A study on the linguistic features of the discourse marker but and their vietnamese translation equivalents

i






MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
HANOI OPEN UNIVERSITY


LE DUY HANH

A STUDY ON THE LINGUISTIC FEATURES OF THE
DISCOURSE MARKER “BUT” AND THEIR
VIETNAMESE TRANSLATION EQUIVALENTS

(NGHIÊN CỨU VỀ CÁC ĐẶC ĐIỂM NGÔN NGỮ CỦA DẤU
HIỆU DIỄN NGÔN “BUT” VÀ NHỮNG TƯƠNG ĐƯƠNG DỊCH
THUẬT CỦA CHÚNG TRONG TIẾNG VIỆT)

M.A. THESIS

Field: English Language
Code: 60220201
Supervisor: Assoc.Prof. Le Hung Tien, Ph.D

HANOI - 2013


ii



DECLARATION

I hereby declare that no part of the enclosed Master Thesis has been copied
or reproduced by me from any other’s work without acknowledgement and
that the thesis is originally written by me under strict guidance of my
supervisor.
Hanoi, 26, November, 2013
Candidate


LE DUY HANH


Approved by ASSOC.PROF. DR. LE HUNG TIEN



LE HUNG TIEN

iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

For a work of this magnitude to come to an end, a number of people deserve
to be thanked.
First and foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude and
appreciation to my supervisor, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Le Hung Tien for his patience,
motivation and encouragement. Without his guidance and leadership, this work
would never have been possible.
I would also like to express my heartfelt thanks to my lecturers whose
profundity has influenced my way of thinking about doing researches. I also want to
express my appreciation to my colleagues and friends, who were always ready to
support me when I had difficulties during the time of studying. I also want to send
my special thanks to the staffs of Faculty of Post-graduate for the enthusiastic
assistance.
Last but not least, I would like to express a word of appreciation to my wife
and family for their support, care and encouragement during my course of study. To
all of them I dedicate this work.

iv

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Adj: Adjective
Adj P: Adjective phrase
Adv: Adverb
AUX: Auxiliary verb
DM: Discourse marker
DMs: Discourse markers
N: Noun
NP: Noun Phrase
O: Object
PP: Prepositional Phrase
Prep P: Present participle Phrase
PP P: Past participle Phrase
S: Subject
SL: Source language
TL: Target language
V: Verb
VP: Verb Phrase



1

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1: Description of Positions of 'But' in the Sentence and 32
its Vietnamese Equivalents

Table 3.2: Syntactic Functions of "Only" and Its Vietnamese Equivalents 41

Table 3.3: Semantic Features of “ BUT” and Its Vietnamese Equivalents 52

Table 3.4: “BUT” used for emphasis 57

Table 3.5: “BUT” used to show feelings or attitudes 64

Table 3.6: “BUT” used to confirm 66

Table 3.7: “BUT” used to draw the hearer’s attention 67

Table 3.8: Pragmatic Features of “BUT” and its Vietnamese equivalents 68

Table 3.9: Syntactic Functions of “ BUT” and Its Vietnamese equivalents 71

Table 3.10: Description Similarities and Differencies 72
of the discourse marker “BUT” in English and its Vietnamese equivalents.

2

TABLE OF CONTENT
Declaration
i
Acknowledgement
ii
List of abbreviations
iii
List of tables
iv
Table of content
v
Part I: INTRODUCTION
1
1. Rationale
1
2. Aims and Objectives
3
3. Research questions
3
4. Scope of the study
3
5. Methods of the study
4
6. Design of the study
4
Part II: DEVELOPMENT
5
Chapter 1: Theoretical Background 5

1.1. Literature Review 5
1.1.1. Review of Previous Studies Related to the Research Topic 13
1.1.2. Review of Previous Studies Related to the Research Topic in Viet Nam 13
1.2. Theoretical background 14
1.2.1. Syntactic Features 14
1.2.1.1. Word classes 14
1.2.1.2. The Properties of Sentence Structure 15
1.2.2. Semantic Features 15
1.2.2.1. Meaning 16
1.2.2.2. Word meaning 16
1.2.2.2.1. Grammatical meaning 17
1.2.2.2.2. Lexical meaning 17
1.2.2.3. Phrase and Sentence Meaning 17
1.2.3. Pragmatic Features 18



3

1.2.3.1. Speech Acts Theory 18
1.2.3.2. Discourse markers 20
1.2.3.3. Relevance - Theory Approach 21
1.2.3.4. Politeness Theory 24
1.2.3.5. Utterance Meaning and Context 25
1.2.4. Translation 26
1.2.4.1. What is Translation 26
1.2.4.2. Translation Equivalence 26
Chapter 2: Methodology 28
2.1. Research Procedures 28
2.2. Sampling and Population 28

2.3. Data Collection 28
2.4. Data Analysis 29
Chapter 3 : Findings and Discussions 30
3.1. Syntactic features of “BUT” and its Vietnamese translation equivalents 30
3.1.1. Positions of “BUT” in the Sentence and its Vietnamese Equivalents 30
3.1.1.1. Initial positions 30
3.1.1.2. Medial positions 31
3.1.1.3. Final position 32
3.1.2. Syntactic Functions of "BUT" in the Sentences and Its Vietnamese
Equivalents. 33
3.1.2.1. Pre-modifying a noun phrase 33
3.1.2.2. Pre-modifying a Prepositional Phrase 34
3.1.2.3. Pre -modifying an Adjective Phrase 35
3.1.2.4. Pre-modifying an Adverbial Phrase 35
3.1.2.5. Pre-modifying a To infinitive phrase 35
3.1.2.6. Pre-modifying a bare infinitive phrase 35
3.1.2.7. Pre-modifying a present participle phrase 37
3.1.2.8. Pre-modifying a Past Participle Phrase 38



4

3.1.2.9. Pre-modifying an imperative Clause 39
3.1.2.10. Pre-modifying a declarative phrase 39
3.1.2.11. Pre-modifying an interogative Phrase 39
3.1.2.12. Pre-modifying a finite verb phrase 39
3.2. Semantics features of “BUT” and Its Vietnamese translation Equivalents 43
3.2.1. “BUT” used as a conjuction 43
3.2.1.1. “BUT” used as “On the contrary, Yet” 43

3.2.1.2. “BUT” used as “ Otherwise than” 44
3.2.1.3. “BUT” used as “Unless, If not” 45
3.2.1.4. “BUT” used as “However,Nethertheless” 45
3.2.1.5. “BUT” used as “Although, Though, Even Though” 46
3.2.1.6. “BUT” used as “So, Therefore” 47
3.2.1.7. “BUT” used as “Whether” 48
3.2.2. “BUT” used a preposition 48
3.2.2.1. “BUT” used as “Except, With the exception of” 48
3.2.3. “ BUT” used as an adverb 49
3.2.3.1. “BUT” used as “Only” 49
3.2.3.2. “BUT” used as “ Also” 50
3.2.4. “BUT” used as a noun 50
3.3. Pragmatic features of “BUT” and Its Vietnamese Equivalents 52
3.3.1. “BUT” used to emphasize 52
3.3.1.1. An Exception from the point of view of the speaker 52
3.3.1.2. The truth condition 53
3.3.1.3. A particular time 52
3.3.1.4. A Truth from the speaker’s point of view 54
3.3.1.5. A Contrast 54
3.3.2. “BUT” used to show feelings or attitudes 56
3.3.2.1. Disappointment 56
3.3.2.2. Dissatisfaction 57



5

3.3.2.3. Regret 58
3.3.2.4. A Surprise 58
3.3.2.5. A Sense of criticism 58

3.3.2.6. Uncertainty or Doubt 59
3.3.2.7. A Warning 59
3.3.2.8. Unusuality 60
3.3.2.9. A Wish or Hope 60
3.3.2.10. Disagreement 61
3.3.3. “BUT” used to confirm 63
3.3.3.1. To confirm the truth of a situation 63
3.3.3.2. To confirm an obvious reality 63
3.3.4. “BUT” used to draw the hear’s attention 64
3.4. Similarities and Differences between “BUT” in English and their 65
Vietnamese translation equivalents
3.4.1. Similarities and Differences in Syntactic Features of "BUT" in 65
English and Vietnamese
3.4.1.1.Similarities and differencies in the syntactic positions of “BUT” 65
in English and Vietnamese.
3.4.1.2. Similarities and differencies in the syntactic functions of “BUT” 65
in English and Vietnamese.
3.4.2. Similarities and Differences in Semantic Features of "BUT" 67
in English and Vietnamese
3.4.3. Similarities and Differences in Pragmatic Features of "BUT" 67
in English and Vietnamese
Part III: CONCLUSION 71
1. Recapitulation 71
2. Limitations 72
3. Suggestions for a further study 73
REFERENCES
APPENDICES

6

PART I: INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale of the study
English has played a vital role in society and made considerable contribution to
education, culture, science and technology. The number of people learning English for
various purposes (such as for job, business, traveling…) is continually on the increase
everyday. The development of new technology has rapidly leaded to the worldwide
use of English and it seems that the future of English as an international language is
undoubtedly evident and this is an irresistible trend. In addition, as a result of rapid
globalization and increasing international trade, much more demand has been made for
people who can communicate orally in English. Therefore, to understand any
languages more deeply and clearly, language learners should know not only people,
customs, cultures, but also the theory of its language to get a thorough insight into the
language. Especially, in the trend towards internationalization, English has had
worldwide recognition for ages and become both the most popular language and an
important tool in international communication and integration.
Generally, translation is a process during which a message expressed in a
particular source language is linguistically transformed into the target language.
Consequently translators may be seen as mediators responsible for the adequate
rendering of the message. In order to convey the intended meaning and associated
implications translators must first of all correctly interpret the source text. Discourse
markers best testify that every little and seemingly insignificant detail must be given
an adequate treatment. These innocent minor words familiar to everyone, but whose
presence often remains imperceptible, turn out to be capable of expressing a variety of
important conversational functions and guide the collocutor towards the intended
interpretation of an utterance. When employed in a literary work they acquire some

additional functions, i.e. they may serve as stylistic devices subtly alluding to the inner
state of the characters, contributing to their more vivid portrayal or to the depiction of
emotional nuances associated with a particular situation. Discourse markers, in
Green’s words, “may speak volumes about the person who uses them” (Green, 1990).



7

Every language has developed distinctive conventions for using discourse
markers. Consequently, they are seldom susceptible to a straightforward translation.
The task of finding an appropriate equivalent equally subtly implying the shades of
meaning encoded in the source text is always a delicate subject for the translator. In
translation of discourse markers the information on discourse function is the most
significant determinant in choosing the proper treatment of the marker: either insertion
of a corresponding target language marker, modifying the syntactic structure of the
target sentence or omission of the marker.
It is frankly said that many learners have difficulties in understanding linguistic
features as in term of syntactic, semantic and pragmatic, and translating discourse
markers. In English Language , “BUT” is considered as a discourse marker and
“BUT”- it seems to be appeared in various texts and discourses. It has been evident
that English learners have found difficulties in employing “BUT” correctly and
properly because “BUT” expresses a variety of subtly different meanings and its use is
subject to constraints which do not apply to other words with similar meaning. I
myself have difficulties in acquiring and translating discourse markers and I find it
interesting to do research on this problem. For these above reasons, the paper entitled
“A study on the linguistic features of the discourse marker “BUT” and their
Vietnamese translation equivalents” is intended to help the learners of English
overcome difficulties caused by discourse marker “BUT” when they translate it and
also help them to use this word effectively in daily communication.

8

2. Aims and Objectives of the study
2.1. Aims
The study aims at investigating the syntactic, semantic and pragmatic features
of the discourse marker "BUT" and its Vietnamese translation equivalents in order to
gain a better insight into this discourse marker in the two languages .
2.2. Objectives
This study is intended to:
- Identify and describe syntactic, semantic, pragmatic features of the word
"BUT" in contextual situations;
- Discover some of its possible translation equivalents in Vietnamese;
- Point out the similarities and differences of "BUT" and its Vietnamese
equivalents in terms of syntax, semantics and pragmatics;
- Put forward some practical implications in the language classroom and in the
area of translation.
3. Research questions
To achieve the aims of the study, the thesis focuses on the following questions:
1. What are the syntactic features of "BUT" in English and its Vietnamese

translation equivalents?
2. What are the semantic features of "BUT" in English and its Vietnamese
translation equivalents?
3. What are the pragmatic features of "BUT" in English and its Vietnamese
translation equivalents?
4. Scope of the study
This study is restricted to the syntactic, semantic, pragmatic features of the
discourse marker "BUT" in discourse and in the interaction between this item and the
surrounding elements. The focus is on the discourse marker "BUT" in English with
reference to its counterpart in the Vietnamese translations
5. Methods of the study



9

This is a comparative study of the discourse marker “BUT” in English and
Vietnamese The contrastive analysis of the discourse maker "BUT" and the
Vietnamese translation equivalents is based on the description of its meanings in terms
of syntactic, semantic and pragmatic features.
For this study, a parallel corpus is compiled, with original English texts and
their translations in Vietnamese. Data analysis methods are qualitative and quantitative
approaches to carry out an investigation into the discourse marker “ BUT ” : as seen in
contemporary translated works from English into Vietnamese.
6. Design of the study
The thesis is composed of three main parts as follows:
Part I: Introduction (Background of the research)
1. Rationale of the study
2. Aims and objectives of the study
3. Research questions

4. Scope of the study
5. Methods of the study
6. Design of the study
Part II: Development
Chapter 1: Theoretical Background.
Chapter 2: Methodology
Chapter 3 : Findings and Discussions
Part III : Conclusion
1. Recapitulation
2. Limitations of the study
3. Suggestions for a further study



10


PART II: DEVELOPMENT
Chapter 1:
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND.
1.1. LITERATURE REVIEW
Discourse markers are mostly words with little or no lexical meaning that
appear on the periphery of clause structure. “They can occur as lexical equivalents or
complements of more elusive gestural or intonational cues that subtly guide and
modulate the participant’s understanding, or they can saliently signal relations
between utterances or larger discourse units” (Redeker, 2005). Nowadays discourse
markers are no longer seen as extra or accessory to the utterance; conversely, it is
acknowledged that they perform a variety of functions, i.e. contribute to the coherence
of an utterance, indicate pauses, transitions, topic shifts, etc.; they are used for gap
filling, which in turn indicates the idea of uncertainty, unexpected or unpleasant

response. Discourse markers convey extra-linguistic information, i.e. they signify
about speaker’s beliefs, emotional state, and attitude towards the referenced
information. Although the status of these particles has significantly altered during
those years, some of their former mysteriousness seems to remain as it is still
disputable by what title they should be named and what linguistic units are attributable
to this group.
1.1.1 Review of Previous Studies Related to the Research Topic in the world
Research on discourse markers has expanded continually throughout the 1980s
and 1990s. Within pragmatics and discourse analysis research two basic theoretical
orientations within which discourse markers are analyzed stand out: discourse-
coherence approach (Schiffrin 1987, Redeker 1990, 1991, 2005; Fraser 1993, 1996)
and relevance-theory approach (Blakemore ,2002; Andersen, 2001).
The first and the most detailed effort regarding DMs is that reported in Schiffrin
(1987), who is concerned with elements which mark "sequentially-dependent units of
discourse". She labels them 'discourse markers' and analyzes in detail the expressions



11

and, because, but, I mean, now, oh, or, so, then, well, and you know as they occur in
unstructured interview conversations. Examining only 11 expressions, she realized that
her focus is somewhat narrow and suggests a number of other cases which bear
consideration as DMs: perception verbs such as see, look, and listen, deictic such as
here and there, interjections such as gosh and boy, meta-talk such as this is the point
and what I mean is, and quantifier phrases such as anyway, anyhow, and whatever.
(Schiffrin,1987)
Another early reference to DMs as a linguistic entity was made by Labov and
Fanshel (1977) in discussing a question by Rhoda that began with well. They wrote:
"As a discourse marker, well refers backwards to some topic that is already shared

knowledge among participants. When well is the first element in a discourse or a topic,
this reference is necessarily to an unstated topic of joint concern." Only a few other
comments were mentioned in passing about the topic. In his 1983 book entitled
Pragmatics, Levinson considered DMs as a class worthy of study on its own merits,
although he did not give it a name. He suggested that " there are many words and
phrases in English, and no doubt most languages that indicate the relationship between
an utterance and the prior discourse. Examples are utterance-initial usages of but,
therefore, in conclusion, to the contrary, still, however, anyway, well, besides,
actually, all in all, so, after all, and so on. It is generally conceded that such words
have at least a component of meaning that resists truth-conditional treatment what
they seem to do is indicate, often in very complex ways, just how the utterance that
contains them is a response to, or a continuation of, some portion of the prior
discourse." (Levinson, 1983)
There are also four salient research efforts which, taken together, capture the
issues surrounding DMs. Each research effort started in the mid-1980s, and apparently
each researcher was unaware of the other efforts, at least in the initial stages. Redeker
(1991, but see also 1990) provides a critique of Schiffrin (1987) and proposes several
significant revisions. She writes approvingly of the notion of core meaning for DMs
(she calls DMs discourse operators), suggesting that "the core meaning should specify



12

the marker's intrinsic contribution to the semantic representation that will constrain
the contextual interpretation of the utterance" (Redeker, 1991). She is concerned that
the definition of DMs has not been adequately addressed and suggests that "what is
needed is a clearer definition of the component of discourse coherence and a broader
framework that embraces all connective expressions and is not restricted to an
arbitrary selected subset" (Redeker ,1991). She goes on to suggest that a discourse

operator is " a word or phrase that is uttered with the primary function of bringing
to the listener's attention a particular kind of linkage of the upcoming utterance with
the immediate discourse context, An utterance in this definition is an intonationally
and structurally bounded, usually clausal unit." (Redeker ,1991) She then provides
some examples of what are not DMs: clausal indicators of discourse structure (for
example, let me tell you a story, as I said before, since this I so); deictic expressions as
far as they are not used anaphorically (for example, now, here, today); anaphoric
pronouns and noun phrases; and any expressions whose scope does not exhaust the
utterance (Redeker ,1991).
The second approach is that of Fraster, who approached DMs from solely a
grammatical-pragmatic perspective. In Fraser (1987), he wrote about a group of
expressions which he called "pragmatic formatives" (now called "pragmatic markers"
- cf. Fraser, 1996). These pragmatic markers, usually lexical expressions, do not
contribute to the propositional content of the sentence but signal different types of
messages. His third type of pragmatic formative, described in the 1987 paper as
"commentary pragmatic markers", includes what he calls DMs. In later works (Fraser,
1988, 1990, 1993) he focused on what DMs are and what their grammatical status is.
Specifically, he characterized a DM as a linguistic expression only (in contrast to
Schiffrin, who permits non-verbal DMs) which: (i) has a core meaning which can be
enriched by the context; and (ii) signals the relationship that the speaker intends
between the utterance the DM introduces and the foregoing utterance (rather than only
illuminating the relationship, as Schiffrin suggests).



13

The third theoretical perspective is provided by Blakemore (1987, 1992), who
works within the Relevance Theory framework (cf. Sperber and Wilson, 1986). She
treats DMs as a type of Gricean conventional implicature, but rejects his analysis o a

higher order speech act (Grice, 1989; Blakemore, 1992), and focuses on how DMs
(she calls them "discourse connectives") impose constraints on implicatures.
Blakemore proposes that DMs do not have a representational meaning the way lexical
expressions like boy and hypothesis do, but have only a procedural meaning which
consists of instructions about how to manipulate the conceptual representation of the
utterance. (cf. Blakemore, 1987, 1992) Blakemore maintains that DMs should be
analyzed as linguistically specified constraints on contexts and suggests that there are
at least four ways in which information conveyed by an utterance can be relevant
(Blakemore ,1992): "It may allow the derivation of a contextual implication (e.g., so,
therefore, too, also); It may strengthen an existing assumption, by providing better
evidence for it (e.g. after all, moreover, furthermore); It may contradict as existing
assumption (e.g. however, still nevertheless, but) It may specify the role of the
utterance in the discourse (e.g., anyway, incidentally, by the way, finally)."
A fourth approach to the study of DMs is provided by researchers working in
the field of discourse coherence. Beginning with Rhetorical Structure Theory proposed
by Mann and Thompson (1987, 1988), and including work by Hobbs (1985), Sanders
et al. (1992), Knott and Dale (1994), and Hovy (1994), among others, researchers have
addressed the nature of relations between the sentences of a text such that "the content
of one sentence might provide elaboration, circumstances, or explanation for the
content of another" (Knott and Dale, 1994). The work of these researchers has
resulted in various accounts of discourse coherence, where the discourse relations are
sometimes made explicit by the use of discourse markers (they call them 'cue
phrases'). This approach of developing the relationship as a tool for text analysis is, in
a sense, opposite to the other three approaches, where a linguistic entity, discourse
markers, was the primary unit of study, and their effect on the interpretation of
discourse was secondary.



14

In the case of “BUT”, it would mean that the DM function would not bear any
necessary connection to the adversative meaning of the adverbial conjunct. DMs orient
listeners, but they do not create meaning; therefore, DMs can be deleted with no loss
of meaning, though the force of the utterance will be less clear. In realizing
sequentially determined functions obviously distinct from the meanings of their
homophonous lexical counterparts, as traditionally described, narrative DMs provide
particularly clear evidence of an independent DM function.
The discourse marker BUT has been widely studied in the literature - Lakoff
(1971), Anscombre & Ducrot (1977), Horn (1989), Bell (1998), Blakemore (1987,
1989, 2002) and Iten (2005). These theorists argue that BUT encodes several
meanings. Lakoff (1971) and Blakemore (1987, 2002) claim that BUT encodes a
denial of- expectation meaning between the two conjuncts it links.
Considering the following example:
(1) John is a Republican but he is honest.
According to Lakoff, but in this example involves an implication relation
between two conjuncts based on the suggestion that Republicans are not normally
honest. The idea is that the first conjunct (John is Republican) implies an assumption
which is contradicted by the second conjuncts (he is honest). In other words, on the
basis of the first conjunct, the hearer might be lead to expect something which is then
denied.
Lakoff (1971) points out that there is another use of but where the relation
between the two conjuncts is not of a denial of expectation or implication but rather
one of a simple contrast:
(2) Peter is rich but John is poor.
As can be noticed, but in the above utterance simply encodes a contrastive
relationship between the states of affairs, represented in each clause.
Anscombre & Ducrot (1977) claim that but can have a yet further meaning
which is different from the first two discussed above. Consider the following scenario

15

where both A and B attending a Christmas party; A comments on the person who sees
for the first time with B.
(3) a. Oh! Your brother looks exactly like you.
b. He is not my brother but my friend.
The use of but in (3b) does not involve contradiction. It is not the case that the
first conjunct (he is not my brother) implies the negation of the second conjunct or
vice versa. This use of but is called the ‘correction’ use, where the clause introduced
by but provides a correct replacement for the assumption given in the first clause.
There is a fourth use of but, which is called by Bell (1998: 527) the ‘discourse’
or ‘sequential’ but. Usually, but in this case has an utterance-initial use. Consider the
following example:
(4) a. I am very happy; we’ve had a very nice dinner today.
b. But did anybody see my wallet?
Bell claims that this use of but signals a return to the main topic of discourse.
He describes the but-clause as a cancelling clause which cancels what comes before in
discourse.
Since but has been seen as encoding a variety of meanings, some theorists
including Anscombre & Ducrot (1977), Abraham (1979) argue that it is linguistically
ambiguous, i.e. there is more than one lexical but in English. Horn (1989) supports this
argument by referring to cross-linguistic data which show that but in English could be
translated to different lexical items in other languages.
As a contrastive adverbial conjunct in the terminology of Quirk et al. (1985) or
an ‘adversative conjunctive element’ in that of Halliday and Hasan (1976), but has a
range of meanings variously described as adversative or antithetic, as in (5),
concessive, as in (6), corrective or replacive, as in (7), and dismissive, as in (8).
(5) Judy expected to win gold, but got only silver.

(6) She had little chance of winning, but it was worth a try.
(7) Judy didn’t exactly fall down, but she tripped.
(8) Judy was quite disappointed, but it doesn’t matter.



16

In its clear DM functions, but signals contrast or a ‘denial of expectations’ (Foolen,
1991). The contrast may be lexically expressed, as in (9), or it may be inferred from
the content of the preceding discourse, as in (10).
(9) Larry is big. But his daughter is small.
(10) Larry is big. But he’s not good at basketball.
Dascal and Katriel(1977) and Katriel and Dascal (1984) describe the function of
but as cancelling some level of meaning in the foregoing utterance. As Bell (1998)
shows, the levels of meaning may be ideational, rhetorical or sequential; indeed, but
may cancel meaning in the previous utterance on more than one of these levels at once.
Thus, the function of but in the passage below could arguably be both ideational and
rhetorical: ideational in shifting from Astrid to her husband Keith, and rhetorical in
switching the topic of conversation from greeting Astrid to seeing Keith waiting
tables.
Brianne: Did Astrid say hi to you or anything like that?
Addie : No, I kind of avoided her and she didn’t see me. But he was there,
Keith was serving.
Halliday and Hasan (1976) further identify an ‘internal’ adversative meaning
‘contrary to expectation’ directed at the ongoing communication process. Similar is
Schiffrin’s (1987) description of a ‘speaker-return’ from secondary to primary
information, or alternatively to cancel the topic domain of the foregoing discourse in
favor of a new perspective. Bell (1998) calls this function of but sequentially
contrastive, saying that it cancels expectations about what should come next in the

discourse. In this sequential function, but marks off a digression or other subordinate
section of a discourse and signals a return to its main topic or point, as in the following
example from Bell (1998).
Suddenly, his telephone is ringing with producers interested in his next project. But
what most delights him is that Americans will see his film. (Bell, 1998)
The function of but to signal a shift in voice here and to segue into a new
perspective is similar to the particularly narrative functions I will identify for but



17

below. In both cases, but as a DM is keyed to the organization of the ongoing
discourse.
Now, certainly a formulation of the main point or summary of a foregoing
narrative cannot express contrast or cancellation in any normal sense. Halliday and
Hasan (1976) could perhaps identify a meaning ‘contrary to expectation’ at the
particular point reached in the text, though a coda is precisely what we should expect
according to Labov and Waletzky. Schiffrin (1987) might argue that this use of but
presents a functional contrast and “creates an anaphoric tie” (Schiffrin ,1987) to an
earlier point in the text. Similarly, Bell (1998) might say, following Dascal and Katriel
(1977) and Katriel and Dascal (1984), that but picks out certain features of the
foregoing discourse for cancellation, perhaps the presupposition that the teller would
prefer to detail the local effects rather than returning to the main point. However, it
seems again that the correct description must involve reference to the story-in-progress
and directedness toward its organization. In particular, but marks the significance
statement which serves as the final step in the overall structure of the story. If one felt
the description should make reference to the notion of contrast, as above, one could
again appeal to the fact that the use of but in this way conveys the contrastive
information that the complicating action in the body of the narrative here gives way to

the coda or final expression of the point of the story.
1.1.2 Review of Previous Studies Related to the Research Topic in Viet Nam
In Viet Nam, a number of linguistics who make significant contributions to the
study of discourse analysis include Diep Quang Ban (1998), Tran Ngoc Them (1999),
Nguyen Thi Viet Thanh ( 1999), among many others. The research area shared among
these authors is the study of DMs as cohesive devices in texts and utterances in
Vietnamese language.
Approaching the same issue, Ngo Huu Hoang ( 2001,2002,2010) goes further
by conducting contrastive discourse analysis with clear evidence in both English and
Vietnamese. Particularly, in one of his articles, Ngo Huu Hoang (2001) classified DMs
into 18 types, each of which has typical examples in both languages.



18

Besides these authors, Vo Thi Thao Ly,in her thesis “ A Study on coordinators and,
but, or as cohesive devices”(Thao Ly, 1999) she focused on the implication of but as
“contrast”; “concession”; and “ condition”. The discourse marker But has three
implications but their frequencies are different.
I suggest that we need more research on the local determination of DM
functions in different narrative genres in different linguistic communities . We should
expect to find not only sets of lexical items but also various other linguistic devices
acting as DMs. And we should bear in mind that DMs serve not only to signal tellers’
intentions about particular utterances and overall organization, but also as cues to
audience expectations about the narrative in progress. From the above review on the
studies of But, I suggested on the complementation of the dissertation tiltled “ A study
on the linguistic features of the discourse marker BUT and their Vietnamese
translation equivalents”

1.2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
In the scope of this research, the discourse marker “BUT” will be controlled
under studying in terms of linguistic characteristics, specifically in terms of Syntac,
Semantics and Pragmatics. For the reason, the theoretical background concerning the
research will be put in consideration.
1.2.1. Syntactic Features
According to To Minh Thanh( To Minh Thanh, 2005):
Syntax is “ a term used for the study of the rules governing the way words are
combined to form sentences.”
Syntax is “ The study of how word combined to form sentences and the rules which
govern the information of sentences.”
As defined by Nguyen Hoa Lac: “ Syntax is a description of the ways words are put
together to make larger units such as phrases, clauses and sentences.” (Nguyen Hoa
Lac, 2004).



19

Syntax, as Geogre Yule stated “ is the study of the relationships between linguistic
forms, how they are arranged in sequence, and which sequences are well- formed”
( Geogre Yule, 1996).
Knowing a language also means being able to put words together to form phrases and
sentences that express our express. The part of grammar that concerns the structure of
phrases and sentences is called syntax. Part of the meaning of a sentence meaning is
more than the sum of the meanings of words.
1.2.1.1. Word Classes
- Word class or Part of Speech is a group of words which are similar in
function.

Words are grouped into word classes according to their meanings that they express, to
how they combine with others, how they change their form
Word classes are divided into board groups:
- Lexical Categories(Open classes) are : noun, verb, adjective, preposition,
adverb. These elements play a very important role in sentence formation, those to
which new words may be readily added.
- Non- lexical Categories – Function Categories ( Close Classes) are:
determiner, auxiliary verb, conjunction, degree word. Such elements generally have
meanings that they are harder to define and paraphrase than of lexical categories.
1.2.1.2. The Properties of Sentence Structure.
To understand the internal organization of sentences and the distribution of the
units forming them, we must consider the three major properties sentence structure.
- Linearity: Sentences are produced and received in a linear sequence. On the
other hand, words are spoken(or written) and heard (or read) in a time sequence from
early to later. A sequence of words of a sentence must be in a string to ensure
meanings.
- Hierarchy: Sentences are hierarchically structured, that is, they are not simply
sequences of individual words but are made up of word groupings, which themselves
may include lesser groupings.



20

- Categoriality: Sentences are made up of parts which belong to a set of distinct
categories, each with its special characteristics.
1.2.2. Semantic Features
In fact, learning a language includes ‘agreed – upon’ meanings of certain
strings of sounds and learning how to comnine these meaningful units into larger units
that also convey meaning.

The entire speaker share the basic vocabulary: the sounds and meanings of words. All
speakers know how to combine words to produce phrase and sentence meaning. The
study of words, phrases, and sentences is called semantics.
Roman Jakobson stated: "Language without meaning is meaningless"
(Jakobson, 1993).
Semantics as Geogre Yule “ is the study of the relationships between linguistic
forms and entities in the world; that is how words literally connect to things.”(Geogre
Yule, 1996).
In English Semantics written by To Minh Thanh “ Semantics is a branch of
linguistic which deals with meaning. It means that semantics is the study of meaning in
a language” ( To Minh Thanh,2007).
1.2.2.1. Meaning
As summarized by Geogre Yule (1996), there are seven kinds of maning:
- Conceptual meaning or sense: Logical, cognitive, or denotative content
- Connotative meaning: What is communicated by virtue of what language refers to?
- Stylistic meaning: What is communicated of the social circumstances of language
use?
- Affective meaning : What is communicated of the feelings and attitudes of the
speakers/writers”
- Reflected meaning: What is communicated of through association with another sense
of the same expression?
- Collocative meaning: What is communicated through association with words which
tend to occur in the environment of another of another word?



21

- Thematic meaning: What is communicated by the way in which the message is
organized in terms of order and emphasis.

1.2.2.2. Word Meaning
1.2.2.2.1. Grammatical meaning
Lyons (1977)points out that “Different forms of the same lexeme will generally,
though not necessarily, differ in meaning: they will differ in respect of their
grammatical meaning.”
1.2.2.2.2. Lexical meaning
Baker (1992) states that “The lexical meaning of a word or lexical unit may be
thought as the specific value it has in a particular linguistic system and the
‘personality’ it acquires through usage within that system.” And “it is just the lexical
meaning it is the most outstanding individual property of the word.” And the lexical
meaning of the word can be classified in to denotational meaning and connotative
meaning.
a. Denotative meaning or Denotation
As defined in the Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied
Linguistics (2002), denotation is a part of the meaning of a word or phrase that relates
it to phenomena in the real world or in a fictional or possible world.
b. Connotative meaning or Connotation
Amvela and Jackson (2000) point out that “connotations constitute additional
properties of lexemes, e.g. poetic, slang, baby language, biblical, casual, formal,
humorous, legal, literary, rhetorical.”
c. Paraphrases.
According to To Minh Thanh “ Sentences are paraphrases if they have the same
meanings – except possibly for minor differences in emphases” ( To Minh
Thanh,2007).
There are not only words that sound same but have the different meaning; there
are also words that sound different but have the same or nearly the same meaning.