned elements,
specifically, in right-dislocation, the post-verbal noun phrase bears no requirement to
represent new information. In other words, the right-dislocated constituent represents
information that has been either explicitly or implicitly evoked in the prior discourse.
1.2.2.3.6. Fronting and Conversing
Conversing is a process by which nominal clause elements can equally take
either initial or final position in the sentence. The process is made possible due to the
reciprocal meaning of some verbal, prepositional, or adjectival phrases. Often it is the
context e.g., the given-new status of information that decides which position is optimal.
1.2.2.4. Fronting and presupposition in Topic-Comment Articulation (TCA)

Many linguists correlate 'fronting' with 'presupposition'. They depart from the
idea that the fronted element is to be presupposed first. Gundel (1977) is among those
who think that 'topic' refers to what is already presupposed, while 'comment' refers to
the new information, predicated about the topic. Tranicek (1967:160) adopts similar
opinion stating that "the notion of topic is that sentence element which the speaker has
in mind as his object of thought and from which his sentence precedes." Leech
(1975:176) states that in fronting, “it seems as if the speaker says the most important
thing in his mind first, adding the rest of the sentence as an afterthought." In a similar
vein, Davison (1984) pinpoints that unless the speaker plans his choice of lexical verb
in advance, he may find that he himself has blurted out an inappropriate NP as subject;
13

however, Winter (1982) holds that in front-and-end position, there are significant
changes of contextual meaning for the topic which effects the meaning, especially that
of the adverbial clause with respect to its main clause since it is known that 'topic'
constitutes the frame of the clause about which the sentence is, and since it is known
that a text is divided into units of information.
1.2.2.5. Structural features of fronting
Structurally speaking, fronting is considered a process of sentential arrangement
in which any element can be shifted to the most-left position to be the topic. Parlmutter
(1979) points out that there are two important facts about English sentences. Firstly,
each sentence contains a 'gap' since there is a constituent missing somewhere in the
sentence, as in the example below where the element 'Many delegates' is missing; and
as so it is considered ungrammatical.
Many delegates we received at the airport.
* We received at the airport yesterday.
Secondly, this gap should be semantically and/or pragmatically filled in the way
that makes it easy for the user of language to realize and understand it. Accounting for
such sentences in English, Parlmutter (1979) suggests three hypotheses: the Phrase
Structure Hypothesis, the Deletion Hypothesis, and the Movement Hypothesis. In

Wason (1977) and Culicover, Wason and Akmajian (1977), fronting is visualized as a
grammatical process that gives the configuration of movement. It is a device which
yields this configuration. Winter (1982) adopts the adjunction and a way in which such
a phenomenon would be formulated in the landing notation mentioned above. In the
contrary, Bakir (1979) proposes that a transformational relation between both the deep
structures and the surface structures is obtained through the application of a 'movement'
transformation.
In fronting, the fronted parts may be prosodically marked as marked themes and
may be any of a wide range of grammatical units such as direct object, prepositional
14

complement, subject complement, object complement. In the following examples, the
italicized are fronted elements.
Od: The cheese they sold mainly to the miners. (Brown, 1983:322)
Cprep: Others I have only that nodding acquaintance with and some are total
strangers. (Birner and Ward, 1998: 4)
Cs: Rare indeed is the individual who does not belong to one of these groups.
(Sinclair, 1990: 429)
Co: … and traitor we shall call him. (Quirk et al, 1985: 1378)
V: Work I must, and for money. (Biber et al, 1999: 906)
1.2.2.6. Functional features of fronting
Often it is the context that urges the speaker to resort to fronting, either to
thematize an item previously brought into the discourse providing direct linkage with
what has gone before, or to initially introduce what the context most requires.
Although English is a subject-prominent language (Li and Thompson, 1976), sentences
with fronted elements are very common both in colloquial speech and in formal written
style, particularly in journalism (Quirk et al, 1985).
Leech and Svartvik (1994), indicates three different effects of fronting as
follows:
Emphatic: giving the fronted element, in formal conversation, double emphasis,

e.g.:
Fatin her name is.
Contrastive: dramatically pointing to contrast between two things mentioned in
neighbouring sentences or clauses which often have parallel structures, e.g.
E.g: Iraqi my nationality is; so Iraqi you might call me.
'Given' topic: found in more formal, especially in written English, as in:
Most of these problems a computer could solve easily.
15

In the last example, “Most of these problems” is fronted as given topic in the
sense that it “relates to an entity already introduced into discourse and activated at the
moment of speech” Hannay (1991:137).
Davison (1984) holds that topicalizing is both a semantic and pragmatic
property of fronting. Elgin (1979) states that the fronted element in the sentence is the
one with the greatest semantic prominence, at least for the speaker, as in:
Squid, I hate.
Attention will undoubtedly be drawn to the word „squid‟ to the effect that it may
have highest semantic prominence.
The majority of examples concerning the so-called “Given Topic” coincide with
the notion of linking with previous discourse because the Topic of the clause
undergoing fronting process normally refers to something that has been mentioned
before. This may be illustrated in the fact that many occurrences of fronting have a
demonstrative pronoun “this” and “that” as a topic, which makes reference to
something previously introduced. The following example represents a fronted element
functioning as a Given Topic:
Instinctual knowledge is leaking away under the impact of continual
urbanization. That I believe. It is not in conflict with my own doctrines.
1.2.3. English vs. Vietnamese sentence structures and sentence elements
Tran Huu Manh (2008), on comparing English and Vietnamese sentence
structures and sentence elements, finds out the following similarities and differences

between them. They share the same sentence elements although the elements are
termed differently: Subject (S), Verb (V), Object (O), Complement (C), and Adverbial
(A) in English and Chủ ngữ, Động từ, Tân ngữ, Bổ ngữ và Trạng ngữ in Vietnamese
(Trần Hữu Mạnh, 2007: 394). Both languages have a certain number of basic sentence
structures (7 in English). Furthermore, verbs in both languages decide sentence
structure and can be categorized into 5 groups. Subject (S), Object (O), Complement
(C) in English and Chủ ngữ, Tân ngữ, Bổ ngữ in Vietnamese are nouns, noun phrases
16

or pronouns. Subjects (S) stand at the beginning of the simple sentence. Objects
normally appear after subjects and verbs in the pattern SVO in English and NP1 + V +
NP2 in Vietnamese in which NP1 is subject and NP2 is object.
In the case that there are two objects (direct object and indirect object) in the
sentence, the English pattern is S V Oi Od and the Vietnamese pattern is NP1 + V +
NP2 + NP3 (NP1 is the subject, NP2 is the indirect object and NP3 is the direct object).
Oi usually stands before Od. Sometimes, Oi stands after Od and is separated by
preposition to or for. Verbs (V) in English and Động từ in Vietnamese stand after the
Subject. Complements (C) in English and Bổ ngữ in Vietnamese are also presented by
adjectival phrases (English complements can be noun phrases). They follow the subject
in the pattern S V C in English and NP1 + Adj in Vietnamese. Adverbials (A) in
English and “Trạng ngữ” in Vietnamese are often adverb or prepositional phrases.
They usually stand at the end of the sentence in the pattern S V A and S V O A in
English and NP1 + V + NP2 + Prep. + NP3 in Vietnamese in which NP3 is Adverbial (
Trạng ngữ). The position of adverbials in English as well as “Trạng ngữ” in
Vietnamese is very mobile; they can get initial, medial or final position in affirmative
simple sentence.
According to Tran Huu Manh (2007: 388), seven patterns in English are
equivalent to those in Vietnamese.

English

Vietnamese
Pattern 1: S V
NP1 + V ( Chủ ngữ + Động từ)
The sun is shining
Mặt trời đang chiếu sáng
Pattern 2: S V O
NP1 + V + NP2 (Chủ ngữ + Động từ + Tân Ngữ)
The lecture interested me
Bài giảng cuốn hút tôi
Pattern 3: S V C
NP1 + V + NP2 (Chủ ngữ + Động từ + Bổ Ngữ)
They will become teachers
Họ sẽ trờ thành giáo viên
Pattern 4: S V A
NP1 + V + NP2 (Chủ ngữ + Động từ +