A contrastive analysis of nominal substitution in English and Vietnamese conversation

A contrastive analysis of nominal substitution
in English and Vietnamese conversation

Trần Thị Khương Liên

Trường Đại học Ngoại ngữ
Luận văn Thạc sĩ ngành: Ngôn ngữ Anh; Mã số: 60.22.15
Người hướng dẫn: ThS. Nguyễn Huyền Minh
Năm bảo vệ: 2012

Abstract: This thesis is aimed at nominal substitution in Conversation and equivalent
expressions in Vietnamese by using Contrastive Analysis as the major method.
Through the contrastive analysis, we state the similarities and differences of Ns in
English and Vietnamese on different forms of Ns, grammatical or syntactical functions
of substitute words as well as the role of making discourse as cohesive device in
conversation. The research is carried out using qualitative and descriptive methods.
The data of the study are collected from stories and novels as well as grammar books
in both languages. The findings of the study are mostly discussed on the theoretical
framework of the works by Halliday & Hasan (1976) and Halliday (1985). The thesis
also draws some implications for teaching and learning as well as suggestions for
further study. It will be useful for learners when investigating conversation in English
as well as in Vietnamese for successful communication.

Keywords: Phép thế danh từ; Tiếng Anh; Tiếng Việt; Ngôn ngữ học đối chiếu; Hội
thoại

Content
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale
The history of linguistics has seen the everlasting development of different approaches
to linguistics and language teaching, each of which defines its own tasks, scopes and

objectives. Traditionally, linguists have been concerned with the phonological, lexical and
syntactical features and studied sentences which are preferably taken out of context. Besides,
the focus of traditional practice of language teaching and learning has been on the analysis of
single sentences, normally at the levels of phonology, vocabulary and grammar.
Later, with the view that incomplete sentences can still make sense when occurring in
some particular context, according to (Cook 1989: ix) complete understanding of stretches of

2
language can only be obtained if they are considered “in their full textual, social and
psychological context” linguists have shifted their attention from complete sentences to
discourse.
In common with coherence, cohesion takes an active role in building up discourse, in
general, and of course, conversation as a genre of discourse, in particular. In Vietnam, it
seems that all the issues related to substitution especially Nominal substitution in conversation
are still in limited exploration. It is easy to find that substitution in Vietnamese is still a
concept which has been needed receive much Vietnamese researchers’ exploration Thus, we
might wonder whether substitution, and within the minor thesis, nominal substitution actually
works in Vietnamese conversation. Furthermore, in recent years, reference, ellipsis, and
lexical have been closely studied in contrastive with Vietnamese, within the framework of
minor thesis a careful and profound study of English and Vietnamese nominal substitution is,
theoretically speaking, equally important and necessary.
2. Objectives of the study
The objectives of this research are as follows:
- re- examine some aspects of English substitution and nominal substitution in detail so as to
establish the descriptive framework for a contrastive analysis.
- investigate all the possible linguistics means of nominal substitution in Vietnamese
conversation discourse and at the same time find out possible similarities and differences
between English and Vietnamese nominal substitution.
- give some suggestions to apply to the teaching and learning of English
The specific research questions are addressed as follows:

1. What are the linguistics means used for nominal substitution in English
conversation?
2. What are the equivalent linguistics means used for nominal substitution in
Vietnamese conversation in contrast with those in English conversation?
3. The scope of the study
Since this study examines nominal substitution as a cohesive device, only substitution across
sentences is taken into account. Because of the limited time and knowledge, this study is only
focused on some domains as follows:
- Only nominal substitution in English and its equivalent expressions in Vietnamese
conversation are investigated.

3
- I will take into consideration many cases of nominal substitution so the data used for
illustration exemplification are taken from various sources.
- I am going to deal with nominal substitution occured in the written transcription of this
conversation, not in a tape – recorded conversation.
4. Methodology of the study
Since the main purpose of the study is to contrast nominal substitution in English
conversation and Vietnamese conversation, the result of which will be exploited for language
learning and teaching, CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS (C.A.) is used as the major method of
the study. I will take English language as the base language and Vietnamese as the
comparative language.Besides, systemization and generalization are also used as sub-methods
to support C.A. method. Thus, in the comparative analysis of examples in both English and
Vietnamese, translation is the main technique given to highlight the similarities (or
differences) in the nominal substitution in the two languages.




PART B: DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

1.1. The theories of discourse
1.1.1. The concept of discourse
The concept of discourse has been paid considerable attention to by several linguists
since 1952. The most straightforward definition of discourse is the one often found in
textbooks for students of linguistics: “Language above the sentence” (Cameron 2001: 10).
According to Cook (1989: 6) discourse is “stretches of language perceived to be meaningful,
unified and purposeful". In his point of view, the kind of language, language has been used to
communicate something and is felt to be coherent (and may, or may not, happen to
correspond to a correct sentence or a series of correct sentences) – language in use, for
communication is called discourse. Discourse can be anything from a conversation to a great
novel or a lengthy legal case.
1.1.2. Discourse and Sentence
It is obvious that we have two different kinds of language as potential objects for study. The
sentence is abstracted in order to teach a language or literacy, or to study how the rules of

4
language work according to Cook (1989). Brown & Yule (1983) shared the same idea with
Cook. Discourse, on the contrary, is the language in use, for communication. In addition, it
has been used to communicate something and felt to be coherent and cohesive.
1.1.3. Discourse and Text
Regardless of the agreement on the concept of discourse, linguists hold different views about
the distinction between two most notable terms Discourse and Text. For some linguists, the
term discourse has been tried to set apart from the term text. They argue that discourse is
language in action, while a text is the written record of that interaction such as Crystal, Brown
and Yule, Nunan. Whereas, for some linguists these two terms seem to be used almost
interchangeably. Text or discourse is an instance of language in use, this means that no text
occurs without a context.
1.1.4. Discourse analysis

Discourse analysis is concerned with the study of the relationship between language and the
contexts in which it is used. Zellig Harris, an American linguist, was the first person who
recognized discourse as one main object of study in linguistics. The linguistic philosophers
such as Austin (1962), Searle (1969) and Grice (1975) also made great impact in the study of
language and social action, which is reflected in speech act theory and the formulation of
conversational maxims and the appearance of pragmatics. It was in 1973 that discourse
analysis was dealt with perfectly and concretely in M.A.K Halliday’s functional approach to
language. Halliday's linguistic model emphasizes the social function of language and the
thematic and informational structure of speech and writing.
1.1.5. Spoken and Written Discourse
These two types of discourse above can be distinguished according to the type of
situation. Oral discourse is concerning face-to-face situation while a recorded transmission
situation involves in the written discourse. As mentioned above, in this study spoken
discourse (conversation) takes the form of written transcription. Written transcriptions and
written language are absolutely not like.
1.2. The theories of conversation
1.2.1 The concept of conversation
Conversation, as we have seen here, involves far more than knowledge of the language
system and the factors creating coherence in one-way discourse; it involves the gaining,
holding, and yielding of turns, the negotiation of meaning and direction, the shifting of topic,
the signaling and identification of turn type, the use of voice quality, face and body. For a
successful conversation, the partners must achieve a workable balance of contributions.

5
1.2.2. Why is Conversation Analysis important?
The question Why is Conversation Analysis (CA) potentially very important when analyzing
cohesive devices in conversation? The answer will be attempted to describe based on data
from conversation taken from various resources in giving clear explanation the most
grammatical function of substitute words within a nominal group.
1.3. Cohesion

1.3.1 The concept of cohesion
The concept of cohesion is closely connected with discourse. Cohesion, a property of any
successful text, is also present in spoken language. It is defined as the grammatical and lexical
relationship between different elements of a text.
1.3.2. Coherence and cohesion
In this minor thesis, I do support the view that cohesion is a guide to coherence and
that is part of coherence in reading and writing, and indeed in spoken language too. More in
detail, cohesion is the realization of coherence, and coherence is something created by the
readers in the act of reading the text. The two categories represent the interrelated aspects that
make a text or discourse coherent and different from random ones. In short, coherence is
embodied by a system of cohesive devices and cohesion is mainly used to ensure coherence.
1.3.3. Cohesion within the sentence and discourse
According to Halliday & Hasan (1976), this is because the cohesive strength of grammatical
structure is so great that always make the sentence hang together. The effect of cohesion in
discourse is more outstanding and the meaning is more obvious than that within the sentence.
1.4. Types of Cohesion
According to Halliday and Hasan (1976), the classification of cohesion is based on the
linguistic form. The type of cohesion depends either on semantic relation in the linguistic
system or on lexico-grammatical relations. In other words, the cohesive relation can be
interpreted as being either lexicogrammatical in nature or semantic.
1.5. Substitution
1.5.1 The concept of substitution
It is all agreed that substitution is a way of avoiding repetition. Within the scope of my
study the view of substitution as a grammatical relation in the work done by Halliday &
Hasan (1976) on substitution will be taken as the theoretical framework for the contrastive
analysis.
1.5.2 Substitution, Cohesion and Discourse

6
Truly, cohesion helps a sequence of sentences hang together in the view of Halliday & Hasan

(1976) creating a surface and semantic relation between different parts of the discourse. It
could be understood that substitution across sentences does have a cohesive function and in so
doing create textuality since a substitute word almost cannot be interpreted when taken out of
context.
1.6. Contrastive Analysis
1.6.1. Definition
We concern the definition by James (1980:3) “ C.A. is a linguistic enterprise aimed at
producing inverted (i.e. contrastive, not comparative) two- valued typologies ( a C.A. is
always concerned with a pair of languages), and founded on the assumption that languages
can be compared”. Noticeably, contrastive analysis is not merely related to not only foreign
language teaching and learning but it can also make useful contributions to translation theory,
linguistics typology, the study of language universals and the description of particular
languages.
1.6.2. Why use C.A. in this thesis?
As I have explained above, C.A. plays very key role in exploring similarities and differences
between the source language and the target language, which is very important in learning
languages, especially in learning a foreign language like English. That is why C.A. is used as
the major study method in this study to analyze nominal substitution in English and its
equivalent expressions in Vietnamese conversation.
1.7. Summary
I have gone over all the fundamental notions of discourse, cohesion, substitution as well as
subtypes of substitution and nominal substitution as the core for discussion. All theoretical
background in this study has been drawn on the work by Halliday & Hasan (1976), Halliday
(1985), wherever suitable, Quirk et. al. (1972). The classification of these terms will be of
great importance with regards to the contrastive analysis in the next chapter.

7





CHAPTER 2
A CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS OF NOMINAL SUBSTITUTION IN ENGLISH AND
VIETNAMESE CONVERSATION

2.1. General Features of English and Vietnamese Nominal Structure
Since nominal substitution takes places mainly in the environment of a nominal group,
it is essential to revise the English and Vietnamese nominal structure before considering
nominal substitution. With regards to the English structure of nominal groups, the reader is
referred in particular to many well-known linguists such as Halliday & Hasan (1976), Quirk
et. al. (1972), Downing & Locke (1995) and Chalker (1984).
For Halliday & Hasan (1976), the logical structure of the nominal group in its full form
consists of three components: the Head, the Premodifier which optionally precedes the Head
and the Postmodifier which optionally follows the Head:
Premodifier / Head / postmodifier: e.g. Those five beautiful shiny Jonathan / apples /
sitting on the chair
Similarly, Quirk et. al. (1972) as well as Chalker (1984) use the terms Premodification, Head
and Postmodification to refer to three parts of the structure:
Premodification / Head / Postmodification: e.g. The latest / problem / for the
government
Accordingly, we might reach to the conclusion that the standard structure of the English

nominal group has a maximum of three components: one Head and two optional modifiers.
Though central in the group, the Head which may be a common noun, a pronoun or a proper
noun can be substituted or even omitted
With reference to the Vietnamese nominal structure, the two models of the structure provided
by two influential Vietnamese linguists, namely Diep Quang Ban (1996) and Nguyen Tai Can
(1996) have been looked at. Diep Quang Ban (1996) states that the structure of the
Vietnamese nominal group is composed of three components: the Head, the Premodifier and
the Postmodifier. The presence of the last two is optional:
Premodifier / Head / Postmodifier: e.g. Tất cả những cái / chủ trương / chính xác đó.

8
Nguyen Tai Can (1996) also shared this functional view. He holds the view that the two
nouns, the classifier and the one following it, are equally important. Therefore, he points out
that in this case the Head is a combination of Head 1 and Head 2.
2.2. Personal Pronouns
2.2.1. Subjective Personal Pronouns and Objective Personal Pronouns
The third person pronouns obviously carry cohesive force as any use of them always requires
the listener or reader to look backwards (i.e. anaphoric) in order to retrieve what has gone
before. Thus, the third person pronouns are seen as one of the main cohesive devices used for
the creation of discourse. Further more, my study centres around only common substitute
words as cohesive devices in conversation discourse and because it is not a study of personal
pronouns, I am going to work on only on the third person ones.
To sum up this subsection, I would like to go over several points which are taken into
account with regard to the English third person pronouns and their Vietnamese counterparts:
 Vietnamese has more pronouns and pronominalized lexical items to address the
third person as compared with English, and as a result these Vietnamese equivalents have
more restrictions on their use.
 The Vietnamese equivalents of the English third person pronouns are governed
by the so-called principle of formality in conversation. They reflect not only the relationship
between the addressor and the person he/she is talking about, the education background of the

addressor, or his/ her attitude towards he person/ thing being talked about, but also his/ her
character. Therefore, we can say that pronouns used in Vietnamese conversation are deeply
expressive.
 English has two separate forms for the objective and subjective cases, but
Vietnamese has a single form for both cases.
The following table is that of the English third person pronouns and their Vietnamese
equivalents:
English3
rd
person
pronouns subjective and
objective
Vietnamese Equivalents
He/him
Ông, ngài, cậu, anh, nó, chàng, hắn, y
She/her
human
Bà, nàng, cô, chị, thị, nó
non - human
nó
personalization

9
It/it
nó
They/them
họ, chúng, chúng nó
Table 3: The English third person pronouns and their Vietnamese equivalent
2.2.2. Possessive Pronouns
In agreement with the various forms of the three persons of the personal pronouns, the system

of the English possessive pronouns has as its members the following forms: mine, yours, his,
hers, its, ours, and theirs. All these possessive pronouns function as Head in the nominal
group and work to substitute for the corresponding possessive adjectives plus the noun which
is mentioned previously for the purpose of avoiding unnecessary repetitions.
To conclude, we see that the English possessive pronouns and their Vietnamese
counterparts are doubly anaphoric as they all substitute for both the possessor and the
possessed. Besides, because the Vietnamese personal pronouns and pronominalized lexical
items vary to a great extent, the English possessive pronouns undoubtedly have various
realizations in Vietnamese conversational discourse. In addition, normally, the numeratives
(especially những) can be used before indexical CÁI/ Head 1 to show the plural number of the
nominal group being substituted. The relationship between the English possessive pronouns
and their Vietnamese equivalents is shown in the following table:
ENGLISH
VIETNAMESE
Possessive pronouns as
Head (mine, yours, ours,
etc.)
Indexical CÁI/ Head 1
Qualifier
(của)
Personal pronouns/
Pronominalized lexical item
mine ~ my cell phone
his ~ his bed room
yours ~ your toys
cái
phòng
đồ

của
của
tôi
ông ta
con
Table 4: The English possessive pronouns and their Vietnamese equivalent
2.3. One
2.3.1. One as a Substitute for a Nominal Group Head/ the substitute one
For Halliday & Hasan (1976), the substitute one or ones always holds the position of Head in
a nominal group and can substitute only for item which itself Head of a nominal group.
In the process of investigating the nominal substitution in the English conversations contrasted with
Vietnamese, we should equally pay attention to the cases in which nominal substitution with the
substitute one/ones cannot occur except several restrictions on the use of one/ones mentioned at the
beginning of this subsection (mass nouns, proper names), substitute one/ones cannot take place in
the nominal compound structure (like fountain pens, polar bears, apple trees etc.) as shown in the

10
following examples for the simple reason that a word following the accented word in a nominal
structure cannot be replaced.
2.3.2. Indefinite One
According to Quirk et. al. (1972), the indefinite one as a substitute for an indefinite noun
group can occur without a modifier but the substitute one can not do so. the Vietnamese
equivalent of the indefinite one must have một as its numerative, and this is obligatory. What
to be noted here is that the Vietnamese equivalent does not need any qualifiers or
Demonstratives since their English counterpart has no modification. Thus, the form of the
Vietnamese equivalent of the indefinite one can be depicted as Numerative (một) + Head 1
(cái, cây, con etc.). Like the Vietnamese equivalence of the substitute one/ones, Head 2 is
sometimes repeated to avoid any possible misunderstanding especially when two or more
nominal groups share Head 1 ( like cái bàn, cái ghế and cây đinh, cây tre), and when repeated
it may take Qualifiers or Demonstratives. Regarding the plural form of the indefinite one,

namely some, what I have talked about the indefinite one goes equally for some. The
Vietnamese equivalent of some can be stated as (một) vài + Head 1 for countable nouns and
as một ít/ một chút ít + (Head) for uncountable nouns; in the latter case the whole Head is
either repeated or left out.
2.4. The same
In English, as Halliday & Hasan (1976) point out, the item same, which is often accompanied
by the definite article the, is also used to substitute for a nominal group. But unlike the
substitute one/ones which replaces only the Head noun, the same can substitute for the whole
nominal group.
2.4.1. Say the same
Halliday & Hasan (1976: 107) propose that the same can be used in place of the fact if it
occurs “in the environment of process in which a fact is involved
With the exception of say the same, in English conversation the same can still be found in a
number of expressions which also substitutes for the fact. Let us have a look at the
commonest ones:
 Think the same
 The same applies to /The same goes for…
It can be said that the Vietnamese equivalent of the same in the expressions mentioned in
these conversations above still adopts the form cũng …thế/vậy. What is to be noted here is the
position of the pronouns thế/vậy in the sentence. I see that when thế/vậy substitutes for a
noun, it does not mean that they will become nouns. Substitution here should be understood

11
as that of the syntactical functions of the presupposed item. It means that if thế/vậy substitutes
for a noun or a nominal group, they can function as objects/complements, or as subjects in
sentences.
2.4.2. Do the same
The same in the expression do the same, as pointed out by Halliday & Hasan (1976:108) can
substitute for a process in some kinds of clause. As far as the Vietnamese equivalence of do
the same is concerned, in Vietnamese the verb làm is quite similar to the general verb do in

that it has a very general meaning. It is, especially when combined with nouns, often used to
substitute for other specific verbs and at the same time it carries over the meaning of the verb
it substitutes for. Concerning the use of cũng (in cũng làm thế/vậy), it can be noted that when
the two presupposed clause and the clause containing thế/vậy have the same polarity (positive
or negative), the use of cũng is necessary. If not, cũng may be omitted. As we can see in the
examples in the thesis, although the same is a form of nominal substitution, it can substitute
for a verbal element in the clause when that element expresses a process.
2.4.3. Be the same
The same, when combined with be or other linking verbs like look, sound, taste etc may
substitute for a noun or an adjective (and the modifying elements if not left out) as head of the
nominal group.
So far, the same has been carefully studied in contrastive analysis with its Vietnamese
equivalents. I would like to bring out here my further conclusion of the relationship between
the same and thế/ vậy in comparison:
 The same always has non-human presupposed items and so do its Vietnamese
counterparts thế/ vậy.
 As can be seen in all the examples above, both the same and thế/ vậy substitute for a
nominal group in the environment of a clause.
 Whereas the syntactical function of thế/ vậy in its sentence depends strictly on that of
their presupposed sentence, the same may have different syntactical functions as
compared with that of their presupposed item.







12

PART C: CONCLUSION

3.1. Concluding remarks:
Nominal subsituttion as a cohesive device takes a very active role in the construction of both
English and Vietnamese Conversation. From what has been analyzed, in this part I would like
to draw some conclusions for the aims set forth at the beginning of the thesis:
My first aim to carry out this minor thesis is to help Vietnamese learners of English
have a thorough knowledge of linguistics means of English Ns used in conversation and use
them appropriately in order to achieve communicative purposes.
The second aim isto investigate the similarities and differences of Ns in English
conversations and Vietnamese ones in terms of on different forms of Ns, grammatical or
syntactical functions of substitute words as well as the role of making discourse as cohesive
device in conversation. From the contrastive analysis by using translations of many English

conversations and Vietnamese equivalent expressions, one thing can be admitted that the
environment for nominal substitution mainly to take place in English conversation is nominal

13
group and Vietnamese substitute words on the whole also occur in the same environment,
though they may function differently as compared with their English counterparts. English Ns
is concerned in order to substitute for a nominal group in English conversational discourse;
we may use the personal pronouns, the possessive pronouns, the substitute one/ones, the
indefinite one/some and the same together with the expressions containing it. In contrast,
Vietnamese discourse pronominalized lexical items, Head 1 or anaphoric pronouns thế/vậy
may function as nominal substitutes. As pointed out before, though all these items are
different in many aspects, similarity can to some extent still be found among them.
3.2. The implication of the study for teaching and learning of English
Up to now substitution in general and nominal substitution in particular as a cohesive device
has been still an unfamiliar phenomenon to many Vietnamese learners of English. Therefore,
the analysis of the similarities and differences of Ns in English and Vietnamese conversation
may be significant and important to teaching and learning English language. . I suggest that
the concept of nominal substitution and the substitute items should be presented to learners of
all levels and those learners of different levels should receive at different levels of usage.
Similarly, consciousness raising activities may be utilized in the teaching to students after
initially providing them with moreprofound insight into nominal substitution as a kind of
cohesive device.
3.3. Limitation of the study
Although the thesis has been given much time and efforts, it is inevitable to avoid
shortcomings for the limitations in the ability of the research as well as the inadequacy of
materials. It is hoped that the thesis can receive a lot of contributions from all the teachers and
opinions from readers so that it can become better and more effective.
3.4. Suggestions for further study
In this study only one genre of discourse is examined, conversational discourse.
Further study may investigate other fields as narrative, poems, or scientific discourse, etc.

Moreover, it is possible for further study to study in term of contrastive analysis or in
comparison with Vietnamese for example. I do hope that nominal substitution will be studied
more in the future. More work needs to be done in terms of linking a conversation analytic
framework with issues and concerns in cohesion analysis.

References
In English:

14
1. Angela Downing & Philip Locke. (1995). English grammar – A university course.
Cambridge University Press.
2. Austin, J.L. (1962), How to do things with words, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University
Press.
3. Bell, Roger J. (1991). Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice. London:
Longman Group Limited.
4. Brown, Gillian & Yule, George. (1983). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. (CUP)
5. Cameron, Deborah. (2001). Working with spoken discourse. London: SAGE Publications
6. Carthy, Michael. (1993). Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. (CUP)
7. Chalker, S. (1984). Current English grammar. London: Macmillan
8. Crystal, David. (1992). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Oxford: Blackwell.
9. Crystal, D. (1992). Introducing linguistics. Harlow: Penguin.
10. Cook, G. (1989). Dicourse. Cambridge University Press. (CUP)
11. Coulthard, P. (1979). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. London: Longman.
12. Gee, J. P. (2001). An introduction to discourse analysis. London: Routledge
13. Grice, H.P. (1975), Logic and Conversation, New York: Academic Press.
14. Hatim, B & Mason, I. (1990). Discourse and the translator. London: Longman.
15. Halliday, M.A.K. (1994). Introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward
Arnold.

16. Halliday, M.A.K. & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
17. Hatch, E. (1992) Discourse and language education. Cambridge: CUP.
18. Hoa Nguyen. (2000). An introduction to discourse analysis. Hanoi: National University
Press.
19. Leech, G & Swartvik, J. (1990), A communicative grammar of English, London:
Longman.
20. James, C. (1980). Contrastive Analysis, London: Longman.
21. Jespersen, O. (1933). Essentials of English grammar. New York: Henry Holt & Company.
22. Markee, N. (2000). Conversation analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
23. Nunan D. (1992), Introducing Discourse Analysis, Penguin English, Sydney.
24. Quirk, R. et al. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, London:
Longman.

15
25. Quirk, R., Greenbaun, S., Leech G. and Svartvik, J. (1972), A Grammar of Contemporary
English, London: Longman.
26. Quirk, R et al. (1980), A Grammar of Contemporary English, London: Longman
27. Rogers, R. (ed.). 2004 An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education.
Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
28. Searle, J.R. (1969), Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge
University Press.

In Vietnamese:
1. Diệp Quang Ban. (1996). Ngữ pháp tiếng Việt, Tâp 1 và tập 2, Hà Nội: NxB Giáo Dục.
2. Diệp Quang Ban. (2005). Ngữ pháp tiếng Việt, (Bộ mới). Hà Nội: NxB Giáo Dục
3. Diệp Quang Ban. (2006). Giao tiếp diễn ngôn và Cấu tạo của văn bản, Hà Nội: NxB Giáo
Dục
4. Diệp Quang Ban. (1998).Văn bản và Liên kết trong tiếng Việt, Hà Nội: NxB Giáo Dục
5. Lê Biển. (1996). Từ loại tiếng Việt hiện đại, Hà Nội: NxB Đại học Quốc gia.
6. Đỗ Hữu Châu (2006). Đại cương ngôn ngữ học, tập 2, Hà Nội: NxB Giáo Dục

7. Nguyễn Tài Cẩn. (1996). Ngữ pháp tiếng Việt, Hà Nội: NxB Đại học Quốc gia.
8. Nguyễn Hòa (2003). Phân tích diễn ngôn: Một số vấn đề lí luận và phương pháp, Hà Nội:
NxB Đại Học Quốc Gia.
9. Nguyễn Thiện Giáp. (2004), Dụng Học Việt Ngữ, Hà Nội: NxB Đại Học Quốc Gia
10. Halliday, M. A. K. (2004). Dẫn luận ngữ pháp chức năng. (Bản dịch Hoàng Văn Vân),
Hà Nội: NxB Đại Học Quốc Gia.
11. Cao Xuân Hạo. (2004). Tiếng Việt: Sơ thảo ngữ pháp chức năng, Hà Nội: NxB Đại Học
Quốc Gia.
12. LưuVăn Lăng. (2008). Những vấn đề ngữ pháp tiếng Việt hiện đại. Hà Nội: NxB Khoa
học xã hội.
13. Trần Hữu Mạnh. (2007). Ngôn ngữ học đối chiếu tiếng Anh và tiếng Việt, Hà Nội: NxB
Đại Học Quốc Gia.
14. Trần Ngọc Thêm. (1999). Hệ thống liên kết văn bản tiếng Việt. (Tái bản lần thứ năm). Hà
Nội: NxB Giáo Dục.

Sources of extracted examples:
1.
2.

16
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8. (Dịch giả: Nguyễn Tuyên, Bản dịch Jane Eyre, 2008, NXB Văn
Học, www.thuvien-ebook.com)
9.