Syntactic and pragmatic features of english question with reference to vietnamese (based on the bilingual novel “godfather”)

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
HANOI OPEN UNIVERSITY

NGUYEN DINH DUC MUOI

SYNTACTIC AND PRAGMATIC FEATURES OF ENGLISH
QUESTIONS WITH REFERENCE TO VIETNAMESE (BASED
ON THE BILINGUAL NOVEL “GODFATHER”)
ĐẶC ĐIỂM CÚ PHÁP VÀ NGỮ DỤNG HỌC CỦA CÂU HỎI
TIẾNG ANH CÓ LIÊN HỆ VỚI TIẾNG VIỆT DỰA TRÊN TIỂU
THUYẾT SONG NGỮ ―BỐ GIÀ‖

M.A THESIS
Field: English Language
Code: 8220201

Hanoi, 2018


MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
HANOI OPEN UNIVERSITY

M.A. THESIS
Field: English Language
Code: 8220201
SYNTACTIC AND PRAGMATIC FEATURES OF ENGLISH
QUESTIONS WITH REFERENCE TO VIETNAMESE (BASED
ON THE BILINGUAL NOVEL “GODFATHER”)
ĐẶC ĐIỂM CÚ PHÁP VÀ NGỮ DỤNG HỌC CỦA CÂU HỎI
TIẾNG ANH CÓ LIÊN HỆ VỚI TIẾNG VIỆT DỰA TRÊN TIỂU
THUYẾT SONG NGỮ ―BỐ GIÀ‖

NGUYEN DINH DUC MUOI
Supervisor: Assoc.Prof. Vo Dai Quang, Ph.D

Hanoi, 2018


STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP
I, the undersigned, hereby certify my authority of the study project report entitled
“Syntactic and pragmatic features of English questions with reference to
Vietnamese based on the bilingual novel “godfather” submitted in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master in English Language.
Except where the reference is indicated, no other person‘s work has been used
without due acknowledgement in the text of the thesis.
Hà Nội, 2018

Nguyen Dinh Duc Muoi

Approved by
SUPERVISOR

Assoc.Prof. Vo Dai Quang, Ph.D
Date:……………………

I


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This thesis could not have been completed without the help and support from a
number of people. I would like, hereby, to spread my profound gratitude to my

supervisor Assoc. Prof. Vo Dai Quang, Ph. D who has patiently and constantly
supported me through the stages of the study, and whose stimulating ideas,
expertise, and suggestions have inspired me greatly through my growth as an
academic researcher.
Also, I am very grateful to all the teachers at the Faculty of Postgraduate Studies
of Hanoi Open University for their interesting and useful lectures which have
built in me a firm foundation with immense ideas for the fulfillment of this paper.
In particular, my special thanks go to my parents who have, as it always goes,
encouraged and supported me so much in all respects.
Last but not least, I would like to express my heartfelt thanks to my dear friends
for their encouragement during my studies and my research work as well.

II


ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study is to examine the syntactic and pragmatic features of
English questions with reference to Vietnamese. This study used mainly
qualitative approach. In addition, such other methods and techniques as
descriptive method and contrastive method were used. The scope of this thesis
based on the work ―Godfather‖ by Mario Puzo and its Vietnamese version
translated by Ngoc Thu Lang. The findings of this research will show the
syntactic features of question such as structure, word orders. What‘s more, from a
theoretical perspective of language action and conversation, we have outlined the
40 language actions of questions on the basis of pragmatics Besides, we have
drawn some types of mistake made by Vietnamese related to expressions and
cognition and provied some solution to improve the learning quality These
finding will be useful to all those who want to learn English questions.

III

TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP ............................................................................. i
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................................................................................... ii
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................. iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................... iv
LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................... vii
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 1
1.1. Rationale ............................................................................................................. 1
1.2. Aims and objectives of the study ........................................................................ 1
1.3. Research questions .............................................................................................. 2
1.4. Scopes of the study ............................................................................................. 2
1.5. Significance of the study..................................................................................... 2
1.6. Design of the study ............................................................................................. 2
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................. 4
2.1. Review of previous studies ................................................................................. 4
2.2. Review of theoretical background ...................................................................... 5
2.2.1. Theory of syntax ........................................................................................... 5
2.2.2. Theory of pragmatics .................................................................................... 6
2.3. Review of theoretical framework ....................................................................... 8
2.3.1. Syntactic features of English questions ........................................................ 8
2.3.1.1. WH-question .......................................................................................... 9
2.3.1.2. Yes – No question ................................................................................ 10
2.3.1.3. Tag question ......................................................................................... 11
2.3.1.4. Alternative question ............................................................................. 12
2.3.2. Syntatic features of Vietnamese questions ................................................. 13

IV

2.3.2.1. WH-question ........................................................................................ 14
2.3.2.2. Yes – No question. ............................................................................... 15
2.3.2.3. Alternative question ............................................................................. 16
2.3.3 Pragmatic features of English and Vietnamese question. ............................ 17
2.4. Summary ........................................................................................................... 19
CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY ......................................................................... 20
3.1. Subjects ............................................................................................................. 20
3.2. Instruments........................................................................................................ 20
3.3. Procedures. ........................................................................................................ 21
3.4. Data Analysis .................................................................................................... 21
3.5. Summary ........................................................................................................... 21
CHAPTER IV: SYNTACTIC AND PRAGMATIC FEATURES OF ENGLISH
YES/ NO QUESTIONS WITH REFERENCE TO VIETNAMESE IN THE
NOVEL “GODFATHER”......................................................................................... 22
4.1 Syntactic features of English –Vietnamese questions in the novel Godfather .. 23
4.1.1. Syntactic features of English questions ...................................................... 23
4.1.2. Syntactic features of Vietnamese questions ................................................ 24
4.2 Pragmatics features of English- Vietnamese questions in the novel Godfather 25
4.3. Implications for learning English questions ..................................................... 50
4.3.1. Problems related to making mistakes ......................................................... 50
4.3.2. Recommendations for learning English questions ...................................... 51
4.4. Summary ........................................................................................................... 51
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION ................................................................................. 53
5.1. Summary of Findings........................................................................................ 53
5.2. Concluding remarks .......................................................................................... 53
5.3. Recommendations for Further Study ................................................................ 54
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 55

V

APPENDIX ................................................................................................................. 57

VI


LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Distribution of Yes/no question types in English language sources. ........... 24
Table 2. Distribution of Yes/no question types in Vietnamese language sources ...... 24
Table 3. Language behaviors of English and Vietnamese questions ........................ 26

VII


CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
1.1. Rationale
For learning foreign languages in the context of international integration today,
English is one of most important language. Through the experience of teaching
English as a foreign language, the author found that sometimes students
questioned in English in the Vietnamese, style and Vietnamese way of thinking.
The results of the survey of language behaviors in Vietnamese students'
classrooms are also given the fact that English language is very limited because
of many mistakes in language behaviors. To overcoming these obstacles is
probably a big challenge for students. This is also the reason why students lack
confidence in using English to communicate
The main reason for this limitation may be that of Vietnamese students ordinary
learn English in certain courses and for a while. Moreover, students do not have
many opportunities to deliver frequently with native English speakers, so
sometimes there still exist cases where the student has not yet determined the

required degree of language behavior in English. To find solutions to these
questions to provide a solution to the situation above, in the process of learning
and teaching skills and other language skills in the classroom such as listening,
speaking, reading and writing, the teacher should point out how to use questions
in different contexts. Comparing the question in both English and Vietnamese
from a rich source of material about the means of expressing the question in a
polite way in social interaction is a necessity, especially it helps Vietnamese
students learn English and foreign students learn Vietnamese have a guideline in
communication skills, so that there is a good cooperation, dynamic and polite
cooperation.
The thesis provides the general look into definition and characteristics of English
and Vietnamese questions as well as the usage of English and Vietnamese
questions. Based on the analysis, factors causing common mistakes of
Vietnamese learners in learning questions and some recommendation for better
studying English are also going to be shown.
1.2. Aims and objectives of the study
The research aims at finding out the use of English and Vietnamese questions.
Furthermore, questions in the bilingual novel will be selected to find out mistakes
in learning and suggest proper solutions. The research results will help
Vietnamese learners learning English questions from English in an effective way.
To achieve the aims mentioned above, following objectives are put forward:
1.

Describing the syntactic and pragmatic features of English questions
and Vietnamese equivalents.
1


2.

Establishing the usage of English and Vietnamese questions with
respect to syntactic and pragmatic features
3.
Suggesting some recommendations for learning English questions.
1.3. Research questions
1. What are syntactic and pragmatic features of English and Vietnamese
questions?
2. How English and Vietnamese questions are being used with respect to
syntactic and pragmatic features?
3. What are some recommendations for learning English question?
1.4. Scopes of the study
The scope of this study is an investigation into English questions and Vietnamese
equivalents especially in the syntactic and pragmatic features. Therefore, the
study is cover in all type of questions. The scope of data investigation is
extracted texts in the work: ―Godfather‖ by Mario Puzo and its Vietnamese
version ―Bố già‖ translated by Ngoc Thu Lang. The analysis will
demonstrate how English questions and Vietnamese questions are being used
and also find out form and meaning of questions between the two books
1.5. Significance of the study
Research for the activity of English questions and Vietnamese questions is to
determine the basic specific type of the syntax and pragmatic. The results of the
research were able to be referenced and used for learning English language
effectively. Accordingly, the thesis shows the ability to combine words from the
questions of both languages on level of the relationship between transactions in
forms and in meaning, therefore, it also helps seeking some appropriate solutions
for the problem of learning English question
1.6. Design of the study
The thesis is divided into 5 chapters
Chapter 1, Introduction:
Presenting rationale, aims, objectives, scope of the study and significance of the

study
Chapter 2, Literature Review:
Provideing some previous studied by scholars in the linguistic fields. The thesis
also delivers some theoretical backgrounds about the theory of syntax and
pragmatic. Finally, it will be supported with theoretical framework for the

2


research such as the definition of questions and characteristics of English and
Vietnamese questions.
Chapter 3. Methodology:
Refering to research-governing orientations and research methods of the study.
Also, provide some data analysis and instruments to the study
Chapter 4. Findings and discussion
Providing the results obtained via applications of the concerned research into the
data under investigation of the bilingual novel ―Godfather‖
Chapter 5. Conclusion
Provideing summary of the thesis, concluding remarks on research objectives and
finally suggesting some possible topic for further studies

3


CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Review of previous studies
Nguyen Dang Suu (2002) carried out a study of English questions in the contrast
with Vietnamese ones. In detail, the author figured out the features of questions in
both English and Vietnamese to have a clear understanding about ways to form a
question and their equivalent meaning in the two languages. Then, the author

studied and compared the pragmatic – semantic structure to find out the similarities
and differences between questions in English and Vietnamese language. He also
conducted surveys to investigate the understanding of Vietnamese students of
questions in the two languages, then came to some conclusions about the students‘
mistakes and suggested solutions in language teaching. Questions in some books are
used as illustrated examples and as the source to display the mistakes in question
translation in English – Vietnamese.
Le Dong (1996) carried out a study on the view of semantics and pragmatics. When
comparing questions in Vietnamese and English, the author points out the
similarities and differences of the typical academic nature of the selection of
questions from literary works when quoting sources and illustration.
Nguyen Thi Thin (1994) studied on "Questioning in Vietnamese: ―Some question
types are not usually used to ask‖. However, the author only describes the high
frequency of interrogative sentences and its applications in terms of semantics
communication.
Vo Dai Quang (2000) conducted a study to compare and contrast ―true questions‖
on the fields of semantics and pragmatics in English and Vietnamese. In the study,
the author used both English and Vietnamese as source and target language in order
to find out the similarities and differences of semantic and pragmatic features of
English and Vietnamese questions. He also dealt with the contrast of different types
of true questions as well aspragmatic means which is often seen in those
questions kinds
Cao Xuan Hao (1991) in the study of questions in ―Tiếng Việt - Sơ thảo ngữ pháp
chức năng‖, divided questions into two categories: legal questions and unqualified
questions. In his opinion, the meaning of a genuine question can be determined by
the meaning of the correspondence between the question and the answer.
Meanwhile, the unqualified question is also mentioned when discussing the other
verbal values of the question in Vietnamese.
Nguyen Duc Dan (1998) has summarized the research work of foreign authors
related to the study of "universal" pragmatics. He further explains the three types of

linguistic behaviors and the categorization of speech behaviors of J. Searle (1982).
He also mentioned works related to the principle of courtesy and the same

4


viewpoints with R. Lakoff (1973, 1989), G. Leech (1983), W. Edmondson (1981),
A. Kasher (1986), when discussing politeness as a motto of conversation

2.2. Review of theoretical background
2.2.1. Theory of syntax
According to Encyclopaedia Britannica, syntax is the arrangement of words in
sentences, clauses, and phrases, and the study of the formation of sentences and the
relationship of their component parts. In a language such as English, the main
device for showing the relationship among words is word order; e.g., in ―The girl
loves the boy,‖ the subject is in initial position, and the object follows the verb.
Transposing them changes the meaning. In many other languages, case markers
indicate the grammatical relationships. Sentences are constructed from phrases or
groups of words that have a closer relationship to each other than to the words
outside the phrase.
In the sentence ―My dog is playing in the yard‖ there is a closer relationship
between the words ―is playing,‖ which together form the verb, than between the
words ―playing in the,‖ which form only part of the verb and part of the phrase
indicating the location of the playing.
The study of syntax also includes the investigation of the relations among sentences
that are similar, such as ―John saw Mary‖ and ―Mary was seen by John.‖ Syntax
received much attention after 1957, when the American linguist Noam
Chomsky proposed a radically new theory of language, transformational
grammar (q.v.).
In Syntactic Structures, Chomsky (1957) tries to construct a "formalized theory of

linguistic structure". He places emphasis on "rigorous formulations" and "precisely
constructed models‖. It introduced the idea of transformational generative grammar.
This approach to syntax (the study of sentence structures) was fully formal based on
symbols and rules. At its base, this method uses phrase structure rules. These rules
break down sentences into smaller parts. Chomsky then combines these with a new
kind of rules called "transformations". This procedure gives rise to different
sentence structures.[6] Using this limited set of rules, Chomsky aimed to generate all
and only the grammatical sentences of a given language, which are unlimited in
number.
In Aspects of the Theory of Syntax Chomsky (1965) summarized his proposed
structure of a grammar in the following way: "A grammar contains a syntactic
component, a semantic component and a phonological component...The syntactic
component consists of a base and a transformational component. In this grammar
model, syntax is given a prominent, generative role, whereas phonology and
5


semantics are assigned secondary, interpretive roles. This theory of grammar would
later come to be known as the "Standard Theory" (ST)
Other scholar such as Leonard Bloomfield (1939) considered Syntax was the study
of free forms that were composed entirely of free forms. Central to his theory of
syntax were the notions of form classes and constituent structure. (These notions
were also relevant, though less central, in the theory of morphology.) Bloomfield
defined form classes, rather imprecisely, in terms of some common ―recognizable
phonetic or grammatical feature‖ shared by all the members. He gave as examples
the form class consisting of personal substantive expressions. in English defined as
―the forms that, when spoken with exclamatory final pitch, are calls for a person‘s
presence or attention; e.g., ―John,‖ ―Boy,‖ ―Mr. Smith‖; the form class consisting of
―infinitive expressions‖ (defined as ―forms which, when spoken with exclamatory
final pitch, have the meaning of a command‖—e.g., ―run,‖ ―jump,‖ ―come here‖);

the form class of ―nominative substantive expressions‖ e.g., ―John,‖ ―the boys‖; and
so on. It should be clear from these examples that form classes are similar to, though
not identical with, the traditional parts of speech and that one and the same form can
belong to more than one form class.
What Bloomfield had in mind as the criterion for form class membership (and
therefore of syntactic equivalence) may best be expressed in terms of
substitutability. Form classes are sets of forms (whether simple or complex, free or
bound), any one of which may be substituted for any other in a given construction
or set of constructions throughout the sentences of the language.

2.2.2. Theory of pragmatics
Pragmatics deals with utterances, by which we will mean specific events, the
intentional acts of speakers at times and places, typically involving language. Logic
and semantics traditionally deal with properties of types of expressions, and not
with properties that differ from token to token, or use to use, or, as we shall say,
from utterance to utterance, and vary with the particular properties that differentiate
them. Pragmatics is sometimes characterized as dealing with the effects of context.
This is equivalent to saying it deals with utterances, if one collectively refers to all
the facts that can vary from utterance to utterance as ‗context.‘ One must be careful,
however, for the term is often used with more limited meanings.
Different theorists have focused on different properties of utterances. To discuss
them it will be helpful to make a distinction between ‗near-side pragmatics‘ and
‗far-side pragmatics.‘ The picture is this. The utterances philosophers usually take
as paradigmatic are assertive uses of declarative sentences, where the
speaker says something. The most popular theories can be mentioned as speech act
theory and locutionary, illoationary and perlocutionary acts.

6

In linguistics, a speech act is an utterance defined in terms of a speaker'sintention
and the effect it has on a listener. Essentially, it is the action that the speaker hopes
to provoke in his or her audience. Speech acts might be requests, warnings,
promises, apologies, greetings, or any number of declarations. As you might
imagine, speech acts are an important part of communication. Speech-act theory is a
subfield of pragmatics. This area of study is concerned with the ways in
which words can be used not only to present information but also to carry out
actions. It is used in linguistics, philosophy, psychology, legal and literary theories,
and even the development of artificial intelligence. Speech-act theory was
introduced in 1975 by Oxford philosopher J.L. Austin in "How to Do Things With
Words" and further developed by American philosopher J.R. Searle. Speech-act
theory has influenced in conspicuous and varied ways the practice of literary
criticism. When applied to the analysis of direct discourse by a character within a
literary work, it provides a systematic but sometimes cumbersome framework for
identifying the unspoken presuppositions, implications, and effects of speech acts
which competent readers and critics have always taken into account, subtly though
unsystematically
It considers three levels or components of utterances: locutionary acts (the making
of a meaningful statement, saying something that a hearer understands),
illocutionary acts (saying something with a purpose, such as to inform), and
perlocutionary acts (saying something that causes someone to act). Illocutionary
speech acts can also be broken down into different families, grouped together by
their intent of usage.
To determine which way a speech act is to be interpreted, one must first determine
the type of act being performed. Locutionary acts are, according to Susana
Nuccetelli and Gary Seay's "Philosophy of Language (2007) The Central Topics,"
"the mere act of producing some linguistic sounds or marks with a certain meaning
and reference." So, this is merely an umbrella term, as illocutionary and
perlocutionary acts can occur simultaneously when locution of a statement happens.
Illocutionary acts, then, carry a directive for the audience. It might be a promise, an

order, an apology, or an expression of thanks—or merely an answer to a question, to
inform the other person in the conversation. These express a certain attitude and
carry with their statements a certain illocutionary force, which can be broken into
families.
Perlocutionary acts, on the other hand, bring about a consequence to the audience.
They have an effect on the hearer, in feelings, thoughts, or actions, for example,
changing someone's mind. Unlike illocutionary acts, perlocutionary acts can project
a sense of fear into the audience. Take for instance the perlocutionary act of saying,
"I will not be your friend." Here, the impending loss of friendship is an illocutionary
act, while the effect of frightening the friend into compliance is a perlocutionary act

7


As mentioned, illocutionary acts can be categorized into common families of speech
acts. These define the supposed intent of the speaker. Austin again uses "How to Do
Things With Words" to argue his case for the five most common classes:






Verdictives, which present a finding
Exercitives, which exemplify power or influence
Commissives, which consist of promising or committing to doing something
Behabitives, which have to do with social behaviors and attitudes like
apologizing and congratulating
Expositives, which explain how our language interacts with itself

David Crystal (1980), too, argues for these categories in "Dictionary of Linguistics."
He lists several proposed categories, including "directives (speakers try to get their
listeners
to
do
something,
e.g.
begging,
commanding,
requesting), commissives (speakers commit themselves to a future course of action,
e.g. promising, guaranteeing), expressives (speakers express their feelings, e.g.
apologizing, welcoming, sympathizing), declarations (the speaker's utterance brings
about a new external situation, e.g. christening, marrying, resigning).
Kirsten Malmkjaer (2005) points out in "Speech-Act Theory," "There are many
marginal cases, and many instances of overlap, and a very large body of research
exists as a result of people's efforts to arrive at more precise classifications." It is
important to note that these are not the only categories of speech acts, and they are
not perfect nor exclusive. Still, these five commonly accepted categories do a good
job of describing the breadth of human expression, at least when it comes to
illocutionary acts in speech theory.

2.3. Review of theoretical framework
2.3.1. Syntactic features of English questions
According to Angela Downing and Philip Locke (1992) in ―A University Course in
English Grammar, questions has questionable structures can be divied in to 3
catagories: polar questions, non- polar questions and alternative questions. In polar
questions, there are 2 possible answers ―Yes‖ or ―No‖.
Can you swim?
Non-polar questions can be called as questions have asked words at the beginning of
sentences and intonation at the end of sentences.

What happened?
Who is this?

8


Alternative questions consist of two questions that contain the opposite meanings
that are connected by the word "or"
Do you like kitten or puppy?
According to John Sinclair (1990) in English Grammar, Helping learners with Real
English has differentiated reported speech and questions. The most common use is
to provide information and find information. When speaking or writing a sentence,
it is important to show the purpose of providers. For example
I have breakfast at 8:00 (Reported Speech)
What are you doing? (Question)
Also, authors gave interrogative mood and supposed it is always used in question
forms.
According to John Eastwood (2000) English questions can be categorized in 4
kinds: Yes/no questions, WH-question, questions with or, Tag question.
In ―A Comprehensive Grammar of the English language, a group of authors Quirk,
Greenbaun, Leech & Svartvik (1985) divied English question in 3 main forms: Yes/
no question, WH-question and alternative questions
In this study, based on the form and type of answer to the question we assume that
in English there are four types of questions
2.3.1.1. WH-question
According to Betty Kirkpatrick (1956:184), the type of WH-question is very
universal in English begins with one of the words to ask, Who, Whom, Whose,
Which, What, Where, When, Why and How. This is also the type of search
question, and these words often stand in the head of the question. This type of
sentence is also called open, because the answer from the listener is not "Yes" or

"No‖ but respondents were able to choose a wide range of free responses or
unlimited by choice.
Ex:
What can I do?
When was the house built?
Who did this to me?
Feautres of this type of question can be named as:
Interrogative mood at the beginning of sentences

9


Asked words at the beginning of interrogative mood of sentences
On the other hand, interrogative elements keep different functions in the sentences.
Such as
Subject: Who took my car?
Object: Which holiday did you attend?
Complement: Whose puppy is this?
Complement for Object: How far do you travel?
Morepver, all of the above examples are used with downward intonation which is
common for this kind of question
2.3.1.2. Yes – No question
English do not use question words, but question operators (be, can, may…) and
intonation in this kind of Yes/No question. When answering Yes/No question we do
not normally repeat the complete the question. Instead, we use an appropriate
auxiliary verb. This auxiliary is usually present in the question (Le, 2004), This
question usually uses rising intonation at the end of the sentences
Ex:
„Does Mike live with you?‟ „Yes, he does.‟
„Did Maya tell you she wasn‟t coming?‟ „No, she didn‟t.‟

„Have you ever visited Argentina?‟ „Yes, I have.‟
„Will you help me?‟ „No, I won‟t.‟.
It can be formed with realization as:
Auxiliary + S + V(erb) + Object
However, not all Yes/no question have to change the order of auxiliary. In this form,
it has the same format as a reported speech but with question mark and rising
intonation at the end of sentence. This purpose of question, the speaker wishes to
assent, assert or negate his or her audience
Ex:
Tom: Wow, you ate that whole thing?
Garry: Sure! It wasn‟t that much

10


(Parks and Recreation, 2009)
Ex:
You have never eaten Barbecue?
You have been to South Korea?
This is the kind of question that can be answered with ―yes‖ or ―no‖ depending on
the context or circumstance of communication. Sometimes, the answers have
already lied in the question

Furthermore, we can meet negative questions in the Yes/no question forms. For
instance:
Can‟t you go out?
Isn‟t that true?
However, the direction of the dialogue in this form is quite complex because of
reasons. This negative form is affected by many factors such as emotion, context
and linguistic. Sometimes, it combines both negative and affirmative meaning

which confused listerners. Therefore, when a spokesman harmonizes this form with
intonation in a particular context, it can direct the dialogue to give the information
corresponding to his or her intention.
2.3.1.3. Tag question
This type of question includes the preceding narrative and the tail is in the back to
ask. The ending is added at the end of the narrative, it consists of the auxiliary verb
or verb, and is followed by a separated pronoun with narration by the comma. In
English, tag question has a main clause and we are not sure that it is true or false.
So, we use the question to check the information or want to seek an agreement of
someone. If we rise intonation at question tag, it means that we do not know or not
sure about the answer. On contrary, if we fall intonation at question tag, it means
that we are seeking an agreement of person we are talking to. Tag question is
divided into two parts by a comma. If the main clause is negative, question tag is
affirmative and vice versa.
Ex:
He is a doctor, isn‟t he?
You haven‟t met him, have you?

11


In this category, there is a special type of question when the first clause is
imperative, the second clause is in the future tense.
Ex:
Let‟s go to the mall, shall we?
Don‟t tell anyone, wil you?
The ―tag‖ has similar form to yes/no question in which they mostly change the
order of words. However, it is only a part of question and plays a role of form
department not whole sentences‘ information.
In terms of formality, the tag question has four forms

Affirmative – Negative: It‟s a wonderful night, isn‟t it
Negative – Affirmative: It isn‟t a wonderful night, is it
Affirmative – Affirmative: It‟s a wonderful night, is it
Negative – Negative: It isn‟t a wonderful night isn‟t it

2.3.1.4. Alternative question
Alternative questions with the question mark attached are or for the choice
equivalents to or. The answer to this question cannot be answered with a Yes / No
answer but in form of choices
Ex:
Would you like tea or milk?
Milk, please
Alternative questions have same form as Yes/no question but different in using
intonation. While we emphasized on rising at the end of sentence in Yes/no
question, we rise on every choice in the alternative question except the last one with
downward accent to announce the end of choice. The different in intonation is
crucial in order to avoid misunderstanding.
Shall we go by bus or train?
Shall we go by bus o train?
Furthermore, alternative question can be formed with Wh-question. In this case, the
alternative parts have been reduced to avoid repeating words. For example
12


Which car branches do you like? Toyota, Huyndai or Mazda
Meanwhile, in full sentence it should be
Which car branches do you like?
Would you like Toyota, Huyndai or Mazda?
2.3.2. Syntatic features of Vietnamese questions
By extending the scope of the classification to the questionn used for different

purposes, some authors have based their use on the classification of questions.
Nguyen Kim Than (1964) Divided the question into four categories
 Intorregative question of truh: raise the speaker's disbelief and ask for an
answer
 Self- examination question: use to confide
 accumulate question: include twist questions and order questions
 Verification question: verify or accept the truth or neglect the reality
According to Nguyen Tai Can, Bystrov abd Stankevich (1975) assumed that
Vietnamese questions have only 2 forms
 Whole question is the question that the purpose is related to the whole
sentence. It usually ends with ―có phải không‖ or ―phải không‖
 Part question is the question related to some part of sentence. It usually has
particles such as ―có/phải…không‖, ―đã…chưa‖ or alternative between A
and B
According to Diep Quang Ban (1996), he catergorized question into 4 forms which
can be named as:
 Interrogative question with pronouns: ―ai, gì, cái gì, nào, thế nào, sao, bao
nhiêu, bao giờ, bao lâu…‖
 Alternative Interrogative question with parciles ―hay‖
 Interrogative question with particles ―à, ừ, nhỉ, nhé, hả hở…‖
 Interrogative question with intonation

13


According to Hoang Trong Phien (1980) based on the characteristic of question and
answer, Vietnames questions are sorted to 2 main kinds: Alternative questions and
Non- alternative questions
According to Nguyen Phu Phong, (1990), Vietnamese questions are divided in to 3
main types: unidentified question, Alternative question and oriented question.

Cao Xuan Hao (1998) focused on when the Differences in content are signaled by
differences in form. He provided that Vietnamese question can be formed with 2
main kinds.
 Genuine question requires an answer about the object or an announcement. In
this question, it includes Yes/no question, WH-question and alternative
question.
 Question with discourse values besides asking for information. The value of
question can be demand, affirmative, negative, guess, rhetorical question.
In the work of authors, though there are different points of view, question is the
universal nature of the division of sentences according to purpose of speech. There
fore, we can divide Vietnamese question into 2 main kinds. qualified question and
unqualified question. This classification is appropriate for the direct and indirect
purpose of the question. The question for the respondent to answer or to provide
missing or unclear information to the questioner is the qualified question.
Meanwhile question is not related to the answer, question is used to express and
question implements different views of speaker are unqualified question. For these
two main types, the authors usually fall into 3 categories: Yes/no questions,
alternative questions and Wh-questions
2.3.2.1. WH-question
In this type of question, the words to ask in the questionnaire have different
positions in sentences. Usually it is placed at the middle and the end of sentences.
Sometimes, in different case it occurs the beginning of sentence. It depends heavily
on the mentioned subjects about people, objects, causes, locations, time,
qualities…etc.
When asking about people ―Ai‖ can stand at the beginning or the end of sentence.
Howerver, sometimes "ai" can appear in the middle of the sentence
Ex:
Ai đang nói chuyện với Dũng vậy?
Anh bạn là ai?
Bà ấy là ai mà lại đến vào lúc này?

When asking about objects in Vietnamese, we use ―Cái gì/ Việc gì/ Chuyện gì
Ex:
Chuyện gì xảy ra vậy?
14


Và kết qủa là gì?
Lúc ấy, cái gì đã vụt qua vậy?
When asking about choices, we use ―nào‖ to select and sort different circumstances
Ex:
Cậu muốn mua đồ chơi nào?
Cậu lựa chọn cái nào trong ba cái này?
In Vietnamese, Làm sao/ Tại sao/ Sao use to emphasize on the cause of problems
Ex:
Làm sao con khóc?
Tại sao cậu lại làm vậy?
Vì sao ông muốn gặp tôi?
When asking about time Khi nào/ bao giờ/ lúc nào can be used in diversed position
Ex:
Cậu thấy bao giờ thì cần?
Lúc nào chúng ta hẹn hò nhé?
Hàng ngày, cậu thức dậy lúc nào?
When asking about the method, method of action, nature or characteristic of things,
in Vietnamese, we comprehend with Làm thế nào/ Như thế nào/ Làm sao
Ex:
Chúng ta kết thúc như thế nào?
Làm thế nào mà cậu ta có thể khỏe đến vậy?
Phrases such as đâu/ ở đâu/ chỗ nào usually describe places and provide direction
Ex:
Cậu đang ở chỗ nào?

Tôi có thể cậu đâu nhỉ?
Hắn đang ở đâu?
When talking about possession, ―của ai‖ has same meaning
Ex:
Con cún này là của ai?
Nhà của ai ở đó nhỉ?
2.3.2.2. Yes – No question.
While in English, genuine is used in the form of the question operators with rising
intonation, Vietnamese Yes/no question, we use the structure with Có – Không (Yes
–No means Có –Không). Beside that when we use model verb to make question, it

15


is the same in Vietnamese structure with có thể? được phép? to show the ability and
permission. However, the model in Vietnamese tend to come after the subject.
Ex:
Can I come in?
Tôi có thể vào được không?
Vietnamese Có/Không question does not change the position of the elements in the
sentence and there are question particles such as: ―à, ư, nhỉ, nhé chưa, hả…‖ or ―có
phải không, phải không, đã chưa…‖
Ex:
Bạn có biết anh ta không?
Anh có phải là sinh viên không
Hôm qua anh không đi làm (có) phải không?
Bạn đã làm việc ở đây lâu chưa?
In addition, there are some combinations placed at the beginning of question in
Vietnamese as: ―Chẳng lẽ…/Hay là…/Phải chăng…/ Nên chăng…?‖

2.3.2.3. Alternative question
Similar to English, Vietnamese alternative question is the question that requires the
answer to be given in a context with certain words, usually with a good word, or for
the listener to pick a true answer of the two or more answers the speaker gives. The
words often used are hay, hay là, hoặc.
Ex:
Anh uống trà hay uống café?
Cho anh café nhé!
Any Vietnamese Có/không questions can be turned into alternative questions if they
are inter-linked with hay/hoặc. In Vietnamese, in speech communication words such
as hay/hoặc/hay là can be reduced or replaced by intermittent pauses or mark ―,‖ in
writing to make the sentence shorter and more concise.

Ex:
Tôi không biết nói gì, làm gì?
Liệu cậu ta có nhận được công việc ấy không?

16